One of the most frustrating things about working in Corporate America is trying to guess what’s coming up next. Many times your boss will act like you’re in line for a promotion, when in fact you’re not. They do this to keep employees from complaining. It’s easier to retain someone by constantly dangling a carrot than to just be forthright and say there’s no chance for a promotion for the next ten years. There are only so many higher level positions, and the odds dictate that most people will never reach an executive level.

A good example of this is occurring at my workplace right now. There are a lot of big changes happening in my department. People are being moved around laterally, and there’s even been discussion of relocation for some employees. However, all of us are left wondering what this means in the grand scheme of things. Is this beneficial for my career, or are they looking to phase me out at some later date? None of us are being told what the bigger picture is. It’s hard to know how to best navigate your career when you have so little information to base your decisions on.

I’ve been watching the Olympics and have to say that I have truly been impressed by the demeanor of many athletes. With that being said, I also have to say that I have been truly disappointed with the behavior and treatment of many athletes as well. One of the most impressive events for me came in the all around performance for women’s gymnastics. Nastia Lukin and Shawn Johnson were incredibly engaged in what they were doing; you don’t see many employees in Corporate America who demonstrate the same kind of commitment. They are also great friends in addition to being great rivals. You can tell that they’re not in it just for themselves (unlike most people in Corporate America). Both gymnasts worked together for the team’s greater good—truly exemplary behavior for all athletes and employees. Most of the employees I know only care about getting the next promotion; they also don’t care who they have to step over to get that promotion.

This is in stark contrast to the men’s 100m final in track and field. Usain Bolt easily won the event, and really only seemed concerned about his own greatness. He could care less about his countryman Asafa Powell and only looked at him as another competitor he had to beat. Usain’s showboating and ego were incredibly offensive to me. In fact, all three medalists in the 100m seemed only concerned about their own self-interests. Usain didn’t even put forth his best effort, forgoing a faster time so he could do some showboating at the end of the race. This is also in stark contrast to Tyson Gay, who didn’t even make the final. Tyson displayed a humble and honest attitude that made me proud to be a U.S. citizen. Walter Dix, who took the bronze for the U.S., also seemed incredibly egotistical. The men’s 100m really seemed to be a microcosm of most of the employees I know in Corporate America.

Before I got my first promotion into a management position, my boss pulled me aside and asked me the following question: “Are you ready to move because I think we’ve got a management position for you if you’re willing to relocate?” At the time, the company wanted to prmote from within, the only problem was that most employees would say they were willing to move but wouldn’t actually accept the position unless it was near their current location. This created all kinds of problems when it came to succession planning.

In response to the question, I quickly replied, “Sure, it’s not a problem for me or my wife. We don’t have any kids and we’re just renting an apartment. We would welcome the change.” At this response, my boss gave a quick smile and said, “That’s all I needed to hear. I’ll get back to you soon with an update, but don’t discuss this with anyone else till you hear from me.”

Throughout my career, I have been continually amazed at the different perceptions that coworkers and bosses have of the same employee. At the last two companies I worked for, I knew two colleagues who acted one way when the boss was around, and acted completely different when the boss wasn’t around. This isn’t groundbreaking news, everyone probably knows someone like this at their workplace. The interesting thing for me was that both of these individuals were promoted.

What I have learned from these experiences is that two of the most important aspects of climbing the corporate ladder are executing on plans and kissing the boss’s ass. It really doesn’t matter if you treat your coworkers like garbage, so long as they aren’t complaining directly to the boss, you’re still golden. I would also like to emphasize the point that in both of these situations execution mattered more than strategy development (or vision). Both of the people in the example I cited above were good at making sure things got done, but they were extremely weak in being able to generate new solutions to complex problems.

I know that a lot of people don’t believe in evolution, but I do. Time moves on, things change, and evolution works quietly in the background. I don’t mean to bore you, but we all learned that evolution allows things to adapt to the environment. This is why birds can fly, cheetahs are swift, and bears are strong. It was also much simpler for humans way back when. The strongest/smartest cavemen were able to pass their genes on through natural selection.

Unfortunately, as a modern society, we have eliminated evolution in the workplace. It’s no longer about those who are genetically superior, whether it be through intelligence, ability to work hard, people skills, etc. Instead, you can now be promoted just because you’ve worked there the longest (just one of many examples). I believe that the primary reason why so many people are disillusioned in Corporate America is because they can’t justify why someone else is higher up on the totem pole. This wasn’t a problem way back when. You didn’t take food from the strongest because he would beat the crap out of you. You didn’t mess with that smart guy because you knew he would think of some way to make your life miserable. The pecking order was clearly defined, and it still is in the animal kingdom. However, in Corporate America, evolution has been suspended.

At some point in your career, you will probably find out that a co-worker who has a job very similar to yours actually makes more money than you. Hopefully, you’ll be the lucky one who is receiving the larger paycheck and this article will be irrelevant. However, if you’ve been the unfortunate victim in this scenario, then I would like to share how I have handled this situation in the past.

To begin, I would like to point out that your starting salary with a company is extremely important—the only exception I would make to this rule is if you are just beginning your career. If you’re young, you can expect to get several large pay increases as you work your way up. You may or may not have the opportunity to make up for salary deficiencies during these promotions, but at least there’s a chance.

I recently attended a social gathering with my wife that had a lot of people that I hadn’t met before (I was there as wife-support). I engaged in several conversations that evening, and the most popular question directed my way was, “What do you do?” When I was younger, I tried to answer this question in a way that would make me appear more important than I actually was. I think we all do this from time to time to avoid being perceived as an Average Joe. However, as I’ve gotten older, I am as vague as possible about what I do unless I size you up as someone who is interesting or can assist me in some way (the exception to this is if I’m actually meeting someone for business, in which case, I am very direct and will answer any questions about my role with the company).

The reason why I am so vague about what I do is because I really don’t care what you do for a living. This may sound harsh, but let me explain. I will make my judgment about a person without having to know anything about their career. In fact, I prefer to judge someone by the way the way they engage in the conversation, the way they listen, speak, gesture, and think on their feet. The way they engage in the conversation and how they present themselves usually tells me a lot more than whatever job title they happen to be throwing around.

One of the primary functions of upper management is to ask their direct reports questions until they find a problem area. It’s actually not a bad practice and ensures that all the worker bees are engaged and trying to cover every possible scenario. Upper management doesn’t do the work, the leave that to guys like me; instead, they try and prove their value by making sure that people like me are working properly. In fact, I’ve sat in meetings until the boss was able to ask a question where no one knew the answer. Once he had proved to everyone how valuable he was to the process, the meeting was adjourned. When you work in Corporate America, you need to understand when to just shutup, acknowledge your boss’s alleged skill at getting to the root of a problem, and live another day to attend another meeting.

I’ve seen co-workers who didn’t understand this process pay a heavy price. The boss questions them into a corner and instead of just acknowledging a mistake or just saying “I’ll take care of that for you” they continued to argue. In reality, most bosses aren’t that interested in your subjective opinions, they are interested in what you are going to do for them and the company. If you feel that strongly about a topic, then make sure you have the data to back it up. The only time I have seen opinions change is when numbers were presented to help justify an argument. Otherwise, leave it alone.

I read quite a bit of material related to the American workplace–anything from education, to career advice, to financial planning and investing. For the most part, most of these articles and authors dispense advice that is useful to the employee who is just starting out, but most of these “experts” really fall short when it comes to the more experienced employee. The reason why their information is banal and trite is simple: They are usually still receiving a paycheck from a corporation. How honest or how truthful can you expect someone to be when everyone knows their identity, including the bosses cutting them their monthly check. It’s absurd, and you wind up getting watered down information that really isn’t that helpful at all.

Most of these “experts” are usually pushing a book or training material of some sort. In other words, they like to say things like, “Look at all the wonderful advice that I have given people.” The advice really doesn’t help the employee at all, but rather the “expert” who is trying to win more speaking gigs and sell more books to the employees at corporations. The quintessential culmination of this is the “Seven Effective Tips” for doing whatever. Every time I read one of these titles, I have to suppress the gagging reflex than normally ensues. Give me a break. If you want to know what really goes on inside of a corporation, if you really want to know how to best look out for yourself in the realm of capital markets, take it from someone who has the freedom to tell the truth. Take it from someone who writes anonymously, without fear of repercussion. I’m just like you. I’m trying to make a buck in this world. I’m not a CEO or a vice president or anyone of any importance. In the end, I’m only trying to help others from making the same mistakes that I’ve made.

Too many times I see people talk about job interviews as a way to convince the prospective company of making an offer. While this is obviously critical if you want to work for that specific company, I think it is far more important to use the interview process to figure out if the company itself is a good match for you. Looking for employment should be a strategic process unless extenuating circumstances dictate you take the first job that comes along. If you’ve got the time and resources, the interview process is actually the point where the company should be selling you on why you should want to work for them.

Let’s face it, it’s pretty hard to make a serious judgment about someone based off of three or four one-hour interviews. Most people wouldn’t choose a spouse this way, and yet this is the very process the Boomers wanted us to use in choosing our employer for the next 30 years. It’s ludicrous. Instead, when I’m at an interview, I’m asking as many questions as possible to find out if the company can meet my needs. These needs might be as short-term as a three-year plan, where I then intend to leave the company for greener grass somewhere else (not that I would actually say this in the interview). Would the company be able to offer me the opportunity to develop the skills I would need to make the next career jump somewhere else?