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

91–100 of 190 posts

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

#91

Post by pelagicAustral »

jvanderbot wrote: post #84
pelagicAustral wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Goes with my reply to OP [0]. I have a colleague that is a total waste of space. Never finished a project, never wanted to take on advice, always fought on really shady grounds, but he fought everything, almost like it was either his idea of what was on-point or nothing... But he was constantly talking, he was always talking, he is always talking, most of the time about things he doesn't have a clue about... and just…

You can provide a lot of value to an organization (or a leader) without finishing a single coding project. As an engineer I hate it, but I have worked for good directors and awful directors and usually the good directors do a ton of talking and bitching and moaning. But they also are fortune tellers and crystal balls and expert C-suite anthropologists that make the work valuable rather than just busy.

Yeah, I mean, I get it... but, how the fuck is this the normal state of affairs?

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

#92

Post by [deleted] »

rbanffy wrote: post #67
szundi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stephen King does this with whole trilogies haha

This is actually a very practical way of creating stories - set up the stage and see what the characters go about doing. The writer needs to be aware of the larger stage in order to keep the reader interested in understanding what’s actually going on and why.

[deleted]

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

#93

Post by adhambadr »

this was an insanely entertaining and informative read that gave me (a corporate outsider) a massive learning on the psychology of these orgs. It felt like I m reading a very informative management book but using pop culture analogies I can follow, thank you so much for the time to put it and looking forward to pt2 about Jim.

Also on another note, are startup founders then in that realm sociopaths or the clueless (with the vcs then being the sopciopaths, employees the ls etc.)? asking for a friend.

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

#94

Post by epolanski »

The_Colonel wrote: post #41

This just reeks of bitterness. Sounds like someone trying to get to the top, failed somewhere along the way and constructed this model to funnel frustration and sorta explain away their failure. The judgment permeates the model, apparently the only desirable position js at the top (but then you're a sociopath), second best is a checked-out loser. To me, being a "clueless" or "over-performing loser" is preferable to a…

> The Losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks.

Both Michael and Dwight are excellent salesmen, but both struck bad (financial) deals for a steady paycheck.

If you've been a loser in previous jobs you gave up much better money for the benefit of executive and shareholders.

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

#95

Post by jvanderbot »

pelagicAustral wrote: post #91
jvanderbot wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can provide a lot of value to an organization (or a leader) without finishing a single coding project. As an engineer I hate it, but I have worked for good directors and awful directors and usually the good directors do a ton of talking and bitching and moaning. But they also are fortune tellers and crystal balls and expert C-suite anthropologists that make the work valuable rather than just busy.

Yeah, I mean, I get it... but, how the fuck is this the normal state of affairs?

It's not just normal, it's desirable. You do not want your director / C-suite guy reviewing pull requests, filing bugs, or being obsessed with code library choices. That's what you get when you endlessly promote your busy/productive code-loving IC types.

You want someone who is a naturally fluent speaker, strongly outspoken, who holds strong opinions, and wants to focus on processes and long-term roadmaps and so on. All the stuff a dilligent IC disdains.

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

#96

Post by zahllos »

usrnm wrote: post #60
The_Colonel wrote: post #41

This just reeks of bitterness. Sounds like someone trying to get to the top, failed somewhere along the way and constructed this model to funnel frustration and sorta explain away their failure. The judgment permeates the model, apparently the only desirable position js at the top (but then you're a sociopath), second best is a checked-out loser. To me, being a "clueless" or "over-performing loser" is preferable to a…

> I'd rather make my work enjoyable than having to suffer 8 hours a day. And you're making an irrational decision because it makes you feel better. Nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't really contradict the essence of the article. If you look at work from the economic point of view, it's just an economic transaction, we are selling our time for money. Selling more of my time for more money or selling less of it fo…

I agree with the parent poster, the author sounds very bitter. Might not be true, they might be trying at humour and I haven't got it.

But I think doing the minimum you can get away with is playing with fire.

Your colleagues will resent you. You're also sending a signal to everyone that will be remembered. Maybe a colleague will start a business or move to another place one day. Are they going to employ the minimum effort person they used to work with? No.

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

#97

Post by wizzwizz4 »

bloqs wrote: post #25
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

"People get promoted because they influence others" is a description of the problem, not a justification of it.

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

#98

Post by andrewflnr »

jvanderbot wrote: post #95
pelagicAustral wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I mean, I get it... but, how the fuck is this the normal state of affairs?

It's not just normal, it's desirable. You do not want your director / C-suite guy reviewing pull requests, filing bugs, or being obsessed with code library choices. That's what you get when you endlessly promote your busy/productive code-loving IC types. You want someone who is a naturally fluent speaker, strongly outspoken, who holds strong opinions, and wants to focus on processes and long-term roadmaps and so on.…

That's all worthless if they don't actually have good ideas, though. And I don't believe someone who is all talk actually has good ideas. You have to be rooted in good practice.

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

#99

Post by stavros »

dlkf wrote: post #51

The article is rife with references to a mediocre tv show, but it doesn’t contain a single example of the principle as applied to a firm. The author is an expert in something, but it isn’t business.

If the Office is a mediocre comedy TV show, what's a great comedy TV show?

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

#100

Post by stavros »

Arisaka1 wrote: post #82
throwaway7ahgb wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why haven't you been able to get an offer somewhere else?

Not the person you asked but I can give you my reasons: 1. Job market being overly picky makes it hard to jump ship, especially if you're early-mid level 2. There's a general notion that "everywhere's the same deal" so people just learn to cope with it 3. "Golden handcuffs" - compensation so good you're willing to tolerate the downsides.

For not reading the sibling's response, you really nailed the reasons.
Post reply on HN