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

81–90 of 154 posts

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

#81

Post by e28eta »

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…

From the third paragraph of the article:

> I’ll be basing this entire article on the American version of the show, which is more fully developed than the original British version, though the original is perhaps more satisfyingly bleak.

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

#82

Post by [deleted] »

guerrilla wrote: post #79
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.

[deleted]

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

#83

Post by kache_ »

pmoriarty wrote: post #29
codekansas wrote: post #23

This is a thought-provoking read. I'm currently going through Meta onboarding for the third time (once before as an intern and once full-time). The first time it was exciting; the second time it was interesting but seemed quaint, but still, neat for a first-time job; the third time it feels like a pipeline for molding the exact sort of Clueless people the article describes.

Whenever I've heard an executive talk at an organization big enough to have its own HR department, when I've read their press releases, HR documents and policies, or attended their all-hands meetings, they've all sounded like they're talking directly to the Clueless.

There are some tip top engineering directors in my company that are just regular honest engineers. What's really wild is how my brain just automatically tunes in when they start speaking, and then tunes out again when it's back to corpo speak.

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

#84

Post by kache_ »

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?

Because they cannot read between the lines

Don't hate the player, hate the game. Your general in the upper strata has to play the game, it's the job. But you can also get a beer and become friends with him or her.

Sociopathic behavior is genuinely useful to participate in. Just have awareness of what's going on, and down cycle and up cycle your "talking in between the lines" as necessary. And have fun

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

#86

Post by tptacek »

elefanten wrote: post #76
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

You're right, I'm wrong, apologies to everybody involved.

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

#87

Post by ItsMonkk »

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…

This reminds me a lot of the Conflict vs Mistake framing[0] which is expanded on by his Tragedy of Legible Technique article[1]. It also reminds me a lot of the Steve Jobs Product vs Marketing clip[2].

> When the Director of the CDC asserts an opinion, she has to optimize for two things - being right, and keeping power. If she doesn't optimize for the second, she gets replaced as CDC Director by someone who does. That means she's trying to solve a harder problem than Zvi is, and it makes sense that sometimes, despite having more resources than Zvi, she does worse at it.

It seems to me like the issue is actually in rent-seeking, where the more rent-seeking you have available, the more the marginal mistake person converts into a conflict person. In a world of perfect competition there would be no room for conflicts, and only once you have freely available rents does the land-grabbing phase begin. When your rules are written by the conflicters, for the conflicters benefit, it's already to late. They'll certainly never compromise on the simple correct path.

[0]: https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/

[1]: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/webmd-and-the-tragedy-...

[2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4VBqTViEx4

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

#88

Post by maigret »

karmakurtisaani wrote: post #26
vlunkr wrote: post #13

I love The Office, but I don’t believe that the writers actually have some deep knowledge of business psychology and hierarchy. It seems pointless to attempt a deep analysis through that lens.

I think it's often the case that when a story is created, the creator(s) don't necessarily have this detailed philosophical/psychological overview of the characters and the essence of the show. Rather, they have their own life experiences and ideals for the story and characters("there's always that idiot boss and that one guy who does nothing"). Analyses like this one then provide us with a point of view that puts th…

True. You need to understand something to explain it. You don’t need to understand something to observe and describe it. Obvious example is how birds fly, which was mostly explained recently only.

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

#89

Post by couchand »

tptacek wrote: post #86
elefanten wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're right, I'm wrong, apologies to everybody involved.

There has to be a first time for everything.

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

#90

Post by wsb_mod3 »

jmyeet wrote: post #80
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 sta…

I think they main incentive that drives people to initially become moderators is the desire to keep the community they operate in clean and rule abiding.

In well-policed communities where moderators actively listen to users, or where people feel reporting and flagging mechanisms work, I would imagine people generally feel empowered enough that they are satisfied remaining a regular user.

I don't think many moderators seek to expand their rulesets, as it really just becomes additional (often free) work for them. Increasing and enforcing more rules is a cost that is only worth bearing when what isn't being actioned is causing enough damage to warrant the additional work.

Post reply on HN