I don't doubt that that would have been the most profitable solution to this for me, but that's really not my personality.
This is not a joke or sarcasm: I genuinely think I might be slightly on the spectrum, because I have a lot of trouble with corporate dishonesty, and there are plenty of times that I will say things that are apparently controversial and I don't realize it.
For example, at that job, during a discussion about them getting rid of a benefit that they used to pay for, I made the mistake of once saying to higher-management that "we all do this job for the money", and I got a bunch of indignant responses about how they believe in the cause and all that shit [1]. I was really confused, because I didn't even realize that that was up for debate; I'm quite confident that if this company stopped signing their paychecks, they'd stop showing up for the job and I really didn't (and still don't) think that there's anything particularly wrong with that. I'm selling my time and expertise, Tombert is a for-profit enterprise.
When I tried explaining this to them, I get a private meeting with one of my million managers above me that I have a "bad attitude" and that I'm trying to "stir the pot", and I genuinely wasn't trying to, I was just trying to make a point cutting through some of bullshit flavortext to get to the point that getting rid of a benefit that we liked does affect us because I was under the impression we worked for money, not for fun.
I have a million stories like this, and it's why I suspect that I will not be able to grow my career much more than I have right now.
[1] To be clear, this wasn't some non-profit, this was a very very large for-profit company that you've definitely heard of that my lawyer/mom has advised me not to directly name.
it isn't a question of personality, it's a question of 1) what should be done 2) who should do it 3) is it actually worth doing, not necessarily in that order.
I am partial to your self-diagnosis - everything is always up for debate no matter how true or false it is and if you must be reminded of it, you just might be on the spectrum.
(by the way, HR is not your friend - it's corporate police with a PR department. yes, they're in it for the money, too, and yes, they won't dare to admit it in public. never challenge people in public, they will do the rational thing and try to save face. this is also why corporate successes are widely celebrated and failed projects are swept under the rug.)
It’s not that I need to be reminded of it exactly, so much as I am extremely impatient with it. Still, I think it might be worth me getting tested.
I am very aware that HR is not my friend. I have posted about this here before, but there was a time that I asked an HR person to keep a conversation between us in regards to some medical history, they agreed, and the next day my immediate manager is asking me about it, despite the fact that I never told him about this. Treat HR like a police interrogation and keep your answers as utilitarian as possible.
This is not a joke or sarcasm: I genuinely think I might be slightly on the spectrum, because I have a lot of trouble with corporate dishonesty, and there are plenty of times that I will say things that are apparently controversial and I don't realize it.
For example, at that job, during a discussion about them getting rid of a benefit that they used to pay for, I made the mistake of once saying to higher-management that "we all do this job for the money", and I got a bunch of indignant responses about how they believe in the cause and all that shit [1]. I was really confused, because I didn't even realize that that was up for debate; I'm quite confident that if this company stopped signing their paychecks, they'd stop showing up for the job and I really didn't (and still don't) think that there's anything particularly wrong with that. I'm selling my time and expertise, Tombert is a for-profit enterprise.
When I tried explaining this to them, I get a private meeting with one of my million managers above me that I have a "bad attitude" and that I'm trying to "stir the pot", and I genuinely wasn't trying to, I was just trying to make a point cutting through some of bullshit flavortext to get to the point that getting rid of a benefit that we liked does affect us because I was under the impression we worked for money, not for fun.
I have a million stories like this, and it's why I suspect that I will not be able to grow my career much more than I have right now.
[1] To be clear, this wasn't some non-profit, this was a very very large for-profit company that you've definitely heard of that my lawyer/mom has advised me not to directly name.