Win at work, watch Survivor
A few years ago my brother introduced me to a podcast called Again With This: Beverly Hills, 90210. Two ladies get together and talk about a television show I watched religiously during my college years (and obsessively after I graduated).
I was way behind on their recaps so I would listen to that show hours at a time, laughing and enjoying the ability to revisit something that meant so much to me, and them. I loved the banter between hosts Tara and Sarah (I listened enough to refer to them by their first names). I thought they were funny, super creative, and likely in my age range. Because of that, I was often shocked at how differently I perceived shows and characters.
They covered topics I didn’t consider influences or motivators of favoritism. I liked Brandon, because he was the good guy. I liked David, because he loved Donna. Steve’s colossal goofs were tiresome, but I knew deep down friendship meant so much to him that he was worth liking.
My friends Tara and Sarah couldn’t like David because his pants were too big. They hated Brandon because the writers set him up to be the good guy — not because he was. Those two peeled back so many layers that proved character irony and conflict, I ultimately regretted my favor for the favorite child.
But overall, they entertained me and taught me to never consider a job as a television show critic. Additionally, they introduced me to Linda Holmes, mentioning her randomly from work they did together in the early days of online television critiques. I’m not sure if they told me or I ended up searching but somehow I discovered that Holmes hosted a podcast on NPR called Pop Culture Happy Hour (PCHH).
This show too was super entertaining. A music guy, a comic book guy, a guest and a genius all sit around and talk about why something new in pop culture is good, or bad. Most of the talkers are my age so I considered them my source for what to watch.
They talked for an hour, ending with what was making them happy that week — providing me with plenty to consider reading, watching or doing (if I played video games). They’ve switched formats, going to shorter episodes and airing twice a week, and my interest waned. They also somehow didn’t know about the show Ozark and that led me to question if they are really giving listeners what they like, or what they like about what they’ve been told to discuss. That discrepancy has me listening less and just catching up on the good stuff with their weekly newsletter.
However, this week they discussed the show Survivor and I had to give it a listen. Linda ends each show asking listeners to share what we think about what they think and because I thought so differently than them, I’ll share.
Linda and her colleague Stephen recap the ways the show has evolved, the good and the bad, laugh at the idea that Survivor is somehow a microcosm of society, and admit that they both like social skills and strategy over immunity challenges. Additionally, they think Jeff Probst, the show’s host, is too involved and as a result, influences what happens.
Stephen indicates he thinks the TV series has lasted as long as it has because they have come up with a “really great sport.” But also during the podcast he says, “I am interested in great strategy and great social play and I really don’t care about your bitter speech [commonly done by a loser during the final episode] and I really don’t care about how good you are in immunity challenges.”
So the show has lasted 40 seasons because it’s a great sport, but he doesn’t care about the sports element (challenges) and the folks who win those challenges. Got it.
Linda says about Probst, “He’s a big fan of your challenge beasts. He’s a big fan of your Alphas…He always wants the challenge beast to win over the like, intellectual. I also think he doesn’t care about women contestants typically unless they’re like of a very certain particular type.”
I’ve noticed Probst liking players on the show, but I’ve never noticed him dismissing females. I’ve also not picked up on him favoring challenge beasts, but maybe that’s because I favor them too.
Still — if the show, according to Stephen, is won by players who combine elements of challenge strength, social skills and strategy, how is that not a microcosm of life? Why is that comparison laughable?
Survivor is a great show for someone like me because I like to multitask. In 2009 I posted to Facebook, “I can’t remember the last time I watched television without a laptop in my lap.” It’s 11 years later and that hasn’t changed. With Survivor, I watch during the challenges, tune out the scripted drama, and watch the tribal council, where plenty of drama unfolds.
I finish a season happy or sad with the winner, but typically don’t remember the winner’s name by the time the next season starts. And I still love the show.
I like it because of the challenges and I like it because I think it mimics life. If a work week goes by that I don’t feel like I was on the longest episode of Survivor, I probably was on vacation.
Stephen shared he liked players who are “softer” and don’t spend an entire season bragging about themselves. Those players are my least favorite too. But in real life, aren’t they the players who win?
I’ve had a lot of colleagues at work who were great at their job. The ones who moved on/up were the ones who were able to promote (brag about) the excellent work they do. Additionally, I’m sure at some point in their career everyone’s heard, “it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.” Survivor proves, season after season, that being good at one thing isn’t enough. You have to have others on your side in order to win.
Every Wednesday we have a show providing a blueprint to individual success at work. It doesn’t mean everyone can do it, but at least we can see how to do it. Be great at challenges (work tasks), be strong socially, and align ourselves strategically in order to get a raise or promotion (win the game).
