

The Image Culture
The complement to "image" is "ego-stroking" or flattery. We all like to feel good about ourselves, and most of us respond positively to those who seem to go out of their way to bolster our self-images.
The financial crisis that has besieged the
Even the McDonald's commercials get into the act with "you deserve a break today." Perhaps you do, but that doesn't have much to do with whether you really should, given the state of your finances. More to the point, it creates an atmosphere and attitude that what you "deserve" is far more important than what you can afford. It's blatant ego-stroking, and it's so obvious and prevalent that very few people even consider the society-wide implications.
But... as is often the case, there's an even darker side to image and ego-stroking, and that's a societal turn away from the recognition of and appreciation for ability and competence -- unless those qualities also come with a great image. Unfortunately, and in real life, they usually don't. The accountant or product analyst who tells the CEO that the product isn't that good, despite the image, is more likely to be fired than praised. The critic who suggests that the singers on American Idol are less than fifth rate will be pilloried or ignored. The job-seeker who's shy or tongue-tied under interrogation, but who's brilliant in analyzing or writing or developing new products, usually loses out to the candidate who's better-looking and glib, even if the substantive skills of the good-looker are weaker or non-existent -- which is another cause of the financial meltdown, because the CEOs of the big brokerages and investment banks all had great images and lousy understanding of what they approved...or a lack of ethics, if they did understand.
Put another way, as a culture we've come more and more to reward flash over substance, to demand ego-stroking over honest evaluation, and to value the shallowness of quick rewards over long-term substantive accomplishments.
And now we're paying for it... and most people still don't understand why. American Idol and all the ego-stroking wish-fulfillment shows still top the popularity charts, and Toyota just became the biggest car manufacturer in the world by spending years building better cars, even as the well-groomed Detroit auto executives in their ego-stroking private jets beg for more federal handouts while trying to keep producing gas-guzzling behemoths that most users buy for their own-ego-stroking reasons. How many drivers really need 400 plus horsepower -- except to make themselves feel better?
A hundred years ago, the popular fable was Horatio Alger and how hard work led to success. Today, the most popular books are Harry Potter, and how magic.. and wishing... can make things better.
Doesn't that say something?
In regard to the financial crisis, it is the individual consumer behavior which is the actual root of this issue. We have been overwhelmed by marketing and advertising messages that elevate the virtue of possessions, but not the value of experiences or sacrifice. Why do we need such ridiculous cars? Why do we spend such vast sums of money on elaborate “toys”? Do we really need to live in 9,000 square feet? Who could possibly need such vast space? We consume like a voracious organism with no thought to the eventual consequence of our actions. Why does television capture us – because it is effortless. We are a lazy species taught that complacency in some way relates to attaining success, as long as we have the “things” which society uses as a measuring stick for our own vanity. I still have yet to hear where $350 billon has gone other than to “the banks” or to Wall Street. What an appalling lack of accountability. Yet we seem unfazed and prepared to give yet more money, which I might add is OUR money (the taxpayers) to continue to allow the consumer to go back out and spend. Are we really tackling the right issues? I think not.
This phenomenon goes back to prehistoric times. The biggest, toughest guy rules the tribe. The prettiest women become his mates. Persons who were more inventive, skillful, or diplomatic were shunted off to drudgery positions gathering roots or pounding meal.
The incredibly high cost of choosing a poor leader differentiates our current situation from the age-old situations. Now, a few handsome but dumb (or stupidly greedy) CEOs can wreck a nation's economy. Despite what has happened to us recently, I will bet half of my decreased wealth that no substantive changes will occur regarding the selection of top executives. People haven't really changed in hundred's of thousands of years: "doesn't he look great with that big club?" will still win over "yeah, I guess she's pretty smart."
2. Following on your observations regarding the interplay between ego and image in the workplace, this paper (pdf) concludes the following:
* Incompetent individuals tend to overestimate their own level of skill.
* Incompetent individuals fail to recognize genuine skill in others.
* Incompetent individuals fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy.
The experiment underpinning these results involves a collection of Columbia undergraduates taking logical reasoning tests (a rather “elite” group, if you will), but I think it’s fair to say this combination of self-assurance, arrogance, and haplessness is pervasive in most socioeconomic strata.
It seems to me that this persists partly because in many environments we value confidence over other (arguably more useful) attributes, such as intelligence and expertise.
The confidence-as-cudgel dynamic plays out daily in cubicles and meeting rooms across the land, where domineering khaki-clad assholes spend their days yammering banalities into sleek-looking earpieces and browbeating swagger-deficient co-workers into submission. There is a Lord of the Flies aspect to this, wherein those who most expertly embody the self-possessed, smartly dressed, always-on caricature of corporate virtue we see on television gravitate upwards in the hierarchy, independent of their actual performance, while their more conscientious counterparts are often insufficiently attentive to the demands of image projection (because they’re, you know, working), and therefore recede into the background, relied upon but unrewarded.
Competence is almost by definition quiet. Quiet doesn’t get you promoted. And if being a preening loudmouth has made you successful, where’s your incentive for introspection?
<< Back to all Blog posts