4 ms·

The author also wrote an excellent perspective on management/worker relationships and other corporate shenanigans called "The Gervais Principle" [0], set agains

The author also wrote an excellent perspective on management/worker relationships and other corporate shenanigans called "The Gervais Principle" [0], set against the series "The Office.". It's definitely opinionated. [0] 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-...

genewitch 5y ago
I read the whole thing yesterday and it's more about culture and how the majority of people in groups manage interpersonal things. The pontificating on what drives the founders and c-levels kind of goes into the weeds a bit. I was hoping for more concrete examples of the types of speech, as well. But the culture parts of the essays was quite thought-provoking.
ekster 5y ago
I find it’s a bit dated now, at a high level interesting but he really zooms in on the details until it becomes a kind of nonsense. It was interesting to read and think about when it came out, but I don’t really think it is correct, predicts anything in any meaningful way, or even provides a coherent strategy to manipulate others if that’s the path you want to go down in the first place.
- kbenson 5y ago
  Yeah, when I first read it I thought of it as an interesting and fun theory that was a good read, but I didn't think it was necessarily meant as truth as much as a tool to look at the series and examine it and use ideas and themes presented. For example, I remember the idea of the Losers explained was fairly eye-opening for me. Regardless of the name, the fact that they were a largely savvy group that just chose an entirely different trade-off and decided to treat their jobs purely as a means to an end so they could focus on things they cared about clicked with me in a way that hadn't really before. I mean, I'd worked jobs like that, with a slightly different aim, as a teenager and while going to college, but I was so focused on getting a job more aligned with my interests (which I was lucky enough to do partway through college) that it skewed my view of work and the people around me. The idea of "Losers" made a few things click for me, by linking the middle class expansion of the middle 20th century, the massive manufacturing sector, and the people that were able to live great middle-class lives because of it. These "Losers" are people that have carved out their own little chunk of that dream, and are consciously putting the requisite amount of effort in to not be fired and/or feel like they aren't absolute shit at their job, as nothing more or nothing less is really needed for them to meet their real goals, which are not work related. There's something to envy in that. Does that mean everyone fits in the categories presented, or that all the categories are accurate in all or even most respects? No, but nevertheless, as a prism with which to compare and reassess my own experiences, I found it extremely useful.
  - haraball 5y ago
    I found this blog post [1] on twitter where people were looking for literature on "office politics". It has some good points: > Instead, I think of them in terms of what the modern corporate structure has done to them: Broken the losers, tricked the clueless, and forced the sociopaths into ethical conundrums. > To be specific, I propose that we name the losers, clueless and sociopaths to “pragmatists, idealists and opportunists.” Their roles, relationships and dynamics remain the same ... [1]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/ https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/
dylan604 5y ago
"and elevates it so far above the likes of Dilbert and Office Space." whoa! The Office elvates so far above Office Space? I'm going to have to disagree.
- kbenson 5y ago
  Eh, all the relationships and characters in The Office are far richer and more complex than Office Space, and experience real growth and change over the series. Honestly, I view it as one of the best comedic series ever produced. I only caught up and finished the second half of it a year or so ago, so it's still fresh in my mind.

genewitch 5y ago

I read the whole thing yesterday and it's more about culture and how the majority of people in groups manage interpersonal things. The pontificating on what drives the founders and c-levels kind of goes into the weeds a bit. I was hoping for more concrete examples of the types of speech, as well. But the culture parts of the essays was quite thought-provoking.

ekster 5y ago

I find it’s a bit dated now, at a high level interesting but he really zooms in on the details until it becomes a kind of nonsense. It was interesting to read and think about when it came out, but I don’t really think it is correct, predicts anything in any meaningful way, or even provides a coherent strategy to manipulate others if that’s the path you want to go down in the first place.

kbenson 5y ago
Yeah, when I first read it I thought of it as an interesting and fun theory that was a good read, but I didn't think it was necessarily meant as truth as much as a tool to look at the series and examine it and use ideas and themes presented. For example, I remember the idea of the Losers explained was fairly eye-opening for me. Regardless of the name, the fact that they were a largely savvy group that just chose an entirely different trade-off and decided to treat their jobs purely as a means to an end so they could focus on things they cared about clicked with me in a way that hadn't really before. I mean, I'd worked jobs like that, with a slightly different aim, as a teenager and while going to college, but I was so focused on getting a job more aligned with my interests (which I was lucky enough to do partway through college) that it skewed my view of work and the people around me. The idea of "Losers" made a few things click for me, by linking the middle class expansion of the middle 20th century, the massive manufacturing sector, and the people that were able to live great middle-class lives because of it. These "Losers" are people that have carved out their own little chunk of that dream, and are consciously putting the requisite amount of effort in to not be fired and/or feel like they aren't absolute shit at their job, as nothing more or nothing less is really needed for them to meet their real goals, which are not work related. There's something to envy in that. Does that mean everyone fits in the categories presented, or that all the categories are accurate in all or even most respects? No, but nevertheless, as a prism with which to compare and reassess my own experiences, I found it extremely useful.
- haraball 5y ago
  I found this blog post [1] on twitter where people were looking for literature on "office politics". It has some good points: > Instead, I think of them in terms of what the modern corporate structure has done to them: Broken the losers, tricked the clueless, and forced the sociopaths into ethical conundrums. > To be specific, I propose that we name the losers, clueless and sociopaths to “pragmatists, idealists and opportunists.” Their roles, relationships and dynamics remain the same ... [1]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/ https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/

dylan604 5y ago

"and elevates it so far above the likes of Dilbert and Office Space." whoa! The Office elvates so far above Office Space? I'm going to have to disagree.

kbenson 5y ago
Eh, all the relationships and characters in The Office are far richer and more complex than Office Space, and experience real growth and change over the series. Honestly, I view it as one of the best comedic series ever produced. I only caught up and finished the second half of it a year or so ago, so it's still fresh in my mind.