The Glass is Too Big - Home

Yesterday, I overheard a conversation about the recent remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. One of the participants was commenting on Keanu Reeves' performance in the movie. Given my attendance of several Keanufest film festivals 10 or so years ago (think more take-a-drink-for-every-WHOA instead of taking-Keanu-seriously-as-an-actor), I chuckled to myself as I listened to what turned out to be a rather lengthy rant on his wooden acting style and stilted delivery of lines.

Then his conversational partner responded. She launched into her own rant about how it was unfair to pick on him and how celebrities are dragged through the mud because of their drinking/personal problems/relationships/etc. As I walked out of earshot, I was struck by how many people, like her, seem to completely miss the difference between the type of criticism that is warranted and justified and the kind that isn't.

The original evisceration was a criticism of Keanu's performance in a specific movie (or at least the trailers of it) and his body of work. Given that Keanu has chosen the profession of film actor, and viewers of the films that he has starred in are customers of that work, that is the very kind of criticism that is 100% legitimate.

Granted, the credibility of a given critic of that work should be taken into consideration. A well-respected critic or actor, or a director of movies probably has more insight into the quality of the work than that dude at the end of the bar with pretzel salt stuck on his lip, but it's at least directly related to the actual work.

If you start talking about how the movie will likely suck because you didn't like Dogstar, that band he played bass for in the 90's or because you heard some unsubstantiated rumor about how he once stared down a llama in the mountains of Peru for 16 hours straight and that seriously creeps you out, it's got nothing to do with the work itself.

Now, in a celebrity context, some of the non-work criticism has some legitimacy due to the high salaries often being paid so that people will fill the role of "movie star" as much or more than "film actor".

However, I see this same thing in the workplace on a daily basis. I believe that, to as large a degree as can be achieved, the workplace should be a meritocracy. The best idea/solution/approach should win and should compete on its actual merits.

Sadly, most workplaces are filled with ad hominem attacks on ideas and solutions that people don't agree with and ipse-dixitism-based support for those they do agree with.

"This approach to solving the problem won't work because Bill is an idiot."

"No, I didn't actually read the design document, but I'm sure it's great because Susan is really bright."

Both sides of this coin bother me. That's because "idiots" often have brilliant ideas and "geniuses" can come up with some of the stupidest solutions you'll ever see. When you focus on the person instead of on the work itself, you can often completely miss that reality.

© 2003- 2010 J Wynia. Very Few Rights Reserved.