5 ms·

That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck.

by prox 7mo ago

That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck. They saw their parents do The Office in real life. Interesting is also that Michael does make a really good arc from season one to when he leaves. He remains clueless, or rather he it dawns on him he does not want to become like Ryan or David (the articles sociopath). Like he says in a later season “Business is about people.”

lelanthran 7mo ago
> That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck. Wouldn't that make them even bigger ~losers~ Clueless? The ~losers~ Clueless are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! Putting in +25% extra into their job for a 5% promotion, for example. Putting in effort for anything other than money is in the companies interest - they want people to be happy with vibes-as-compensation instead of money-as-compensation! --------------- EDIT: I meant to say Clueless, not "losers".
- the_af 7mo ago
  > The losers are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! I think those would be the losers who get promoted to clueless, at least in this metaphor. The losers who aren't clueless are putting in the bare minimum work that doesn't get them fired. If they overperform, they (according to the theory) get promoted. I fully agree this nasty "vibes-as-compensation" bullshit, "we're all a family", etc, is in the interest of the top leadership. The sociopaths, if you will.
  - lelanthran 7mo ago
    You're correct, I meant Clueless, sorry. In my defense, I last read this when it was first published, so maybe ... 15 years? 20?
  - prox 7mo ago
    My mention of Gen-Z wanting values is exactly them seeing the bullshit of the sociopaths at the top (and the crap like “we are a family”. Gen-Z sees through that fluff. The values I mentioned in the top comment are exactly about having people at the top who actually give a damn, that guide or lead with empathy. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to make shitty decisions, it just means they give a damn.
Apocryphon 7mo ago
Gen Y was supposed to be values-driven too, Gen X invented slackers and grunge who were all about authenticity, boomers were children of hippies, beatniks preceded hippies… The malaise afflicting Gen Z is more- secular- than cultural, I fear. The endpoint of economic trends.
- dragonwriter 7mo ago
  > boomers were children of hippies The hippies largely were Boomers, not their children.
  - prox 7mo ago
    I think so too, like the tail end of the Boomers mostly.
TheGRS 7mo ago
The smartest thing they did with the US version of The Office after season 1 was to make Michael highly competent in sales and its longterm relationships. S1 and the UK version of the show viewed the boss as incompetent at every level, it was much more cynical. Making Michael marginally competent gives him an empathetic leg to stand on for the audience. Had they kept Michael exactly like David Brent it probably would have still been hilarious but flamed out around season 2 or 3.
- malcolmgreaves 7mo ago
  I agree, it made his character arc more interesting. Also, the entire show is centered around Michael. The later seasons really suffer without him. It is also useful because it shows an old adage: people get promoted to their level of incompetence. Michael is actually an excellent salesman. He's a bad manager. He was promoted to branch manager because he was good at a different job. This is just like when a really good engineer is promoted and becomes a bad manager.

by prox 7mo ago

lelanthran 7mo ago

> That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck. Wouldn't that make them even bigger ~losers~ Clueless? The ~losers~ Clueless are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! Putting in +25% extra into their job for a 5% promotion, for example. Putting in effort for anything other than money is in the companies interest - they want people to be happy with vibes-as-compensation instead of money-as-compensation! --------------- EDIT: I meant to say Clueless, not "losers".

the_af 7mo ago
> The losers are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! I think those would be the losers who get promoted to clueless, at least in this metaphor. The losers who aren't clueless are putting in the bare minimum work that doesn't get them fired. If they overperform, they (according to the theory) get promoted. I fully agree this nasty "vibes-as-compensation" bullshit, "we're all a family", etc, is in the interest of the top leadership. The sociopaths, if you will.
- lelanthran 7mo ago
  You're correct, I meant Clueless, sorry. In my defense, I last read this when it was first published, so maybe ... 15 years? 20?
- prox 7mo ago
  My mention of Gen-Z wanting values is exactly them seeing the bullshit of the sociopaths at the top (and the crap like “we are a family”. Gen-Z sees through that fluff. The values I mentioned in the top comment are exactly about having people at the top who actually give a damn, that guide or lead with empathy. That doesn’t mean they don’t have to make shitty decisions, it just means they give a damn.

Apocryphon 7mo ago

Gen Y was supposed to be values-driven too, Gen X invented slackers and grunge who were all about authenticity, boomers were children of hippies, beatniks preceded hippies… The malaise afflicting Gen Z is more- secular- than cultural, I fear. The endpoint of economic trends.

dragonwriter 7mo ago
> boomers were children of hippies The hippies largely were Boomers, not their children.
- prox 7mo ago
  I think so too, like the tail end of the Boomers mostly.

TheGRS 7mo ago

The smartest thing they did with the US version of The Office after season 1 was to make Michael highly competent in sales and its longterm relationships. S1 and the UK version of the show viewed the boss as incompetent at every level, it was much more cynical. Making Michael marginally competent gives him an empathetic leg to stand on for the audience. Had they kept Michael exactly like David Brent it probably would have still been hilarious but flamed out around season 2 or 3.

malcolmgreaves 7mo ago
I agree, it made his character arc more interesting. Also, the entire show is centered around Michael. The later seasons really suffer without him. It is also useful because it shows an old adage: people get promoted to their level of incompetence. Michael is actually an excellent salesman. He's a bad manager. He was promoted to branch manager because he was good at a different job. This is just like when a really good engineer is promoted and becomes a bad manager.