[skinnymuch]

Haha this is a point I didn’t bring up but loosely in my opinion lends credence to why obfuscating cogs as cogs is morally wrong.

The opposing view on here appears to be if you can compliment the cogs who enjoy that and keep them happy that way, things are better. This view is self serving and for the benefit of the higher ups. Not the cog.

Thanks for this though. Interesting to think about. I’ve added your comment and the link to my DEVONthink wiki on status quo :)

[prepend]

I’ve been a cog before and had hippie managers and asshole managers. Honestly, I prefer the occasional whip from the asshole than the constant stream of bullshit from hippies trying to tell me every day how my data entry was “awesome.” The weird thing is sometimes I think they convinced themself that our cog work was awesome.

If I’m a commodity, I’d rather be straight about it and have a shared reality since businesses will actually treat me like a commodity when it’s important.

[skinnymuch]

Yes I responded very similarly in a nearby comment. Haven’t had such divergent managers. But have had asshole and normal enough ones. I know I didn’t like it when they thought my work was “awesome”. It would be miserable if they ended up actually believing that.

Your last sentence is key. Worded better than I have been able to word it throughout this entire thread

[text70]

At that level, abstract logic becomes more important. Is it better to think of a flower in a field as part of a larger ecosystem, or characterize your company as a machine composed of cogs?

[skinnymuch]

Characterizing the company and cogs as flowers as part of a larger ecosystem sounds and feels better. However if the treatment is the same as the cogs. Or worse with the platitudes, then it’s better for the company and higher ups. Worse for the flowers or cogs.