The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
ribbonfarm.com
ribbonfarm.com
"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":
First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.
Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.
The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization."
It examines a particularly democratic union which seemed unusually able to withstand degeneration into an oligarchy.
The thing about the Iron Rule (which I agree with) is that it appears in online forums too. In placaes like Wikipedia, Stack Overflow and various forums the community divides into three groups:
1. Content creators: those who past and answer questions, etc;
2. Moderators: those who write and enforce rules and standards; and
3. Lurkers: those who simply read.
The second group, while useful, has to constantly be kept in check. No matter how originally (and concurrently) well-intentioned, there will always be a tendency to create and enforce more rules to solve perceived and actual "problems".
I'd be interested to know what psychology drives people to join the moderator camp.
In well-policed communities where moderators actively listen to users, or where people feel reporting and flagging mechanisms work, I would imagine people generally feel empowered enough that they are satisfied remaining a regular user.
I don't think many moderators seek to expand their rulesets, as it really just becomes additional (often free) work for them. Increasing and enforcing more rules is a cost that is only worth bearing when what isn't being actioned is causing enough damage to warrant the additional work.
> 1. Content creators: those who past and answer questions, etc;
> 2. Moderators: those who write and enforce rules and standards; and
Not that simple, especially on Wikipedia. Often but not always, the initial reputation of "moderators" is gained by being a "prolific contributor". Even after becoming a moderator, it's still common for one to continue contributing high-quality content. This system is commonly described as a "meritocracy" but not without vocal critics (on whether it's a true "meritocracy", and on whether "meritocracy" is a good system).
This creates a lot of complications. From my experience, many of the most toxic Wikipedia political struggles arise as a result of the conflicts between:
1. One's opinion about the subject in the article.
2. One's opinion about the quality of the article itself.
3. One's opinion about the editorial policy that is supposed to be applied to the article.
4. One's opinion about another editor as a person.
5. One's opinion about another editor's opinion on (2), (3), and (4).
I think the same thing happens in free and open source software projects as well.
I genuinely wonder what would be the outcome in an alternative system of which moderators are purely neutral observers and do not particulate or contribute content themselves, and what are the advantages and disadvantages in both systems.
I expect that the benefit is: reduced personal attachment on particular issues, and that would be helpful on reducing unnecessary conflicts. However, no personal attachment also means there's no personal motivation on actually solving the problems.
> When the Director of the CDC asserts an opinion, she has to optimize for two things - being right, and keeping power. If she doesn't optimize for the second, she gets replaced as CDC Director by someone who does. That means she's trying to solve a harder problem than Zvi is, and it makes sense that sometimes, despite having more resources than Zvi, she does worse at it.
It seems to me like the issue is actually in rent-seeking, where the more rent-seeking you have available, the more the marginal mistake person converts into a conflict person. In a world of perfect competition there would be no room for conflicts, and only once you have freely available rents does the land-grabbing phase begin. When your rules are written by the conflicters, for the conflicters benefit, it's already to late. They'll certainly never compromise on the simple correct path.
[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
[1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-...
Dilbert is a hand drawn comic so it will never have the media reach of TV. It also tends to focus more on the details of the bureaucratic brokenness for people to laugh rather than cry at in daily life.
The office is syndicated TV with a new episode every week. It simply has high rewatch value. The broken office bureaucracy is used as a plot device rather than the focus of the show. The show focuses on characters and how they react to work life which keeps the show more funny than sad.
I would argue that Office Space actually was more effective than both of these other two. It was a one off movie from over 20 years ago that people across age groups still regularly reference. You can only watch a movie so many times. There is not much opportunity for syndication or binge watching. After you watch it 20 times 20 years ago it kind of drops out of the yearly zeitgeist.
Oddly coincidental timing?
Sounds like they just don't enjoy it.
> I’ll be basing this entire article on the American version of the show, which is more fully developed than the original British version, though the original is perhaps more satisfyingly bleak.
But Adams left (and I left) and, for the most part, Dilbert ended up mostly stuck in a 90s cubicle time warp notwithstanding some zingers about cloud from time to time. (Some of which hit amusingly close to home as the consultant I was later.)
This was made obvious during COVID lockdowns to me. He had a lot of trouble addressing it in a way that felt as original and genuine as I was used to from the strip.
When you're actually living something, there are a ton of happenings which you can file the serial numbers off, exaggerate a little (or not), and things pretty much write themselves.
btw avoid Clerks III, it's unwatchable
But over the years, I have observed— multiple times—obviously talented people who have been slogging for a shitty company for years. It takes them forever to realize they are wasting their time and have to take some action. Some never realize, too.
Usually, they are people who have been promoted by the organization. They were early employees. They believed in the vision and found it hard to lose hope that things might change. The "Clueless" as the article notes.
But there can be an easier explanation as well. Partly, it's also sunk-cost bias. It's possible they do recognize the terrible place they are in. But find it incredibly hard to cut their losses. The organization can always dangle the carrot of "the turnaround is around the corner", "we will promote you soon", "the team depends on you".
A parallel is stock investing. I once invested in terrible company. Even though the deluge of bad news never stopped, it took me four years an my investment falling by 60% to admit that I need to admit I made a bad decision and sell my holdings.
The general concepts: some people act as capitalists, some people find meaning in their work and lose sight of the capitalistic nature of work, and some people find meaning outside of work and do so by doing the bare minimum at work and not playing the capitalist game, are valid archetypes, however.
In my opinion it works just as well, without any of the negativity or cynicism of the original Gervais article.
https://www.openculture.com/2017/04/pink-floyd-adapts-orwell...
> Orwell showed the effects of “undemocratic structures” by reducing individuals to animal types, and so does Waters, simplifying the classes further into three (and leaving out humans altogether): the ruling pigs, praetorian and aspiring capitalist dogs, and the sheep, the mindless masses.
Companies need to craft very enticing reasons to stay on as a 'Loser' (mostly via perks and pay) and even work harder to retain 'Clueless' since the latter is even more likely to leave and launch a startup being leadership focused. 'Sociopaths' are so few that they're easily gotten via acquisitions, or simply buy them.
Just a perspective =)
"The Gervais principle predicts the exact opposite: that the most competent ones will be promoted to middle management."
Ie, the competent losers become Clueless. Hence they're capable of jumping ship / or even starting a business if not for their 'delusional loyalty'. (My point being that lots of company brainwashing mentioned by OP attempts to groom Clueless thought patterns to prevent this flight of talent).
True that starting a company is a Sociopath trait in the writeup, but - this is far from an exact science as you correctly stated =)
(nonetheless this doc has caused many great debates over the years, for sure. Reasoning through lens of obsurdities can be fun)
If you believe that starting a company is a pure meritocracy based on how good you can build a product, you are almost by definition Clueless.
Overcoming that fear of failure and finding some Losers to help your new startup, according to the GP theory, I guess labels you as a Clueless turned Sociopath, but if you swap terms to 'Middle Manager turned CEO' I think it becomes more of an enabling perspective. (One reason I think the negative labels here can hurt folks' ambitions!!)
My take since then after numerous debates - there is merit hence the massive success of the Office series.
But in general it is a 'glass half empty' perspective. CEOs are often gifted, hard working, but also a bit lucky at times to be born into fortunate situations. Middle managers, are typically leadership-qualified but simply don't want to devote enough time for a CEO or startup founder role. And the rest- who generally do the 'real' work - are often there due to enjoying the work itself, and have even less interest than middle managers to devote time to climbing a ladder. (All of which are respectable positions)
The labels used in GP tend to give a bit more humor, and also attribute upward growth to negative qualities- so haters feel better about having to deal with folks who dont think like them - so it simultaneously appeals to each group!
Of course the more positive perspective is just as valid.
I would say it’s not just a time issue, but often their risk tolerance that keeps them in middle management. The “sociopaths” are willing to take huge (but calculated) risks to advance their goals.
So it's not necessarily like the writers aimed to create something along these lines, rather, what they created fits perfectly to this narrative. That's what makes reading good analyses so satisfying.
Most people just think that unless the artist "intended it", analysis is worthless.
It’s the same thing as Lord if the Rings fans trying to ascribe deeper value to the curve at which Frodo tosses his Lembas wrapper away and it signifying the same trajectory as Middle Earth is on.
Or The Wire / Breaking Bad fans digging way too deep for meaning.
To be clear, I deeply appreciate all three above-mentioned stories, and they do have lots of multi-layer symbology, but sometimes a thing is just a thing.
Personally, even if this is not from some deep intellectual tradition of management theory, it helped me see things that I'd been staring at my whole career without understanding. One way it changed my perspective is that it helped me realize that the loyalty of middle management strivers is real, the realest in the company. I used to assume that company rah-rah and loyalty rhetoric was meant to increase the performance and affordability of front-line workers, i.e., that the leaf node employees were the target, and middle management was the delivery mechanism. Middle management parroted loyalty rhetoric to their employees to show upper management that they were carrying out their plans in a capable way and could be perhaps trusted with a promotion.
But that never quite made sense. Inspirational company rhetoric is actively irritating to most employees. It's an odd misfit in the front lines of a large company who feels inspired by company boosterism, and they either learn to keep their enthusiasm under wraps, or they are disliked by their fellow workers, who embrace the Loser mentality. Since all the company rah-rah stuff seemed stupid and unproductive, my theory about why companies did it was that it was a peculiar blindness of the otherwise smart people who run companies. But now I realize that if you see middle management as the target, and front-line workers as collateral damage, the cult of loyalty makes a lot of sense. Looking at managers now, I can see that a lot of them buy into it on an emotional and intellectual level, and they believe that it will contribute to their rise in the organization. It works on them! That's why companies do it!
I know people who told their managers that they thought company morale campaigns were creating resentment and cynicism among their fellow employees. They did this in a spirit of openness, as something that management should be aware of, and they suffered real though unofficial consequences. From a cynical, utilitarian perspective, the retaliation they suffered was hard to make sense of. It was petty and ineffective. But it makes sense if you realize that they were attacking an intensely felt part of their managers' self-identity, and their managers' reaction reflected personal hurt, not rational calculation.
I never understood those things until I read this blog post. I always assumed that the cynicism about company values started at the lowest level of management, that management was a tower of atheists acting out the company religion for the sake of the believing suckers at the bottom. But that was a poor fit for reality compared to the Sociopath/Clueless/Losers structure.
It's when I dropped off the show, I like Steve Carell, but I couldn't get past the fact that the show forgot just how the characters are awful people.
Then I read this article that reviewed and now put less stock in the Gervais Principle
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-gervai...
Scott makes some good points but I think he simply lacks experience in the kind of big corporations Venkat describes. I think the Gervais Principle can be observed most readily in large, old-economy firms operating in zero-sum industries. It's probably more predominant on the east coast than the west coast, and even more predominant outside of the US. That's not to say that small, new-economy, west-coast, non-zero-sum companies won't demonstrate the same patterns, but they will almost certainly appear more weakly, in different forms. (And, of course, firms in the middle will show the same patterns in middling amounts.)
I first read these articles back in university, thought they were amazing mind-blowing red-pill insights, then promptly discovered on entering the working world that I had too little experience to utilise this kind of thinking.
A few years later I decided that a more principled, honest stance makes sense: be productive, set goals, figure out what you're doing before your do it, decide what you want and then go after it, don't take on work that you can't handle, etc. If you do that, you should be able to avoid politics (or so I thought). This strategy works very well... up to a point. However, after a few more years, and lots of reflection, I've realised that the dynamics Rao describes are visible in pretty much any group of people over a certain size. You just have to observe closely over a long period of time.
Even the most political workplace will look normal 90% of the time... the political interactions are subtle, ambiguous, and almost always inseparable from ongoing relationships or interpersonal dramas. Heck, 95% or more of "politicking" consists of interpersonal skills, "emotional awareness" and the ability to communicate. The Machiavellianism only really comes into play amongst people who've shown that they can do their jobs, have a decent circle of friends (or "friends") in the organisation, and have some idea of what they'd do with organisational power. These are the "table stakes" that Venkat refers to; before you obtain these, attempting to play the political game is pointless.
I concluded that up until the age of about 27-28, it's best to focus on building up your core skillset so that you can gain "table stakes". As a general rule, people under 25 can't beat people over 35 in political games, and shouldn't even try. (For people in-between, it's complicated.) However, over the age of about 28-30, understanding the political games suddenly becomes much, much more important. Even if you only want to use your powers for noble ends. (Example: supporting a junior employee who has unintentionally earned the disapproval of the boss.) With the context of a few years worth of work experience, Venkat's article makes a lot more sense. (Especially after sincerely attempting to walk the path of honesty, integrity and productivity, and observing its strengths and weaknesses.)
It's possible that Scott and his friends either work in very nice companies, or that that don't notice these dynamics going on around them. I have a simpler hypothesis: they're Losers (in Rao's sense) -- they might be well-paid losers, highly-educated losers, socially and financially successful losers, charming and sociable losers, but Losers nevertheless. When Rao calls someone a Loser, all he means is that they've given up on maximizing their potential wealth and power in exchange for a steady income (which may still be very high) and belonging to a particular crowd. It's not necessarily a bad thing, and for 90% of people, it's a reasonable trade.
There's no special pot of gold or magic crown you win by becoming a "sociopath". It simply means that you've decided to step outside of the box defined by the local social structure and to walk your own path. Whether that path is good or evil, logical or insane, spiritual or depraved, is from then on entirely up to you.
That said: based on what I've read about politicking in rationalist circles, and in EA circles, and at Google promotional reviews, and at other FAANGs, and at large silicon valley startups, and at small silicon valley startups, (and presumably amongst small indie bloggers who get targeted by the New York Times) I simply conclude that this kind of behaviour occurs all around Scott and that he simply isn't aware of it.
Also, I think that everybody who wants to work at a big corporation should do an enterprise sales job at point in their career. It gives real insight into how decisions to pursue large and expensive initiatives are made in these types of organizations.
I don’t know if the term is even applicable to people who don’t work in large organizations. Scott’s a psychiatrist. A lot of doctors work in small partnerships where these dynamics might not play out.
Scott in this model is a Clueless - he is part of the 9% naive enough (and yet proficient enough in their trade) to believe that they can survive on their own merits and exist in an objective reality of pure reason, outside of social reality and its fickle emotional currents. And sure enough, it ended in a member of the cultural 1% (a journalist) collaborating with the 90% (Internet mobs) to prey on the 9% (a psychologist-blogger), dox him for pageviews, and force him from his job and his blog.
You'll also notice this dynamic in a lot of populist movements, eg. Trump (1%) collaborates with his MAGA fans (90%) to own the urban libs (9%).
[1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/04/03/the-locust-economy/
(In this case, as in many others, I don't really like Rao's "sociopath" label, as it has the wrong connotations. "Politician" or "machiavellian" may be better.)
The average, say, independent contractor software dev, the "mercenary" type, is a loser/sociopath hybrid. Unlike typical losers, they forgo the security of a steady paycheck and employee benefits in exchange for a (often significant) income boost and personal freedom. They forgo the slightly paternalistic employer/employee relationship and instead engage with their employer on purely capitalistic terms. On the other hand, they typically avoid internal battles wherever they work and simply follow the bidding of whoever signs the cheques.
Solo consultants who actively get involved in helping management make decisions act more like "sociopaths" out of necessity ("politician" may be a much better word for this case). Indeed there's a whole category of solo consultants/executive coaches who basically exist to act as "consigliere" for senior executives who need political mentoring (dressed up as leadership training, career coaching or whatever).
I don't know much about how Scott's industry functions. One guess: partnerships between two or more independent peers typically consist of approximately-equal "sociopaths". If they're "good" sociopaths, these can be very productive business relationships. All parties know what they're getting into, and everyone respects each other as a peer. Healthy startup co-founder relationships should be similar. (Rao's later essay, "Entrepreneurs are the New Labor", suggests that the tech startup scene was becoming filled with more "clueless" young founders as technology hype and startup boosterism attracted more naive youngsters.)
Anyway, based on many of Scott's posts, it sounds as though much of his job does involve political skills: advocating for his patients' needs against some medical bureaucracy, talking patients out of doing stupid things, and so on. All of these are examples of "good politicking" (and might illustrate why the "sociopath" label is deficient).
(I'm turning into a sightly-less-cranky michaelochurch, heh. I guess every forum evolutionary niche needs to be filled.)
i can't wait to climb the ladder and step over all of y..
I would like to know how things are in more neutral terms and know how to fight the calcification (or how you call it) of an organization effectively or, if not possible, how to get the best out of it for myself.
Great read, but also fails the sniff test the harder you think about it.
And you missed a chance to replace it with Le Petit Prince.
This rings so true, in my experience. Sociopaths at the top also seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
Losers are cool and mostly harmless. The alphas can be a bit annoying sometimes, but most of them can be good friends.
Don't hate the player, hate the game. Your general in the upper strata has to play the game, it's the job. But you can also get a beer and become friends with him or her.
Sociopathic behavior is genuinely useful to participate in. Just have awareness of what's going on, and down cycle and up cycle your "talking in between the lines" as necessary. And have fun
Rather, think of them as massive waves on the ocean. They don't care whether you ride them to shore or are shattered beneath them. Focus more on figuring out which way the waves are going rather than how to stop them.
When I finally got a chance to program something for him, towards the end of our time together, and it ran 5 times faster than his favored programmer, he questioned me like I had gotten someone else to do it or something. He was absolutely incredulous, never would admit that, hey, maybe I did know something about what I was talking about.
There's a quote that goes something like, "Never get between a jerk and his goals," and that's what it felt like, for an interminable 3 years.
That's a bleak view, but I've worked in organizations that fit the model. To think that this could be the norm.. What if the model could be applied to human society in general! With such power dynamics, no wonder we seem to be barely hanging together with tense, mutual disrespect.
Sociopath are very lonely and losers can be very happy in comparison.
This model characterized, for example, Brazil during the fascist dictatorship era of the 1950s and 1960s, Indonesia and Chile under similar regimes, the Philippines under Marco, probably much of India, a great many African countries, and increasingly it's what the United States seems to be falling into.
In any case, it seems a common theme in the West that the society built during the height of the cold war is currently being milked in every way possible in the interests of the ruling class, with nothing new being built in its place.
At this point though, I've been through each of the tiers and have never been either cluelessly obsequious nor a sociopath -- so I have my doubts that the model is worthwhile despite being a good laugh!
For those that haven't read it:
- Tier 1 - fresh younguns or burnt out talented people who are there for a check (there is a lot of discussion regarding this tier). GOT reference: Sam Tulley
- Tier 2 - middle managers -- clueless, "true believer" types. GOT reference: many! Eddard Stark, Tommen Lannister, Jaime Lannister
- Tier 3 - sociopaths: bosses at the top of the hierarchy. GOT reference: Tywin Lannister, Joffrey Lannister
A sociopath doesn't have to be successful.
Alpha losers might think of them as sociopaths.
And people move back and forth between the roles.
Besides that, it's certainly a more complete model than the alpha/beta/omega one.
And I 100% agree on Cersei.
Both abbreviate to “sociopath” but they are very different concepts.
I don’t think Joffrey qualifies as a GP Sociopath at all, as GP notes. While he was “in charge” he didn’t play the GP Sociopath game, and so was quickly removed. As the OP notes it’s possible for Clueless to be placed in positions of power in plenty of cases, for example when a fall guy is needed, or a puppet. So just wearing the crown doesn’t mean he MUST be a GP Sociopath.
Losers: Aemon Targaryen, Catelyn Tully, Hot Pie, pre-Braavos Arya Stark, Hodor, most of the Freys, the random Lannister soldiers led by Ed Sheeran's character in S08E01.
Clueless: Brienne Tarly, Jon Snow, Rob Stark, Stannis Baratheon, Daenerys Targaryen
Sociopaths: Olenna Tyrell, Varys, Cersei Lannister, Bran Stark, post-Braavos Arya Stark
The non-Lannister Sociopaths are in many ways more interesting, because they are more subtle about their will to power and hence more effective. Bran in particular - with his Greensight and warging abilities, he has the ability to influence events basically at will, but he's also physically crippled and dependent upon others for action. And note that when asked if he would accept the crown (not take it), he simply says "Why do you think I came all this way?".
I share some of the author's cynicism, but the thesis is a bit flawed.
There's a very key mistake, often made from a populist perspective (those who have never had power) that somehow the people at the top are able to 'freely move' through society. They cannot. Most often, they are in a gilded cage, and they are never as rich, powerful or as mobile as we think.
Execs are often sociopathic and skittish precisely because they are in a precarious situation. Do you really think that most executives can just pop off to another, massively high paying job? No. They are mostly stuck. They have public profiles and have to be careful of what they say, who they interact with. They have to 'socialize' with the right groups. Their wealth does not buy them that-that much more and that slightly nicer cottage, ski vacay, private school etc. drain the accounts really fast.
Almost anyone who is 'working at a firm' - even as an executive - is not that powerful. If they could, most people would just retire. If someone chooses to work instead of retire, well that's probably a sign of commitment and integrity which is the opposite of sociopathy.
Exec layer is definitely full of whacky people and cynical Machiavellians who are protecting their power and nothing more sure, but they are not 'mobile' and not there by choice.
Also, from a populist perspective, a lot of corporate actions seem Machiavellian, but they are not. Just realist. Made by possibly an entitled class, who make mistakes. But when you have to move people around, hire and fire in large numbers, some people will get burnt, and sometimes in a way that doesn't feel or is not nice, and that will happen even with the most competent, well-meaning leadership.
So yes, if we look at the world purely through the lens of self-interest (and for some, there's no reason to fathom anything more, which is sad), then even with the above characterization it still seems pretty bad. Except thankfully, most of people don't share this cynical view, and usually find much more purpose in what they do than their salary. Teachers are perhaps the best example of that.
This sounds more like middle management to me. The true Sociopaths in the places I’ve worked (I’m thinking SVP to C-level) are in the hundreds of millions net worth or on track to get there.
EDIT: as I write this, I realize most of the places I’ve worked are huge, powerful companies and might not be representative. But the first company I worked at was worth less than a billion dollars, and I think the CEO might have been the only real Sociopath in the room.
And I don't mean to discount your experience, but even a lot of 'big time' CEO's are not worth 'hundred's of millions'. Maybe 10's. Not 100's.
Also, CEO's are interesting and different people, it's actually hard to know if they are 'sociopaths' from just being in a meeting with them. In fact, even knowing them for some time it's hard to tell. Remember they are living in an identity, all the time. They have to be not just 'on' but 'really on' - so it just feels kind of otherworldly with them, that doesn't mean 'sociopath'. I think looking at actions, particularly layoffs, how they are handled, the kind of marketing, growth, underhanded tactics is more helpful.
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31904607 - June 2022 (1 comment)
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25486869 - Dec 2020 (60 comments)
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23697779 - July 2020 (1 comment)
The Gervais Principle (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22116864 - Jan 2020 (1 comment)
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21962450 - Jan 2020 (1 comment)
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851505 - July 2017 (1 comment)
The Curse of Development - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14177427 - April 2017 (28 comments)
Wonderful Human Beings - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1790749 - Oct 2010 (3 comments)
The Gervais Principle III: The Curse of Development - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1267202 - April 2010 (27 comments)
Random Promotions and the Gervais Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994671 - Dec 2009 (9 comments)
The Gervais Principle II: Posturetalk, Powertalk, Babytalk and Gametalk - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=937541 - Nov 2009 (32 comments)
The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=881296 - Oct 2009 (63 comments)
For example, the "sociopathic" intern can also be described as someone with healthy amount of disrespect to existing organizational structures and tries to bring innovation to a dinosaur firm. He took the risk and suffered the consequences like a man.
But according to Fallon (citing research) the key to getting that nice place is exceptionally loving, caring, attentive parenting. Most of us don't get that, so the results are usually bad.
- Able to take decisions upon someone’s employment. In today’s society, it’s based on immediate performance and utility, and negates people’s need. In other words, they’re able to fire someone who’s depressed, and block out emotionally from the catastrophic outcomes. In today’s society, it’s considered the correct way to lead, because it imposes meritocracy and encourages hard work. It’s not very humane, but companies need to live. Not like, you know, people.
- Socially inept. People who make friends and build a family life easily don’t end up as carrierists.
In both cases, even if I’m able to regurgitate that point of view which I don’t agree with, I empathize with the managers in that it’s necessary they behave this way. Perhaps I’m sociopathic.
I’m a CEO, after all ;) (just 3-people company, not too much harm done, and they all got 30% to 60% salary increase this year).
Basic hospitality is important. Most folks are rightfully indignant when an interviewing company haven't read their resume, while virtually all companies want interviewees to have read the company public website.
People are not props.
Akin to giving a Chinese guest a watch and white flowers as a present - sure, he might not know that it's a faux pas [1], but he should have structures in place to prevent basic slip-ups.
[1] both associated with death/funeral
I think our current economic/social climate forces the kind of gervais principle balance over a long enough timeline. The gervais principle generates predictable profits.
Another thing I've learned is that the more time you spend with executives, the easier it becomes to recognize this behavior. Go to any large chamber meeting in any large-ish city in the U.S., and I'm sure you will find plenty of sociopaths (in both the literal and the Gervais Principle sense).
That's an oversimplification.
Sociopaths are not just "in it to win". They will do whatever it takes to win, and trample as many people under foot as it takes takes them to get ahead without a twinge of conscience.
The clueless in the article aren't merely working hard, they're also true believers in the organization who "build up a perverse sense of loyalty to the firm, even when events make it abundantly clear that the firm is not loyal to them."
Unlike the clueless, the losers see clearly and do the bare minimum to get by and will (like the sociopaths) abandon the ship when it starts to sink, unlike the clueless, who will loyally sink right along with it. While they're in the organization, "they traded freedom for a paycheck .. mortgage their lives away, and hope to die before their money runs out."
While the losers have no more loyalty to the company than the sociopaths "they do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot."
To that point, GPs characterization of chug-along, work-hard, and in-it-to-win-it rings just as true without pigeonholing people and better maps to the attitudes of people I've known well enough to have a deeper understanding of their psychology. Some specifics:
"Doing whatever it takes to win [...] without a twinge of conscience" does not describe the majority of C and VP levels I've known. Certainly a lot of the unpleasant decisions that need to be made (eg. layoffs) are easier if one is truly a sociopath, but in practice how do you know? The reality is that upper level management has huge orgs where most individuals don't know them personally and yet is impacted by their decisions. When the impact is negative it's often easier to believe that management doesn't care about them versus understanding why it might be the best thing for the company.
I also think that loyalty is much more orthogonal to archetype or effort level, and the idea that "clueless in the article aren't merely working hard, they're also true believers in the organization" does not really ring true. In reality, people at all levels can have varying degrees of loyalty to a company. A better model is the Dead Sea Effect—people will tend to stay if they don't believe they have better options. This is naturally going to affect middle-management more because they have achieved a higher status, and it's subject to all the noise of imposter syndrome and Dunning-Kruger, but it still applies to all levels.
Finally, I disagree that "Unlike the clueless, the losers see clearly". The losers don't necessarily see anything more clearly, they just aren't playing the same game. Manager tells them what to do, they put in the minimum effort to do it, punch the clock and go home. Are they wise because harder work never would have earned them any extra reward? Or are they creating a self-fulfilling prophecy through poor performance? Honestly it could go either way.