Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

ribbonfarm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 154 posts

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#71

Post by ep103 »

shubhamjain wrote: post #18

When I first read this, I found it too cynical for my tastes. But now, I can say it's a bit relatable. Being a software engineer, I don't find the "bad" bargain I have for myself that bad. I am a happy "loser." 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 tak…

The tone of the article is extremely negative. Sociopath, Clueless, Loser. And that leads to a generally negative framing of everything and all of the people in question.

The general concepts: some people act as capitalists, some people find meaning in their work and lose sight of the capitalistic nature of work, and some people find meaning outside of work and do so by doing the bare minimum at work and not playing the capitalist game, are valid archetypes, however.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#72

Post by mechanical_bear »

yoyopa wrote: post #46

this is complete bullshit. we've discovered much more complex geometry than the pyramid. we don't have to cram our understanding of society and organizations into such a primitive metaphor. it's also not advisable to call your audience sociopaths, losers and clueless.

I think we found where you fit in the hierarchy friend ;-)

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#73

Post by Nomentatus »

tsol wrote: post #68
TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a boss who was a complete and utter sociopath (by the article's definitions), but there were few people I'd rather go to the pub and have a pint with. Dangerous combination. Gotta watch out for those. What he couldn't otherwise make happen through force of will, he could through personality. He's the CIO at some middling company now, and there's no way I'd connect to him on LinkedIn.

Why are people afraid of these sociopath types? I'm new to the corporate world, but it's not like they're going to just randomly attack you right?

Agreed, they will not attack randomly. They'll attack you fiercely the moment you try to do something right, or something that helps your corporation or a customer in any way that doesn't help them. So only if you are ethical in any way are you in danger.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#74

Post by tptacek »

citizenpaul wrote: post #24

>(the office) I’ve been unable to figure out what makes it so devastatingly effective, and elevates it so far above the likes of Dilbert and Office Space. Dilbert is a hand drawn comic so it will never have the media reach of TV. It also tends to focus more on the details of the bureaucratic brokenness for people to laugh rather than cry at in daily life. The office is syndicated TV with a new episode every week. It…

"The Office" we're talking about here is not a syndicated TV show with a new episode every week; it's a British mini-series. You're likely referring to the US version of "The Office", which ran for 9 seasons and was wildly different from the British show (the showrunners attempted to clone the original but discovered that David Brent's character suited Ricky Gervais far more than it did Steve Carrell, and course-corrected to a different kind of show.)

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#75

Post by Nomentatus »

I hadn't realized it before today, but Jerry Pournelle (a science fiction writer) pioneered here (with two groups, not three, which is an advance in understanding.)

"Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people":

First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational bureaucracy, many of the engineers and launch technicians and scientists at NASA, even some agricultural scientists and advisors in the former Soviet Union collective farming administration.

Secondly, there will be those dedicated to the organization itself. Examples are many of the administrators in the education system, many professors of education, many teachers union officials, much of the NASA headquarters staff, etc.

The Iron Law states that in every case the second group will gain and keep control of the organization. It will write the rules, and control promotions within the organization."

https://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#76

Post by elefanten »

tptacek wrote: post #74
citizenpaul wrote: post #24

>(the office) I’ve been unable to figure out what makes it so devastatingly effective, and elevates it so far above the likes of Dilbert and Office Space. Dilbert is a hand drawn comic so it will never have the media reach of TV. It also tends to focus more on the details of the bureaucratic brokenness for people to laugh rather than cry at in daily life. The office is syndicated TV with a new episode every week. It…

"The Office" we're talking about here is not a syndicated TV show with a new episode every week; it's a British mini-series. You're likely referring to the US version of "The Office", which ran for 9 seasons and was wildly different from the British show (the showrunners attempted to clone the original but discovered that David Brent's character suited Ricky Gervais far more than it did Steve Carrell, and course-corr…

Rao's article is definitely about the American version. Look at the character names and post-season 1 plots referenced.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#77

Post by Nomentatus »

analyst74 wrote: post #21

Maybe I'm just naive, but I found this principle overly cynical. For example, the "sociopathic" intern can also be described as someone with healthy amount of disrespect to existing organizational structures and tries to bring innovation to a dinosaur firm. He took the risk and suffered the consequences like a man.

Good point, there absolutely are "prosocial psychopaths" such as the neurologist James Fallon (I recommend his Youtube videos.) They can be exceptionally useful. I firmly believe that Steve Jobs was in this camp.

But according to Fallon (citing research) the key to getting that nice place is exceptionally loving, caring, attentive parenting. Most of us don't get that, so the results are usually bad.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#78

Post by eastbound »

analyst74 wrote: post #21

Maybe I'm just naive, but I found this principle overly cynical. For example, the "sociopathic" intern can also be described as someone with healthy amount of disrespect to existing organizational structures and tries to bring innovation to a dinosaur firm. He took the risk and suffered the consequences like a man.

I think the equate sociopathic to:

- Able to take decisions upon someone’s employment. In today’s society, it’s based on immediate performance and utility, and negates people’s need. In other words, they’re able to fire someone who’s depressed, and block out emotionally from the catastrophic outcomes. In today’s society, it’s considered the correct way to lead, because it imposes meritocracy and encourages hard work. It’s not very humane, but companies need to live. Not like, you know, people.

- Socially inept. People who make friends and build a family life easily don’t end up as carrierists.

In both cases, even if I’m able to regurgitate that point of view which I don’t agree with, I empathize with the managers in that it’s necessary they behave this way. Perhaps I’m sociopathic.

I’m a CEO, after all ;) (just 3-people company, not too much harm done, and they all got 30% to 60% salary increase this year).

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#79

Post by guerrilla »

Nomentatus wrote: post #75

I hadn't realized it before today, but Jerry Pournelle (a science fiction writer) pioneered here (with two groups, not three, which is an advance in understanding.) "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational…

That assumes a static hierarchy. Cooperatives could fix most of that though, since anyone becoming a problem could be recalled from their position.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or the Office According to “The Office” (2009)

#80

Post by jmyeet »

Nomentatus wrote: post #75

I hadn't realized it before today, but Jerry Pournelle (a science fiction writer) pioneered here (with two groups, not three, which is an advance in understanding.) "Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people": First, there will be those who are devoted to the goals of the organization. Examples are dedicated classroom teachers in an educational…

It reminds me of the quote: "the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy".

The thing about the Iron Rule (which I agree with) is that it appears in online forums too. In placaes like Wikipedia, Stack Overflow and various forums the community divides into three groups:

1. Content creators: those who past and answer questions, etc;

2. Moderators: those who write and enforce rules and standards; and

3. Lurkers: those who simply read.

The second group, while useful, has to constantly be kept in check. No matter how originally (and concurrently) well-intentioned, there will always be a tendency to create and enforce more rules to solve perceived and actual "problems".

I'd be interested to know what psychology drives people to join the moderator camp.

Post reply on HN