I think this is great. I've certainly had companies where I believed in the mission and others where I was just doing the work to help along the project or advance my own career experience. But I wasn't ever there to deceive people or fraudulently misrepresent myself.

I think Realist more than Cynic, maybe. Because the activities in that description are perhaps realistically transactional, not cynical.

I dunno. The whole thing is wobbly really.

Or maybe even loyalist/idealist to purge any hint of negativity from the first category

go back to the very start; the perspective is supposed to be the assholes you identify in each category where you don't see yourself. By definition it should be negative, and this should feel uncomfortable because you don't want to view yourself in the same light. The fact there's so much debate implies they nailed the labels.

> the perspective is supposed to be the assholes you identify in each category where you don't see yourself

There is literally a "Me" in the graph.

This gives me a little Zizekian vibes, where it's intentionally trying to confuse and shock in order to shift your perspective without you even realising it. I like it. The relabeling is just another form of understanding by interacting.

Does it? Loyalty is for henchmen. You only need it if you have a habit of asking people to do something slimy.

Or you have work that sometimes is unpleasant (but necessary!) and having people jump ship at the slightest provocation gets old.

I do unpleasant work all the time, I do it because I believe it's necessary. The fact that my boss also believes it is necessary is convenient. This has lead to an average job length of about 3yr (max: 7), so I don't think it's leading me to be overly flighty.

Every resignation has been a bit of a manifesto though, so it's not like everything is perfectly normal, but it works out well enough.

Could be but

> They respect the company mission as written, but what they really value is what the leaders of the company show they care about.

> Grifters aren’t very good at changing the culture of their organizations. They tend to go with the current instead.

To me loyalist fits this well, not because they are necessarily going to do dirty work, but because they are loyal to the rules that are in place.

No you're right, it's a better label.

I just am too much of a believer/anarchist to see loyalty as any better than grift. A grifter does their own evil, a loyalist does someone else's. I'm not sure which is more repugnant but I'm sure that my view on this is quite biased. I guess that makes me the target audience re:

> this article is really aimed at people who are trying to have a bit more empathy for the assholes they work with

This discussion would benefit a lot from The Banality of Evil, but I'm definitely not the best one to introduce it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eichmann_in_Jerusalem

But I think it would very much argue in favor of people being on average more like loyalists. Just regular Joes trying to get a promotion and causing untold damage in the process.

I had heard the phrase, but didn't know where it came from. Based on the wiki, I think I'm inclined to agree with the author. Do you recommend it? I could use something a bit less abstract than my typical fare...

I didn't read the book, that's above my paygrade. But a good introduction would be the episode on Philosophize This about the author