Profiles in Dunder-Mifflin: Michael Scott

There is a concept in business called the Peter Principle. It states that people “rise to the level of their incompetence.” That is to say, people are promoted until they reach a level that they are not qualified for. It’s named for an author called Laurence Peter. Nobody knows who he is, and nobody is interested in learning who he is. Thus, we might as well call it the Michael Scott Principle at this point.

Michael Scott is perhaps the quintessential bad TV boss at this point. He may be the quintessential bad boss in pop culture at large. You certainly know him better than any of the titular horrible bosses from the movie Horrible Bosses. I defy you to name Colin Ferrell’s character.

There was nowhere else to start this series of essays about the characters from The Office than with Michael. Not just because he was the ostensible lead, even in a fairly egalitarian ensemble. Although, he was. He was the straw that stirred the drink. He was also, in a way that can only be described as impressive, the heart. The man was awful in many ways, but he was still the soul of both Dunder-Mifflin and the faux documentary that we all grew to love.

Michael, played to perfection by Steve Carell before he became a dramatic actor and celebrated silver fox, is an ignorant man. There is much he doesn’t know, but he carries himself with the confidence of a much smarter man. He has a savant-like quality for sales. His social awareness in all other aspects of life is marginal at best. Michael is petulant, he holds grudges, and he is not a man you think you would like. And yet, so many people do. And yet, his employees, those who he dreams of loving him, eventually come to do so.

Michael Scott

Some of that is because they changed the character as the show went on. Nobody could love the Michael Scott of season one. Not even Jan at her most self-destructive. Not just because of his hairdo, which could best be described as “Pat Riley if he combed his hair in a funhouse mirror.” He was too much like David Brent, his British equivalent. America was not capable of handling a major TV character on a sitcom that was so brutally oafish, so strikingly unlikeable. When Seinfeld dared to tell the viewers in its series finale that all along they had been watching awful people who were not to be redeemed, they got angry. Somehow, people weren’t able to make that buy in with Michael at first.

They would, though. Michael would be softened. He would turned into a desperate man in a world he doesn’t understand. He became sympathetic at times. There was a heart buried under there, and it showed more and more as the show went on. Also, he was hilarious. Carell’s performance was so perfect, and the character was so well-written.

The Office

The show was able to give Michael a happy ending, two times over. First, Michael, and Carell, got to say goodbye, and tears were shed. Then, he got to return in the series finale, as a man with a wife and children. The unlovable man who was a terrible boss had become a charming family man. Is it an argument that every person is capable of change and redemption? Or is it nothing more than a reflection of the fact fictional characters don’t have to do anything to change but to be rewritten on the page? My answer? One time Michael grilled his foot in a George Foreman. Who cares about anything else? Just appreciate the glory of Michael Scott. The questions will still be there.

About Chris Morgan

Internet gadabout

Check Also

INTERVIEW: Norwegian Collective The Factory

Hi guys, welcome to VENTS! How have you been? Thanks a lot! We feel great, …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.