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

21–30 of 190 posts

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

#21

Post by fch42 »

A lot of these "organisational models" treat organisational behaviour as a kind of game; you can get ahead by exploiting game masters' mistakes, by cheating, or possibly by knowing and playing the rules really well. And just like poker, there's always a supply of those who believe in luck and just go all-in with no plan.

While I get that "as such", and therefore can follow a classification sociopath/clueless/loser, what is always missing in such models are the people who don't care to play. Those who go to the casino for free food and drinks in order to watch the show, but not to take a stake of their own. Are they "losers" because if you don't bet you can't win ? All of those who play, though, actually want these spectators - after all, winning if there's noone looking, is that a win?

Personally, I think you have this "fourth column" in all organisations. They take their paycheck and deliver something of what's asked for, but else don't care; what they see as "success" is not related to organisational structure or behaviour at all. With all the focus on "success" and "promotion" (or, opposite, "losers"), I wonder how much the theorists are missing. The non-voters can be the majority, you know ...

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

#22

Post by the_gipsy »

fch42 wrote: post #21

A lot of these "organisational models" treat organisational behaviour as a kind of game; you can get ahead by exploiting game masters' mistakes, by cheating, or possibly by knowing and playing the rules really well. And just like poker, there's always a supply of those who believe in luck and just go all-in with no plan. While I get that "as such", and therefore can follow a classification sociopath/clueless/loser, w…

That's the "losers", they are precisely described.

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

#23

Post by anal_reactor »

H8crilA wrote: post #2

Keep in mind that in practice this classification is not perfect, as in you cannot just bucketize people into three categories and declare perfect understanding. You should treat the roles described in the article as archetypes of human behavior.

This is true for any kind of generalization. Having said that, I can really see this at my company.

At the beginning I was a high-perfoming loser. Then I realized how things work, and since then I do bare minimum. I wish I could be a sociopath, but I don't have the brains nor the lack of morals to do so. I passionately hate the clueless ones because they stand against everything I believe in. My dream is to save enough money not to have to take part in this circus anymore.

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

#24

Post by bloqs »

trojanalert wrote: post #12

To be read in conjunction with the Babbler hypothesis - The amount of time some people spend talking gets them into leadership positions. It doesn't matter what they say, just how much they rant on. I read that, and realised how insanely true it is

This is because extraversion is partially composed of assertiveness (big five), which directly indicates your influence on your nearby human environment

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

#25

Post by bloqs »

trojanalert wrote: post #12

To be read in conjunction with the Babbler hypothesis - The amount of time some people spend talking gets them into leadership positions. It doesn't matter what they say, just how much they rant on. I read that, and realised how insanely true it is

This is because extraversion is partially composed of assertiveness (big five), which directly indicates your influence on your nearby human environment

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

#26

Post by WJW »

cen4 wrote: post #18
trojanalert wrote: post #12

To be read in conjunction with the Babbler hypothesis - The amount of time some people spend talking gets them into leadership positions. It doesn't matter what they say, just how much they rant on. I read that, and realised how insanely true it is

Well these observations have nothing with to do with the main conundrum - How do you keep a group of chimps who all have different interests, personalities, needs, beliefs, values, upbringings, culture, religion, language, history etc etc in sync? And these days groups grow quite large quite fast. Historically, if you take rewards, bribery, force, domination and manipulation out of the story, the babblers/non threate…

I think you missed the point of the GP: Venkatesh Rao has written so much posts around this idea that he's now positioned himself as an authority on the topic of workplace power dynamics, regardless of if what he wrote is actually accurate or not.

He is also quite fond of using poorly defined (in this context) words like "dialectical" and "illegibility" that makes the reader doubt whether he's actually full of shit or that he is actually so brilliant that the reader simply doesn't comprehend him.

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

#27

Post by aaron695 »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #20
H8crilA wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet it is not obvious to everyone.

I still maintain there are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who know base-2 numerals and those who don't.

[dead]

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

#28

Post by mgblogg »

WJW wrote: post #26
cen4 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well these observations have nothing with to do with the main conundrum - How do you keep a group of chimps who all have different interests, personalities, needs, beliefs, values, upbringings, culture, religion, language, history etc etc in sync? And these days groups grow quite large quite fast. Historically, if you take rewards, bribery, force, domination and manipulation out of the story, the babblers/non threate…

I think you missed the point of the GP: Venkatesh Rao has written so much posts around this idea that he's now positioned himself as an authority on the topic of workplace power dynamics, regardless of if what he wrote is actually accurate or not. He is also quite fond of using poorly defined (in this context) words like "dialectical" and "illegibility" that makes the reader doubt whether he's actually full of shit o…

I think the main point of his principle is roughly correct. Classic companies are started by sociopaths and an initial amount of losers. Then the clueless come in the middle of the pyramid. The clueless section expands as the company grows until the company implodes.

I do not agree with his idea of promotion of overachievers into middle management and many other things. Some of his points are self-contradictory.

There are many variations on the main principle like Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy:

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

(None of this applies applies to startups that are founded by actual programmers.)

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

#29

Post by nkrisc »

_odey wrote: post #14
nkrisc wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“INFJ”, that’s from that workplace astrology, right?

You would be surprised, but companies actually pay hard money to consultants to do these astrology readings and present them to shareholders as a "measure of workforce compatibility".

I had to do something like that once at work. I picked random answers for all the questions.

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

#30

Post by nkrisc »

fch42 wrote: post #21

A lot of these "organisational models" treat organisational behaviour as a kind of game; you can get ahead by exploiting game masters' mistakes, by cheating, or possibly by knowing and playing the rules really well. And just like poker, there's always a supply of those who believe in luck and just go all-in with no plan. While I get that "as such", and therefore can follow a classification sociopath/clueless/loser, w…

> The Losers like to feel good about their lives. They are the happiness seekers, rather than will-to-power players, and enter and exit reactively, in response to the meta-Darwinian trends in the economy. But they have no more loyalty to the firm 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.
Post reply on HN