4 ms·

A lot of these "organisational models" treat organisational behaviour as a kind of game; you can get ahead by exploiting game masters' mistakes, by cheating, or

by fch42 2y ago

A lot of these "organisational models" treat organisational behaviour as a kind of game; you can get ahead by exploiting game masters' mistakes, by cheating, or possibly by knowing and playing the rules really well. And just like poker, there's always a supply of those who believe in luck and just go all-in with no plan. While I get that "as such", and therefore can follow a classification sociopath/clueless/loser, what is always missing in such models are the people who don't care to play. Those who go to the casino for free food and drinks in order to watch the show, but not to take a stake of their own. Are they "losers" because if you don't bet you can't win ? All of those who play, though, actually want these spectators - after all, winning if there's noone looking, is that a win? Personally, I think you have this "fourth column" in all organisations. They take their paycheck and deliver something of what's asked for, but else don't care; what they see as "success" is not related to organisational structure or behaviour at all. With all the focus on "success" and "promotion" (or, opposite, "losers"), I wonder how much the theorists are missing. The non-voters can be the majority, you know ...

the_gipsy 2y ago
That's the "losers", they are precisely described.
nkrisc 2y ago
> The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm 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.
- lupire 2y ago
  This is the main annoyance I had that turned me off this theory. Not playing a game may be technically "losing" the game, but empathizing that part gives the game undue importance in the big picture, instead of looking for what actually is important.
  - fch42 2y ago
    Not only that; but also, by virtue of the "promo pool" being the "losers" in this theory, it subclasses them without saying so (into at least three types - losers that will avoid promotion at almost all cost, losers that seek promotion through "hard work" and loosers that trick their promotion through sociopathic scheming). This is basically what I meant ... at the very very minimum, the "unafflicted losers" that don't care about the game are missing. (agree - looks like reality is more complex)

by fch42 2y ago

the_gipsy 2y ago

That's the "losers", they are precisely described.

nkrisc 2y ago

> The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm 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.

lupire 2y ago
This is the main annoyance I had that turned me off this theory. Not playing a game may be technically "losing" the game, but empathizing that part gives the game undue importance in the big picture, instead of looking for what actually is important.
- fch42 2y ago
  Not only that; but also, by virtue of the "promo pool" being the "losers" in this theory, it subclasses them without saying so (into at least three types - losers that will avoid promotion at almost all cost, losers that seek promotion through "hard work" and loosers that trick their promotion through sociopathic scheming). This is basically what I meant ... at the very very minimum, the "unafflicted losers" that don't care about the game are missing. (agree - looks like reality is more complex)