Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Comment by michaelochurch | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This may be "(1998)" but it's timeless and everyone who's had (or been) a micromanager or a bad boss could stand to read it. It describes the micromanagement death spiral well. It also explains why about a third to a half of people in closed-allocation companies, no matter how talented they would be in a better context, are going to fail. Open allocation gives the individuals multiple opportunities to roll the dice and takes that failure rate down to about 2%.

For all our noise about "meritocracy", the truth is that social status matters a great deal in the workplace. I've written about this here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other...

In addition to what's described in the paper, and very relevant to the sorts of ultra-hard-working people you find in tech, high status is right-to-care. If you have low status and care a lot about your work and doing things the right way, you're "pushy" and "entitled". If you're of high status, you're dedicated and creative.

Working hard from a position of low social status does absolutely nothing. In fact, it makes your situation worse because it lowers your status even further. A low-status person who puts in long hours is seen as compensating for inability, and if that person stops putting in long hours, the relative drop ("downward trend in performance") is what will be noted.

This paper doesn't discuss the real way out. It's not to work harder. It's also not "communication" (even though "communication breakdown" is the polite term for this scenario) because the communication between the manager and low-status subordinate is destined to be one-way. The best odds are with escape: transfer to another group under someone who likes you. However, if that can't be done, the next best option is social proof. Gain the blessing of a high-status person. You can't really do this on your own team (the high-status people don't want to be associated with the low-status ones) so you need to gain the approval of someone of equal or higher status (formal and informal) to your boss and to have your boss know. Of course, this can be dangerous (you appear to be a flight risk) and if you're caught or you fail, it'll be interpreted in the worst possible way, but it's the only reliable way out of the bottom on this one, and it's surprisingly quick when the "magic" of social proof works.

There is another option for the under-performer - they might be on the sociopath track:

The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence.

http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...

Remember, this is in the context of trying to analyze a fictional program -- The Office. Although there's some truthiness there, it's all a bit too neat. Wow, there's only three kinds of workers. Okaaay.

I've done some analysis on my own of that. There are more, but those 3 tend to dominate the culture of an organization.

Organizations want 3 things from people: subordinacy, dedication, and strategy (working on the right things). You'll almost never see all 3, because a person who is strategic will either optimize for minimum discomfort (and not be dedicated/sacrificial) or for maximum personal yield (and, while he might follow orders, won't put the organization's goals above his own).

Moreover, people who have zero or one of those 3 traits are generally maladaptive and fall into a "Lumpenloser" category that excludes them even from the Loser in-group, and they'll usually be quickly let go.

This means that the interesting people will have 2 of those 3 traits. If they're subordinate and strategic (but not dedicated) they become minimum-effort Losers. If they're subordinate and dedicated (but not strategic) they become the middle-manager Clueless who clean up the messes made below and above them. If they're strategic and dedicated (but not subordinate) they fall into the category called "Sociopath".

The labels are a bit unfair. Most of the "Losers" aren't dislikable or inept people, and often the "cool kids" are MacLeod Losers. (In startups, the cool kids are Clueless.) Likewise, most of the "Sociopaths" aren't bad people-- just ambitious and not willing to sacrifice their own goals for the benefit of an organization that wouldn't return the favor.

So if we redefine all the words we're using, then we can come up with a framework that sort of works, sometimes, according to someone who's analyzing The Office. Ok.

>> Organizations want 3 things from people: subordinacy, dedication, and strategy (working on the right things).

Uh, where did "able to do good work" go??

Edit: "Dedication" and "productivity"/"capability" are different concepts. Trust me on this, I had an undetected bacterial infection for a while that lowered my capabilities seriously.

>> dedication

I'll expand on my "Edit:"

I had lowered productivity a couple of periods from undetected health problems (allergy troubles and a bacterial infection).

I have been both a high producer and a problem producer. And I have surprised bosses in both good/bad ways, and they have changed their opinions about me.

The main personal difference was self confidence ("I burn out easy these days? :-( More exercise/relaxation don't help?! I am old?! :-(". Afterwards, my reaction was/is "So I was physically sick, I am not a complete luser that turn everything I touch to shit.")

The only difference in "dedication" was a later natural effect -- of burnout from working like an animal to get productivity when it was failing.

And the lesson I have learned is compassion; the cynical failures that are a depressing pain on us others might not be stupid or sociopaths. I am happy for the insight, it made me less of an asshole, but it was probably not worth the high cost.

Edit: To make this into a point, I do believe in the "Pygmalion effect" and I have seen it in action. But it is far from the whole story. There are probably also many other effects than bosses' behaviour and those I know personally which influence workers.

Fair point, but usually this "future Sociopath" is not perceived as a low performer, at least not in the sense the article describes. He's seen as an inconsistent but capable person, and while he may not be liked, he has a certain status that keeps him from falling to the bottom. He shows early on that he can be a high performer, but he's not going to give that away lightly. The organization has to earn his respect.

The article describes people being sorted into a high and low status group, from which performance variations follow. It covers the majority of cases where performance follows directly from status.

The MacLeod-model Sociopath is someone who shows the capacity to perform at high levels, quite early, but also an unusual willingness to reduce his performance to zero if accorded low status. It's a "Go ahead, try to fire me" move. Sometimes (if done diplomatically) it gives him high status, begrudgingly. After all, a truly high-status person will ignore disrespectful leadership and underperform if given low status (but so will a low-status person; hence, there's a way of doing it.) More often, it leaves him ignored (rather than micromanaged) because the boss just doesn't want to deal with him, and this gives him the freedom to do whatever he wants with his time, as long as he stays out of the boss's way. Then he can usually bounce up-and-diagonal, given time.

You just described my situation and the way I work.

Work hard when you join, get status, show that you get shit done and have a fast turn-around. Your mission should be to make everyone happy. That way, when you lose interest in the job you will be able to slack and still get raises and go up the ladder. Bosses will act exactly as you said, by giving you freedom in hopes that you will spend that time working (which you are not). Sometimes when they really need/want something done they will micromanage, but basically they won't fire you because they know how productive you can be and desperately want to harvest your brain power.

Companies and girls are exactly the same. Everything is predetermined by the first three months (or less) you spend with them.

TIL: I'm a Sociopath

Geez, same TIL, and I didn't need that... Thought I was better than that (everyone thinks).

I do the same thing. But as MichaelOChurch said, losers and sociopaths are actually quite similar. It is possible to be either a safe loser or a sociopath using this method.

It is possible to live a very good life as a loser if you manage it correctly.

However, if that can't be done, the next best option is social proof. Gain the blessing of a high-status person. You can't really do this on your own team...

If you are a higher status member of your team and want to help team cohesiveness and make friends in the process, try using your status to raise a little the status of an undeservedly low-status teammate.

I've written about this here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other....

That was awesome. I think I'll start reading your blog from the beginning now ...

I remember having quite a long argument with a non-technical manager who insisted on hiring developers who “Who can hit the ground running.” who always also severely puzzled as to why the developers on the team (who were all pretty good*) were completely reluctant to work on any technology that wasn't easy transferable (i.e. so that they could "hit the ground running" somewhere else).

[UK - "pretty good" is high praise]

"A big part of the problem is that programmers are constantly trying to one-up each other (see: feigned surprise) and prove their superior knowledge, drive, and intelligence. From the outside (that is, from the vantage point of the business operators we work for) these pissing contests make all sides look stupid and deficient. By lowering each others’ status so reliably, and when little to nothing is at stake, programmers lower their status as a group."

This is gold.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com