That was the refrain I heard over and over during my reign working as a legal weapon for an excessively evil man.
But he wasn't just an evil man.
He was an E-ville man.
This man was E-ville beyond imagination. And the employees and management at Bad Company, Inc. were unhappy as a result.
Actually, they were beyond unhappy. They were miserable.
But Dr. E-ville had the art of victimization down pat. And no matter how thick the stench of E-ville permeated downward from his office, everyone was stuck. Nobody could seem to leave.
Except, of course, for new employees.
The joke was that you had to take the new employee to lunch the first day. Because if you let new employees take lunch on their own, they tended to not come back.
At that time, I was committed to changing the company's toxic environment. I was committed to getting the employees' grievances aired and getting their conflicts resolved. I was committed to rewriting the employee manual so as to eliminate the themes of distrust and disrespect. I was committed to getting Dr. Dicksquat to say hello to at least one employee each week, even if he had to fake his sincerity.
I was committed.
I had the E-ville Ear of the E-ville Boss and I felt responsible for making a dent in the corporate discontent.
In the beginning, I was told by everyone at Bad Company, Inc. that it was useless. I chalked the hopeless attitudes up to their being beaten down. In between pursuing frivolous lawsuits and researching legal ways to further restrict and imprison the employees, I tried to advocate on their behalf. But after a few years of cheerleading, even I came to understand how useless it was.
The problem was exactly what I had been warned about. The environment of E-ville was dictated from the top down. And whatever comes down from the top just drowns all levels below.
Kind of like chocolate sauce on ice-cream. Once you pour that stuff, the ice cream is at the mercy of the chocolate. The ice cream has nowhere to go and can't escape the enveloping influence of the dripping sauce.
There are so many theories about top down and bottom up management. The theories tend to focus on the ability - or inability - of the lower rungs on the ladder to introduce innovation and stand up to adversarial forces. History is rich with examples of the "benevolent despot" who turns unlimited power toward selfish or otherwise destructive uses and enslaves the masses, crippling their ability to act outside of the bureaucracy.
In the bureacracy, the mantra becomes 'no' and any attempt to say 'yes' is both thwarted and punished.
I knew I was in trouble when I began saying no. I knew then that I had to leave the bad company before 'no' became my mantra. And when I left the bad company, I felt instantly liberated in every way.
Mostly I felt an overwhelming sense of living in truth. I believed that I had made a critical conscious decision to no longer compromise my basic life tenets by participating in hurtful activities conducted by someone so awful.
All of a sudden I had a very strong understanding of committing oneself to a principle and living every aspect of one's life in accordance with that principle.
As my life then became more aligned, I began thinking about the principles that guide us.
For years I had believed that lifestyle was the guiding principle for most people. I assumed that people chose a lifestyle and then made their life choices in a manner that would support and encourage that lifestyle. I realize now that the 'lifestyle' issue was more a function of the community in which I was raised - where 'lifestyle' was a barometer for other things.
But I began to think that our lifestyles might not be the actual choice but rather the manifestation of the greater guiding principles we choose.
When my favorite relationship ended a year after my departure from the bad place, I delved more deeply into the distinction between lifestyle and guiding principles. That particular relationship had been characterized by very similar lifestyles - a common bond that neither of us had found easily with other people over the years.
And because our lifestyles were similar, we enjoyed the same rhythm and pace of life.
When we departed each other's company, it was difficult to understand why we couldn't keep it together. We were highly compatible in so many ways.
And so it seemed that there had to be something greater dividing us.
And it wasn't as simple as values.
I know as well as anyone that you need someone who shares your values.
But our values were shared. In fact, we spent much of our relationship celebrating our mutual understanding of how fundamentally correct our values were.
No, it wasn't values.
It was our respective Top Downs. Our Top Downs didn't match.
Your Top Down is similar to but bigger than the principles, goals and visions that direct your life and lifestyle. Your Top Down is your driving force. Your Top Down is the overwhelming influence that dictates the why and the how of your life.
And for some people, the Top Down seems pretty obvious. Or close to obvious.
For example, in Reston I knew a lot of triathletes. Unfortunately for my own self-esteem, I knew a lot of triathletes who actually win triathlons and Ironman competitions.
Those Reston guys - and girls - were relentless. Their lives were dictated by their training regimens and their hunger for competition or success. Every facet of their lives was directed by that drive. Everything from food and sleep and socializing to topics for casual conversation was determined by that overall focus.
I assume each individual had a slightly different and nuanced Top Down. Some probably wanted to win. Some probably wanted to do something amazing. Some may have wanted to beat other people. Some may have wanted to impress somebody or prove somebody wrong or just be better than somebody. Some may have just wanted to hang out with winners. Or win the respect of winners.
And I'm sure, given the basic rules of neurosis and dysfunction, that a few of those athletes were highly focused solely for the purpose of avoiding other life pursuits, obligations or expectations.
Even if they wouldn't admit it.
Who knows? And who cares, to be completely honest.
With some exceptions, it's really not important to know why others do what they do.
Of course it might be helpful to know..in order to communicate more effectively. And certainly knowing the 'why' might assist one in understanding others more easily. And obviously it could be very interesting.
But no, it's not really necessary to know what drives others to do what they do.
It's really only necessary to accept that they're driven in this way or that.
And those Reston athletes were driven. Seven days a week were scheduled based on the assumption of training to the max. And that's a lifestyle that's very difficult to be a part of unless you share an equal or relatively equal drive.
So the question of 'what drives a person' isn't necessary to know. But in choosing who to include in your life, it may be a helpful inquiry.
What is the Top Down that directs everything they do in their life? And does their Top Down change over time? Does it change frequently?
Can a Top Down be temporary or even exceptional to what would generally be a person's Top Down? Can a Top Down be situational and inconsistent with the person's general concept of who they are?
I'm early in the investigation, but preliminarily I would answer no.
Preliminarily, I would theorize that one's Top Down is greater than everything, including their temporary distractions and detours. I would theorize that a person's temporary distractions and detours - for the most part - are part and parcel of their Top Down.
Andy suggested a comparison to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. But Maslow's model focused on an upward progression from needs Maslow viewed as simple and easily satisfied to the more complex emotional and intellectual needs that require a greater maturity and a deeper understanding of self.
Maslow's model also assumed that the goal was comfort within one's environment. And Maslow's model focused on the needs of young children.
It seems to me that the adult's pyramid works differently. I see a pyramid dynamic where the energy emanates downward from the top.
One's Top Down is therefore the apex of the pyramid. Every lower level of the pyramid is guided by the apex.
So, let's suppose my Top Down is to help people.
Which it's not.
But let's just suppose it is.
Then everything in my life is geared toward that goal, both directly and indirectly. My work may involve helping people or my work may just be the type of work that enables me to help people in other ways. Perhaps I choose a job that provides a lot of extra time in which I help people. Or perhaps I choose a job that provides great resources with which I help people.
Other things in my life would also either support or at least encourage the helping of other people. My decisions regarding family connections and social activities and community roles would either support or encourage or just flow from the drive of helping others. Who I chose to include in my life would result from my Top Down. I might include people who help others as well as people I view as needing help.
But that example is fairly simple.
Instead, let's suppose I had grown up with all-consuming, paralyzing fear. Suppose I had grown up completely inhibited and restricted because I was scared of this and that and everything else.
Perhaps, then, my driving force as an adult would be liberation from fear. Perhaps I would spend my energy and resources either avoiding fear or perhaps even revelling in the absence of fear.
Or maybe I grew up poor. Now my driving force might be to avoid poverty or create financial stability. Perhaps my driving force would be having more than enough money in order to conquer any anxiety that poverty would ever again be a part of my life.
After much exploration, and Andy's respectful and thoughtful decision that it's all bullshit (his word), I've decided to change the focus of my investigation.
As Andy and I worked hard to figure out our defining driving forces and the Top Downs of a few others we love to analyze, we realized that not everyone is equally driven. Some people - like Andy - have several Top Downs. Luckily for Andy, his Top Downs are complimentary to each other.
As for me, I thought I had narrowed down to my one Top Down. And I still think I'm fairly close to one Top Down. But it just may be that I have a few. Or perhaps a Top Down comprised of a few specific facets.
Recently, though, I met someone who very clearly had one primary Top Down. This particular soul is searching for happiness. His particular brand of happiness is bliss and joy and total love. His particular brand of happiness functions on a level much higher than any I know.
To me, happiness, bliss, joy and total love all occur on a sofa with pasta and DVDs. To me it's fairly simple.
But this dude's focused on something higher. Or at least completely all-consuming.
And I wonder how anyone with such an intent focus could ever be with someone who didn't share that focus.
Perhaps the question, then, is whether one's Top Down is consuming and singular in its scope or somewhat more varied. This wouldn't mean that the consuming Top Down is necessarily simple. The search for happiness, after all, could be ripe with depth and complexity.
But the person with the singular and consuming Top Down might only be able to relate well with others who are similarly consumed.
There are reasons, after all, that I can't be with Lance Armstrong.
First of all, there would come a point where I'd just want to sleep in on a Sunday morning and cuddle. And I'm pretty sure Lance Armstrong's singular and consuming focus doesn't include spooning with me during prime riding hours.
But second, I'm not even sure what Lance's Top Down is. I would guess that it's not actually to be the best cyclist in the world. I'd guess that Lance's Top Down is actually more general - probably to just be the best. At whatever.
Or, perhaps more correctly, to be recognized as the best. At whatever.
So Part 2 of the exploration has become more informed.
The question going forward is whether the singularly focused Top Downs can mix and mingle with the others.
Luckily, my exploration is perfectly timed. Lance is not in high gear training and Sheryl's on tour. And Spain is beautiful this time of year.