Is Having Two Identities a Lack of Integrity?BY: Techli team | February 7, 2012
“Having two identities for yourself is an example of a lack of integrity.” — Mark Zuckerberg
Mark Zuckerberg believes that we should all have one uniform identity, but in the real world that’s not how life works. In fact it’s expected of me to act completely different when I’m in the office than I do with my friends. Real life works in the context of the situation at hand. Although I may approach each situation differently, my level of integrity remains the same in each situation. The issue has nothing to do with integrity in my humble opinion.
If someone has two personas that are both anchored in one core value system, there is no lack of integrity. It’s important to adapt to the situation at hand while remaining true to your set of established beliefs. When people have multiple identities with conflicting belief systems, that’s when there is a lack of integrity. Living in the world of social media we all need to be cautious about which bits and pieces of ourself we reveal publicly. Does that mean we lack integrity?
“Integrity is doing the right thing, even if nobody is watching.” -unknown
Techli teamTechli delivers news and in-depth editorial on the technologies, businesses and ideas that are changing the way we live, work, and play.
Thanks a lot for this beauty enjoying article with me. It is so interesting. I really appreciate it.Thank!
Okay, I understand what you're saying. Thanks for the response. Still, people mature a lot in their 20s, right?
Regardless of whether or not Mark has matured since then, I think it's unfair to say Mark = Facebook. Facebook as a company and Mark as a human being are allowed to have separate identities. Within Facebook, each individual can a unique identity, while collectively upholding the values of Facebook as a group. I'm not here to state that they are, merely to point out a seeming flaw in your argument.
Okay, Focus on being constructive, some ideas... 1. Warren Buffet credits his leadership and people skills partially to his Dale Carnegie classes 2. Ross Perot and Sam Wiley were taught communication skills as part of the IBM sales team. Ross Perot was a natural salesperson, so the training probably did not affect him as much. 3. Huey P. Long became a great communicator through selling products door to door. If you are intent on writing a negative article, state what is wrong. Is it the fact that Zuckerberg disrespects his customers? Plenty of politicians and business leaders do the same to their constituents and customers, just not as openly. In other words, they have a better control of their public persona. So the problem seems to be the manner with which Zuckerberg displayed his views, not so much what he actually said. The manner in which he said dumbf#$ks is something that is dealt with in leadership training or having the experience of understanding people's needs. Leadership training and etiquette as part of a job are rare. Understanding people's needs and emotions are required in most high-tech jobs today. To leave the reader with positive material would be to mention how to a better communicator, how to establish a better persona, etc.
Andrew, I think you can do much better with this article. It seems like you simply rehashed an old attack to diss Zuckerberg. Okay, you may not like Zuckerberg, but published articles are not the place to display disdain. As a reader, I do not take away anything from this post. Otto: You imply 27 is young, you and I both know this is ludicrous. A generation ago 27 was plenty old, Look at Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Fidel Castro, Ross Perot (IBM days), etc. all were under 28 when they had to effectively communicate with the world. I'm sure Bill Clinton and Huey P. Long had no lack of communication skills at age 27 either. It also appears you misconstrued the message. Rich has nothing to do with his responsibility. It is the fact that he assumes the role of a leader (CEO).
He's how old, 27? Just because he's rich doesn't mean he's wise, or worth anything as a human, that we should listen to him or expect anything of him.
Integrity is not using "private instant message" in public :) But on a serious note: where did this message come from? Anyone can claim it's true, to ruin someonelses good name. If it's true, it's a shitty thing to say from someone who is about to become a CEO of stock listed company :( Bad Zuck.
In Zuck's defense- he made the crappy remarks when he was younger and more full of himself. I'd say he's matured a bit since then.... but who knows?
That just proves another criticism that people have of him & Facebook. He may have grown up and out of being an ass, but Facebook makes it incredibly difficult for me to go in and clear all evidence of my youthful digressions ( if I had made any of course). If Zuck had to make himself go through the existing Facebook process to eliminate embarrassing his comments like the above, he would understand why users are upset.