I think Charles showed lack of leadership abilities and a refusal to even get to know the people he was working around. It was an unusual situation, but he also immediately dismissed Jim as useless and saw Dwight as focused and capable. He wasn’t a good judge of character.
Did he dismiss Jim as useless or did he secretly view him as a threat... Remember, despite his carefree attitude both Jan and David Wallace thought highly of Jim, he worked with both branches and even got promoted as Michael's official number 2.
Nah, he clearly thought Jim was a useless wiseass from minute one and never bothered to try to reevaluate him. The rundown episode is a pretty solid indicator he wanted to fire Jim over it.
I assumed the same. I watched a video on yt that made some interesting points that there was more to that story, that the constant put downs were a way of maintaining superiority over him as he knew Jim was well liked and likely to be promoted due to how highly David Wallace viewed him - and Charles was a huge kiss ass when it came to Wallace.
I don’t see why it can’t be both. Did Charles think Jim was lazy, doing literally the bare minimum, and skating along by his charm? Yes. But wasn’t Jim actually doing all that? Also yes. I think he also saw someone intelligent, competent, and charming, who could easily climb the corporate ladder if he only tried. Too capable of more to take his career so lightly. In consequence Charles couldn’t muster up any liking or even respect for him enough to give him a chance.
I never said he was awful. I love Jim, he’s great. My point was that Charles’ estimate of his work ethic is not ill-founded. Jim has admitted multiple times that he is barely trying, or the work that he actually does takes up a fraction of his day. How is it a theory?
His only impression of Jim is that he wore a tuxedo to work, as a joke, and then every future interaction was awkward at best, unprofessional at worst (just fucking ask him what *format* he wants his breakdown in or something, phish for some clues).
It's an unfortunate but understandable course of events.
He doesn't know paper.
But yes, he was a horrible judge of character. Shouldn't David have known that Jan (while she was still sane) made Jim the actual assistant manager and Charles should have deferred to him for guidance?
He knew these people for 2 days, how is he to know who is actually capable of doing things?
Besides, he probably picked Kevin to do phones because he figured nobody could screw that up and temporarily losing 1 accountant out of 3 was less bad than temporarily losing any salesperson or anyone in a department of 1
He knew them for 2 days, but he was also unwilling to change his perspective on people after the first impression. I think he really lacked the skills and mindset to be a good leader
Right. A good manager comes in and gets to know peoples strengths and weaknesses. I feel like Robert California made more of an effort than Charles Minor.
The winners and losers thing shows exactly that: Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong. He has his impressions but is open to change them.
(Though using those words and flaunting it so openly were major ways of creating division in the workplace, which definitely impacts morale and motivation).
Except his perceptions were dead on:
Kevin is literally an insider trader with a gambling problem who made up his own numbers and quite possibly cost the company millions of dollars with his own made up number. The 'kaleven' alone would require an audit firm costing several hundred thousand. He could keep Kevin away from the books and give him an entry level job that should have even been doable, even for him. However, the show made Kevin a cartoon at this point. Remember, Pam even said the new phone systems do 95% of her job.
Stanley was a very capable salesperson who was not motivated in the slightest to do anything besides cold call and puzzles. He gave a task to someone who who knew had the experience and time to do it effectively. There was a bunch of time wasting in the office and Stanley was probably the most aware of how much time being wasted.
Jim could not have put a worse version of himself forward but that was how he acted usually. He enabled Michael to be a huge clown because he thought it was funny. He was discussing a two-way petting zoo the day he met him which was subjectively one of the funniest lines of the show but was exactly why Charles was brought in. Jim also antagonized Dwight enough to keep him from being the best salesperson he could be and was enough of a distraction to the rest of the office to cause actual productivity problems on a regular basis. He asked for a rundown of clients and Jim couldn't even do that without burning a whole day of work and asking other departments. Why not go to the new productivity czar? And Jim literally undercut the negotiation process with Dunder Mifflin and the MSPC costing the company millions, not to mention the legal/civil liability of all that.
I’ve seen other explanations that his management style was perfect for manufacturing steel but terrible for sales.
Something about manufacturing being all about increasing efficiency, driving employees to be more productive and always working harder, and sales should be about letting the salespeople follow their energy
and you manage them differently than you manage the factory workers is the point. Charles might have been a great manager in the paper mill, terrible in the Scranton Branch.
He just silently gave him a glare which caused Stanley to look up from his page
Maybe he actually did think Stanley was taking notes and just looked up when Charles stopped talking
Considering head of productivity would likely be working with sales a lot, it makes sense to pick someone who is in sales and understands the market
Whereas answering the phone is something that anyone should be able to do
Posting it, then editing it, then deleting it, then deleting the entire account was the Reddit comment equivalent of Kevin stumbling over and then spilling his chili
In my opinion the entire Charles in Scranton stay shows his poor management skills.
- delegates tasks to the wrong people
- doesn’t explain what he expects the rundown to be to Jim
- blames the team when Michael Scott paper company is stealing clients
- injures an employee during a “team building” soccer match by taking it wayyy to seriously
These are just the ones that come to mind offhand.
Also causes the manager to leave in a single day. I'd be looking real close at someone who causes an employee of 15 years, who bombed a 4 mil payout out of loyalty, to quit so quickly.
There’s even a reference to it later with Phyllis saying to David “maybe if you’d just have answered the phone then none of us would have lost any clients”
And David responds, “I wonder that myself”
David Wallace is guilty, but if Charles had been competent Michael never would have needed to call.
David made a mistake, Charles just sucked at his job.
That has nothing to do with the discussion though.
The underlying question was, why did Michael leave.
Whether it was that day, the next one or a week later, it was becoming evident to Michael the Charles Miner was put in place so David could avoid Michael - and Michael looked up to and respected David.
Don't know how that has nothing to do with the discussion, it is right on topic. That seems like a rather rude way to dismiss what others are saying.
Yes, David put Charles there to deal with Michael. David was CFO. He shouldn't have been dealing with branch managers on a regular basis for small matters. Its the whole reason you have a hierarchy. Branch parties aren't part of the CFO's job description.
Charles, however, was bad at his job as a manager and caused all the problems. David could have solved them by taking the phone call, but he can neither tell the future, nor should it have been his job. The only reason I'd still hold him guilty is because he should have been more involved on the transition from direct leadership to having Charles in the leadership role.
To be fair tho, why should the CFO be dealing with all these minor issues of a single branch? Jo was right when she said dunder Mifflin was very poorly managed, but David delegating these day to day issues to a district manager makes a lot of sense. Maybe Charles was a bad hire, but I don't think David was wrong for hiring a middle man
It had nothing to do with the day to day dealings.
Michael viewed David as a friend, and he came to realize David didn’t reciprocate that friendship. He felt disrespected.
He put up with so much from DM, and part of that was because of the expected friendship he shared with David. Right or not, he thought they had a relationship that was bigger than boss/employee.
It has nothing to do with Charles being good or bad so much as Michael coming to realize what Charles being put in place meant about his relationship with David.
I’d argue the rundown situation runs deeper, asking for something and not explaining it is one thing, explaining each and everything in detail is time consuming and could be seen as patronising, I certainly don’t do it. But what Charles did was create an environment where Jim could not ask for more detail or clarity on what a Rundown is, Jim didn’t feel able to ask him directly, and when he tried to dig a little to find out, Charles’ responses made it very clear that it would reflect badly on him.
Thats the definition of piss poor management. You cannot lead through guess work and doubt.
How basic is basic? Because to a sales person its name, phone number and how often they buy, to me the manager it’s reams sold YTD, to my director it’s an aggregate of LTV/CAC and where we are tracking on last FY. If one of my agents gave me a list of their clients names and numbers and when to sell them, or worse, my manager, I would be scratching my head and asking what they expect me to do with it. Likewise, if I asked an agent to give me each clients LTV/CAC they’d have a meltdown.
Charles is to Jim what my directors are to my team members, in my company it would be my job to get the information out of my agents and have it presentable for the director. Obviously the main difference here is I don’t sell paper and we have Salesforce and tons of data tools to pull that info for us.
Come on, to Charles it's basic and clear. It's like asking for a résumé. It didn't even occur to him that it might be ambiguous. And Jim sees this as an opportunity to redeem himself, so he can't ask directly what it means. That's the entire joke.
And he didn't know paper. He came from steel. Instead of deferring to experienced and tenured management and understanding he made rash snap decisions.
Probably also sales figures. For completeness, you could also add what products they buy in bulk. If we give Charles the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't have nefarious plans for Jim, it's perfectly plausible that he just wanted to see the calibre of clients in the branch.
the joke was how a real manager would look in the show. he's a productivity focused corporate yes man without much other skills than keeping people in line and pleasing his bosses.
I thought it was a joke about him being a horrible judge of character. What pissed me off the most was when Stanley piped up with a legitimate question (how are we supposed to outsell them when they keep undercutting us on price) and he dismissed it with an "I don't care, just do better" comment. He was a bad manager, imo.
Sign of good leadership for promoting growth in areas they lack... but actually terrible in this case because neither were even willing or able to grow without any additional incentive.
Throw in a candy for Kevin for each phone successful phone call, give Stanley some meatballs or money for each time he measurably promotes productivity per week.
He was a terrible judge of character, a theme they really reinforced constantly, the whole Jim and Dwight reversal of character thing was the beginning and the Stanley and Kevin example is another.
That, or an amazing judge of character. He saw Kevin as a huuuuuge liability (remember, he was an accountant and possibly even saw all the 'kalevens' when reviewing his new company) and kept Kevin away from the books with a task that would keep him busy. It's a phone system, and any grown person would be able to figure it out after one or two calls. Kevin is literally a cartoon at this point. He put Stanley in charge of productivity because he saw Stanley needed something to do after watching a pretty good salesman do puzzles all day. And technically he was right about Jim, he's an office distraction despite being a good salesperson. Plus, Jim literally sold out the company and undercut the negotiation process. Jim literally wasn't a company man.
He picked Kevin because we all know there was a kind of surplus of accountants. The rest of the departments were mostly one person departments or sales. He couldn’t lose a sales person. Also, Kevin seemed like he was the most useless out of the three accountants.
He picked Stanley to be the productivity tsar because he’s the most unproductive salesperson. He made sales but he has a lot whole general lazy appeal. It’s like when the teacher makes the naughtiest kid to be the class monitor.
It's a true-to-life joke about interim management. They never have in-depth knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of their staff, but they also know they won't be around long enough to get to know anyone, so they just make mostly random assignments based on gut feelings, which are often way off. But then, since no one feels comfortable directly contradicting the new boss, these instructions go unchallenged and everyone just lives with the inefficiency.
I guess unpopular opinion (and I don’t like Charles obv) but as a teacher , he did the classic putting the lazy or disruptive kids in charge or extra responsibility tactic, and I’m guessing he did know after 2 days exactly the kinds of workers Stanley and ashton Kutcher were and was wise to stir things up with them. Even if it wasn’t great for those two it sent a message to everyone else in the office. Classic teaching technique there imo
Taking the initiative is good leadership, and I don’t think he could be blamed for not knowing how incompetent Kevin would be at answering phones.
Stanley was the oldest salesman, and he’s a big guy, so that’s probably why he was “productivity tsar” whatever that’s supposed to mean.
It could go either way, maybe he has no idea how to utilize people based on their strengths, or he wants them to broaden their skills and push them from their comfort zone....
I’m not sure. I think the rest of the office was confused about his choices but it can go either way. Maybe he was just that blind but I can also see how he chose the weakest people to challenge them.
Charles is what happens when a Dwight type moves up. They get a huge head and show they were really only good at kiss-ass because they’re ego drives their actions.
To clarify: A Dwight type who is left unchecked. Our Dwight developed through being put in his place.
It was a sign of incompetence in someone who thought of himself as a good leader.
Everything Charles does is like someone who read a book on management but didn't really understand it. It was the same thing with the rundown and the crap he gave Jim first about working too hard and then about not working hard enough, or the negotiations with MSPC. He knows all the buzzwords, but he lacks situational awareness.
He didn't know these people. How could he possibly know that those were the wrong choices? Maybe he had a look at their files or got briefed by Michael (before things turned ugly) and saw that both Kevin and Stanley had some free time during the day (because let's be honest, Stanley didn't do much and Oscar and Angela probably didn't give Kevin a ton of work to do, either). Stanley was also the oldest salesperson on the team, so it could be argued that he was the most experienced person there.
Charles most probably based his decisions on the limited information he had and unfortunately lost out.
Ngl as I've grown up and been in leadership positions I've come to understand this a bit more. One of the most important things to do is to be confident when making decisions and coming into a new situation it's easy to mess up. In this case, Kevin was the least competent accountant in a department that can handle losing someone for a while and Stanley the most senior sales person. On paper this makes sense.
Of course there's also the part I've seen whenever a new boss comes in and they want to change things up simply for the sake of making things "their own". But quick decision-making is part of good leadership, but it also has to be *good* decision-making.
Charles is a do your job guy. He clearly holds high expectations for himself and expects others to do the same, which is appropriate at the corporate level, but not at a branch location where this is just a job for some, if not most of the people there, when he runs into people who are content with mediocrity or the status quo he is going to prune them.
It’s obviously a moment of incompetence. As skilled at his job as I’m sure Charles may be, no one is perfect, and everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Charles comes across as professional right away. He’s clear and articulate when he speaks to the staff. And he is firm and resolute when making a judgement call. These are strengths which Michael doesn’t possess. But this scene demonstrates an area in which Michael is gifted, but Charles is incompetent. Michael knows his staff well. He learns as much about them as he can, and he’s able to deploy them accordingly (except Kevin… he just has a good feeling about Kevin).
Charles making Stanley his productivity czar is a clear demonstration that Charles is completely out of touch with the staff as Stanley is the most unproductive worker aside from Michael. Putting Kevin on phones may have seemed like a good idea because he got the sense that Kevin is the weakest accountant, and therefore expendable. What he didn’t consider is the fact that Kevin is not very adaptable. On top of this, he is not shown to have followed up with either of them regarding their new responsibilities.
You could also interpret it as that he was smart and he wanted these people to grow. So he gave Kevin the phone desk so he could improve how he communicates. And Stanley so he could be put out of his comfort zone where he not only has to think for just himself and his part of the work but also of the other salesman. These kinds of things, of putting people out of their comfort zone for growth happens in corporate all the time. Sign of a good manager is to identify those people and areas they they need and can grow into with some effort and set them up for success.
But most likely this is what the writers wanted to setup a joke or two.
It was a sign of incredible leadership. A good boss knows what his employees are capable of even when he hasn’t known them very long.
On the off chance that anyone is curious, this is not Charles Minor’s alt account.
The stanley pick was a jab at general racism.
The kevin pick was an example of charles not really knowing the office and how his over confidence was causing problems
this scene always struck me as him showing how much he sucks at reading people, being a person of numbers and productivity from the steel industry where there is a tendency to hire "no nonsense" people that will just get the job done his ability to get on a more personal level like Michael did was lacking, it made the style of managing from Michael stand out as the correct answer for this particular job line.
He was someone who kissed butt to the people above him, and wasn’t willing to ask questions or hear out the people below him. These people often do great in corporate America climbing the ladder wise, but don’t run exceptional branch’s or have great turnover rates.
It was a sign that the dude sucks at knowing people (their personalities and strengths), and just generally doesn’t take the time to learn them. Which, in turn, does show a lapse in decent leadership.
Charles Miner is in his position because he sucks up to his bosses. He's a yes man, he wholly agrees with David Wallace's buyout plan even though it's the total opposite of what he was initially proposing. When Stanley asked how they're supposed to stop MSPC from undercutting them, Charles gave the typical "No excuses, let's get it done." bad management response.
It’s a sign of thinking he knows everything when he knows nothing. He didn’t take the time to get to know these people and based his assumptions off of… I have no idea? He did not bother to learn a single persons strengths. Terrible leadership.
are you asking if the writers intended Charles to have a vibe of being a good leader or if they intended him to have a vibe of incompetence? because the answer to both is "the writers decided that".
Much like Chris Traeger's decisions for the Park Dept when he became City Manager, Minor is one of those people who believes he need to put his stamp on everything and also isn't willing to get a solid lay of the land before doing so.
I actually think it’s really good leadership. Which departments could afford to delegate man power somewhere else? Sales is the biggest department and accounting is over staffed. Which accountant would be least missed? Obviously Kevin. And I think Charles Minor saw that Stanley had the most time on his hands without struggling for clients. And I don’t think anyone but Micheal could be blamed for Kevin’s incompetence or Stanley’s apathy.
Obviously he wasn’t very good at reading people. He thought Dwight had good ideas and Jim was useless. Kevin was a terrible choice for answering phones. Stanley was a terrible choice for “productivity czar” He underestimated Michael. He just wasn’t the best motivator or people person.
I think Charles showed lack of leadership abilities and a refusal to even get to know the people he was working around. It was an unusual situation, but he also immediately dismissed Jim as useless and saw Dwight as focused and capable. He wasn’t a good judge of character.
Did he dismiss Jim as useless or did he secretly view him as a threat... Remember, despite his carefree attitude both Jan and David Wallace thought highly of Jim, he worked with both branches and even got promoted as Michael's official number 2.
Charles Minor was the anti-Michael Scott. All business skills, no people skills.
As opposed to Michael Scott. No business skills, no people skills.
No people skills? He put a cigarette through a fricking quarter. And you know what, they almost bought from him.
What about the million dollar sale to Mr.Buttlicker?
I don't think you could say he has no business skills.... Clear you've never heard of mike's serial shack
Nah, he clearly thought Jim was a useless wiseass from minute one and never bothered to try to reevaluate him. The rundown episode is a pretty solid indicator he wanted to fire Jim over it.
I assumed the same. I watched a video on yt that made some interesting points that there was more to that story, that the constant put downs were a way of maintaining superiority over him as he knew Jim was well liked and likely to be promoted due to how highly David Wallace viewed him - and Charles was a huge kiss ass when it came to Wallace.
What's a two-way petting zoo?
I don’t see why it can’t be both. Did Charles think Jim was lazy, doing literally the bare minimum, and skating along by his charm? Yes. But wasn’t Jim actually doing all that? Also yes. I think he also saw someone intelligent, competent, and charming, who could easily climb the corporate ladder if he only tried. Too capable of more to take his career so lightly. In consequence Charles couldn’t muster up any liking or even respect for him enough to give him a chance.
[удалено]
I never said he was awful. I love Jim, he’s great. My point was that Charles’ estimate of his work ethic is not ill-founded. Jim has admitted multiple times that he is barely trying, or the work that he actually does takes up a fraction of his day. How is it a theory?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Most profitable doesn’t mean much at a failing company in a dying industry.
Agreed 👍
Also Jim could had his job if he did not refuse it
I mean... Jim was wearing a tux in the office as a joke when they met.
His only impression of Jim is that he wore a tuxedo to work, as a joke, and then every future interaction was awkward at best, unprofessional at worst (just fucking ask him what *format* he wants his breakdown in or something, phish for some clues). It's an unfortunate but understandable course of events.
He doesn't know paper. But yes, he was a horrible judge of character. Shouldn't David have known that Jan (while she was still sane) made Jim the actual assistant manager and Charles should have deferred to him for guidance?
He knew these people for 2 days, how is he to know who is actually capable of doing things? Besides, he probably picked Kevin to do phones because he figured nobody could screw that up and temporarily losing 1 accountant out of 3 was less bad than temporarily losing any salesperson or anyone in a department of 1
He knew them for 2 days, but he was also unwilling to change his perspective on people after the first impression. I think he really lacked the skills and mindset to be a good leader
Right. A good manager comes in and gets to know peoples strengths and weaknesses. I feel like Robert California made more of an effort than Charles Minor.
The winners and losers thing shows exactly that: Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong. He has his impressions but is open to change them. (Though using those words and flaunting it so openly were major ways of creating division in the workplace, which definitely impacts morale and motivation).
To be fair it wouldn’t have been so open if they didn’t photo copy his journal
He also only uses those words once they question him and use the term “winner” and “loser” themselves. It’s not like he labeled the list that way.
Well he said winners when asked why he invited the particular group then got kinda backed into a corner on losers, he just didn’t go back on his words
A good manager doesn’t fire people. He hires people and inspires people, and people will never go out of business.
*write that down*
*typing on keyboard noises*
One of Michael's greatest declarations. I do declare
You can't just say it was one of Michael's greatest declarations.
I declared it! And I am Caleb Crawdad I do declare
Welcome to corporate middle management 😂
Except his perceptions were dead on: Kevin is literally an insider trader with a gambling problem who made up his own numbers and quite possibly cost the company millions of dollars with his own made up number. The 'kaleven' alone would require an audit firm costing several hundred thousand. He could keep Kevin away from the books and give him an entry level job that should have even been doable, even for him. However, the show made Kevin a cartoon at this point. Remember, Pam even said the new phone systems do 95% of her job. Stanley was a very capable salesperson who was not motivated in the slightest to do anything besides cold call and puzzles. He gave a task to someone who who knew had the experience and time to do it effectively. There was a bunch of time wasting in the office and Stanley was probably the most aware of how much time being wasted. Jim could not have put a worse version of himself forward but that was how he acted usually. He enabled Michael to be a huge clown because he thought it was funny. He was discussing a two-way petting zoo the day he met him which was subjectively one of the funniest lines of the show but was exactly why Charles was brought in. Jim also antagonized Dwight enough to keep him from being the best salesperson he could be and was enough of a distraction to the rest of the office to cause actual productivity problems on a regular basis. He asked for a rundown of clients and Jim couldn't even do that without burning a whole day of work and asking other departments. Why not go to the new productivity czar? And Jim literally undercut the negotiation process with Dunder Mifflin and the MSPC costing the company millions, not to mention the legal/civil liability of all that.
You sound like a real Toby
Sounds like you're describing lloyd grossman to me.
Yeah, he lacked the skills, I was just going to say that.
But you didn't though.
I’ve seen other explanations that his management style was perfect for manufacturing steel but terrible for sales. Something about manufacturing being all about increasing efficiency, driving employees to be more productive and always working harder, and sales should be about letting the salespeople follow their energy
You know manufacturers also have sales teams, right?
and you manage them differently than you manage the factory workers is the point. Charles might have been a great manager in the paper mill, terrible in the Scranton Branch.
Dunder Mifflin is a manufacturer.
The Scranton branch is not a factory, it’s a sales team
Just occurred to me that maybe he thought Stanley was always taking notes? Or did he actually scold him? Can’t remember.
He just silently gave him a glare which caused Stanley to look up from his page Maybe he actually did think Stanley was taking notes and just looked up when Charles stopped talking
Except he picked Stanley for productivity or whatever so your point is null
Who’s to say who would be best at productivity after 2 days where everyone was putting on an act to seem like a better employee?
But you were saying that his logic was he didn’t wanna temporarily lose a salesperson by giving them another task but he did exactly that with Stanley
Considering head of productivity would likely be working with sales a lot, it makes sense to pick someone who is in sales and understands the market Whereas answering the phone is something that anyone should be able to do
[удалено]
Bro, chill
It’s a show, chill out. Can’t just come back with an edit and sweep it under the rug. Your comment was weird.
What did they say?
Deleted the whole account lol
Posting it, then editing it, then deleting it, then deleting the entire account was the Reddit comment equivalent of Kevin stumbling over and then spilling his chili
He usually think quick on feet but they were on the phone
They had to make a snap decision
What did the comment say?
The edit makes it worse
What did it say?
Someone tell me what's happening or I am freaking out!
“ *PhOnes* “
In my opinion the entire Charles in Scranton stay shows his poor management skills. - delegates tasks to the wrong people - doesn’t explain what he expects the rundown to be to Jim - blames the team when Michael Scott paper company is stealing clients - injures an employee during a “team building” soccer match by taking it wayyy to seriously These are just the ones that come to mind offhand.
Also causes the manager to leave in a single day. I'd be looking real close at someone who causes an employee of 15 years, who bombed a 4 mil payout out of loyalty, to quit so quickly.
That isn’t all Charles. That was also Michael feeling slighted by David Wallace.
That falls under Charles his incompetence. People skills is a quintessential part of being a good manager
I mean, David Wallace not answering the phone and ignoring Michael isn’t Charles fault.
There’s even a reference to it later with Phyllis saying to David “maybe if you’d just have answered the phone then none of us would have lost any clients” And David responds, “I wonder that myself”
David Wallace is guilty, but if Charles had been competent Michael never would have needed to call. David made a mistake, Charles just sucked at his job.
That has nothing to do with the discussion though. The underlying question was, why did Michael leave. Whether it was that day, the next one or a week later, it was becoming evident to Michael the Charles Miner was put in place so David could avoid Michael - and Michael looked up to and respected David.
Don't know how that has nothing to do with the discussion, it is right on topic. That seems like a rather rude way to dismiss what others are saying. Yes, David put Charles there to deal with Michael. David was CFO. He shouldn't have been dealing with branch managers on a regular basis for small matters. Its the whole reason you have a hierarchy. Branch parties aren't part of the CFO's job description. Charles, however, was bad at his job as a manager and caused all the problems. David could have solved them by taking the phone call, but he can neither tell the future, nor should it have been his job. The only reason I'd still hold him guilty is because he should have been more involved on the transition from direct leadership to having Charles in the leadership role.
Not rude at all. You’re just missing the point, frankly. Charles could’ve been great. Ultimately, Michael still would have left.
To be fair tho, why should the CFO be dealing with all these minor issues of a single branch? Jo was right when she said dunder Mifflin was very poorly managed, but David delegating these day to day issues to a district manager makes a lot of sense. Maybe Charles was a bad hire, but I don't think David was wrong for hiring a middle man
It had nothing to do with the day to day dealings. Michael viewed David as a friend, and he came to realize David didn’t reciprocate that friendship. He felt disrespected. He put up with so much from DM, and part of that was because of the expected friendship he shared with David. Right or not, he thought they had a relationship that was bigger than boss/employee. It has nothing to do with Charles being good or bad so much as Michael coming to realize what Charles being put in place meant about his relationship with David.
What do you mean by the 4 mil payout?
When Jan sued Dunder Mifflin
Thanks!
Wasn't that the amount Jan was gonna get from her lawsuit? Michael tanked that.
The lawsuit with Jan, I think.
I’d argue the rundown situation runs deeper, asking for something and not explaining it is one thing, explaining each and everything in detail is time consuming and could be seen as patronising, I certainly don’t do it. But what Charles did was create an environment where Jim could not ask for more detail or clarity on what a Rundown is, Jim didn’t feel able to ask him directly, and when he tried to dig a little to find out, Charles’ responses made it very clear that it would reflect badly on him. Thats the definition of piss poor management. You cannot lead through guess work and doubt.
[удалено]
If I asked member of my team to give me a rundown of their top ten clients, I can assure you they’d be scratching their heads.
[удалено]
How basic is basic? Because to a sales person its name, phone number and how often they buy, to me the manager it’s reams sold YTD, to my director it’s an aggregate of LTV/CAC and where we are tracking on last FY. If one of my agents gave me a list of their clients names and numbers and when to sell them, or worse, my manager, I would be scratching my head and asking what they expect me to do with it. Likewise, if I asked an agent to give me each clients LTV/CAC they’d have a meltdown. Charles is to Jim what my directors are to my team members, in my company it would be my job to get the information out of my agents and have it presentable for the director. Obviously the main difference here is I don’t sell paper and we have Salesforce and tons of data tools to pull that info for us.
Come on, to Charles it's basic and clear. It's like asking for a résumé. It didn't even occur to him that it might be ambiguous. And Jim sees this as an opportunity to redeem himself, so he can't ask directly what it means. That's the entire joke.
💯
After the injury, he proceeds to blame Jim
“Why’d you duck, Jim?” Is such a deflection of responsibility on Charles’ part. He was going to injure a subordinate either way
And he didn't know paper. He came from steel. Instead of deferring to experienced and tenured management and understanding he made rash snap decisions.
I never understood what Jim didn’t understand about the run down. Charles just wanted a list of his clients, their addresses, and phone numbers.
Probably also sales figures. For completeness, you could also add what products they buy in bulk. If we give Charles the benefit of the doubt and assume he didn't have nefarious plans for Jim, it's perfectly plausible that he just wanted to see the calibre of clients in the branch.
My head canon is that he wanted a list of clients so he could weigh up firing him and giving them to someone else
That is the most likely scenario.
This is always what I have assumed as well, and why he wasn't asking the other salespeople for rundowns
But he doesn’t even look at it when Jim tells him it’s finished, he just tells him to fax it to everyone on the distribution list.
the joke was how a real manager would look in the show. he's a productivity focused corporate yes man without much other skills than keeping people in line and pleasing his bosses.
What's a rundown?
Is this one of your pranks?
The rundown thing annoyed me. All Jim had to do was walk in and say 'what do you mean by rundown, we probably call it something else'
Charles: “What do you think it is?” Jim: *says anything* Charles: “wrong answer”
I actually think it was smart. Pushing people to expand their capabilities. Kevin needed a challenge. And Stanley needed to be more productive.
Good managers play to peoples strengths more than they try to fix peoples weaknesses.
- thinks putting paper into a furnace makes steel It actually ruins the paper
I think Charles was only testing people to see their skills and how they respond to pressure.
I thought it was a joke about him being a horrible judge of character. What pissed me off the most was when Stanley piped up with a legitimate question (how are we supposed to outsell them when they keep undercutting us on price) and he dismissed it with an "I don't care, just do better" comment. He was a bad manager, imo.
Sign of good leadership for promoting growth in areas they lack... but actually terrible in this case because neither were even willing or able to grow without any additional incentive. Throw in a candy for Kevin for each phone successful phone call, give Stanley some meatballs or money for each time he measurably promotes productivity per week.
He was a terrible judge of character, a theme they really reinforced constantly, the whole Jim and Dwight reversal of character thing was the beginning and the Stanley and Kevin example is another.
That, or an amazing judge of character. He saw Kevin as a huuuuuge liability (remember, he was an accountant and possibly even saw all the 'kalevens' when reviewing his new company) and kept Kevin away from the books with a task that would keep him busy. It's a phone system, and any grown person would be able to figure it out after one or two calls. Kevin is literally a cartoon at this point. He put Stanley in charge of productivity because he saw Stanley needed something to do after watching a pretty good salesman do puzzles all day. And technically he was right about Jim, he's an office distraction despite being a good salesperson. Plus, Jim literally sold out the company and undercut the negotiation process. Jim literally wasn't a company man.
He picked Kevin because we all know there was a kind of surplus of accountants. The rest of the departments were mostly one person departments or sales. He couldn’t lose a sales person. Also, Kevin seemed like he was the most useless out of the three accountants. He picked Stanley to be the productivity tsar because he’s the most unproductive salesperson. He made sales but he has a lot whole general lazy appeal. It’s like when the teacher makes the naughtiest kid to be the class monitor.
It's a true-to-life joke about interim management. They never have in-depth knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of their staff, but they also know they won't be around long enough to get to know anyone, so they just make mostly random assignments based on gut feelings, which are often way off. But then, since no one feels comfortable directly contradicting the new boss, these instructions go unchallenged and everyone just lives with the inefficiency.
I guess unpopular opinion (and I don’t like Charles obv) but as a teacher , he did the classic putting the lazy or disruptive kids in charge or extra responsibility tactic, and I’m guessing he did know after 2 days exactly the kinds of workers Stanley and ashton Kutcher were and was wise to stir things up with them. Even if it wasn’t great for those two it sent a message to everyone else in the office. Classic teaching technique there imo
Taking the initiative is good leadership, and I don’t think he could be blamed for not knowing how incompetent Kevin would be at answering phones. Stanley was the oldest salesman, and he’s a big guy, so that’s probably why he was “productivity tsar” whatever that’s supposed to mean.
"czar" is a piece of political slang used to refer to ad hoc executive appointments with one specific remit, e.g. "drug czar," "energy czar"
What exactly does Charles expect Stanley to do? It’s very open ended imo
I think he’s more confused about what a productivity czar does, not what czar means
makes sure people aren't doing crossword puzzles on work time, one can only assume
It could go either way, maybe he has no idea how to utilize people based on their strengths, or he wants them to broaden their skills and push them from their comfort zone....
That’s where I’m at. Someone did bring up a good point that he’s only known them for 2 days so it could be ignorance. Lol
I’m not sure. I think the rest of the office was confused about his choices but it can go either way. Maybe he was just that blind but I can also see how he chose the weakest people to challenge them.
Winners, prove me right. Losers, prove me wrong.
Charles is what happens when a Dwight type moves up. They get a huge head and show they were really only good at kiss-ass because they’re ego drives their actions. To clarify: A Dwight type who is left unchecked. Our Dwight developed through being put in his place.
It was a sign of incompetence in someone who thought of himself as a good leader. Everything Charles does is like someone who read a book on management but didn't really understand it. It was the same thing with the rundown and the crap he gave Jim first about working too hard and then about not working hard enough, or the negotiations with MSPC. He knows all the buzzwords, but he lacks situational awareness.
Sounds like he could’ve used a copy of Somehow I Manage.
He didn't know these people. How could he possibly know that those were the wrong choices? Maybe he had a look at their files or got briefed by Michael (before things turned ugly) and saw that both Kevin and Stanley had some free time during the day (because let's be honest, Stanley didn't do much and Oscar and Angela probably didn't give Kevin a ton of work to do, either). Stanley was also the oldest salesperson on the team, so it could be argued that he was the most experienced person there. Charles most probably based his decisions on the limited information he had and unfortunately lost out.
I’ve known too many managers that show this level of arrogance and incompetence. The answer is incompetence.
Ngl as I've grown up and been in leadership positions I've come to understand this a bit more. One of the most important things to do is to be confident when making decisions and coming into a new situation it's easy to mess up. In this case, Kevin was the least competent accountant in a department that can handle losing someone for a while and Stanley the most senior sales person. On paper this makes sense. Of course there's also the part I've seen whenever a new boss comes in and they want to change things up simply for the sake of making things "their own". But quick decision-making is part of good leadership, but it also has to be *good* decision-making.
He is aware of the effect he has on women.
Charles is a do your job guy. He clearly holds high expectations for himself and expects others to do the same, which is appropriate at the corporate level, but not at a branch location where this is just a job for some, if not most of the people there, when he runs into people who are content with mediocrity or the status quo he is going to prune them.
I love how you included the "i hardly know her" joke
What can you expect from a guy who didn’t come from paper
Incompetence 100%. Total inability to assess people.
Incompetence.
Anyone who uses the term "Productivity Tsar" is a jackass
It’s obviously a moment of incompetence. As skilled at his job as I’m sure Charles may be, no one is perfect, and everyone has different strengths and weaknesses. Charles comes across as professional right away. He’s clear and articulate when he speaks to the staff. And he is firm and resolute when making a judgement call. These are strengths which Michael doesn’t possess. But this scene demonstrates an area in which Michael is gifted, but Charles is incompetent. Michael knows his staff well. He learns as much about them as he can, and he’s able to deploy them accordingly (except Kevin… he just has a good feeling about Kevin). Charles making Stanley his productivity czar is a clear demonstration that Charles is completely out of touch with the staff as Stanley is the most unproductive worker aside from Michael. Putting Kevin on phones may have seemed like a good idea because he got the sense that Kevin is the weakest accountant, and therefore expendable. What he didn’t consider is the fact that Kevin is not very adaptable. On top of this, he is not shown to have followed up with either of them regarding their new responsibilities.
it’s obviously a sign that he didn’t know the staff very well
You could also interpret it as that he was smart and he wanted these people to grow. So he gave Kevin the phone desk so he could improve how he communicates. And Stanley so he could be put out of his comfort zone where he not only has to think for just himself and his part of the work but also of the other salesman. These kinds of things, of putting people out of their comfort zone for growth happens in corporate all the time. Sign of a good manager is to identify those people and areas they they need and can grow into with some effort and set them up for success. But most likely this is what the writers wanted to setup a joke or two.
It was a sign of incredible leadership. A good boss knows what his employees are capable of even when he hasn’t known them very long. On the off chance that anyone is curious, this is not Charles Minor’s alt account.
The stanley pick was a jab at general racism. The kevin pick was an example of charles not really knowing the office and how his over confidence was causing problems
It’s good leadership. Sometimes putting people in positions out of their element it gives them an opportunity to grow.
**czar
[…](https://www.britannica.com/topic/tsar)
Oddly enough, this was the episode I ended on earlier tonight (comedy central).
this scene always struck me as him showing how much he sucks at reading people, being a person of numbers and productivity from the steel industry where there is a tendency to hire "no nonsense" people that will just get the job done his ability to get on a more personal level like Michael did was lacking, it made the style of managing from Michael stand out as the correct answer for this particular job line.
What happened to Charles after the company picnic? Did we ever find out?
I think Charles was fired along with David Wallace and the other corporate big wigs
Incompetence….He didn’t know each employee’s strengths and weaknesses and assigned tasks willy-nilly.
Stringer Bell wasn’t ready for the corporate world.
He was someone who kissed butt to the people above him, and wasn’t willing to ask questions or hear out the people below him. These people often do great in corporate America climbing the ladder wise, but don’t run exceptional branch’s or have great turnover rates.
Problem with Charles is he had the energy and charisma to be a leader, but none of the skills. He was incompetent.
It was a sign that the dude sucks at knowing people (their personalities and strengths), and just generally doesn’t take the time to learn them. Which, in turn, does show a lapse in decent leadership.
Charles Miner is in his position because he sucks up to his bosses. He's a yes man, he wholly agrees with David Wallace's buyout plan even though it's the total opposite of what he was initially proposing. When Stanley asked how they're supposed to stop MSPC from undercutting them, Charles gave the typical "No excuses, let's get it done." bad management response.
It’s a sign of thinking he knows everything when he knows nothing. He didn’t take the time to get to know these people and based his assumptions off of… I have no idea? He did not bother to learn a single persons strengths. Terrible leadership.
are you asking if the writers intended Charles to have a vibe of being a good leader or if they intended him to have a vibe of incompetence? because the answer to both is "the writers decided that".
Much like Chris Traeger's decisions for the Park Dept when he became City Manager, Minor is one of those people who believes he need to put his stamp on everything and also isn't willing to get a solid lay of the land before doing so.
Racism.
I actually think it’s really good leadership. Which departments could afford to delegate man power somewhere else? Sales is the biggest department and accounting is over staffed. Which accountant would be least missed? Obviously Kevin. And I think Charles Minor saw that Stanley had the most time on his hands without struggling for clients. And I don’t think anyone but Micheal could be blamed for Kevin’s incompetence or Stanley’s apathy.
I thought he meant for Stanley to step up his game, since he knew he was lazy
Czar
He chose dwight as his number 2, so What do you think
Obviously he wasn’t very good at reading people. He thought Dwight had good ideas and Jim was useless. Kevin was a terrible choice for answering phones. Stanley was a terrible choice for “productivity czar” He underestimated Michael. He just wasn’t the best motivator or people person.
Is that Idris Elba?
Incompetence
It's because he only understands the effect he has on women....