10 ms·

I recommend disregarding the terms ("sociopath", "clueless", "loser") used in the article, they're unnecessarily cynical and iirc originally used as a joke. Thi

• pmoriarty 4y ago
  "in any company, some people chug along, some people work hard, and some people are in it to win, and they have the following dynamics" That's an oversimplification. Sociopaths are not just "in it to win". They will do whatever it takes to win, and trample as many people under foot as it takes takes them to get ahead without a twinge of conscience. The clueless in the article aren't merely working hard, they're also true believers in the organization who "build up a perverse sense of loyalty to the firm, even when events make it abundantly clear that the firm is not loyal to them." Unlike the clueless, the losers see clearly and do the bare minimum to get by and will (like the sociopaths) abandon the ship when it starts to sink, unlike the clueless, who will loyally sink right along with it. While they're in the organization, "they traded freedom for a paycheck .. mortgage their lives away, and hope to die before their money runs out." While the losers have no more loyalty to the company than the sociopaths "they do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot."
  • dasil003 4y ago
    The original article is a classic because it paints a very vivid picture that is emotionally resonant with anyone who has dealt with the banality of corporate life. However it's important to remember that The Office characters trended towards caricatures over time, and individuals are not archetypes. To that point, GPs characterization of chug-along, work-hard, and in-it-to-win-it rings just as true without pigeonholing people and better maps to the attitudes of people I've known well enough to have a deeper understanding of their psychology. Some specifics: "Doing whatever it takes to win [...] without a twinge of conscience" does not describe the majority of C and VP levels I've known. Certainly a lot of the unpleasant decisions that need to be made (eg. layoffs) are easier if one is truly a sociopath, but in practice how do you know? The reality is that upper level management has huge orgs where most individuals don't know them personally and yet is impacted by their decisions. When the impact is negative it's often easier to believe that management doesn't care about them versus understanding why it might be the best thing for the company. I also think that loyalty is much more orthogonal to archetype or effort level, and the idea that "clueless in the article aren't merely working hard, they're also true believers in the organization" does not really ring true. In reality, people at all levels can have varying degrees of loyalty to a company. A better model is the Dead Sea Effect—people will tend to stay if they don't believe they have better options. This is naturally going to affect middle-management more because they have achieved a higher status, and it's subject to all the noise of imposter syndrome and Dunning-Kruger, but it still applies to all levels. Finally, I disagree that "Unlike the clueless, the losers see clearly". The losers don't necessarily see anything more clearly, they just aren't playing the same game. Manager tells them what to do, they put in the minimum effort to do it, punch the clock and go home. Are they wise because harder work never would have earned them any extra reward? Or are they creating a self-fulfilling prophecy through poor performance? Honestly it could go either way.