4 ms·

I'm sorry, but it's really difficult to take that "seminal work" seriously when that work is an in-depth analysis of the "MacLeod Model of organizational sociol

by jedc 13y ago

I'm sorry, but it's really difficult to take that "seminal work" seriously when that work is an in-depth analysis of the "MacLeod Model of organizational sociology". Do you know what the "MacLeod Model" is? A cartoon on the back of a business card, posted to the web without comment nine years ago: http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ http://gapingvoid.com/2004/06/27/company-hierarchy/ Michael O'Church might have some interesting things to say, but when he extrapolates pages of meaning from a cartoon that's just trying to be humorous, it says more about Michael O'Church than anything else.

ahoyhere 13y ago
But he SOUNDS so sure of himself! See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styles.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styl...
FD3SA 13y ago
I enjoy Michael's descriptions because they provide a conceptual understanding of very profound evolutionary principles. As someone who understands the difficulty in simplifying evolutionary psychology for non-experts, I sincerely commend him for his work. I would classify Michael's work as an introduction to applied evolutionary psychology, using corporations as a case study. If you'd like the reasons behind why his work is valid, I'd recommend starting with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene followed by The Extended Phenotype. The sections on game theory are particularly insightful, as they describe how competing strategies reach equilibrium in a given environment. You will find the strategies described are quite similar to Michael's classifications, thus shedding much light on corporate environments.
Schwolop 13y ago
Whoa! Given all the reference Michael makes to MacLeod's hierarchy, I'd just tacitly assumed it was a well-known model in organisational studies. I guess the "I should really read the original work" pangs I occasionally have when reading Michael's stuff can go away now...
- MartinCron 13y ago
  You really should read the original work. I mean, it's just a cartoon drawn on the back of a business card, how much time could that possibly take?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
PakG1 13y ago
Is it humorous because it's true or humorous for some other reason? Take Dilbert. A lot of Dilbert comic strips are humorous because they have a grain of inspiration from reality, so people can actually relate to the ludicrous situations, and thereby understand and laugh, even if only sardonically at times. I think this falls into that category. I don't think we should disregard the ideas in this napkin comic just because it's a napkin comic. We should disregard it if it has no grasp on reality. But when one reads books like The Corporation and also experiences life in the corporate world, some of us can't help but nod our heads depressingly. It's why we quit.
Matti 13y ago
The analysis seems to be based more on Venkatesh Rao's fairly lengthy "Gervais Principle" series rather than MacLeod's cartoon per se: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/

by jedc 13y ago

ahoyhere 13y ago

But he SOUNDS so sure of himself! See also http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styles.html http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/03/deceptive-writing-styl...

FD3SA 13y ago

I enjoy Michael's descriptions because they provide a conceptual understanding of very profound evolutionary principles. As someone who understands the difficulty in simplifying evolutionary psychology for non-experts, I sincerely commend him for his work. I would classify Michael's work as an introduction to applied evolutionary psychology, using corporations as a case study. If you'd like the reasons behind why his work is valid, I'd recommend starting with Richard Dawkins' Selfish Gene followed by The Extended Phenotype. The sections on game theory are particularly insightful, as they describe how competing strategies reach equilibrium in a given environment. You will find the strategies described are quite similar to Michael's classifications, thus shedding much light on corporate environments.

Schwolop 13y ago

Whoa! Given all the reference Michael makes to MacLeod's hierarchy, I'd just tacitly assumed it was a well-known model in organisational studies. I guess the "I should really read the original work" pangs I occasionally have when reading Michael's stuff can go away now...

MartinCron 13y ago
You really should read the original work. I mean, it's just a cartoon drawn on the back of a business card, how much time could that possibly take?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

PakG1 13y ago

Is it humorous because it's true or humorous for some other reason? Take Dilbert. A lot of Dilbert comic strips are humorous because they have a grain of inspiration from reality, so people can actually relate to the ludicrous situations, and thereby understand and laugh, even if only sardonically at times. I think this falls into that category. I don't think we should disregard the ideas in this napkin comic just because it's a napkin comic. We should disregard it if it has no grasp on reality. But when one reads books like The Corporation and also experiences life in the corporate world, some of us can't help but nod our heads depressingly. It's why we quit.

Matti 13y ago

The analysis seems to be based more on Venkatesh Rao's fairly lengthy "Gervais Principle" series rather than MacLeod's cartoon per se: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/the-gervais-principle/