The OODA Loop idea turns out to be applicable over a broad range of tactical situations and has been adopted throughout all the armed services. I would expect it to come in very handy in a Powertalk conversation too, since I think every Powertalk conversation is essentially a subtle instance of combat among Sociopaths (I favor capitalizing the MacLeod-context-specific organizational Sociopaths to distinguish from ordinary sociopaths). The least you can say is that Powertalk is always a negotiation, analogous to combat — though I would argue the distinction isn’t needed. The two are one; negotiation is combat; combat is negotiation; the goal in both cases is to determine/decide or allocate something of real value or consequence among self-interested individuals. The use of flashy physicality as a method in this process distracts us and makes us want to apply a separate term (“combat”) but it’s still the same game.

In the context of OODA loops, Michael’s Powertalk attempts fail so spectacularly (and therefore succeed just as spectacularly as comedy) because he usually doesn’t do the Observe or Orient steps to size up the situation or his opponent before Deciding on a course of Action. (This fact constitutes his very cluelessness.) So his “clever” tactics end up poorly placed and hilariously ineffective. And then even more hilariously, he doesn’t loop back and iterate the process; he breaks the OODA loop, and persists steadfastly in the same pattern — wrong to begin with, and growing steadily wronger the longer he persists after we can all see it’s not working. Michael’s OODA loops aren’t just broken, they’re twice-broken and stomped-on. We’re all in on this joke because, while “OODA loop” is a term few people recognize, it’s a process most people nonetheless seem to grasp and be able to do on a daily basis almost instinctively/intuitively.

The weird part is that I identify myself as both sociopath and loser in the MacLeod hierarchy.

I would love to see a post describing a hypothetical organization devoid of pathological problems would work.

I know, I’m name calling (and really oversimplifying), that’s awful. I really do enjoy these posts, your writing is quite sophisticated and very engrossing. But still. Guy.

Since I am clearly in the Losers group within my organization (I’m intelligent, but socially inept), I’m struggling to see how I can force myself to remember some of these principles in order to improve my lot. This makes me consider the hierarchies within each group and whether it’s possible to move from Losers to Clueless (and vice versa). I can’t really see how a Clueless or a Loser could truly become a Sociopath.

The co-manager debacle shows that Jim is the good natured sociopath, as he didn’t want Michael replaced, but rather bumped up with him. Every sociopath move Jim makes is good natured, though there is one sence of flare up when he leaves Ryan the voice mail before Ryan is arrested – where Jim declares he will do what it takes to get rid of Ryan. Of course, Jim had just started his journey to become a sociopath at that point, so it wasn’t really an option and turned out to be not necessary.

At the end of season 5 when Charles says “look who woke up” to Jim, I think it means he is calling him a sociopath, followed by “I’ve been awake for a while” – telling Jim directly that he can’t best Charles in the sociopath department.

In season 6 when Jim steps down as co-manager back to salesman, people hail this as a “return to regular Jim” (e.g. pre-sociopath perhaps), but I view this as highly sociopath. The Sabre playbook has a clear quick-path up and that is salesman without caps. Jim has never really tried at sales, and I think we all know why now – there was never a reason to. The overperforming salesman at Dunder Miflin was a loser because they didn’t get anymore money – not true at Sabre.

I’m hoping the Sabre arc will show us an interesting sociopath battle – good sociopath vs evil sociopath vis a vis Jim vs Ryan. Now that senior management is gone, Ryan can make another play back up to the top. Meanwhile Jim has already made the first move to the rapid-upward funnel in terms of cranking out sales.

Examples:

When people cite the Michael Scott Paper Company buy out and how MS leverages a win over Wallace using the share holder meeting. The camera cuts to Ryan smiling and nodding, which indicated to me Michael was playing Ryan’s script at Wallace – i.e. Ryan gave Michael a little bit of sociopath powertalk to use if he needed it.

He does show some glimmer, when he bluffs the value of his company is nothing, because he is using the only table stakes he has – his salesman skills as a competitive threat that woudl reoccur if he were not part of Dunder Miflin.

Finally, even though Scranton is the best branch, Michael fails to leverage that position in any meaningful way – e.g. when Wallace asks him what he is doing right. You may read that as Michael feigning stupidity to protect himself, but if he really wanted to run the company or do things better for the company, he would have leveraged that (i.e. wagered his table stakes) to his advantage. Instead it results in Wallace viewing him as a clueless child and a little bit of babytalk “ok you finish up [the pasta].”

Love,
–Sociopaths

http://fugitive.quadrantcrossing.org/?p=305

Your analysis fits nicely a scene from the UK Office that I have longed to understand: Clear sociopath Neil and loser Tim share a moment of straight talk when Neil offers Tim the interim branch manager job and Tim straightforwardly turns him down, but then delivers a stream of powertalk nominating clueless Gareth for the job, displaying his facility with the language while also rubbing Neil’s face in the fact that Tim chooses not to be a sociopath in the Wernam Hogg organizational structure, but rather a minimum-effort loser.

Thanks for that.

Outside-directed posturetalk… that’s Part III.