3 ms·

What I call the Dilbert-o-meter. When you start noticing too many Dilbert comics acted out in real life, it's time to leave.

le-mark 9y ago
The Gervais principle illuminates a lot of what happens in large organizations. If you ever feel like what you do matters less than how you're perceived, then you're absolutely correct [1]. So far as when to leave, I try to keep track of the health of the division (in a Big Dumb Corp) or company (smaller companies). If the business area I'm in is no longer a focus for the company (opex vs capex) or not meeting targets (whatever they maybe; sales goals, customer retention, etc) then that's a strong signal to start looking. A few other warning signs: churn in leadership, senior people leaving. When you see the organizational knowledge base packing up and leaving that's a bad sign. Currently, I've chosen to work in a Dilbert wonderland. This Big Dumb Corp is so dumb it's astounding. I'm here and staying (for now) because the division I'm in is a growth area, my manager is cool, I have one semi interesting long term project to work on, and since they are so big and dumb, they're paying 10-15% above market rate on salary and benefits. [1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
mrweasel 9y ago
That's a pretty good rule. I worked at a telco and a co-worker pointed out that the seemed very likely that Scott Adams had hidden cameras and microphones in our offices. When Dilbert-like rules and decisions start showing up to frequently, it's time to leave. Generally speaking I don't think you should go work for companies with more that 50 - 100 employees. After that stupidity start showing up way too frequently.
- gargravarr 9y ago
  Before I started my first job, the summer I left uni, I read the entire archive from 1989 to 2012 and laughed at it. When my job started a few months later, I was absolutely floored when some of the stuff I saw there played out exactly as the comic. I quit after 3 months. I could not get a single thing done in less than 3 weeks there.
- thehardsphere 9y ago
  I am at a company of 70 and we seem to still be not-stupid. But I think the general rule is correct; we don't have stupid here because nobody has time for it, and anyone who isn't pulling their weight is conspicuous and gets cut loose eventually. My guess is that once headcount is over 100, the organizational details start to become too large to fit in any one person's head, and that creates blind spots in which stupid people can go unnoticed. And if you get even larger than that, at some point stupid people just become part of the cost of doing business that shareholders are happy enough to put up with as long as the stupidity is contained and doesn't obviously diminish their returns.
- swagtricker 9y ago
  There's a reason for stupidity starting to show: Dunbar's number - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number I 100% agree with the application of this. I've become a bit more flexible however - I take a look at the upper bound consideration of this (closer to 150 - 200 people) and apply that to how many engineers have commit access to the source control system. The marketing, bean-counters and other walking business critters headcount don't concern me:)
bsharitt 9y ago
That about sums up the why of my recent job change. It was kind of hard to explain why I was leaving my job during interviews when the question was asked. It's hard to point out one thing and the individual Dilbert-y things seem like stupid reasons individually, but altogether they were a sign I needed to move on.

le-mark 9y ago

The Gervais principle illuminates a lot of what happens in large organizations. If you ever feel like what you do matters less than how you're perceived, then you're absolutely correct [1]. So far as when to leave, I try to keep track of the health of the division (in a Big Dumb Corp) or company (smaller companies). If the business area I'm in is no longer a focus for the company (opex vs capex) or not meeting targets (whatever they maybe; sales goals, customer retention, etc) then that's a strong signal to start looking. A few other warning signs: churn in leadership, senior people leaving. When you see the organizational knowledge base packing up and leaving that's a bad sign. Currently, I've chosen to work in a Dilbert wonderland. This Big Dumb Corp is so dumb it's astounding. I'm here and staying (for now) because the division I'm in is a growth area, my manager is cool, I have one semi interesting long term project to work on, and since they are so big and dumb, they're paying 10-15% above market rate on salary and benefits. [1] https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...

mrweasel 9y ago

That's a pretty good rule. I worked at a telco and a co-worker pointed out that the seemed very likely that Scott Adams had hidden cameras and microphones in our offices. When Dilbert-like rules and decisions start showing up to frequently, it's time to leave. Generally speaking I don't think you should go work for companies with more that 50 - 100 employees. After that stupidity start showing up way too frequently.

gargravarr 9y ago
Before I started my first job, the summer I left uni, I read the entire archive from 1989 to 2012 and laughed at it. When my job started a few months later, I was absolutely floored when some of the stuff I saw there played out exactly as the comic. I quit after 3 months. I could not get a single thing done in less than 3 weeks there.
thehardsphere 9y ago
I am at a company of 70 and we seem to still be not-stupid. But I think the general rule is correct; we don't have stupid here because nobody has time for it, and anyone who isn't pulling their weight is conspicuous and gets cut loose eventually. My guess is that once headcount is over 100, the organizational details start to become too large to fit in any one person's head, and that creates blind spots in which stupid people can go unnoticed. And if you get even larger than that, at some point stupid people just become part of the cost of doing business that shareholders are happy enough to put up with as long as the stupidity is contained and doesn't obviously diminish their returns.
swagtricker 9y ago
There's a reason for stupidity starting to show: Dunbar's number - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number I 100% agree with the application of this. I've become a bit more flexible however - I take a look at the upper bound consideration of this (closer to 150 - 200 people) and apply that to how many engineers have commit access to the source control system. The marketing, bean-counters and other walking business critters headcount don't concern me:)

bsharitt 9y ago

That about sums up the why of my recent job change. It was kind of hard to explain why I was leaving my job during interviews when the question was asked. It's hard to point out one thing and the individual Dilbert-y things seem like stupid reasons individually, but altogether they were a sign I needed to move on.