6 ms·

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-.

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-... This is a fantastic read.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
EthanHeilman 6y ago
As I was reading the above post, I started to remember reading an article on ribbon farm. The next response is someone posting the article I remember. The Hn bubble is real and in some cases has surprisingly low-entropy.
eeeeehhhhh 6y ago
I knew this was going to be posted. I've been thinking about this post for a decade now and I can't help but feel that, although it does reflect part of reality, the Gervais Principle is overly cynical in my opinion, and those who adopt the view will have it compounded by confirmation bias because it is partially true. The things described happen at toxic organizations but the author leaves no room for honest positive and meaningful work, and at risk of pointing out the obvious, there's a lot of meaningful work to be done. To the author of this post, finding meaning in your employment means that you're necessarily a sucker or a psychopath. Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? And God forbid you find the real nobility in doing your workaday job and doing a good job at it, and feel good about yourself. According to the Gervais Principle that makes you the ultimate sucker. Adopting this philosophy is dooming oneself to a neverending feeling of being exploited and the argument that this is what is actually happening in totality is all philosophical opinion so why would I adopt a philosophy that is so personally ruinous, demoralizing, and demotivating?
- ramblerman 6y ago
  Thank you for putting this so eloquently. I have been down this cycle myself becoming almost nihilistic and seeing it all as a pointless game of machiavelian diplomacy. These days I'm much more optimistic, and doing much better overall but in hindsight your explanation is exactly what I went through at my worst.
  - deagle50 6y ago
    Both scenarios can be true, you can be "clueless" and optimistic at the same time. Even if the Gervais Principle is real, it doesn't mean you need to be nihilistic. If your work is giving you meaning and joy, does it matter if sociopaths are benefiting more than you? It's kind of like being resentful of professional athletes, it simply wasn't in the cards... Saying this as a definite "loser" btw.
- mdpopescu 6y ago
  > Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? In fiction? Back on the original topic, Erik Dietrich's "Developer Hegemony" has a less extreme view of the corporation; worth reading IMO.
  - mrfredward 6y ago
    +1 For Dietrich's version of it. He renames sociopaths, clueless, and losers to opportunists, idealists, and pragmatists, and in general tones the theory down a bit, and I think the result is something that is both more palatable and more reflective of reality. The opportunists see the corporate world for what it is and do what is best for their careers, the idealists believe in the shared corporate myths and put in the hours to uphold the values they're taught, and the pragmatists value being home for dinner more than climbing the ladder. It describes the broken system without implying all the people in it are broken, and since the focus is really on the incentive systems that create this situation I think that's a better take.
    - rhizome 6y ago
      Is the corporate world "what it is" without the actions of these categories of employees? You may have the causation arrow pointing the wrong way, because to me, being more "reflective of reality," it's better worded as, "the corporate world is composed of the decisions, actions, and personalities of (sociopaths|opportunists), (the clueless|idealists), (losers|pragmatists)." Your choice of terminology is only a value judgement on each of the categories, but it's all the same people, working in a company, and making it a living thing. The specific words don't change the meaning of the principles being discussed. I don't think the subjects of the Gervais categories are broken people so much as dangerous ones, careerwise (and possibly mental healthwise).
      - strken 6y ago
        The words absolutely do change the meaning of the principles. The idea that actual literal sociopaths are common in corporations is much more contentious than opportunists being common. Losers implies that going home at 5pm because you have other things going on in your life is morally wrong, in a way that pragmatists doesn't. Clueless implies that believing in the corporation is wrong, in a way that idealists doesn't.
- jfk13 6y ago
  > although it does reflect part of reality, the Gervais Principle is overly cynical in my opinion Of course it is. That's what comedians do: they take something with enough basis in reality that people will recognise and identify with it, and then caricature and exaggerate it to extremes.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- thethought 6y ago
  An alt-side is never ending pleasure of closing laptop at the bell .. in anticipation of bbq, wine, family, and friends. Knowing fully well it’s ephemeral. IMO there is no doom and gloom in this view.
- HenryBemis 6y ago
  I have been 'studying' Dilbert since the first time I laid eyes on it/him 20 years ago. This cartoon prepares you for life in large-corp environments. I've seen so many (real life) scenarios play out exactly as some of Dilbert's (and the other chars) stories. Edit: for clarity, the article does refer to "The Dilbert Principle".
- impendia 6y ago
  > Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? Not a doctor, but a college professor. I love my job, take pride in it, and work hard at it. But I think of myself as working for my students, my collaborators, and my immediate colleagues. I pay little attention to my university as a whole, don't view it especially positively, haven't learned how to work its bureaucracy, and feel little loyalty to the institution in general. It seems that, according to the article, I'm a "loser". As such, "it is clear that I am an idiot". Probably true lol. But a fairly happy idiot.
  - Ankintol 6y ago
    Just as a note, the article specifically lays out that you are only a loser in a pure economic sense, you have not maximized monetary profit and have chosen to prioritize something else. Not an idiot at all :)
  - higerordermap 6y ago
    > I love my job, take pride in it, and work hard at it. But I think of myself as working for my students, my collaborators, and my immediate colleagues. I pay little attention to my university as a whole, don't view it especially positively, haven't learned how to work its bureaucracy, and feel little loyalty to the institution in general. Thank you.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    If only all professors had this attitude.
    - badmash 6y ago
      Agreed!
- mattmanser 6y ago
  He does mention meaningful work, that's done by the clueless. But to the author it's a sidenote that he doesn't bother explaining. It's this bit where he briefly touched on it: the standard promotion/development path is primarily designed to maneuver the Clueless into position wherever they are needed
  - yaml-ops-guy 6y ago
    So a transmogrification of The Peter Principle but in more words?
    - Jedd 6y ago
      If by transmogrify you mean changing the intent, along with every noun and verb in the original, then maybe. However it feels like a profoundly different claim to Dr Peter's.
- MarkPNeyer 6y ago
  I agree with your analysis here, although from what I understand he argues that these phenomena have to do with working for big companies. The book “developer hegemony” makes a similar argument and argues that the “way out is to have lots of small software consulting shops.
- doublejay1999 6y ago
  Forgive me for being blunt : > leaves no room for honest positive and meaningful work, and at risk of pointing out the obvious, there's a lot of meaningful work to be done. There's plenty of meaningful work to be done, but most of it doesn't generate profit, so it doesn't get done. That which does get done, often pays poverty wages. Raising good citizens, caring for the elderly, educating our children, producing high quality nutritious food, cleaning our streets of litter - all meaningful and vital, all pay buttons. Many more jobs pay so little, we dont even bother doing in the West anymore and give those jobs to other countries. > Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? What percentage of the workers Doctors ? Bonus : why isn't everyone a doctor ? > Adopting this philosophy is dooming oneself to a neverending feeling of being exploited and the argument that this is what is actually happening in totality is all philosophical opinion so why would I adopt a philosophy that is so personally ruinous, demoralizing, and demotivating? Pretending you are happy and contributing to society while you are required to piss in a bottle is to concede all human dignity. To pretend that giving up 70 hours a week crunching numbers so a Corporation pays less tax that is to sell your soul and work to the detriment of society. To think anything else, means it's already too late for you. tldr : meaningful jobs exist, but are rare as rocking horse shit and great swathes of us never get to experience meaningful jobs, because our culture needs obedient workers to make profits ahead of anything else.
- rgblambda 6y ago
  >Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? Making positive contributions to society doesn't change the fact that you're being exploited. It's become increasingly clear that Doctors (at least where I'm from) have low pay early in their careers, unsafe working conditions, and have almost no life outside of work. On top of that they have a stressful job involving interacting with members of the public.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    Given the fact that nowadays doctor is mostly a rote memorization educational path, I often wonder if increasing the number of doctors but reducing hours and somewhat pay would be an overall improvement. Both me and my girlfriend were majors of our promotions and had more than enough in the way of academic achievement to become doctors, but the insane workload was a very effective deterrent.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
      Australia has tried to get some of the way there with Nurse Practitioners. I'm in Tasmania, so here's the a PDF from the Tasmanian Department of Health Services explaining what a Nurse Practitioner can do, including prescribing some medication and interpreting diagnostic test https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/64084/NP_Frequently_Asked_Questions_-_2008-03-12.pdf https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/6408...
      - Clewza313 6y ago
        This is partly because in Australia, regular nurses can do virtually nothing on their own initiative. A friend of mine was an ICU nurse in Canada before moving to Australia. It was a long and painful process to get qualified again, and when she did, she found out she had been demoted from being able to meaningfully improve patient care (eg the prescriptions and diagnoses you mention) to a robot carrying out orders.
        6y ago
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  > Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? I'm sure they'll BOTH figure it out.
- erhk 6y ago
  >why would I adopt a philosophy that is so personally ruinous, demoralizing, and demotivating? But why not be discontent with your reality? That's typically a sign to enact change and willingfully settling is an acceptance of how things are. I think the problem lies in the way that capitalism treats companies and labour. Im not proposing we abolish capitalism but selling our time at a loss* to our employer doesn't "feel" good. Maybe you feel rewarded by your work and maybe you don't but you shouldn't destroy that feeling for the sake of complacency. *Loss is possibly controversial, but an employer does seek to get more value out of an employee than they pay them.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
minsc__and__boo 6y ago
This is too true. I just went through a full MacLeod cycle in the past three years and can attest how uncanny the accuracy is.
TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
Wow. And what's so startling about this breakdown is that you can figure out which of the 3 groups someone is in within 10 minutes of your first meeting with them.
tommilukkarinen 6y ago
This article is interestingly promotes kinda flawed communist thinking about 'overperforming losers'. Most companies make 'reasonable' profits or even losses. You could say normal range for profits is -5% to +10%. When the company is people intensive, it basically means, that revenue is paid in salaries. For better salaries to be paid, profits must grow first. For profits to grow, existing people must perform better. If profits don't grow, salaries can't follow. Now when profits grow, we face a decision on how to split the new profits, and it does not always fall on the existing employees. Sometimes profits go into hiring new people, sometimes they go into pockets of the owners. But I have also often seen in my 25 year career, that performers are compensated. I have also always seen the costs rise, and the costs been mostly salaries. So profits eventually go to the pockets of the employees. So actually it is good idea for everyone to perform, because if the profit growth stops, salary growth stops as well. Anyway, my bottom line is that this 'sociopath, clueless, loser' is flawed thinking, but probably something people genuinely believe in just like many people believe that vaccines are bad.
- TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
  The article addresses this. You're just talking about the early stages/small company part of the lifecycle. In my case, working for a 100-year-old manufacturing company, I looked around the cube farm one day, and realized there is a small army of people who's job it is to festoon every vertical space within eyesight, at scores of facilities across the globe, with flyers and promotionals and health insurance factoids and retirement plans and educational resources and on and on and on. (And maps of the cube warrens, because people thought wacky floorpans were cool 40 years ago.) Those are the definition of "Loser" jobs, and they're everywhere. My company is so far down the article's referenced lifecycle that there are several large groups of people who copy information from the mainframe into Excel sheets, and then hand this over to another group who take that information, and put it back into the mainframe. And the "Clueless" have fought me, tooth and nail, to try to improve these kinds of barbarous workflows.

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-... This is a fantastic read.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

EthanHeilman 6y ago

As I was reading the above post, I started to remember reading an article on ribbon farm. The next response is someone posting the article I remember. The Hn bubble is real and in some cases has surprisingly low-entropy.

eeeeehhhhh 6y ago

I knew this was going to be posted. I've been thinking about this post for a decade now and I can't help but feel that, although it does reflect part of reality, the Gervais Principle is overly cynical in my opinion, and those who adopt the view will have it compounded by confirmation bias because it is partially true. The things described happen at toxic organizations but the author leaves no room for honest positive and meaningful work, and at risk of pointing out the obvious, there's a lot of meaningful work to be done. To the author of this post, finding meaning in your employment means that you're necessarily a sucker or a psychopath. Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? And God forbid you find the real nobility in doing your workaday job and doing a good job at it, and feel good about yourself. According to the Gervais Principle that makes you the ultimate sucker. Adopting this philosophy is dooming oneself to a neverending feeling of being exploited and the argument that this is what is actually happening in totality is all philosophical opinion so why would I adopt a philosophy that is so personally ruinous, demoralizing, and demotivating?

ramblerman 6y ago
Thank you for putting this so eloquently. I have been down this cycle myself becoming almost nihilistic and seeing it all as a pointless game of machiavelian diplomacy. These days I'm much more optimistic, and doing much better overall but in hindsight your explanation is exactly what I went through at my worst.
- deagle50 6y ago
  Both scenarios can be true, you can be "clueless" and optimistic at the same time. Even if the Gervais Principle is real, it doesn't mean you need to be nihilistic. If your work is giving you meaning and joy, does it matter if sociopaths are benefiting more than you? It's kind of like being resentful of professional athletes, it simply wasn't in the cards... Saying this as a definite "loser" btw.
mdpopescu 6y ago
> Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? In fiction? Back on the original topic, Erik Dietrich's "Developer Hegemony" has a less extreme view of the corporation; worth reading IMO.
- mrfredward 6y ago
  +1 For Dietrich's version of it. He renames sociopaths, clueless, and losers to opportunists, idealists, and pragmatists, and in general tones the theory down a bit, and I think the result is something that is both more palatable and more reflective of reality. The opportunists see the corporate world for what it is and do what is best for their careers, the idealists believe in the shared corporate myths and put in the hours to uphold the values they're taught, and the pragmatists value being home for dinner more than climbing the ladder. It describes the broken system without implying all the people in it are broken, and since the focus is really on the incentive systems that create this situation I think that's a better take.
  - rhizome 6y ago
    Is the corporate world "what it is" without the actions of these categories of employees? You may have the causation arrow pointing the wrong way, because to me, being more "reflective of reality," it's better worded as, "the corporate world is composed of the decisions, actions, and personalities of (sociopaths|opportunists), (the clueless|idealists), (losers|pragmatists)." Your choice of terminology is only a value judgement on each of the categories, but it's all the same people, working in a company, and making it a living thing. The specific words don't change the meaning of the principles being discussed. I don't think the subjects of the Gervais categories are broken people so much as dangerous ones, careerwise (and possibly mental healthwise).
    - strken 6y ago
      The words absolutely do change the meaning of the principles. The idea that actual literal sociopaths are common in corporations is much more contentious than opportunists being common. Losers implies that going home at 5pm because you have other things going on in your life is morally wrong, in a way that pragmatists doesn't. Clueless implies that believing in the corporation is wrong, in a way that idealists doesn't.
jfk13 6y ago
> although it does reflect part of reality, the Gervais Principle is overly cynical in my opinion Of course it is. That's what comedians do: they take something with enough basis in reality that people will recognise and identify with it, and then caricature and exaggerate it to extremes.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
thethought 6y ago
An alt-side is never ending pleasure of closing laptop at the bell .. in anticipation of bbq, wine, family, and friends. Knowing fully well it’s ephemeral. IMO there is no doom and gloom in this view.
HenryBemis 6y ago
I have been 'studying' Dilbert since the first time I laid eyes on it/him 20 years ago. This cartoon prepares you for life in large-corp environments. I've seen so many (real life) scenarios play out exactly as some of Dilbert's (and the other chars) stories. Edit: for clarity, the article does refer to "The Dilbert Principle".
impendia 6y ago
> Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? Not a doctor, but a college professor. I love my job, take pride in it, and work hard at it. But I think of myself as working for my students, my collaborators, and my immediate colleagues. I pay little attention to my university as a whole, don't view it especially positively, haven't learned how to work its bureaucracy, and feel little loyalty to the institution in general. It seems that, according to the article, I'm a "loser". As such, "it is clear that I am an idiot". Probably true lol. But a fairly happy idiot.
- Ankintol 6y ago
  Just as a note, the article specifically lays out that you are only a loser in a pure economic sense, you have not maximized monetary profit and have chosen to prioritize something else. Not an idiot at all :)
- higerordermap 6y ago
  > I love my job, take pride in it, and work hard at it. But I think of myself as working for my students, my collaborators, and my immediate colleagues. I pay little attention to my university as a whole, don't view it especially positively, haven't learned how to work its bureaucracy, and feel little loyalty to the institution in general. Thank you.
- totalZero 6y ago
  If only all professors had this attitude.
  - badmash 6y ago
    Agreed!
mattmanser 6y ago
He does mention meaningful work, that's done by the clueless. But to the author it's a sidenote that he doesn't bother explaining. It's this bit where he briefly touched on it: the standard promotion/development path is primarily designed to maneuver the Clueless into position wherever they are needed
- yaml-ops-guy 6y ago
  So a transmogrification of The Peter Principle but in more words?
  - Jedd 6y ago
    If by transmogrify you mean changing the intent, along with every noun and verb in the original, then maybe. However it feels like a profoundly different claim to Dr Peter's.
MarkPNeyer 6y ago
I agree with your analysis here, although from what I understand he argues that these phenomena have to do with working for big companies. The book “developer hegemony” makes a similar argument and argues that the “way out is to have lots of small software consulting shops.
doublejay1999 6y ago
Forgive me for being blunt : > leaves no room for honest positive and meaningful work, and at risk of pointing out the obvious, there's a lot of meaningful work to be done. There's plenty of meaningful work to be done, but most of it doesn't generate profit, so it doesn't get done. That which does get done, often pays poverty wages. Raising good citizens, caring for the elderly, educating our children, producing high quality nutritious food, cleaning our streets of litter - all meaningful and vital, all pay buttons. Many more jobs pay so little, we dont even bother doing in the West anymore and give those jobs to other countries. > Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? What percentage of the workers Doctors ? Bonus : why isn't everyone a doctor ? > Adopting this philosophy is dooming oneself to a neverending feeling of being exploited and the argument that this is what is actually happening in totality is all philosophical opinion so why would I adopt a philosophy that is so personally ruinous, demoralizing, and demotivating? Pretending you are happy and contributing to society while you are required to piss in a bottle is to concede all human dignity. To pretend that giving up 70 hours a week crunching numbers so a Corporation pays less tax that is to sell your soul and work to the detriment of society. To think anything else, means it's already too late for you. tldr : meaningful jobs exist, but are rare as rocking horse shit and great swathes of us never get to experience meaningful jobs, because our culture needs obedient workers to make profits ahead of anything else.
rgblambda 6y ago
>Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? Making positive contributions to society doesn't change the fact that you're being exploited. It's become increasingly clear that Doctors (at least where I'm from) have low pay early in their careers, unsafe working conditions, and have almost no life outside of work. On top of that they have a stressful job involving interacting with members of the public.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  Given the fact that nowadays doctor is mostly a rote memorization educational path, I often wonder if increasing the number of doctors but reducing hours and somewhat pay would be an overall improvement. Both me and my girlfriend were majors of our promotions and had more than enough in the way of academic achievement to become doctors, but the insane workload was a very effective deterrent.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 6y ago
    Australia has tried to get some of the way there with Nurse Practitioners. I'm in Tasmania, so here's the a PDF from the Tasmanian Department of Health Services explaining what a Nurse Practitioner can do, including prescribing some medication and interpreting diagnostic test https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/64084/NP_Frequently_Asked_Questions_-_2008-03-12.pdf https://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/6408...
    - Clewza313 6y ago
      This is partly because in Australia, regular nurses can do virtually nothing on their own initiative. A friend of mine was an ICU nurse in Canada before moving to Australia. It was a long and painful process to get qualified again, and when she did, she found out she had been demoted from being able to meaningfully improve patient care (eg the prescriptions and diagnoses you mention) to a robot carrying out orders.
      - 6y ago
TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
> Where does that leave people like doctors who earnestly help their patients? I'm sure they'll BOTH figure it out.
erhk 6y ago
>why would I adopt a philosophy that is so personally ruinous, demoralizing, and demotivating? But why not be discontent with your reality? That's typically a sign to enact change and willingfully settling is an acceptance of how things are. I think the problem lies in the way that capitalism treats companies and labour. Im not proposing we abolish capitalism but selling our time at a loss* to our employer doesn't "feel" good. Maybe you feel rewarded by your work and maybe you don't but you shouldn't destroy that feeling for the sake of complacency. *Loss is possibly controversial, but an employer does seek to get more value out of an employee than they pay them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

minsc__and__boo 6y ago

This is too true. I just went through a full MacLeod cycle in the past three years and can attest how uncanny the accuracy is.

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago

Wow. And what's so startling about this breakdown is that you can figure out which of the 3 groups someone is in within 10 minutes of your first meeting with them.

tommilukkarinen 6y ago

This article is interestingly promotes kinda flawed communist thinking about 'overperforming losers'. Most companies make 'reasonable' profits or even losses. You could say normal range for profits is -5% to +10%. When the company is people intensive, it basically means, that revenue is paid in salaries. For better salaries to be paid, profits must grow first. For profits to grow, existing people must perform better. If profits don't grow, salaries can't follow. Now when profits grow, we face a decision on how to split the new profits, and it does not always fall on the existing employees. Sometimes profits go into hiring new people, sometimes they go into pockets of the owners. But I have also often seen in my 25 year career, that performers are compensated. I have also always seen the costs rise, and the costs been mostly salaries. So profits eventually go to the pockets of the employees. So actually it is good idea for everyone to perform, because if the profit growth stops, salary growth stops as well. Anyway, my bottom line is that this 'sociopath, clueless, loser' is flawed thinking, but probably something people genuinely believe in just like many people believe that vaccines are bad.

TheRealDunkirk 6y ago
The article addresses this. You're just talking about the early stages/small company part of the lifecycle. In my case, working for a 100-year-old manufacturing company, I looked around the cube farm one day, and realized there is a small army of people who's job it is to festoon every vertical space within eyesight, at scores of facilities across the globe, with flyers and promotionals and health insurance factoids and retirement plans and educational resources and on and on and on. (And maps of the cube warrens, because people thought wacky floorpans were cool 40 years ago.) Those are the definition of "Loser" jobs, and they're everywhere. My company is so far down the article's referenced lifecycle that there are several large groups of people who copy information from the mainframe into Excel sheets, and then hand this over to another group who take that information, and put it back into the mainframe. And the "Clueless" have fought me, tooth and nail, to try to improve these kinds of barbarous workflows.