10 ms·

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

• yedidmh 8mo ago
  Anyone else can't scroll on this site?
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
• ma2kx 8mo ago
  The MacLeod Life Cycle reminds me on the 5 seasons of the illuminati calendar: Verwirrung Season of Chaos January 1-March 14 Zweitracht Season of Discord March 15-May 26 Unordnung Season of Confusion May 27-August 7 Beamtenherrschaft Season of Bureaucracy August 8-October 19 Grummet Season of Aftermath October 20-December 31 From the book Illuminatus!
  • lencastre 8mo ago
    TIL
  • virtualritz 8mo ago
    The translations make no sense to a German native speaker. The list even swap meanings, i.e. between confusion and clutter. Accurate translations are: Verwirrung = Confusion Zwietracht = Discord You swapped i and e; somehow English speakders do this to German words all of the time. The 'ie' in here is a long 'i'. Zweitracht on the other hand would mean a "double traditional costume", if that word existed (it does exist in theory, it is just then number two [Zwei] and the noun for a traditional costume [Tracht] strung together; would be a great name for a German shop that sells used/pre-owned traditional costumes btw.) Unordnung = Clutter Beamtenherrschaft = Rule of the public servant class Grummet = Second hay harvest
    • exmadscientist 8mo ago
      Illuminatus! is one of those works where there's a decent chance this is just a mistake or oversight, but also a decent chance this is exactly what the authors intended. You never can quite tell, and they definitely liked that.
    • sanderjd 8mo ago
      I think the reason that English speakers swap ie/ei is that the pronunciations of these is not really consistent in English (at least in the American accent I speak), and I can't think of any words where both orderings exist but have different meanings. So the general impression I have about this is that I know there are supposed to be rules about it, but it seems pretty arbitrary and unimportant semantically.
      • QuercusMax 8mo ago
        Frahnken-STEEN vs Franken-STINE
        • FrustratedMonky 8mo ago
          Exactly, Americans do use both pronunciations .
        • sanderjd 8mo ago
          Right, we truly don't have a strong rule about differentiating these in the standard American dialect! Most people say STINE for this one, but if you say STEEN, nobody is gonna be confused or tell you that it's wrong.
    • croes 8mo ago
      But Beamte are heavily linked to bureaucracy. Chaos is the opposite of order and the opposite of Ordnung is Unordnung
• p0bs 8mo ago
  Focusing only on the second and top layer of the diagram, I usually call them “the increments and the excrements”.
• prox 8mo ago
  That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck. They saw their parents do The Office in real life. Interesting is also that Michael does make a really good arc from season one to when he leaves. He remains clueless, or rather he it dawns on him he does not want to become like Ryan or David (the articles sociopath). Like he says in a later season “Business is about people.”
  • lelanthran 8mo ago
    > That was a fun read, and it might even explain why a lot of Gen-z is opting out of any sort of career building, wanting values instead (or next to) a paycheck. Wouldn't that make them even bigger ~losers~ Clueless? The ~losers~ Clueless are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! Putting in +25% extra into their job for a 5% promotion, for example. Putting in effort for anything other than money is in the companies interest - they want people to be happy with vibes-as-compensation instead of money-as-compensation! --------------- EDIT: I meant to say Clueless, not "losers".
    • the_af 8mo ago
      > The losers are strictly those who put in more effort than they get in return but who cannot see it! I think those would be the losers who get promoted to clueless, at least in this metaphor. The losers who aren't clueless are putting in the bare minimum work that doesn't get them fired. If they overperform, they (according to the theory) get promoted. I fully agree this nasty "vibes-as-compensation" bullshit, "we're all a family", etc, is in the interest of the top leadership. The sociopaths, if you will.
      • lelanthran 8mo ago
        You're correct, I meant Clueless, sorry. In my defense, I last read this when it was first published, so maybe ... 15 years? 20?
      • prox 8mo ago
• alecco 8mo ago
  (2009) Previous discussions: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=%22The%20Gervais%20Principle%22&sort=byPopularity&type=story https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
  • alecco 8mo ago
    What I've seen many, many times. 1. business people sold themselves as the best to manage companies and took over companies (just like lawyers do in governments), changing the norm from decades ago when it was more likely for engineers to run companies than some kind of McKinsey guy 2. but they have no idea besides business/money metrics so they quickly become overwhelmed and decide based on who makes the most compelling argument ("don't bring me more problems, give me solutions") 3. sociopaths exploit this by telling the execs what they want to hear 4. only after a while, after significant investment of resources in the decisions/projects proposed by the sociopaths it comes up to light it's complete nonsense 5. the sociopaths are aware of this, so they usually pivot before SHTF or they even exploit the situation to ask for more to "fix" the problems 6. the execs who backed the sociopaths want to cover their own asses so they hide the problems from higher ups for as long as possible (CEO, board, investors, shareholders, clients, authorities, public) 7. competent people are pulled out of productive work and thrown to solve impossible or even contradicting situations; some burn out, some leave, and the ones who stay are often stained forever like they were the cause of the problem Sometimes the sociopaths are external consulting companies or companies offering some magic huge system that they promise will solve all the problems. Sociopaths exploit information asymmetry. Classic: https://web.archive.org/web/20051013062258/http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2005/9/27/95759/4240 https://web.archive.org/web/20051013062258/http://www.kuro5h...
    • zoeysmithe 8mo ago
      This is really ableist. Sociopaths? Most people in charge of running companies from top to mid-level are average people, even if some dark-triad coded people exist. What you're angry at is what capitalism is supposed to do: maximize value for the the capital owning class, that is to say ownership. There was never some engineer owned utopia. Business culture has always been this way, in fact, its only been worse in the past pre-socialist/labor movement times, not just with labor (child labor, long hours, dangerous conditions, etc) but also product (poison put in bread to make it cheaper, etc.) There is no way out of this dynamic in capitalism because this is all fundamental to capitalism.
• bananaflag 8mo ago
  See the Scott Alexander review: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-gervais-principle https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/book-review-the-gervais-pri...
  • gsf_emergency_7 8mo ago
    Liked this comment: "If we could convince [any] Sociopath that we were all Losers, we might be able to entice them into spilling their secrets as 'Straighttalk'. (Arguably that's what this book is..)" On one hand Rao doesn't say much about Gametalk (he basically defers to Eric Berne) which is the Loser's sociolect and should well be our default. On the other, Rao much more optimistic than Orwell, who declared doublespeak the lingua franca?
    • OgsyedIE 8mo ago
      The Berne books Rao cites as explanations of Gametalk are solidly good entries in of themselves, although it's probably best to use an LLM to get search results of the best introductions to TA first to see if they've been surpassed.
      • gsf_emergency_7 8mo ago
        Adhering to the predictable/ritualistic/comfortable nature of "Gametalk", Here's one question I asked: "How does Eric Berne's Gametalk as interpreted by Venkatesh Rao signal to the sociopaths that those who engage in them are losers worth talking to? Distinguish between "channels" that Eric has identified as well as new signals that Rao or others have discovered." https://youtu.be/9B3oem_56jg?t=52s https://youtu.be/9B3oem_56jg?t=52s
        • hrimfaxi 8mo ago
          Can you expand on your included youtube link? It's not clear the relationship.
          • 8mo ago
• bookhimdano 8mo ago
  This is interesting enough, I’d buy a book about this (audiobook at least). I’ve tried to limit myself to only the best and most practical books about leadership that didn’t start corporate speak, and I doubt Gervais Principle would be quoted or used in work conversation, so it’s perfect.
  • llimllib 8mo ago
    You’re in luck, he sells it as a book: https://www.amazon.com/Gervais-Principle-Complete-Office-Ribbonfarm-ebook/dp/B00F9IV64W?dplnkId=21f2c45d-0a90-428f-b4c0-786413f47c6a&nodl=1 https://www.amazon.com/Gervais-Principle-Complete-Office-Rib...
  • tdrgabi 8mo ago
    What other books did you find in that style?
• k__ 8mo ago
  I liked that model a lot, but it made me a bit sad too. All my life I was bad at being a loser, somehow I never really felt I fit in. I thought this was because of psychopathic tendencies or something. However, after reading this I realized there was another option and I was just clueless.
  • OgsyedIE 8mo ago
    Give the Melting Asphalt blog a try, it's a solid resource on those two tiers. Suggested starter essay: https://meltingasphalt.com/personality-the-body-in-society/ https://meltingasphalt.com/personality-the-body-in-society/
  • baggachipz 8mo ago
    I've always been a clued-in loser because I lack the sociopathy to get promoted :(
  • Arubis 8mo ago
    It is perhaps crucial to note that Venkat Rao, the author, himself found an escape from the system under study here; he’s been consulting or otherwise feral for about 15 years.
    • k__ 8mo ago
      I'm consulting or otherwise feral for about 12 years. Didn't make me less clueless, I think...
  • lukas099 8mo ago
    Being clueless can be admirable, I think. These are the people you work with who put in the work even when it won't lead to a fatter paycheck for themselves. The essay makes them out to all be useless middle managers, but the actual top contributers to a team also fit most closely with this category.
• OgsyedIE 8mo ago
  The most interesting parts of the essay are the ways that Rao (a full proponent of the niche psychotherapy school of transactional analysis) applies his view of psychoanalysis to describe the social dynamics between coworkers with differing levels of nihilism. He argues that the 'sociopath class' of social-climbing nihilists map 1:1 onto the leaderships of large organizations but it's rare in the real world. Usually there are people of all levels of naiveté and nihilism at all ranks of organizations, with naive true believers mixing with nihilists at the top, the middle and the bottom fairly equally, because the world has too much churn to settle into the kind of density-separation equilibrium he describes.
• MachineMan 8mo ago
  [flagged]
  • spicyusername 8mo ago
    I don't think those two things are alike at all, unfortunately, however "cool" it feels to make such an analogy. Perhaps it's worth going and reading about actual slavery and what it was like.
    • lencastre 8mo ago
      perhaps is doing a lot of massaging there
      • velcrovan 8mo ago
        I love me a good massage
    • FrustratedMonky 8mo ago
      Either side of an analogy can have factors at different scales. But it can still be a valid analogy. If you are saying that because slavery was much worse, then modern slaves should just suck it up and work harder. Then that isn't really helping is it? This is kind of the argument "others have had it worse, so lets not try to make anything better for people today".
      • hrimfaxi 8mo ago
        Are you seriously equating the modern office and work, where, you know, you can go home after, to life as a slave on a plantation? Sure, analogies can have factors at different scales but the scales come into the equation when the factor is the axis we are analyzing. Is your issue that life requires action to maintain it? Do you believe no work is required at all in life? The idea that work is like slavery is deep when you're 14 and then not so much. No one had said our modern lives couldn't be better but you don't have to liken our existence to slavery to get to "things could be better".
• epolanski 8mo ago
  The distinction between losers, clueless and sociopaths has been very useful in my career. It made me recognize how many times I, or people I know, was the weakest link in the chain, the clueless. So have been the many examples of power talk and the importance of information.
  • pwillia7 8mo ago
    have anything to read more about the power talk stuff?
    • epolanski 8mo ago
      Not really to be honest because the framework under which Venkatesh Rao talks about power talk is a bit different than how most sociologists see power talk. Sociologists focus on tone, Rao focuses on the content. In The Gervais Principle information is a currency and treated as negotiation leverage. You never give it for free, unless strictly in the boundaries of your job. Thus, under this lens, you collect as much information and never give it away for free. Suppose you're a software engineer and a service you work on is slow. There's two ways you can go about it: "Our API has a 300ms+ latency, I have some ideas on how to fix it" -> giving information, and work for free. You're in the loser/clueless category. Which of those depends on your awareness: are you aware of the political game and ignore it and focus on the craft? Loser. Are you not aware of the political game and try to do "what's best for the team/company"? You're clueless. Then there's the sociopath's version: "We may have a performance issues affecting reliability. Before we go deeper, we should decide who owns performance optimization." This is power talk. Even if you don't own the performance optimization you still: - communicated that you hold information others don't - you're setting the tone and direction of the meeting At this point somebody may raise the point of "which performance issues?" and here the hard part begins, how do you navigate and play the game? Are you prepared to motivate why ownership comes before information? In the end, probably the best way to learn power talk in the context of the Gervais principle is to experiment, observe and study. Because no other sociologists has focused on it with Rao's angle.
      • 8mo ago
• avazhi 8mo ago
  Lots of word salad in this nonsensical write up anyway, but the author lost all credibility when he said that David Wallace is an ubersociopath.
  • lencastre 8mo ago
    you might need to reread his thesis again
    • avazhi 8mo ago
      Reading word salad once is enough for me, thanks.
  • iugtmkbdfil834 8mo ago
    << author lost all credibility when he said that David Wallace is an ubersociopath. This one got me interested. Can you elaborate? It is a show, but there is absolutely plenty of evidence within the show to support that claim.
    • avazhi 8mo ago
      Such as what? There was plenty of evidence that Jan was a sociopath, or Ryan (obviously), but David had quite literally 0 sociopathic tendencies. Plus, this author said something about how David (and Jan) were both 'clueless' about Michael's incompetence, so it isn't like you can argue that David knew he was incompetent but tried to get him promoted to corporate anyway (which would obviously have been manipulative, although that alone wouldn't make him a sociopath). When Dwight did random crazy shit, like set a fire in the office to do fire safety awareness day, David told him straight up that he couldn't do that and why. At no time did David display a lack of social skills, lack of empathy, or antisocial behaviour (except for a bit after he gets fired and prior to starting up Suck It). The most you could probably say there is that when Michael and Holly were forced apart (Holly back to Nashua), David was a bit muted - but even then, he tried to send Michael on a vacation (which got Michael laid in the end), even though the episode ends with Michael raging at David. I'm happy to hear what the 'plenty of evidence' is.
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• daralthus 8mo ago
  This is broadly accurate, but if anyone feels like freaking out and quickly needs an antidote to the "high" class of sociopath grifters, perhaps could find some solitude in Wim Wenders' Perfect Days for a few hours.
• varispeed 8mo ago
  From what I have observed. Quiet people who speak sense and don't get involved in arguments, never rise to the top, whereas those loud morons almost certainly do. Often because those quiet people think they'll be less shouty, nagging. As long as the quiet ones can get on with the job and the loud pricks don't interfere, it makes the organisation dysfunctionally work. That said, world would be much nicer if these types could be just sacked. They don't contribute anything but increase stress and eat the salary budget that otherwise could be redistributed to the rest of the productive workers.
  • lionkor 8mo ago
    The quiet ones need to learn to speak up when they have something important to add. Just sitting there quietly and not speaking, not participating in discussions, and not speaking up when something is wrong, is NOT noble. "Quiet" people who know when to speak absolutely rise above anyone else, in a professional setting, in my experience.
    • namtab00 8mo ago
      The problem is knowing the "when", or better yet choosing the "right" one. Don't ask me about these targets I have on my back. Many times and in many orgs, the window to speak up opens too seldomly and it's barely cracked open...
    • lnsru 8mo ago
      I see your naive opinion attracted lots of negativity. In perfect world decades ago the quiet ones had a chance. With right approach and good timing it worked very well: https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/10/bmw-3-series-touring-history-max-reisboeck/ https://www.bmwblog.com/2025/02/10/bmw-3-series-touring-hist... And that was seen in German economy growth. Now it’s completely different. Result is secondary, process is most important: https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/munich-airport-lufthansa-flights-snow-b2928834.html?test_group=lighteradlayout https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/munich-... Now it’s noise and screaming. You can speak up, result will be the same as if you would do that in the forest. Loud bullshiters will be promoted. Your technical opinion with properly perceived problems will be discarded as stupid. Welcome in the age of noise. And it also reflects in the current German economy and probably politics too.
• notahacker 8mo ago
  Ironically the original Office, featuring Ricky Gervais, has a much better and more nuanced implicit theory of management than this. Brent (Gervais) is neither a sociopath nor the top dog he thinks he is, he's a middle manager who it's implied was legitimately good at sales, but is not at all good at the role he's been promoted into because it's a completely different one. The actual upper management, sociopathic or not, are certainly not scouring the underlings for underperforming sociopaths phoning it in to promote (imagine Keith being promoted!), and are actually more interested in making them redundant to make efficiency savings. We don't see senior management at all, they don't see most of the employees at all and they clearly don't have much idea what's going on, initially considering promoting Brent (because he applies for it and can bluff his way through an interview) but then in the second season bringing in Neil to oversee him and get rid of him (because they've started paying attention). Neil is obviously more socially adept which is probably why he's been promoted higher at a younger age, but he also appears to be actually good at his job. On the other hand, Gareth whose career appears to have topped out at assistant to the Regional Manager, ends up getting Brent's middle management job though he has zero social skills and actually liked the guy whose seat he takes, because he wants it, he grafts and he's there. Most of the others in the office neither work particularly hard nor particularly care for seeking promotion. And it's a paper company, they don't exactly have many ways to identify high performers anyway and the really ambitious and talented people are elsewhere. (We don't see the people at the top at all, but they probably went to the right school, started in middle management somewhere else and hopped jobs adding bullet points of performance they can claim credit for to their CV until they got C-suite titles and compensation)
  • the_af 8mo ago
    > Brent (Gervais) is neither a sociopath nor the top dog he thinks he is, he's a middle manager who it's implied was legitimately good at sales, but is not at all good at the role he's been promoted into because it's a completely different one. I think in this hierarchy Brent is supposed to be Clueless rather than Sociopath. I agree it doesn't 100% match the characters. By the way, I like Steve Carell but the British show was much better than the US one.
• 0xbadcafebee 8mo ago
  I find all these principles to be wrong. Having worked in many companies of many sizes in many industries, there's a more variable distribution of characteristics of office workers. They can be sociopathic, empathic, competent, incompetent, kind, mean, sincere, duplicitous, flexible, inflexible, passionate, aloof, personable, antisocial, motivated, unmotivated, productive, unproductive. And they're always a mix of these things. Some people are promoted without reaching their level of incompetence. Some leaders are actually empathetic. Some middle managers are effective. And some low-level grunts are consciously and happily both productive and exploited without desire for more. Granted, they're in the minority, but they do exist. I would rather there be language to describe and venerate these people, than to paint the whole world with a pessimistic brush.
  • deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
  • nine_k 8mo ago
    Have you seen a blockbuster full of nuance, pastel colors, and "yes but"s? A publication like this needs to be garishly gloomy and scandalously cynical to generate enough stir. It draws attention. Why would one think that a book about exploitation and self-deception won't exploit the reader a tiny bit?
  • mikkupikku 8mo ago
    The whole point of stereotyping, which is the basis for the "Gervais principle", is to cover up any subtly or nuance and feel smug about ourselves when doing it. You coming in here with your "actually real people are more complex and varied"... You're spoiling the fun!
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• tsunamifury 8mo ago
  This essay was my bible at Google. It openly matched internal hierarchy and our own secret GDNA testing results illustrated it directly showing VP and above scored highly on the need to dominate over discover truth etc. The problem was to my existential horror: i couldn’t use this knowledge to get anywhere beyond clueless. Because super large western organizations either purposefully hide information or are full of stupidity so much that they can’t share it. I never could climb to any kind of safety —- until I realized that was the point. There is no safety. You only climb if you recognize death is inevitable, leaving those who want safety behind. So now that I’m further up: Peter Turchins elite over production is my new nightmare
  • nixon_why69 8mo ago
    I resonate with your comment but completely reject the conclusion. Death is inevitable, who cares how high you climbed on a ladder you didn't define? Why is that meaningful? Money is nice, dont get me wrong, but to value the climbing itself?
    • pc86 8mo ago
      Doing hard things is tautologically good.
      • mikkupikku 8mo ago
        Bullshit. Many things are hard because they shouldn't be done and systems have evolved to make the thing hard for good reason.
        • dripdry45 8mo ago
          I see you’ve probably never spent time in a large, ossified bureaucracy. There are plenty of things in the world that are hard only because they’ve been made difficult by people who either don’t want them done, don’t understand, or greatly benefit from their not being done, but would be a fantastic idea to do. Such as get a new coffee maker for our office, but it would take two years, multiple committees, and an electrical study in order to do so. No i am not kidding
• deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
• netfortius 8mo ago
  The "organization evolution" diagram is missing a crucial step, usually happening just before "death": some Sociopaths start trading intelligence (required, to a certain level, if to sustain crucial efforts in producing positive results) for mediocrity, in order to gain full obedience (the Clueless being hired are no longer A+ or A, but rather D, E, etc. level players, fully & blindly dedicated to the "leader"). This step is to be observed today in some governments.
• adamesque 8mo ago
  Okay, so then — who gets squeezed more by AI: the clueless or the losers?
  • Aditya_Garg 8mo ago
    losers, clueless never had to be productive, just scapegoats. But now losers dont get that buffer window to try and become sociopaths, they just dont get hired at all.
    • pphysch 8mo ago
      But clueless need losers to exist, so as a second order effect, they lose as well.
• system7rocks 8mo ago
  This is why I come to this site. Some of the tech stuff goes over my head and limited skills, but this article was insightful and still so relevant. It probably applies to non-profit organizations that tend to falter after their visionary (aka psychopath) leader retires. And it likely applies to a ton of churches out there, especially megachurches, where you walk in to the lobby and see leadership books by their star CEO aka pastor about leadership or life lessons or whatever. But those megachurches churn through employees until they find just enough psychopaths (aka executive pastors) willing to be assholes for God, plenty of clueless who are happy to serve as that middle management, and then those who are okay with being loyal and doing just enough week to week for a paycheck. I've seen it all too often. Check out the podcast Bodies Behind the Bus if you want a glimpse about what happens to those who actually call some of those megachurches to live into what they say - like actually caring for their neighbors.
• tomhow 8mo ago
  Previously... The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41214180 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41214180 - Aug 2024 (173 comments) The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 - Oct 2022 (149 comments) 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 III: The Curse of Development - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1267202 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1267202 - April 2010 (27 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)
• obviouslynotme 8mo ago
  I have enjoyed this article series many times in the past. Having been in all three classes, he got losers and clueless correct, but he is mistaken on the sociopaths. 1. Sociopaths don't recruit. They build fiefdoms and leverage social ties. How many times have you seen a random guy making minimum wage become senior management? Almost never. The exception to this is people who are hired to be in the running for senior management who are moved all over the company at a fast pace to get the lay of the land. 2. Losers are sociopaths who do not have the birthright to be sociopaths. Put the other way around, sociopaths are losers born into valuable social ties. Their natures are the same. Power corrupts. Most people never learn what they become with power. The clueless are the strange ones, the glue that holds everyone together and keeps the lights on. 3. As the author says, gametalk is obtuse discussion distinguished by the stakes involved. That is normal human social patterns, only distinguished by the stakes. If direct, straightforward discussion was the norm, we wouldn't need to use adjectives for it. The clueless are once again the outliers of the organization. The stakes and who gets to use them are the dividing line once again. It's hard to think that most people are so selfish they would throw their group and others under the bus for benefits, but if you look for it, you will see it everywhere. Most people do not have the ability to exercise enough power to make it obvious. Think about Resume Driven Development. Half of it is clueless people genuinely excited for Brand New Thing, but what about the rest? They know that in five years, companies will demand ten years of experience in Brand New Thing. So what do they do? They push for Brand New Thing wherever they can. This lets them accumulate leverage for their next job. Who does this hurt? Their company and everyone who has to deal with their Ball of Mud when they leave. This is the moral equivalent of some senior manager taking short-term gains at long-term loss to grab a fat bonus and fail upwards into another company. I really enjoyed the series, but it has the same problems as other realpolitik subjects. Clueless will grab onto it thinking they can become the next Alexander the Great or Jeff Bezos and make a fool of themselves. The essential ingredients are never spoken out loud, and topics like this are always gross oversimplifications by their very nature.
  • rawgabbit 8mo ago
    My own version has True Psychos at the top, you have to be one to climb your way to the squid games corporations play. There are at least four kinds of underlings. Most middle managers are a combination. First you have the Douchebags, people who traded their morals for money. Second you have the Punching Bags, mercenaries whose moral code is akin to the mafia. Third there are Teabags, unintelligent Dunning Krueger types who are the shrill mouthpieces of the TP. Fourth you have Poop Bags, people who clean up after everyone else.
• DonsDiscountGas 8mo ago
  Hot take: being clueless is better than these essays make it out to be. The examples are all really socially annoying people (Michael, Dwight) but I've known some pretty nice and pleasant middle managers who had generally great lives. They probably could've gotten all of that with less work but perfectly hitting the Pareto frontier is quite difficult.
  • the_af 8mo ago
    According to this theory, the Clueless are the ones who suffer the most. They invest most, they care about made up goals nobody else cares about, they play by rules everyone else thinks are dumb, they feel loyal to a company that doesn't love them back, and because they are more invested in the company, they are the ones who feel the loss the most when the sociopaths pull the rug. I think it's actually the Losers who have it better: they are simply not invested enough, they are replaceable but also find their place in other companies, and in any case, failure affects us-- I mean, them -- less simply because they are not invested as much and they never felt any loyalty. "Loser" is a loaded term because it sounds like the cultural, lowercase loser ("so and so is such a loser!") but it actually means "loser in the game of maximum capitalist profit and power". But if you're not really playing that game, being a loser at it isn't so bad.
    • cshimmin 8mo ago
      Yeah perhaps a better term for Loser is Abstainer. Because the Sociopaths also can certainly lose at the game of maximum capitalist profit. Loser/Abstainer just chooses not to play the game.
      • the_af 8mo ago
        Fully agreed. I think "Loser" is a misnomer. And indeed, going by the essay, the Sociopaths can also lose big... they are willing to risk it all for personal gain, but it can end very badly for them if they miss their window, their manipulations get exposed, or decide to do illegal things to get ahead (high profile cases in my mind: Enron, Epstein, etc).
• viccis 8mo ago
  I like the first blogpost or two. If I recall, it quickly shifts into a pop psychology grindset self improvement book if you keep reading the posts. Its reach starts to exceed its grasp.
• GuinansEyebrows 8mo ago
  well, i guess this has been posted on hn before, but i've never read it, so thanks for posting again. i'm glad i spent most of my work day reading it instead of doing work (but maybe just because some of the conclusions helped me rationalize the futility of my own job in a way i've been struggling with lately). the part near the end discussing the loser's realization and process of transitioning into sociopath (or ending up "worse" than before) reminded me of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. it's been over a decade since i read it but i think the underlying idea is fairly similar to that process.
• economistbob 8mo ago
  The status legibility lesson is priceless, and even more so now that the portion of Sociopaths has grown dramatically, so that many "losers" are now dark triad types.
• vadelfe 8mo ago
  What makes the Gervais Principle interesting is that it frames organizations as systems that are supposed to become pathological over time. Instead of reforming them the economy just replaces them through mergers, layoffs, and new startups. In that sense, the real “governance mechanism” isn’t internal management at all but the external Darwinian churn of the market.
• qnd 7mo ago
  Four years ago, this piece inspired me to write a blog post titled "The Stromberg Minset: On Germany's Geopolitical Delusion" VR used the British Office as an analogy, Alex Danco used the American Office and I tried to showcase the German Office. https://www.artlapinsch.com/stromberg/ https://www.artlapinsch.com/stromberg/ Four years on and not much has changed from my analysis. Unfortunately.