12 ms·
The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)
- Mistletoe 4y agoThat company hierarchy pyramid really made me feel depressed. Someone list me some CEOs that aren’t sociopaths. Is Bezos one? Yvon Chouinard, the Patagonia guy definitely isn’t it seems like.
- oneoff786 4y agoBezos ignoring Shatner’s attempts to explain his profound experience going to space in favor of celebrating with alcohol; whilst Shatner is standing there as a recovering alcoholic who lost his wife due to alcohol related stuff seemed pretty sociopathic to me.
- Beltalowda 4y agoDid Bezos know about Shatner's alcohol problems? I watched more Star Trek than most, but I had no idea before this comment, and I have even less of an idea about his wife. Not everyone is clued up on the latest celebrity gossip.
- tomrod 4y agoSince Shatner was Bezos' guest, Bezos should have known. While you may not have personally known about it, it has been widely reported. 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.
- FabHK 4y agoFrankly, at that level he should have competent staff that briefed him. 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
- oneoff786 4y agoEven if he didn’t, it was a terribly apathetic behavior while shatner tried to reflect on the emotional impact of the trip.
- Beltalowda 4y agoYeah, I remember seeing the clip on HIGNFY, and he came off as a bit of a jerk regardless. Just saying it's not necessarily as bad as some people seem to assume it is.
- Swizec 4y agoLots of non-sociopath CEOs in the small-medium business scene. Go look at the MicroConf crowd some day, bunch of good people right there.
- flavius29663 4y agoThe question is: will only the sociopath led medium-companies become large companies? Or do large companies choose a sociopath leadership while becoming large?
- candiddevmike 4y agoIn my experience, every company eventually gets led by a sociopath. Every worker has the same story about how the old boss was so good to employees etc and then replaced by some ruthless profiteer. Companies prosper (profitableish, lots of innovation, employees are first) under the former, and are eventually pillaged and killed under the latter. 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.
- Upgrayyed_U 4y agoThis mirrors my experience as well. In the small and medium-sized business area, the "sociopaths" are the large businesses and private equity firms looking to acquire the smaller businesses. Or often it's the business owner who's the only sociopath in the business, but they are far enough removed from day-to-day operations that the people working underneath them don't recognize them as sociopaths. 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).
- kevin_thibedeau 4y agoI've totally seen this. A well regarded tech founder dies and is replaced with the head sales guy. Lord of the Flies reenactment ensues.
- fwipsy 4y agoI recommend disregarding the terms ("sociopath", "clueless", "loser") used in the article, they're unnecessarily cynical and iirc originally used as a joke. This article takes a basic idea about corporate structure (something like "in any company, some people chug along, some people work hard, and some people are in it to win, and they have the following dynamics") and makes it sound awful using loaded language.
- pmoriarty 4y ago"in any company, some people chug along, some people work hard, and some people are in it to win, and they have the following dynamics" 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."
- dasil003 4y agoThe original article is a classic because it paints a very vivid picture that is emotionally resonant with anyone who has dealt with the banality of corporate life. However it's important to remember that The Office characters trended towards caricatures over time, and individuals are not archetypes. 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.
- synu 4y agoThe worst manager I ever had used to keep a copy of The Prince at his desk. He definitely looked at other people the way this article seems to encourage you to.
- michaelscott 4y agoA bizarre choice if they were middle management; the running of a kingdom in the Prince is only really directly applicable to highest levels of C-suite management.
- synu 4y agoI guess it was their aspiration, but they behaved so apallingly to other people that they never went anywhere past middle management.
- mach1ne 4y agoWell, according to one theory, the Prince was supposed to be a Trojan Horse fooling the reader into acting against their best interests, since Machiavelli wrote it as a gift for his arch nemesis.
- pmoriarty 4y agoMachiavellian principles like "it's better to be feared than loved" seem to be quite applicable to any level of management, not just the C-suite.
- gherkinnn 4y agoHe probably never read it anyway. And you missed a chance to replace it with Le Petit Prince.
- kache_ 4y agocringe.....
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
- pmoriarty 4y ago"organizations don’t suffer pathologies; they are intrinsically pathological constructs" This rings so true, in my experience. Sociopaths at the top also seems to be the rule rather than the exception.
- tomrod 4y agoI really used to buy into this mental model. There are certainly some points that seem to correspond to my lived experience. 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
- k__ 4y agoI'd buy into the model, but I think it misses a few things. 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.
- kqr 4y agoTFA does give an example of an unsuccessful sociopath. There are far more sociopaths than there are positions of success.
- b3morales 4y agoJoffrey was a Clueless if ever there was one. He had no grasp of strategy, no skill at manipulation, no understanding of how to present himself. His mother on the other hand was a Sociopath's Sociopath.
- tomrod 4y agoI agree that he was clueless. He was also a sociopath and nominally in charge, though not by his own choice. A patsy set up to fail. And I 100% agree on Cersei.
- 4y ago
- lioeters 4y agoCompany hierarchy: Sociopaths at the top > Clueless middle managers > Losers at the bottom. 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.
- k__ 4y agoI think, it's only bleak because of the names. Sociopath are very lonely and losers can be very happy in comparison.
- photochemsyn 4y agoSome governments also adopt this kind of hierarchy. Faux democracies in particular look like this - the actual power sits in the hands of autocratic oligarchs (largely sociopathic in outlook), the 'elected politicians' who are in reality selected by the ruling oligarchs serve as the clueless middle managers, along with appointed bureaucrats who sit atop the various state agencies. These levels are rewarded with various kickbacks (hence they attain millionaire status, while the oligarchs have billionaire status). Sitting at the bottom of the pyramid are the so-called losers - the prison guards, the tax collectors, the local politicians and bureaucrats, etc. Their socio-economic status is pretty low, but it's at least a step above those who live in the slums and shantytowns. 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.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoAll of human society is like this. We dress it up and call it different names, but it's just feudalism all over again and again. People who grew up in the US, in luster and afterglow of the post-war boom, thought that our 50's, 60's, and 70's was the way of the world. But we've fallen back in line with the rest of the world now, and the forced shift in the American perspective is jarring.
- vlunkr 4y agoI love The Office, but I don’t believe that the writers actually have some deep knowledge of business psychology and hierarchy. It seems pointless to attempt a deep analysis through that lens.
- karmakurtisaani 4y agoI think it's often the case that when a story is created, the creator(s) don't necessarily have this detailed philosophical/psychological overview of the characters and the essence of the show. Rather, they have their own life experiences and ideals for the story and characters("there's always that idiot boss and that one guy who does nothing"). Analyses like this one then provide us with a point of view that puts the vision of the writers into a larger perspective. 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.
- vasco 4y agoI've tried to make this point before in conversation in relation to many forms of art and I just had to comment that your reply is very on the money and very concise. Gonna take some inspiration, as I've struggled many times to convey this. Most people just think that unless the artist "intended it", analysis is worthless.
- diordiderot 4y agoThere's a funny quote about Casanova along the lines of "in his literary work is deep philosophy, and in his philosophical work is incoherent rambling"
- maigret 4y agoTrue. You need to understand something to explain it. You don’t need to understand something to observe and describe it. Obvious example is how birds fly, which was mostly explained recently only.
- 4y ago
- shubhamjain 4y agoWhen I first read this, I found it too cynical for my tastes. But now, I can say it's a bit relatable. Being a software engineer, I don't find the "bad" bargain I have for myself that bad. I am a happy "loser." 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.
- ep103 4y agoThe tone of the article is extremely negative. Sociopath, Clueless, Loser. And that leads to a generally negative framing of everything and all of the people in question. 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.
- aynsof 4y agoEric Dietrich has a softer framing for this: instead of sociopaths, losers, and clueless; you have opportunists, pragmatists, and idealists [0]. In my opinion it works just as well, without any of the negativity or cynicism of the original Gervais article. [0]: https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/ https://daedtech.com/defining-the-corporate-hierarchy/
- 4y ago
- k__ 4y agoIt's really helpful to identify sociopaths. They know what's up and make things happen, but not friendship material. Kinda dangerous when you interact with one without noticing. Losers are cool and mostly harmless. The alphas can be a bit annoying sometimes, but most of them can be good friends.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoI had a boss who was a complete and utter sociopath (by the article's definitions), but there were few people I'd rather go to the pub and have a pint with. Dangerous combination. Gotta watch out for those. What he couldn't otherwise make happen through force of will, he could through personality. He's the CIO at some middling company now, and there's no way I'd connect to him on LinkedIn.
- tsol 4y agoWhy are people afraid of these sociopath types? I'm new to the corporate world, but it's not like they're going to just randomly attack you right?
- Nomentatus 4y agoAgreed, they will not attack randomly. They'll attack you fiercely the moment you try to do something right, or something that helps your corporation or a customer in any way that doesn't help them. So only if you are ethical in any way are you in danger.
- kache_ 4y agoBecause they cannot read between the lines 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
- karpierz 4y ago
- analyst74 4y agoMaybe I'm just naive, but I found this principle overly cynical. 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.
- Nomentatus 4y agoGood point, there absolutely are "prosocial psychopaths" such as the neurologist James Fallon (I recommend his Youtube videos.) They can be exceptionally useful. I firmly believe that Steve Jobs was in this camp. 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.
- eastbound 4y agoI think the equate sociopathic to: - 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).
- codekansas 4y agoThis is a thought-provoking read. I'm currently going through Meta onboarding for the third time (once before as an intern and once full-time). The first time it was exciting; the second time it was interesting but seemed quaint, but still, neat for a first-time job; the third time it feels like a pipeline for molding the exact sort of Clueless people the article describes.
- pmoriarty 4y agoWhenever I've heard an executive talk at an organization big enough to have its own HR department, when I've read their press releases, HR documents and policies, or attended their all-hands meetings, they've all sounded like they're talking directly to the Clueless.
- kache_ 4y agoThere are some tip top engineering directors in my company that are just regular honest engineers. What's really wild is how my brain just automatically tunes in when they start speaking, and then tunes out again when it's back to corpo speak.
- stu_ 4y agoHaving worked in faang as well for a while now, I can attest that most people seem to be capable of jumping to their own startups very easily. 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 =)
- b3morales 4y agoThe premise of the essay is that a truly Clueless would never do that; that's Sociopath behavior. That said, they are just archetypes, and to the extent we take them as valid at all, every real human will have some mix of the traits. (Even the characters in The Office do -- as I recall Angela is referred to as both a Sociopath and a Loser in different chapters of the essay.)
- citizenpaul 4y ago>(the office) I’ve been unable to figure out what makes it so devastatingly effective, and elevates it so far above the likes of Dilbert and Office Space. 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.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mysterydip 4y agoI like to watch Office Space again whenever I give my two weeks' notice somewhere.
- x86x87 4y agoDilbert does have a cartoon TV series that ran for 2 seasons. https://youtu.be/J1KEPvuiQIs https://youtu.be/J1KEPvuiQIs
- stu_ 4y agoThis is an old but good read! 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.
- titanomachy 4y ago“Middle managers, are typically leadership-qualified but simply don't want to devote enough time for a CEO or startup founder role.” 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.
- Gunax 4y agoIt's very funny. I don't think it's true. Just a bit too cynical. Good people really do get promoted.
- agumonkey 4y agoI honestly never managed to extract any sense of any notion this article put forward.
- TheRealDunkirk 4y agoWe have a wonderful spot for you in lower management!
- agumonkey 4y agoheh, brilliant i can't wait to climb the ladder and step over all of y..
- buscoquadnary 4y agoSo I read this article before and found it interesting. Then I read this article that reviewed and now put less stock in the Gervais Principle https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-gervais-principle https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-the-gervai...
- IsaacL 4y agoIt's funny, I was rereading this article and Scott Alexander's review just now, before I saw that it had been reposted on HN. 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.
- MontgomeryPy 4y agoI would layer the 80-20 rule on top of this principle. For the 20% that get 80% of sh*t done, this doesn't apply imho. But for the other 80% it seems pretty accurate.
- mach1ne 4y agoI'd say the 20% fit comfortably in the Clueless zone. They're receiving a bad bargain and not actively maneuvering to actually improve it. But it's just a model anyway, models are never completely accurate.
- yoyopa 4y agothis is complete bullshit. we've discovered much more complex geometry than the pyramid. we don't have to cram our understanding of society and organizations into such a primitive metaphor. it's also not advisable to call your audience sociopaths, losers and clueless.
- mechanical_bear 4y agoI think we found where you fit in the hierarchy friend ;-)
- kache_ 4y agooh god please don't leak this out this was my secret insight noooo stop leaking the alpha
- mhh__ 4y agoDon't forget Stephen merchant! (The show is his idea)
- Nomentatus 4y agoI hadn't realized it before today, but Jerry Pournelle (a science fiction writer) pioneered here (with two groups, not three, which is an advance in understanding.) "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." https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html
- guerrilla 4y agoThat assumes a static hierarchy. Cooperatives could fix most of that though, since anyone becoming a problem could be recalled from their position.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- throwaway280000 4y agoOf relevance to this point might be Union Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Democracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Democracy It examines a particularly democratic union which seemed unusually able to withstand degeneration into an oligarchy.
- Nomentatus 4y agoVery consistent with Madison's thinking. The U.S. eventual became less fractionated, and fell into large parties, but different unions, for quite different jobs, might have more persistent differences.
- blaser-waffle 4y agoHaven't seen this posted for almost 6 months. Yall are getting slow. Great read, but also fails the sniff test the harder you think about it.
- jasmer 4y agoThank god for the clueless, who keep the world running. 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.
- titanomachy 4y ago“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.” 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.
- dang 4y agoRelated: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31904607 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 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23697779 - July 2020 (1 comment) The Gervais Principle (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22116864 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 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14851505 - July 2017 (1 comment) The Curse of Development - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14177427 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14177427 - April 2017 (28 comments) Wonderful Human Beings - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1790749 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1267202 - April 2010 (27 comments) Random Promotions and the Gervais Principle - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994671 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 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=881296 - Oct 2009 (63 comments)
- threatripper 4y agoWhen we apply the principle "All models are wrong but some are useful." to the Gervais Principle I come to a funny conclusion. It is quite close to reality but mostly useless. It reads funny but is very cynical and it doesn't deliver anything actionable. Neither does it give happiness nor does it empower to change things. It mostly channels anger into cynicism. Well, you may think that you can explain the world in the terms used in the theory and yes, they explain many things quite well. But what then? Resignation? 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.
- joeyguerra 4y agoseems accurate so far.