Hacker News Reader

Comment by J-dawg | Hacker News Reader

The article misses one possibility, which I suspect is actually the most likely: The underperformer knows they're underperforming, but it's in their best interests never to admit it.

I know because I've been there. I was underperforming and I'm also naturally very self-critical. So in reviews etc I'd be very open about my weaknesses and the need to improve.

In corporate culture there is nothing to gain from self-awareness. You've just handed your manager an invitation to use you as a scapegoat (see @czep's comment), to leave you out of pay rises and give you crappy tasks.

There's everything to gain from being permanently confident and upbeat about your abilities. Then your manager may A) be fooled by the act and think you're a great performer or B) figure out that you're struggling - but then you're in no worse a position than you would've been by being downbeat in the first place.

View on HN

You should read the "Gervais Principle" https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

I've tried to read this about 3 times and can't understand it. Could you ELI5 it?

There are 3 kinds of people: Sociopaths, Clueless, and Losers. Sociopaths are the higher level managers, generally, Clueless are the middle managers, and Losers are the low level workers. Clueless want to be higher level managers, but lack the ability to act like a high level manager and only imitate. These people are generally picked out for promotions by Sociopaths because of their willingness to do what they want, but also because they are promoted to their level of incompetence. Losers on the other hand know the gig or don't care, so are passed on by and stay where they are, basically "losing" the corporate game.

That's basically the gist of it.

Not sure why you are downvoted, that’s a pretty good precis.

Probably people not reading the context of the comment.

This ELI5 is actually not a good summary, the article is way more nuanced than this simplistic summary would suggest.

In an effective organisation middle managers are not incompetent rather they are clueless , they entangle their destiny with the organisation's believing falsely that working towards the betterment of the company would be good for their personal careers. They are actually competent, but very gullible to being tricked into by sociopaths (the upper management) for their own gains.

The higher up executives are in fact the least concerned about the organisation, this makes them take bold risks and start new initiatives (which some times succeed, but mostly are a power grab) to further their own goals of power and leadership. They also carefully select the middle management for avoiding blame and responsibility.

At the bottom are losers, some of these are wannabe sociopaths , they effectively spend all their time towards finding opportunities that put them ahead and some of them are dedicated losers who work hard and are setting themselves up for being used as pawns by higher ups.

The rest are either doing just enough to stay in the loop knowing well how the game works or are failing to do even the basics and end up getting fired.

Thanks but I still don't get it. "Bosses are jerks, middle managers are clueless sycophants, and workers are chumps." That does sound like a TV sitcom view of the world.

The point the author tries to makes is that the TV sitcom mirrors real life. Now whenever you agree or not is up to you.

It's the good observation that there are owners, labour and managers between the two, because owners don't want to manage the labour. The book just explains how exactly this manifests in the corporate world. And it's a really good book, btw.

The article deserves a good reading especially the middle part (look at the many comments in the article to understand different perspectives).

Gist of it is

People who are focused on doing good work and performing well in an effective organisation are promoted to serve the goals of personal power and authority by higher ups. They are deluded into being loyal to the organisation so that more and more work is extracted from workers below. Effectively rendered clueless.

While the enlightened ones at the bottom either just coast along to pay their bills or look for opportunities to seize power and take control while those working hard have less time for thinking about such plans because they are busy doing real work.

The central premise of the article is that this is the most effective way to manage most organisations.

Thanks for sharing this, I'm at the start of my career and reading this definitely makes me less clueless than before. I have a very idealized world view and this reading shattered that quite a bit.

This is another similarly interesting read https://www.spakhm.com/p/how-to-get-promoted

This one is excellent! I'm going to save it and re-read it regularly

Reply on news.ycombinator.com