4 ms·

This may be "(1998)" but it's timeless and everyone who's had (or been) a micromanager or a bad boss could stand to read it. It describes the micromanagement de

This may be "(1998)" but it's timeless and everyone who's had (or been) a micromanager or a bad boss could stand to read it. It describes the micromanagement death spiral well. It also explains why about a third to a half of people in closed-allocation companies, no matter how talented they would be in a better context, are going to fail. Open allocation gives the individuals multiple opportunities to roll the dice and takes that failure rate down to about 2%. For all our noise about "meritocracy", the truth is that social status matters a great deal in the workplace. I've written about this here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other-half-works-an-adventure-in-the-low-status-of-software-engineers/ http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other... In addition to what's described in the paper, and very relevant to the sorts of ultra-hard-working people you find in tech, high status is right-to-care. If you have low status and care a lot about your work and doing things the right way, you're "pushy" and "entitled". If you're of high status, you're dedicated and creative. Working hard from a position of low social status does absolutely nothing. In fact, it makes your situation worse because it lowers your status even further. A low-status person who puts in long hours is seen as compensating for inability, and if that person stops putting in long hours, the relative drop ("downward trend in performance") is what will be noted. This paper doesn't discuss the real way out. It's not to work harder. It's also not "communication" (even though "communication breakdown" is the polite term for this scenario) because the communication between the manager and low-status subordinate is destined to be one-way. The best odds are with escape: transfer to another group under someone who likes you. However, if that can't be done, the next best option is social proof. Gain the blessing of a high-status person. You can't really do this on your own team (the high-status people don't want to be associated with the low-status ones) so you need to gain the approval of someone of equal or higher status (formal and informal) to your boss and to have your boss know. Of course, this can be dangerous (you appear to be a flight risk) and if you're caught or you fail, it'll be interpreted in the worst possible way, but it's the only reliable way out of the bottom on this one, and it's surprisingly quick when the "magic" of social proof works.

arethuza 12y ago
There is another option for the under-performer - they might be on the sociopath track: The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence. 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...
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  Fair point, but usually this "future Sociopath" is not perceived as a low performer, at least not in the sense the article describes. He's seen as an inconsistent but capable person, and while he may not be liked, he has a certain status that keeps him from falling to the bottom. He shows early on that he can be a high performer, but he's not going to give that away lightly. The organization has to earn his respect. The article describes people being sorted into a high and low status group, from which performance variations follow. It covers the majority of cases where performance follows directly from status. The MacLeod-model Sociopath is someone who shows the capacity to perform at high levels, quite early, but also an unusual willingness to reduce his performance to zero if accorded low status. It's a "Go ahead, try to fire me" move. Sometimes (if done diplomatically) it gives him high status, begrudgingly. After all, a truly high-status person will ignore disrespectful leadership and underperform if given low status (but so will a low-status person; hence, there's a way of doing it.) More often, it leaves him ignored (rather than micromanaged) because the boss just doesn't want to deal with him, and this gives him the freedom to do whatever he wants with his time, as long as he stays out of the boss's way. Then he can usually bounce up-and-diagonal, given time.
  - tmp1234519029 12y ago
Evgeny 12y ago
I've written about this here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other.. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other.... That was awesome. I think I'll start reading your blog from the beginning now ...
- arethuza 12y ago
  I remember having quite a long argument with a non-technical manager who insisted on hiring developers who “Who can hit the ground running.” who always also severely puzzled as to why the developers on the team (who were all pretty good*) were completely reluctant to work on any technology that wasn't easy transferable (i.e. so that they could "hit the ground running" somewhere else). [UK - "pretty good" is high praise]
- purephase 12y ago
  "A big part of the problem is that programmers are constantly trying to one-up each other (see: feigned surprise) and prove their superior knowledge, drive, and intelligence. From the outside (that is, from the vantage point of the business operators we work for) these pissing contests make all sides look stupid and deficient. By lowering each others’ status so reliably, and when little to nothing is at stake, programmers lower their status as a group." This is gold.
nitrogen 12y ago
However, if that can't be done, the next best option is social proof. Gain the blessing of a high-status person. You can't really do this on your own team... If you are a higher status member of your team and want to help team cohesiveness and make friends in the process, try using your status to raise a little the status of an undeservedly low-status teammate.

arethuza 12y ago

There is another option for the under-performer - they might be on the sociopath track: The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence. 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...

michaelochurch 12y ago
Fair point, but usually this "future Sociopath" is not perceived as a low performer, at least not in the sense the article describes. He's seen as an inconsistent but capable person, and while he may not be liked, he has a certain status that keeps him from falling to the bottom. He shows early on that he can be a high performer, but he's not going to give that away lightly. The organization has to earn his respect. The article describes people being sorted into a high and low status group, from which performance variations follow. It covers the majority of cases where performance follows directly from status. The MacLeod-model Sociopath is someone who shows the capacity to perform at high levels, quite early, but also an unusual willingness to reduce his performance to zero if accorded low status. It's a "Go ahead, try to fire me" move. Sometimes (if done diplomatically) it gives him high status, begrudgingly. After all, a truly high-status person will ignore disrespectful leadership and underperform if given low status (but so will a low-status person; hence, there's a way of doing it.) More often, it leaves him ignored (rather than micromanaged) because the boss just doesn't want to deal with him, and this gives him the freedom to do whatever he wants with his time, as long as he stays out of the boss's way. Then he can usually bounce up-and-diagonal, given time.
- tmp1234519029 12y ago

Evgeny 12y ago

I've written about this here: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other.. http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/how-the-other.... That was awesome. I think I'll start reading your blog from the beginning now ...

arethuza 12y ago
I remember having quite a long argument with a non-technical manager who insisted on hiring developers who “Who can hit the ground running.” who always also severely puzzled as to why the developers on the team (who were all pretty good*) were completely reluctant to work on any technology that wasn't easy transferable (i.e. so that they could "hit the ground running" somewhere else). [UK - "pretty good" is high praise]
purephase 12y ago
"A big part of the problem is that programmers are constantly trying to one-up each other (see: feigned surprise) and prove their superior knowledge, drive, and intelligence. From the outside (that is, from the vantage point of the business operators we work for) these pissing contests make all sides look stupid and deficient. By lowering each others’ status so reliably, and when little to nothing is at stake, programmers lower their status as a group." This is gold.

nitrogen 12y ago

However, if that can't be done, the next best option is social proof. Gain the blessing of a high-status person. You can't really do this on your own team... If you are a higher status member of your team and want to help team cohesiveness and make friends in the process, try using your status to raise a little the status of an undeservedly low-status teammate.