3 ms·

I've never read the MacLeod hierarchy, but who wouldn't envision themselves as a "sociopath" on his scale? They sound ideal, cool, and nearly superhuman.

by prawks 14y ago

michaelochurch 14y ago
I've been all 3, in various contexts and at various points in my life. There's a time and place for each. The MacLeod hierarchy came out of a cartoon (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T6hTtHETNic/Td1OnYG_P9I/AAAAAAAAAjo/c8UXki6DMmI/s1600/CompanyHierarchy.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T6hTtHETNic/Td1OnYG_P9I/AAAAAAAAAj...) by Hugh MacLeod. Venkat Rao analyzed The Office (http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...) in that context, and delivered some top-notch analysis of the show and of corporate culture. I'm actually trying to solve the damn thing (http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-principle-questioned-macleods-hierarchy-the-technocrat-and-vc-startups/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ...) which turns out to be a lot of work. I thought it'd be 4 parts and about 15 kilowords. I'm now at 16 parts (~60 kilowords) out of 18-21 parts. Losers are subordinate and strategic but not dedicated. They're not actually undesirable or disliked. In fact, it's often the reverse. They're the "cool kids" who form the social glue. They're losing from the perspective of expected financial value. They're discomfort-minimizers. They know what's worth working on and what not. They tend not to want to work 40 hours per week, and prefer stability and "coolness" over outsized financial yield. They subordinate because it makes their lives easier and more comfortable. Clueless are subordinate and dedicated, but not strategic. They have an unconditional work ethic, which stems from not being able (or willing) to tell what is actually worth working on. They tend to go toward middle management. Sociopaths are strategic and dedicated but not subordinate. Within a year, they're either fired, so bored they quit, or fast-tracked to an important role. They take a lot of up-and-out gambles and "job hop" a lot. Organizations would prefer someone have all 3 traits (subordinacy, dedication, and strategy) but that only happens in the context of a mentor-protege relationship (explicit upper management interest in the person's career). Strategic people can be lazy (not dedicated) if optimizing for discomfort-minimization, and dedicated (but not subordinate) if optimizing for personal yield. They're only going to be both, however, if explicitly put on a favorable career track by powerful people. Otherwise, it just makes no sense to be dedicated toward the goals of a superior who won't reciprocate. The problem with the pyramid-shaped organization is that most workers cannot be "proteges". (That's the guild culture, the rarest of the 4.) It doesn't scale.

I've never read the MacLeod hierarchy, but who wouldn't envision themselves as a "sociopath" on his scale? They sound ideal, cool, and nearly superhuman.

by prawks 14y ago

I've never read the MacLeod hierarchy, but who wouldn't envision themselves as a "sociopath" on his scale? They sound ideal, cool, and nearly superhuman.

michaelochurch 14y ago

I've been all 3, in various contexts and at various points in my life. There's a time and place for each. The MacLeod hierarchy came out of a cartoon (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T6hTtHETNic/Td1OnYG_P9I/AAAAAAAAAjo/c8UXki6DMmI/s1600/CompanyHierarchy.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-T6hTtHETNic/Td1OnYG_P9I/AAAAAAAAAj...) by Hugh MacLeod. Venkat Rao analyzed The Office (http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...) in that context, and delivered some top-notch analysis of the show and of corporate culture. I'm actually trying to solve the damn thing (http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-principle-questioned-macleods-hierarchy-the-technocrat-and-vc-startups/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/gervais-princ...) which turns out to be a lot of work. I thought it'd be 4 parts and about 15 kilowords. I'm now at 16 parts (~60 kilowords) out of 18-21 parts. Losers are subordinate and strategic but not dedicated. They're not actually undesirable or disliked. In fact, it's often the reverse. They're the "cool kids" who form the social glue. They're losing from the perspective of expected financial value. They're discomfort-minimizers. They know what's worth working on and what not. They tend not to want to work 40 hours per week, and prefer stability and "coolness" over outsized financial yield. They subordinate because it makes their lives easier and more comfortable. Clueless are subordinate and dedicated, but not strategic. They have an unconditional work ethic, which stems from not being able (or willing) to tell what is actually worth working on. They tend to go toward middle management. Sociopaths are strategic and dedicated but not subordinate. Within a year, they're either fired, so bored they quit, or fast-tracked to an important role. They take a lot of up-and-out gambles and "job hop" a lot. Organizations would prefer someone have all 3 traits (subordinacy, dedication, and strategy) but that only happens in the context of a mentor-protege relationship (explicit upper management interest in the person's career). Strategic people can be lazy (not dedicated) if optimizing for discomfort-minimization, and dedicated (but not subordinate) if optimizing for personal yield. They're only going to be both, however, if explicitly put on a favorable career track by powerful people. Otherwise, it just makes no sense to be dedicated toward the goals of a superior who won't reciprocate. The problem with the pyramid-shaped organization is that most workers cannot be "proteges". (That's the guild culture, the rarest of the 4.) It doesn't scale.