**21st Century Luddites: Understanding Resistance to New Technologies**

**1.

Historical Roots and Misconceptions**
- The original Luddites (early 19th century England) were not anti-progress or anti-technology per se; they reacted against aggressive industrialists introducing job-replacing machinery without considering workers’ interests.

Their opposition arose from losing livelihoods, lack of dialogue, and unequal benefits from technological change.

- The myth of Ned Ludd, the movement’s figurehead, carries a sharper warning to elites than characters like Robin Hood—focusing on power, exploitation, and the right to fair participation in progress rather than just redistribution.

Modern Resistance to Technology**
- **Job Security & Economic Fears:** Similar to historic Luddites, modern workers may fear that automation and new tech can lead to job loss, wage stagnation, or reduced job quality.

- **Lack of Inclusion in Decision-Making:** When changes are implemented top-down or without sufficient consultation, employees may feel disregarded or powerless.

- **Workplace Culture & Norms:** Rapid technological change can disrupt established ways of working or cultural norms, leading to discomfort or perceived threats to one’s identity or status within the organization.

- **Generational Differences:** Gaps in technological familiarity and adaptability can create tension, with older workers sometimes feeling sidelined by trends they did not help shape and younger ones chafing against legacy processes.

- **Loss of Informal Learning & Community:** Especially post-pandemic, tech-enabled remote/hybrid work can weaken workplace camaraderie, informal mentorship, and learning—elements valued by many workers.

Emotional & Psychological Drivers**
- **Desire for Predictability and Respect:** Sudden changes can breed anxiety, and a lack of respect for accumulated expertise can lead to resistance.

**21st Century Luddites: Understanding Resistance to New Technologies**

**1.

Title:

Content: Brian Merchant, author: “Luddites are more dangerous to the rich than Robin Hood”

The Luddites have been a great historical resource. Any showy enemy of anything that looked like technological progress has been called a Luddite. Today with generative artificial intelligence and its critics, the word has been revived. The author and journalist Brian Merchant (Iowa City, USA, 1983) saw it coming and has written a book that reviews the Luddite revolt in England at the beginning of the 19th century and its similarities with current technologies: Blood in the Machine (Blood in the Machine, currently without a planned edition in Spanish) thus explores the origins of the current revolt against big technology.

Although the book has appeared in the midst of the AI hype, Merchant began his research a decade ago: “Uber was growing and it was beginning to be seen that it was having a hard impact on taxi drivers, I heard the term Luddite from the pro-Uber sector and wrote an article titled You don't understand anything about Luddites”. Now in his book he remembers that the Luddite revolt was a labor struggle, not anti-technology, at a time when unions were prohibited. In a conversation with EL PAÍS from his residence in Los Angeles, Merchant clarifies the historical impact of the Luddites and the possible similar struggles that are being played today in Silicon Valley.

1. The Luddites were not against progress

The labor revolt over the loss of rights was more important than the destruction of textile machines: “The biggest mistake about the Luddites is to say that they were against technology and progress,” says Merchant. “They were against certain technologies because they recognized the way in which they were going to be used in their context against them as workers. It was a labor movement, against poverty, not anti-technology. The British Government began to mold them in this way almost immediately, it was keen to mock the Luddites and present the argument that they were against progress. It is very similar to how today people in positions of power in technology companies accuse those who complain about poor working conditions. It's the same story for 200 years.”

The book quotes a phrase from historian Eric Hobsbawm that explains this stage: “It was collective bargaining through riots.” According to Merchant, this tactic in a workers' struggle was very powerful for two reasons: “First, it was symbolic because everyone understood that what they were destroying was not just a machine. It was also the specific machine used to transfer wealth from the workers to the employer. Second, it was useful because they destroyed the equipment that businessmen needed.”

2. Why Robin Hood is better accepted than Ned Ludd

Ned Ludd was a legendary character. No one knows for sure if he existed. It was the legend of a teenager who would have broken the first machines at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. In 1811, rebellious workers used his legendary name to sign letters and further scare: “Ludd probably never existed. But the incarnation of it would become a mascot, an organizational tool, a wink: a powerful 19th-century meme,” Merchant writes.

See also  The Commander of the Land Forces meets in Muscat a number of Omani military leaders

Ludd lived near Nottingham (United Kingdom), like another legendary figure who has been better treated by history. There must be a reason, says Merchant: “The Luddites organized a popular and powerful rebellion. People wrote popular songs about them. They were like Robin Hood. But it is interesting that Robin Hood has endured as a positive light, while the Luddites have not. He suggests that the myth of Ned Ludd is in some ways more dangerous to the elites and the wealthy than that of Robin Hood, which is a little more nebulous and open. The Luddites say: go ahead and break the machines of your oppression. Robin Hood says: steal from the rich and give to the poor. “I think that’s a little more tolerable.”

3. How are they similar to today's problems?

The background of the book is that the history of the Luddites is similar to what happens today in Silicon Valley, where a small group of corporations dominate new technologies. “The way technologies are developed has basically not changed. You have a handful of people with access to enough capital or political influence to be able to build a factory and use automation technologies. “Back then, the most aggressive owners didn’t ask anyone how to find a way to make this a win-win.”

Merchant has received criticism for equating the great businessmen of 19th century England with 21st century America. But there are details that he does not see that far away: “The technology development process is in some ways even more undemocratic today than then. There is this immense pool of capital available to Silicon Valley innovators through venture capital. Uber wasn't profitable for 10 years, but they had access to that capital. Did anyone really like that? Did it work for workers and delivery people? Nothing mattered, they just had more money and moved on.”

See also  Just the mystery

Historical Roots and Misconceptions**
- The original Luddites (early 19th century England) were not anti-progress or anti-technology per se; they reacted against aggressive industrialists introducing job-replacing machinery without considering workers’ interests.

Their opposition arose from losing livelihoods, lack of dialogue, and unequal benefits from technological change.

Title:

Content: Jump to

  1. Main content
  2. Search
  3. Account

Gen Z is sick and tired of their jobs

Young workers are now as disengaged as burned-out boomers

HOMEPAGE

Young workers may not possess the experience or wisdom of their older colleagues. But they've always had one advantage in the workplace: their enthusiasm. Unattached and kid-free, they're willing to burn the midnight oil. They have yet to grow bored or disgruntled. They're full of hopes and dreams — and the naivete to drink the company Kool-Aid. That's why they've traditionally been more involved in and excited about their jobs than their graying counterparts.

But since the pandemic hit, there's been a startling shift. From 2019 to 2022, according to Gallup surveys, the share of people under 35 who reported being engaged with their jobs dropped from 37% to 33% — the lowest level since 2011. At the same time, the share who reported being "actively disengaged" rose to 17% from 12%. This rise in workplace disenchantment has been so powerful that it has virtually eliminated the old-young engagement gap. Gen Zers and young millennials, in other words, have soured on work just as much as everyone else.

This is very bad for companies. Low engagement is linked to higher job turnover and reduced profits; Gallup estimates it costs the global economy $7.8 trillion a year in lost productivity. It's also bad for young workers. If they were simply stepping away from their jobs and finding fulfillment elsewhere, that might be OK. But it's far deeper than that.

If you drill down on the specific components of engagement measured by Gallup, you find that workers in their 20s and early 30s report a plummeting sense of:

      • feeling cared about
      • having someone who encourages their development
      • having opportunities to learn and grow
      • having a best friend at work
      • believing that their opinions count

All of this points to a single, troubling conclusion: Something about today's workplace is failing our youngest workers.

Why? No one knows for sure. But I have a few hypotheses — and a few ideas about what companies can do better, for both their young staffers and their own bottom lines. "If employees aren't engaged, there is likely something about the way their work is designed that's not optimal," says Caitlin Duffy, a research director at Gartner, a consulting firm. "If you can optimize that, then you'll be unlocking all of their potential — as opposed to constraining it by legacy assumptions or processes or things that just don't fit anymore."

First, the factors contributing to the growing workplace disgruntlement of younger generations:

1. Work from home

Jim Harter, the chief scientist for Gallup's workplace-management practice, thinks a big factor is the pandemic-era shift to remote and hybrid work. We might think of Gen Z as the most flexible generation, but as I reported last year, they're actually the least likely to prefer a fully remote schedule. Only 24% of those in their 20s want to work from home all full time, compared with 41% of those in their 50s and early 60s. Which makes sense: People straight out of school typically depend on work for their social lives more than older workers, and they want and need more mentorship and guidance from their managers and more-experienced colleagues. But as the five components I cited earlier indicate, young workers aren't getting that as much from remote and hybrid work. And as a result, work has gotten less fun and less educational for them.

2. The Slack effect

A lot of the tips I picked up as a cub reporter didn't come from formal instruction. It was often accidental, like when I overheard the older reporters sitting next to me debate the newsworthiness of their scoops with their editors. In a remote world, those opportunities have begun to disappear, as face-to-face conversations (which allow for educational eavesdropping) are replaced by Slack messages (which don't).

But the problem runs even deeper than that. In one study, researchers examined the effects of a hybrid schedule at a large company in China that randomly divided its staff into two groups: one that had the option to work from home twice a week, and another that had to come into the office all the time. In the hybrid group, the researchers found, workers sent more messages than their full-time office counterparts — even on days they were actually in the office. Once you start using digital messaging tools, as the pandemic forced so many of us to do, it becomes the preferred way of communicating, even when you're back in the office. We're all Slacking coworkers who sit 5 feet away, instead of going over to talk to them — and that's making it harder for early-career employees to learn by osmosis, even in an office.

3. Unclear norms and expectations

Something else that workers used to pick up informally were the norms and expectations that make up a company's culture. That's much harder to do in remote and hybrid settings, making the experience of joining a new organization more stressful for everyone. And the uncertainty is extra tough for those coming straight out of school, with little knowledge of any professional workplace. When Gartner asked people what was preventing them from going into the office, Gen Zers were more likely than other generations to cite social anxiety.

"It's understandable because in a hybrid world, they can't observe the norms that govern how other employees operate in that shared office space," Duffy says. "Not knowing the norms for the workplace, in terms of conduct or getting work done, can lead to increased anxiety. It also can lead to employees spending time on how to do the work, instead of doing the work itself."

4. Post-pandemic stress disorder

COVID was tough on all of us, but the forced isolation of the pandemic was especially harmful for young people. In June 2021, a McKinsey survey found, Gen Zers were 1.5 times as likely as the average respondent to say they were depressed or anxious. And the stresses of the pandemic come on top of a mental-health crisis among young people that predated COVID.

"I think people are trying to sweep the pandemic under the rug, but what we've all been through has consequences," says Lindsey Pollak, a consultant who is the author of "The Remix: How to Lead and Succeed in the Multigenerational Workplace." "People who had their education or the beginning of their career disrupted, it's going to take a while for them to recover from that."

So how do companies fix this? It's clear that CEOs across the US are aware of the problem. But many of them have resorted to a truly dumb solution: requiring everyone to return to the office. JPMorgan has been enforcing office attendance via badge swipes, and Meta accompanied its recent announcement of 10,000 layoffs with a thinly veiled threat that employees should "find more opportunities to work with your colleagues in person." Both companies cite their young employees as a primary motivation for getting everyone back to their cubicles.

Ironically, though, experts say that forcing young workers to return to the office will only make things worse. Data from Gartner suggests companies that make office attendance optional have a 10% higher engagement rate among Gen Zers than those that require it. And 65% say that their willingness to stay in their jobs hinges partly on whether they can work flexibly. Gallup has also seen some of the biggest drops in engagement among employees who are required to come into the office even though their jobs can be performed remotely. Remote work might pose challenges for young workers, but many of them still prefer a hybrid schedule of their own choosing — and stripping them of that option isn't exactly a recipe for boosting engagement.

"Rigid return-to-office requirements are a big mistake," says Duffy, the Gartner researcher. "We tend to see that actually decreases performance and intent to stay and increases fatigue."

So how can companies raise the engagement of their youngest employees? Here are four suggestions, based on my conversations with the experts:

1. Make coming into the office worthwhile

When it comes to engagement, carrots work better than sticks. The fact that so many people aren't going in to the office says more about the office than it does about them. To boost attendance, companies need to improve the office experience. Reorganize the workplace to create more space for people to collaborate and socialize. Organize more happy hours. Pay for parking and subway fares. Allow people to arrive later, and leave earlier, to avoid rush-hour commutes. In short, inspire people of all ages to work in the office because they actually want to — and help facilitate the social interactions and mentorship that young people are otherwise missing.

2. Spell everything out

Remember that thing about work from home making it harder to pick up on workplace norms and expectations? There's a pretty simple solution to that: Spell them out. When is it OK to decline a meeting invitation? Are you expected to respond to emails on a Saturday night? How polished does a first draft of a memo need to be? Pollak, the consultant, told me about a client who complained that their Gen Z employees were "abusing" the company's vacation policy. When Pollak asked what the policy was, the client said it was to take "a reasonable amount" of time off. In a workplace composed only of old white men, that kind of ambiguity might fly — but not in one with a mix of generations (as well as genders and races and cultural backgrounds) who have different interpretations of what "reasonable" means. "You can't make those assumptions anymore," Pollak says. "It's about clarity and avoiding assumptions."

3. Meaningful 1:1s

Harter, the Gallup researcher, has his own advice for companies: Nurture better managers. As I recently reported, many businesses are running in the opposite direction, getting rid of their middle managers. But these are the very people who can help young workers feel more seen and motivated in their jobs. Sure, the transition to remote and hybrid work has obliterated the old method of management — bumping into employees by the coffee machine and asking about their weekend. But even from a distance, it's still possible for managers to learn what motivates their employees, stay in tune with their ups and downs, and step in early when they start to struggle. Managers just have to be intentional about it — setting up weekly one-on-ones — instead of depending on accidental run-ins at the office. The low engagement of young employees isn't so much about remote work as it is about "how managers are managing them in this new world of work," Harter says. "Whether managers give employees meaningful feedback once a week has multiples more importance than where people are sitting."

4. Give employees a say

I'm generally skeptical of generational differences, but one thing that's struck me about my Gen Z colleagues is how outspoken they are compared with the way I was in my early 20s. (I'm 36, which, for the purposes of this story, makes me old.) Pollak ascribes this to Gen Z growing up with social media. "They're more self-empowered to have a voice," she says. In the old days, she continues, "you would've had to write a letter to the editor or an op-ed to have a national or global voice — now you just have to send a tweet." Companies would do well to keep that in mind, creating opportunities for employees — especially younger ones — to voice their opinions, ask questions, and provide input on all aspects of the business. Senior executives should host frequent all-hands meetings, and HR departments should conduct regular employee surveys. The catch is, executives actually have to listen to the feedback, answer the questions, and take action as a result. Otherwise it's just for show, and engagement will continue to suffer.

I imagine that CEOs, most of whom are baby boomers and Gen Xers, might lodge two objections to my suggestions. The first is: We can't just favor Gen Z.

I'm not suggesting that managers record TikTok dances or use more emojis. (Just to spell out the cultural expectations here: please don't.) My suggestions are targeted to shore up engagement among young workers, but they'd actually be good for everyone. Spelling out workplace norms, for instance, wouldn't just help befuddled 22-year-olds but would also help all the women and people of color and recent immigrants who are currently forced to guess the unwritten rules — and then second-guess those guesses when they don't get the results they hoped.

The second objection I can imagine is: Well, that's a lot of work. Which is true — doing all these things right isn't easy. It's hard for a big, entrenched company to change its ways. So far, though, executives are mostly reverting to their tired old playbooks, like forcing their staff to come back to the office. And when that hasn't worked, they complain that young people are lazy and don't want to work anymore.

They can't see that what worked before just won't work today. The plummeting engagement among young workers, traditionally the most enthusiastic and energetic, is a cry for help — a sign that employers need to find new ways to involve, motivate, mentor, and inspire a new generation of employees. If CEOs are unwilling to do the hard work of adapting their organizations to the new world shaped by the pandemic, it's not their Gen Z and millennial staff who are lazy — it's them.

Aki Ito is a senior correspondent at Insider.

About Discourse Stories

Through our Discourse journalism, Insider seeks to explore and illuminate the day’s most fascinating issues and ideas. Our writers provide thought-provoking perspectives, informed by analysis, reporting, and expertise. Read more Discourse stories here.

Read next

gen z Millennials Employee Engagement

- The myth of Ned Ludd, the movement’s figurehead, carries a sharper warning to elites than characters like Robin Hood—focusing on power, exploitation, and the right to fair participation in progress rather than just redistribution.

Modern Resistance to Technology**
- **Job Security & Economic Fears:** Similar to historic Luddites, modern workers may fear that automation and new tech can lead to job loss, wage stagnation, or reduced job quality.

- **Lack of Inclusion in Decision-Making:** When changes are implemented top-down or without sufficient consultation, employees may feel disregarded or powerless.

- **Workplace Culture & Norms:** Rapid technological change can disrupt established ways of working or cultural norms, leading to discomfort or perceived threats to one’s identity or status within the organization.

- **Generational Differences:** Gaps in technological familiarity and adaptability can create tension, with older workers sometimes feeling sidelined by trends they did not help shape and younger ones chafing against legacy processes.

- **Loss of Informal Learning & Community:** Especially post-pandemic, tech-enabled remote/hybrid work can weaken workplace camaraderie, informal mentorship, and learning—elements valued by many workers.

Emotional & Psychological Drivers**
- **Desire for Predictability and Respect:** Sudden changes can breed anxiety, and a lack of respect for accumulated expertise can lead to resistance.

Title:

Content: advertisement
advertisement
  • 8:45 am

A Harvard career adviser explains how managers can bridge the Gen-Z generation gap at work

Young people entering the workforce in the 2020s aren’t different, but their circumstances are.

[Source Photo: Nile Scott Studios]

Gen Z is still young, but this demographic cohort has already weathered a global pandemic, rampant inflation, and the ever-present rise of climate change. The oldest among them have had to enter their first jobs while the world was adjusting to remote work and the ramifications of COVID-19, not to mention endless worker shortages, a youth mental health crisis, and unprecedented levels of workplace burnout.

advertisement
advertisement

Fast Company recently spoke with Gorick Ng, author of The Unspoken Rules: Secrets to Starting Your Career Off Right, about the Gen-Z workforce, typically defined as people born between 1995 and 2010. Ng also works as a career advisor at Harvard, specializing in first-generation and low-income students. Ng has spoken to thousands of Gen-Zers and employers. He shared with us his insights on what Gen Z is facing at work and how both Gen-Zers and managers can bridge the generational gap.

Fast Company: What attributes make Gen Z unique in the workforce?

Gorick Ng: To begin with, whenever we hear about the term ‘generational differences,’ we’re inclined to talk about differences instead of what we have in common. What research has shown time and time again is that young people today aren’t that different from the young people yesterday. What we’re talking about is the difference in perspective of someone in their twenties versus their sixties. What Gen Z wants is not that different from other generations.

advertisement
advertisement

That said, they are shining a light on the importance of diversity and not afraid to vote with their feet. I’ve spoken to a number of Gen Z who say that before they walk into an interview or sign a job offer, they look at a company’s leadership page to see if anyone else looks like them. If the answer is no, they are tempted to look elsewhere.

FC: What kinds of generational gaps is Gen Z facing in the workplace given the context of the pandemic?

GN: What I see is the rift between what is expected and what is taught in school has widened. I’ve visited high school and university classrooms during the pandemic and seen the instructor teaching to a wall of black backgrounds with names—and who knows what’s going on off camera? Are the kids sideways or in their pajamas? I was talking to one law firm where every intern starts in the mail room and three of the 10 are then hired on. The mailroom is a test of your competence, commitment, and compatibility: If you can be trusted in the mailroom, you can be trusted with more. But the interns didn’t realize that, and people working remotely didn’t realize that. One showed up to a Zoom meeting in their pjs lying down. The higher ups were thinking, what makes you think that’s acceptable? But this is also how the interns approached school, and if you don’t have a parent or mentor to explain what the expectations are, you don’t know any better.

advertisement

The pandemic really damaged the infrastructure for teaching the cultural norms of an institution. When students came back to Harvard, staff realized over half of the student population has been educated remotely and doesn’t know what the Harvard experience is. We can see that in the workplace too. I’ve seen organizations that have had so much turnover during pandemic that those who know what the culture was prior to the pandemic are outnumbered by those who don’t know—and those who know are very senior.

FC: What should organizations do in the face of this rift?

GN: I believe the organizations that will win out in the future are the ones who put talent first. In an era where worker well-being can be so transparently analyzed on websites like Glassdoor and Fishbowl and more, as well as social media, the companies that will win, have the best brands, most engaged workforce—are the ones who care about employees’ needs and wants.

advertisement

When I survey students on what they want from their careers, they overwhelmingly tell me they want financial stability and work/life balance. Only about 2% of any student audience I survey wants to climb the corporate ladder.

FC: What is one tip you have for managing Gen Z?

GN: Ask for their feedback. Understand what motivates them. One of the most underrated conversations that I wish more managers would have is what are your goals, what brought you here, what would make this a more meaningful experience for you and where do you see yourself in the future? How can we craft an experience where we can build your career together?

advertisement

FC: On the flipside—I know you wrote a whole book about this—what advice do you have for Gen-Zers starting their first jobs?

GN: When I ask managers across industries and job types about their biggest complaint toward early-career hires, they often repeat the same word—”entitlement”—in the form of expecting to become CEO after merely showing up to work for two months.

On the flipside, I’ve talked to hundreds of mangers, leaders, and executives, and when I ask them what is the one characteristic that’s lacking in the workforce and can set someone apart, they say an ownership mindset. That means not just looking at a problem and assuming it’s someone else’s but looking at it and saying, Hey, what can I do? It speaks to a mindset we’re not taught in school.

advertisement

School is about keeping up. Work is about stepping up. It means removing the word ‘just’ from your vocabulary. You might ‘just’ be an intern, but you were hired to help the team achieve its goals. You might have been asked to clean up the spreadsheet, but your mandate is to provide insights that makes the team say wow. If you are ‘just’ sending emails, your mandate might be closing a sale. If you are ‘just’ editing a blog post, your mandate is to sell an idea. Think, why am I being asked to do this? What’s the broader objective? Figuring out what matters to those who matter can really separate those who are just clocking hours to someone who will be a future employee.

Moreover, you can align yourself with work that matters. The more your work matters the more you matter to the organization. Managers often don’t delegate well, they toss work over the fence and expect you to figure it out—most people end up taking those instructions at face value and then getting stressed out when their work isn’t making an impact.

In school you learn by reading what’s assigned and listening to who is on stage. In the real world, you learn by googling, meeting people, and asking questions. In school it’s all about finding the right answer, which is in the back of the text book. In the real world, it’s not a matter of finding the right answer; it’s about giving a compelling argument.

advertisement
advertisement

Title:

Content: 🚗 🚙 Turn your trusty old car into trustworthy journalism Learn more
Zipporah Films
"The Store"

Neiman Marcus was kinda culty — is that a bad thing?

Tony Wagner Jan 22, 2024
Zipporah Films

In January, we’re watching Frederick Wiseman’s 1983 documentary “The Store,” about Neiman Marcus’ flagship location and headquarters in Dallas. The movie is available to stream on Kanopy for some library card holders. You can also purchase a DVD on Wiseman’s website. It may also be available to borrow from your local library.

From its opening moments, “The Store” is equal parts cozy and unnerving.

As Frederick Wiseman’s camera captures the 1982 holiday hustle and bustle at Neiman Marcus’ flagship store in Dallas, we hear an executive at the retailer’s nearby headquarters addressing the troops.

“There’s really one purpose to our being at Neiman Marcus, one grand purpose, and that’s to make sales, because it’s an institution created to make sales,” he tells a blank-faced boardroom. “If we don’t encourage that, if we don’t eat and sleep that as a purpose, then we’re defeating our purpose.”

It’s not the last time we see Neiman employees proselytize to each other. Merchandisers talk up the latest underwear to assembled sales clerks; a sales clerk monologues about her passion for the store during a job interview at corporate; a roomful of corporate execs discuss how they can command a room by revealing what they do for a living.

It’s all a bit … cultish. As the credits rolled, we knew we had to call Amanda Montell. She wrote the book on “the language of fanaticism” and hosts the podcast “Sounds Like a Cult,” so we wanted to get her reaction to that opening scene.

“Anyone who manages a team, you have to remind them of their mission in order to keep up their energy,” Montell said. “There’s almost like a Pentecostal pastor’s lilt to that, and it’s still impactful. Because then we feel taken care of. We’re like, ‘Oh, all these other problems that I thought I had here in the workplace, they don’t matter because this very confident, eloquent, like, work daddy is telling me that I’m exactly where I’m supposed to be.’”

Montell’s new book, “The Age of Magical Overthinking,” is out April 9. She talked with Marketplace right before the pandemic about signs your workplace is culty, and she got back on the phone with us last week to discuss how the cult of work has evolved in the past four years and four decades since “The Store.” This interview has been edited.

A lot of your work is about disentangling culty language, behavior and aesthetics. Are cults really all around us? And are they always malignant?

As soon as the word “cult” landed in everyday American vocabularies, it came to represent certain subcultures, and that sort of haziness surrounding the word has only continued, as the haziness around the ways we find belonging and community and connection have become more nebulous and more fanatical. Cultishness pervades all sorts of spaces, including corporate environments, brands, retail spaces, and that’s especially true as America becomes less traditionally religious, but no less spiritual, no less mystical, no less ritualistic, no less communal.

We all recognize that sort of, like, 70s cult iconography that’s present documentaries about the Rajneeshpuram or the movie “Midsommar.” But you know, having a group of people all dressed in white, wearing flower crowns and chanting isn’t inherently dangerous. And a lot of the cult-like exploitation that actually results in trauma and death in worst-case scenarios, that’s not necessarily connected to that iconography. You can have a group that looks really, really culty, but it’s actually not that dangerous. You could have a group that looks like a bunch of three-piece suits in a boardroom who are actually enacting great harm. These are the gray areas surrounding the word “cult” that I like to operate in.

How can you tell if a job has become cultish?

So what makes a workplace culty, is, I think, a lack of boundaries between what your job offers you and what your life and sense of purpose offer you. It wasn’t really until the ’80s with the human potential movement and entrepreneurial workshops, these, like, career-growth movements, that your job and your fundamental sense of worth as a human being became so conflated. Since then, it’s really become difficult to disentangle how you value yourself, how you perceive your life’s purpose and sense of meaning with what you do at your job. I cannot personally disentangle the two, no matter how hard I try. And I think that has a lot to do with the way that the American dream messaging has been shifted since the ’80s.

Who benefits when a workplace is culty?

Higher-ups know that if they’re able to imbue their employees with not just the knowledge that they’ll be making money here, and that they’ll have security, but that they will find something more transcendent here, they’re going to be much more likely to stay. And you can push the envelope really, really far before they’ll leave, as long as that sense of community and belonging and meaning is wrapped up in it. But also, consumers benefit. So many of these cult-like companies, from Amazon to Trader Joe’s to Glossier — that energy on the corporate side extends to the consumer side. Because consumers, especially now, they want their product to say something about them. They want their lipstick to say, “Not only do I have red lips, but, like, I am an ethical, conscious, cool, literate, whatever person who is living a good life.”

The end of “The Store” focuses on Stanley Marcus, the scion of the Neiman Marcus founders, former president and chairman of the company. By then, he had stepped down, but even another decade after that he was in his 80s declaring “selling is my religion.” Does a company need that kind of true believer at the top to amass a cult?

I think it makes a big difference. When I think of cult brands, either the figurehead is known to all consumers or they’re just known to those on the inside, but their image, their rhetoric, their attitude sets the tone. And much like a real cult, when that person either steps down, is canceled, goes away somehow, the brand’s cult following dims. Glossier is a good example: Emily Weiss is not really a forward-facing part of that brand anymore, and the fanaticism and fury has sort of softened compared to where it was when that first launched.

The pandemic changed a lot of people’s relationship with work. Do you think workplaces have become more or less culty in the past four years?

I think it’s changed. People are becoming wiser to the nefarious premise that you should have no boundaries, and your work should be your entire purpose in your life. I wrote a piece recently for Harper’s Bazaar about the rise of therapy-speak in the workplace. I think as conversations about mental health, and therapy, and boundaries are becoming more present and mainstream, people are indeed setting those boundaries with their bosses and recognizing when a boss has transgressed. Now, recognizing when a boss has transgressed and getting out from under their clutches are two different things. I do think that bosses are having to accommodate the mental health needs of the current day. But I learned writing that piece that there are plenty of cult-like bosses who then just learn how to weaponize the therapy-speak and make you feel like you’re, you’re really held and you’re really validated, but at the same time they’re treating you the same. Similarly, they’re getting in front of the narrative with that therapy-speak, and they’re almost treating the company itself as a living, breathing thing whose mental health needs to be cared for. In any workplace, I think it’s healthy to bring a certain sense of suspicion to any language that you can’t on its face understand.

There’s a lot happening in the world.  Through it all, Marketplace is here for you.

You rely on Marketplace to break down the world’s events and tell you how it affects you in a fact-based, approachable way. We rely on your financial support to keep making that possible.

Your donation today powers the independent journalism that you rely on. For just $5/month, you can help sustain Marketplace so we can keep reporting on the things that matter to you.