21–30 of 154 posts
For example, the "sociopathic" intern can also be described as someone with healthy amount of disrespect to existing organizational structures and tries to bring innovation to a dinosaur firm. He took the risk and suffered the consequences like a man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did Bezos know about Shatner's alcohol problems? I watched more Star Trek than most, but I had no idea before this comment, and I have even less of an idea about his wife. Not everyone is clued up on the latest celebrity gossip.
Since Shatner was Bezos' guest, Bezos should have known. While you may not have personally known about it, it has been widely reported. Basic hospitality is important. Most folks are rightfully indignant when an interviewing company haven't read their resume, while virtually all companies want interviewees to have read the company public website.
Dilbert is a hand drawn comic so it will never have the media reach of TV. It also tends to focus more on the details of the bureaucratic brokenness for people to laugh rather than cry at in daily life.
The office is syndicated TV with a new episode every week. It simply has high rewatch value. The broken office bureaucracy is used as a plot device rather than the focus of the show. The show focuses on characters and how they react to work life which keeps the show more funny than sad.
I would argue that Office Space actually was more effective than both of these other two. It was a one off movie from over 20 years ago that people across age groups still regularly reference. You can only watch a movie so many times. There is not much opportunity for syndication or binge watching. After you watch it 20 times 20 years ago it kind of drops out of the yearly zeitgeist.
My take since then after numerous debates - there is merit hence the massive success of the Office series.
But in general it is a 'glass half empty' perspective. CEOs are often gifted, hard working, but also a bit lucky at times to be born into fortunate situations. Middle managers, are typically leadership-qualified but simply don't want to devote enough time for a CEO or startup founder role. And the rest- who generally do the 'real' work - are often there due to enjoying the work itself, and have even less interest than middle managers to devote time to climbing a ladder. (All of which are respectable positions)
The labels used in GP tend to give a bit more humor, and also attribute upward growth to negative qualities- so haters feel better about having to deal with folks who dont think like them - so it simultaneously appeals to each group!
Of course the more positive perspective is just as valid.
I love The Office, but I don’t believe that the writers actually have some deep knowledge of business psychology and hierarchy. It seems pointless to attempt a deep analysis through that lens.
So it's not necessarily like the writers aimed to create something along these lines, rather, what they created fits perfectly to this narrative. That's what makes reading good analyses so satisfying.
I really used to buy into this mental model. There are certainly some points that seem to correspond to my lived experience. At this point though, I've been through each of the tiers and have never been either cluelessly obsequious nor a sociopath -- so I have my doubts that the model is worthwhile despite being a good laugh! For those that haven't read it: - Tier 1 - fresh younguns or burnt out talented people who a…
I'd buy into the model, but I think it misses a few things. A sociopath doesn't have to be successful. Alpha losers might think of them as sociopaths. And people move back and forth between the roles. Besides that, it's certainly a more complete model than the alpha/beta/omega one.
This is a thought-provoking read. I'm currently going through Meta onboarding for the third time (once before as an intern and once full-time). The first time it was exciting; the second time it was interesting but seemed quaint, but still, neat for a first-time job; the third time it feels like a pipeline for molding the exact sort of Clueless people the article describes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bezos ignoring Shatner’s attempts to explain his profound experience going to space in favor of celebrating with alcohol; whilst Shatner is standing there as a recovering alcoholic who lost his wife due to alcohol related stuff seemed pretty sociopathic to me.
Did Bezos know about Shatner's alcohol problems? I watched more Star Trek than most, but I had no idea before this comment, and I have even less of an idea about his wife. Not everyone is clued up on the latest celebrity gossip.
Akin to giving a Chinese guest a watch and white flowers as a present - sure, he might not know that it's a faux pas [1], but he should have structures in place to prevent basic slip-ups.
[1] both associated with death/funeral