5 ms·

This is the "Loser" deal according to the Gervais Principle[1]: "[The Losers have] given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for

This is the "Loser" deal according to the Gervais Principle[1]: "[The Losers have] given up some potential for long-term economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability." It makes a certain amount of sense, but so do the other positions of the "Clueless" or "Sociopaths". If you are ambitious, then the "Loser" deal is clearly a bad one. [1] - 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...

the_af 12y ago
Wow, that's a much better article. The following quote in particular rings true (and is the opposite of the claim from the "marriage" article): "The Clueless are the ones who lack the competence to circulate freely through the economy (unlike Sociopaths and Losers), and 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. To sustain themselves, they must be capable of fashioning elaborate delusions based on idealized notions of the firm — the perfectly pathological entities we mentioned. Unless squeezed out by forces they cannot resist, they hang on as long as possible, long after both Sociopaths and Losers have left" I've seen former coworkers build these delusions, even when the ship was sinking and what was left of management was clearly mistreating them.
nostrademons 12y ago
I'd argue this is the "Clueless" deal in the Gervais model. Losers are fully aware that they have struck a bad and unequal economic bargain with their employer, they just don't care. They will happily go elsewhere if a better bargain comes along. It's the Clueless who believe that their loyalty to their employer is matched by their employer's loyalty to them (hence, "clueless"). They're the ones who stick with the firm, rise into middle management, diligently play the company line, and then get abruptly disillusioned when the firm institutes mass layoffs.
- dnissley 12y ago
  On second thought, yeah. Losers are strategic enough that they would be appalled to think that they had a "relationship" with their employer.
- fleitz 12y ago
  Yeah no shit, if you get fired and get to keep 50% of the stock, it might be a marriage. Otherwise it's just delusional. My labour goes to the highest bidder.
joelx 12y ago
Wow, this is a really interesting article! I have to say it is a much darker view of the interaction between companies and employees than what I had put forth, but I do agree that it is more accurate for the majority of companies. I do think that an enlightened ownership (hopefully like mine) can treat people better.

the_af 12y ago

Wow, that's a much better article. The following quote in particular rings true (and is the opposite of the claim from the "marriage" article): "The Clueless are the ones who lack the competence to circulate freely through the economy (unlike Sociopaths and Losers), and 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. To sustain themselves, they must be capable of fashioning elaborate delusions based on idealized notions of the firm — the perfectly pathological entities we mentioned. Unless squeezed out by forces they cannot resist, they hang on as long as possible, long after both Sociopaths and Losers have left" I've seen former coworkers build these delusions, even when the ship was sinking and what was left of management was clearly mistreating them.

nostrademons 12y ago

I'd argue this is the "Clueless" deal in the Gervais model. Losers are fully aware that they have struck a bad and unequal economic bargain with their employer, they just don't care. They will happily go elsewhere if a better bargain comes along. It's the Clueless who believe that their loyalty to their employer is matched by their employer's loyalty to them (hence, "clueless"). They're the ones who stick with the firm, rise into middle management, diligently play the company line, and then get abruptly disillusioned when the firm institutes mass layoffs.

dnissley 12y ago
On second thought, yeah. Losers are strategic enough that they would be appalled to think that they had a "relationship" with their employer.
fleitz 12y ago
Yeah no shit, if you get fired and get to keep 50% of the stock, it might be a marriage. Otherwise it's just delusional. My labour goes to the highest bidder.

joelx 12y ago

Wow, this is a really interesting article! I have to say it is a much darker view of the interaction between companies and employees than what I had put forth, but I do agree that it is more accurate for the majority of companies. I do think that an enlightened ownership (hopefully like mine) can treat people better.