The Organization Man and Other B.S.

Post Reply New Topic

If you're lucky enough to have a professional career, you may have encountered a more subtle, sophisticated kind of annoyance than you had to put up with when unemployed, in part-time or unskilled work, or pursuing your education. It is the existential threat organization men and women pose to one's sanity. There may be a few superficial similarities between the Organization Man and people with Asperger's syndrome, but I would say the differences are far greater.

To understand the Organization Man, think of stereotypes of the 1950s: the man in the gray flannel suit, Death of a Salesman, the movie Pleasantville, etc. They are bland in their conventionality and nondescript affability; they set their lives to procedures, standards, and other concrete measures. In essence, they act as human programs executing a business process without the intervention of human qualities like emotion, individually determined goals and preferences, etc. These people make the time you spend at work more tedious and in time something to be despised. Since they have forsaken any individualism for total devotion to the organization, they should be regarded as such: avatars of the company, not individuals with unique personalities and goals. At least this is the impression they leave.

It is ironic that their very lust for blandness sows the seeds of discord: The boring, sterile workplace they engender, especially when they hold the reins of power, breeds worker dissatisfaction/ennui and in time quiet and then louder acts of subversion: the need to loosen their stranglehold on the environment just to feel something. The duties of the job, too dull and routine, lack the emotional reward needed to maintain motivation, and more joy is found in "doing battle" with the oppressors.

Does anyone else hate the dull agreeableness of these types of people?

i much prefer dull agreeables to sharp disagreeables any day of the week. in my civil service career the latter type were far more common than the former. they shoulda called it the UNcivil service, AFAIC.

Sounds good to me, I go to work to work, not to socialize or express myself as an individual. I doubt I would find this tedious, rather more of a relief to encounter individuals whose primary focus is the task and not each other.

EDIT: I've got an idea, let's trade jobs, you can peel onions with all the colourful people and I'll chill with Organization Man, that sounds [expletive deleted] awesome actually

Between dull agreeableness and sarcastic/rude disagreeableness, what about simple balance? Can people be generally pleasant without being spineless and uninteresting? What I'm talking about isn't so much that I'd prefer rude, bitter coworkers, which would be worse, but rather that having coworkers with individual personalities would make the workplace more interesting. Would a sense of humor hurt? I don't think so. What about a willingness to express an opinion and actually move for change rather than quietly hoping not to "rock the boat"? WIthout a diversity of opinions and practices, things stagnate.

wow you have much higher expectations of the workplace than i do, i just wanna spend my mandatory wage slavery in some place peaceful, it's not as though i have many other semi-pleasant options within reach. for me, the benchmark is avoiding homelessness. a stagnant workplace is better than the cold hard pavement of the street. as long as there are no meanies there, that is about all i can ask.