5 ms·

Ah, this. To be fair, I don't think the system is "soul battering" for most people. A large number of people-- more than one would like-- are perfectly happy to

Ah, this. To be fair, I don't think the system is "soul battering" for most people. A large number of people-- more than one would like-- are perfectly happy to trade their autonomy and freedom for a bit of (temporary) security in social status and income. That might be one of the more surprising (and disturbing) realizations about white-collar hell: most people don't perceive it as a hell. They're fine, they're happy, and while they're being drained of the traits that made them interesting people when they were younger, it happens so slowly (boiled frog) that they neither notice nor care. What I think is a key insight in his work is on the politics of "not getting political". Please correct me if I'm butchering the concept, but part of the process of turning salaried professionals into obedient drones is to convince them that it's undignified to "get political" at the workplace. The problem is that the people in charge can easily define their position as the default, apolitical one and any opposition as "getting involved in politics". To me, whenever a hiring manager says that there's "no politics" at his company, that's a strong sign of a toxic environment. I'd rather work for someone who's politically aware and can help me navigate what politics exists (there's always a political environment) than one who is delusional enough to think that an organization of 10 or 50 or 200 or 20,000 people can have "no politics". Too often, "there's no politics here" means "I'm in the in-crowd and get my way, so 'political' decisions-- meaning ones that I don't like-- are rarely made". This is how I feel about Silicon Valley "meritocracy". The only people who believe in it are those who've been in the in-crowd for 20+ years and lost touch with reality. They think that they live in a politics-free zone because they're oblivious to their own privilege.

ryguytilidie 12y ago
Your last line reminds me a lot of when PG said that most founders are really nice people who are rarely "mean". Why in the fuck would a founder even consider being mean to one of the most powerful people in the industry? It just seemed to lack the self awareness that founders probably treat him differently than the average person they interact with.
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  I'm working on a blog post about this. The people who tend to succeed in the corporate world are (a) not needlessly mean, (b) rarely mean to those in power, but (c) generally avoidant of close personal relationships. A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs (or promoted into management) is whether there's a suspicion that you'll invite too many (presumably not deserving) friends. People who are "sticky" don't get promoted. People who might tip off their reports about an impending layoff aren't made managers. You have to be cold, for organizational ascent, but not a dick. In environments of heterogeneity, warmth is actually an advantage because people who are personable and giving tend to have a wider array of connections, and that means more information, better ideas, and an easier time staying up to date. The old Silicon Valley actually was that way, but for the past 20 years, it's been functioning as one (however postmodern) corporate organization. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to save Silicon Valley is to pass a law that makes investors liable for certain kinds of founder misconduct, including sexual harassment. For example, a frat boy like Spiegel would actually probably not get promoted in a larger corporation, if his true colors came out, because he's an HR liability. But investors can fund people like him and wash their hands of the cultural issues created by funding frat boys. That's a real problem, and it ought to be fixed. Since founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley, it's only reasonable to acknowledge them as such, and pass liabilities up the chain into the executive ranks (investors).
  - pgbovine 12y ago
    A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs ... Interesting insight about "stickiness"; reminds me of high school cliques, college fraternities/sororities/clubs, etc. Looking forward to your post.
  - waterlesscloud 12y ago
    "founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley." I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it's definitely a useful perspective to keep in mind. A lot of things look very different if you switch over to that way of thinking once in a while. Both pieces of it, the founders are middle managers, and the Valley as meta-company.
oldmanjay 12y ago
Interesting. Do you have anything other than "feelings" backing this up? It's liberal-leaning and so of course likely to get support from those who see their own personal biases as some sort of reality, but I noticed you gave us nothing but unsupported assertions. I'm not really swayed by that.
- Tasboo 12y ago
  I don't think they were claiming to have sources backing up the claims. I think it was pretty clear that they were providing anecdotal information and personal feelings. You don't have to be swayed by it. If you have other information that you feel provides a different view on the subject you are more than welcome to share it.
kabdib 12y ago
I've worked in big companies, small companies, start-ups, and in places with no managers at all. Basically, any time you have a couple of monkeys and a banana in the same room, you're going to get politics. That's the way humans appear to be wired. On the other hand, there are degrees of meritocracy, from the soul-crushing bullshit you get as a leaf-node in a high-tech behemouth (that is to say, none), to the hardscrabble and pragmatic existence you might find in a start-up (you can do the job . . . and you're the janitor? "You're fucking hired, here, have a Aeron and a keyboard and a soda, and don't stop typing").

ryguytilidie 12y ago

Your last line reminds me a lot of when PG said that most founders are really nice people who are rarely "mean". Why in the fuck would a founder even consider being mean to one of the most powerful people in the industry? It just seemed to lack the self awareness that founders probably treat him differently than the average person they interact with.

michaelochurch 12y ago
I'm working on a blog post about this. The people who tend to succeed in the corporate world are (a) not needlessly mean, (b) rarely mean to those in power, but (c) generally avoidant of close personal relationships. A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs (or promoted into management) is whether there's a suspicion that you'll invite too many (presumably not deserving) friends. People who are "sticky" don't get promoted. People who might tip off their reports about an impending layoff aren't made managers. You have to be cold, for organizational ascent, but not a dick. In environments of heterogeneity, warmth is actually an advantage because people who are personable and giving tend to have a wider array of connections, and that means more information, better ideas, and an easier time staying up to date. The old Silicon Valley actually was that way, but for the past 20 years, it's been functioning as one (however postmodern) corporate organization. I've come to the conclusion that the only way to save Silicon Valley is to pass a law that makes investors liable for certain kinds of founder misconduct, including sexual harassment. For example, a frat boy like Spiegel would actually probably not get promoted in a larger corporation, if his true colors came out, because he's an HR liability. But investors can fund people like him and wash their hands of the cultural issues created by funding frat boys. That's a real problem, and it ought to be fixed. Since founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley, it's only reasonable to acknowledge them as such, and pass liabilities up the chain into the executive ranks (investors).
- pgbovine 12y ago
  A major element of whether one is selected for invitation into closed, snooty clubs ... Interesting insight about "stickiness"; reminds me of high school cliques, college fraternities/sororities/clubs, etc. Looking forward to your post.
- waterlesscloud 12y ago
  "founders are middle managers in the VC-funded meta-company that now exists in the Valley." I'm not sure I completely agree with this, but it's definitely a useful perspective to keep in mind. A lot of things look very different if you switch over to that way of thinking once in a while. Both pieces of it, the founders are middle managers, and the Valley as meta-company.

oldmanjay 12y ago

Interesting. Do you have anything other than "feelings" backing this up? It's liberal-leaning and so of course likely to get support from those who see their own personal biases as some sort of reality, but I noticed you gave us nothing but unsupported assertions. I'm not really swayed by that.

Tasboo 12y ago
I don't think they were claiming to have sources backing up the claims. I think it was pretty clear that they were providing anecdotal information and personal feelings. You don't have to be swayed by it. If you have other information that you feel provides a different view on the subject you are more than welcome to share it.

kabdib 12y ago

I've worked in big companies, small companies, start-ups, and in places with no managers at all. Basically, any time you have a couple of monkeys and a banana in the same room, you're going to get politics. That's the way humans appear to be wired. On the other hand, there are degrees of meritocracy, from the soul-crushing bullshit you get as a leaf-node in a high-tech behemouth (that is to say, none), to the hardscrabble and pragmatic existence you might find in a start-up (you can do the job . . . and you're the janitor? "You're fucking hired, here, have a Aeron and a keyboard and a soda, and don't stop typing").