11–20 of 154 posts
That company hierarchy pyramid really made me feel depressed. Someone list me some CEOs that aren’t sociopaths. Is Bezos one? Yvon Chouinard, the Patagonia guy definitely isn’t it seems like.
Lots of non-sociopath CEOs in the small-medium business scene. Go look at the MicroConf crowd some day, bunch of good people right there.
That company hierarchy pyramid really made me feel depressed. Someone list me some CEOs that aren’t sociopaths. Is Bezos one? Yvon Chouinard, the Patagonia guy definitely isn’t it seems like.
Bezos ignoring Shatner’s attempts to explain his profound experience going to space in favor of celebrating with alcohol; whilst Shatner is standing there as a recovering alcoholic who lost his wife due to alcohol related stuff seemed pretty sociopathic to me.
I really used to buy into this mental model. There are certainly some points that seem to correspond to my lived experience. At this point though, I've been through each of the tiers and have never been either cluelessly obsequious nor a sociopath -- so I have my doubts that the model is worthwhile despite being a good laugh! For those that haven't read it: - Tier 1 - fresh younguns or burnt out talented people who a…
A sociopath doesn't have to be successful.
Alpha losers might think of them as sociopaths.
And people move back and forth between the roles.
Besides that, it's certainly a more complete model than the alpha/beta/omega one.
That company hierarchy pyramid really made me feel depressed. Someone list me some CEOs that aren’t sociopaths. Is Bezos one? Yvon Chouinard, the Patagonia guy definitely isn’t it seems like.
I recommend disregarding the terms ("sociopath", "clueless", "loser") used in the article, they're unnecessarily cynical and iirc originally used as a joke. This article takes a basic idea about corporate structure (something like "in any company, some people chug along, some people work hard, and some people are in it to win, and they have the following dynamics") and makes it sound awful using loaded language.
That's an oversimplification.
Sociopaths are not just "in it to win". They will do whatever it takes to win, and trample as many people under foot as it takes takes them to get ahead without a twinge of conscience.
The clueless in the article aren't merely working hard, they're also true believers in the organization who "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."
Unlike the clueless, the losers see clearly and do the bare minimum to get by and will (like the sociopaths) abandon the ship when it starts to sink, unlike the clueless, who will loyally sink right along with it. While they're in the organization, "they traded freedom for a paycheck .. mortgage their lives away, and hope to die before their money runs out."
While the losers have no more loyalty to the company than the sociopaths "they do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bezos ignoring Shatner’s attempts to explain his profound experience going to space in favor of celebrating with alcohol; whilst Shatner is standing there as a recovering alcoholic who lost his wife due to alcohol related stuff seemed pretty sociopathic to me.
Did Bezos know about Shatner's alcohol problems? I watched more Star Trek than most, but I had no idea before this comment, and I have even less of an idea about his wife. Not everyone is clued up on the latest celebrity gossip.
Basic hospitality is important. Most folks are rightfully indignant when an interviewing company haven't read their resume, while virtually all companies want interviewees to have read the company public website.
Company hierarchy: Sociopaths at the top > Clueless middle managers > Losers at the bottom. That's a bleak view, but I've worked in organizations that fit the model. To think that this could be the norm.. What if the model could be applied to human society in general! With such power dynamics, no wonder we seem to be barely hanging together with tense, mutual disrespect.
Sociopath are very lonely and losers can be very happy in comparison.
But over the years, I have observed— multiple times—obviously talented people who have been slogging for a shitty company for years. It takes them forever to realize they are wasting their time and have to take some action. Some never realize, too.
Usually, they are people who have been promoted by the organization. They were early employees. They believed in the vision and found it hard to lose hope that things might change. The "Clueless" as the article notes.
But there can be an easier explanation as well. Partly, it's also sunk-cost bias. It's possible they do recognize the terrible place they are in. But find it incredibly hard to cut their losses. The organization can always dangle the carrot of "the turnaround is around the corner", "we will promote you soon", "the team depends on you".
A parallel is stock investing. I once invested in terrible company. Even though the deluge of bad news never stopped, it took me four years an my investment falling by 60% to admit that I need to admit I made a bad decision and sell my holdings.
Company hierarchy: Sociopaths at the top > Clueless middle managers > Losers at the bottom. That's a bleak view, but I've worked in organizations that fit the model. To think that this could be the norm.. What if the model could be applied to human society in general! With such power dynamics, no wonder we seem to be barely hanging together with tense, mutual disrespect.
This model characterized, for example, Brazil during the fascist dictatorship era of the 1950s and 1960s, Indonesia and Chile under similar regimes, the Philippines under Marco, probably much of India, a great many African countries, and increasingly it's what the United States seems to be falling into.
Losers are cool and mostly harmless. The alphas can be a bit annoying sometimes, but most of them can be good friends.