5 ms·

That company hierarchy pyramid really made me feel depressed. Someone list me some CEOs that aren’t sociopaths. Is Bezos one? Yvon Chouinard, the Patagonia g

That 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 ago
Bezos 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 ago
  Did 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 ago
    Since 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.
    - synu 4y ago
      Realistically he was probably considered something like a prop more than anything.
      - tomrod 4y ago
        Yes, this would be a sociopathic treatment of people. People are not props.
  - FabHK 4y ago
    Frankly, 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 ago
    Even if he didn’t, it was a terribly apathetic behavior while shatner tried to reflect on the emotional impact of the trip.
    - Beltalowda 4y ago
      Yeah, 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 ago
Lots 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 ago
  The 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 ago
    In 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 ago
      This 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 ago
      I'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 ago
I 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 ago
    The 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.

That 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 ago

Bezos 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 ago
Did 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 ago
  Since 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.
  - synu 4y ago
    Realistically he was probably considered something like a prop more than anything.
    - tomrod 4y ago
      Yes, this would be a sociopathic treatment of people. People are not props.
- FabHK 4y ago
  Frankly, 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 ago
  Even if he didn’t, it was a terribly apathetic behavior while shatner tried to reflect on the emotional impact of the trip.
  - Beltalowda 4y ago
    Yeah, 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 ago

Lots 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 ago
The 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 ago
  In 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 ago
    This 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 ago
    I'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 ago

I 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 ago
  The 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.