Something disturbing...

I'm not one to keep pummeling a deceaced equine (and they said that 'Word-A-Day' calendar was a waste of money), but I will this one time due to something very disturbing and unsettling.

If you've been paying attention to the Congressional investigation of the HP fiasco, you have seen partial transcripts of the proceedings (if you haven't, then your natural cusiousity is less than mine). In one exchange, Patricia Dunn is being addressed by a congressman, who asks her if she'd give him her phone records. She replies that, given his position, she would. He proceeds to tell her that he wouln't give her his, and she replies that she hopes he's not hiding anything.

What's disturbing about that? Plenty! First and foremost, her total disrespect for the proceedings shows how much power she still assumes she has. Just the comment about having something to hide shows that she clearly feels that she was, and still is, entitled to have whatever information she wishes. Though I feel it was meant as a sarcastic aside, it also hints at an underlying layer of suspicion, or even paranoia, about any and all. How much press and opinion and facing of facts will it take for her to realize that she really was wrong in what she did? My guess is that the body count related to hubris has risen one, and that she is so far gone that she'll be lecturing on a circuit when she's 80 and talking about how a culture of betrayal kept her from doing her job.

The question that springs to mind is: where do they FIND these people?! How is it that someone so paranoid and vindictive rises to such a position of power? Was Machiavelli accurate all the way through the highest ranks of business? Is such a vicious approach to operating the only way to get ahead?

I submit that it isn't necessary to act as Dunn did to be successful. Note that Machiavelli's book was entitled, "The Prince," and not "The King." There are certain maneuvers and machinations that can be employed in order to rise to a level of power, but there is an underlying problem that is one part practicality, and one part philosophy, but is known far and wide as the Golden Rule (treat others as you would wish to be treated).

Dunn rose, and fell, as the result of a ruthless approach to life in general, and business in specificity. She obviously overcame odds to reach the point where she was, but it appears that the process she employed was not about working through to overcome odds, but was instead working over people in order to avoid the odds. She short-cut the general basis for human relations - trust (I realize that she was on a mole hunt, and some might insist that she had a right to repay treachery with some of her own, but the vast majority of people are more or less trustworthy, and if you take the minority view that no one is worthy of respect, you deal with the thought expressed so wellin my favorite Russian proverb: 'Before starting out to get revenge, make sure to dig two graves.')

Someone else who also took the short and definitely less ethical route to gain also entered another phase of his life. Bernie Ebbers' new home is a prison in Mississippi. He thought he had a right to whatever he wanted as well. Will Dunn go to prison? Probably not, attorneys' general blustering aside. The point is, though, that her 'end justifies the means' ideology provided the means to the end of her power, and she started out less than she was before. She began her working life as someone who was considered to be honest, even though her abilities weren't known at the time. Now she is known to be dishonest, and whatever abilities she has are forever overshadowed by her works.

The overarching point is that each one of us begins each day, each career, each phase of life, with what amounts to a challenge. We can decide to treat others well, work hard and prove our worth, or we can decide to walk all over others, work craftily and assert our inferred worth. At the core of it all is the substance we are made from. If our core looks good, but is actually shellac over styrofoam, we will crumble under examination. If our core is made of the right stuff through and through, then we stand up to the level of examination that comes our way. To rise to the helm of a large company is not worth the price of your integrity (writ your soul, however you wish to interpret that), especially since the most commonly-found business success is with a company that has between 10 and 100 employees anyway. Aside from that, if your definition of true success is expressed in the currency of money, or of power, then you're on the wrong track to begin with.

A year ago, many would have traded places with Dunn - today, not so much. Okay, I'm Dunn with this topic...