The result is the modern creative-destructive life cycle of the firm, which I’ll call the MacLeod Life Cycle.Ī Sociopath with an idea recruits just enough Losers to kick off the cycle. Today, any time an organization grows too brittle, bureaucratic and disconnected from reality, it is simply killed, torn apart and cannibalized, rather than reformed. In this terrifying meta-world of the Titans, the Organization Man became the Clueless Man. The Sociopaths defeated the Organization Men and turned them into The Clueless not by reforming the organization, but by creating a meta-culture of Darwinism in the economy: one based on job-hopping, mergers, acquisitions, layoffs, cataclysmic reorganizations, outsourcing, unforgiving start-up ecosystems, and brutal corporate raiding. He was wrong, but not in the way you’d think.
He saw signs that in the struggle for dominance between the Sociopaths (whom he admired as the ones actually making the organization effective despite itself) and the middle-management Organization Man, the latter was winning. If there is one thing that characterizes him, it is a fierce desire to control his own destiny and, deep down, he resents yielding that control to The Organization, no matter how velvety its grip… he wants to dominate, not be dominated…Many people from the great reaches of middle management can become true believers in The Organization…But the most able are not vouchsafed this solace.īack then, Whyte was extremely pessimistic. Of all organization men, the true executive is the one who remains most suspicious of The Organization. The Losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks. The Clueless layer is what Whyte called the “Organization Man,” but the archetype inhabiting the middle has evolved a good deal since Whyte wrote his book (in the fifties). The Sociopath (capitalized) layer comprises the Darwinian/Protestant Ethic will-to-power types who drive an organization to function despite itself. It may be horrible, but like democracy, it is the best you can do. Let a natural, if declawed, individualist Darwinism operate beyond that point. So while most most management literature is about striving relentlessly towards an ideal by executing organization theories completely, this school, which I’ll call the Whyte school, would recommend that you do the bare minimum organizing to prevent chaos, and then stop. Hugh MacLeod’s cartoon is a pitch-perfect symbol of an unorthodox school of management based on the axiom that organizations don’t suffer pathologies they are intrinsically pathological constructs. Literary/artistic critics don’t really seem to get it. I’ll have some passing comments to offer on the comedy and art of it all, but this is primarily about the truths revealed by the show, pursued with Dwight-like earnestness.įrom The Whyte School to The Gervais Principle Keep in mind that this is an interpretation of The Office as management science the truth in the art. I’ll be basing this entire article on the American version of the show, which is more fully developed than the original British version, though the original is perhaps more satisfyingly bleak. I’ll need to lay just a little bit of groundwork (lest you think this whole post is a riff based on cartoons) before I can get to the principle and my interpretation of The Office. Outside of the comic aisle, the only major and significant works consistent with the Gervais Principle are The Organization Manand Images of Organization. The theory begins with Hugh MacLeod’s well-known cartoon, Company Hierarchy (below), and its cornerstone is something I will call The Gervais Principle, which supersedes both the Peter Principle and its successor, The Dilbert Principle. It is a fully realized theory of management that falsifies 83.8% of the business section of the bookstore.
#Manager and salesman the office script series
The Office is not a random series of cynical gags aimed at momentarily alleviating the existential despair of low-level grunts. Now, after four years, I’ve finally figured the show out. Series Home | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | ebook I’ve watched the show obsessively because I’ve been unable to figure out what makes it so devastatingly effective, and elevates it so far above the likes of Dilbert and Office Space. Since then, I’ve watched every episode of both the British and American versions. My neighbor introduced me to The Office back in 2005.