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"

ribbonfarm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 67 posts

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#31

Post by wsprague »

strlen wrote: post #20
incandenza wrote: post #18

This is a pretty amazing analysis. I think a lot of really talented engineers in Silicon Valley fit into a kind of hybrid category I might call 'loser with sociopathic tendencies' (gotta love these terms--hey, I didn't invent them, I'm just following the article). Although they deliberately choose to remain at the 'loser' level in terms of the org chart, they have a 'sociopathic' level of awareness of how the busines…

You could also argue that engineers derive a meaning from their work that isn't in terms of money or power (they do work that they enjoy).

Which means that an engineer is a "loser" in this system; and in terms of monetary gain, they may very well be. The author stresses that "loser" is not the same as "bad person" or "living their life according to wacked principles".

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#32

Post by strlen »

gamble wrote: post #29

"The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse." I'm surprised this post is so popular on HN. Isn't working for a startup - pouring your time into someone else's company for below-market wages and some piddly fraction of a percent in equity - b…

The article handles the case of people who derive a meaning from outside of their work and the people who are looking for financial success and power/status within a corporation.

As I've mentioned in a previous comment, the article doesn't take into account the fact that there are people who

a) look for a meaning that isn't centered around money or power

b) derive it from their work

If you're an engineer working for a start-up (taking a below market wage, working long hours, so on) only because you are hoping for a large pay day, then you are a fool. If you're working for a start-up because you enjoy programming or because you're looking to learn what it takes to run your own start-up then you can get a lot of a start-up so the equation doesn't apply.

On the topics of start-ups and money, Paul Buchheit said best: http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-there-more-to-li...

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#33

Post by bd »

gamble wrote: post #29

"The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse." I'm surprised this post is so popular on HN. Isn't working for a startup - pouring your time into someone else's company for below-market wages and some piddly fraction of a percent in equity - b…

"someone else's company"

Here lies your answer.

A lot of people here either wants to or they already did start own company, so they are more in the position of "sociopaths" (according to the post's terminology - see "The MacLeod Life Cycle of the Firm" chart).

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#34

Post by keeptrying »

gamble wrote: post #29

"The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse." I'm surprised this post is so popular on HN. Isn't working for a startup - pouring your time into someone else's company for below-market wages and some piddly fraction of a percent in equity - b…

Yes unfortunately this is the chasm that all of us have to jump. I've had a hard time reconciling this BUT I think there are a lot of ways that you can create a work environment which measures individual performance well enough to compensate appropriately. Of course this will require each employee to be able to do more than just one role and will need them to be involved in sales as well. Another way to get past this "mental block" is to let your employees do something they really love and build your business around it. Ie like Patagnoia which lets people take off a whole season to go surf.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#35

Post by strlen »

wsprague wrote: post #31
strlen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also argue that engineers derive a meaning from their work that isn't in terms of money or power (they do work that they enjoy).

Which means that an engineer is a "loser" in this system; and in terms of monetary gain, they may very well be. The author stresses that "loser" is not the same as "bad person" or "living their life according to wacked principles".

The problem I had with this article is that while it covers the case of people who are "losers" monetarily but have meaning outside of work (Pam, Angela) it doesn't cover the case of people who find that meaning in their work ; the latter category includes most good scientists and engineers and many business professionals as well.

That being said, the engineer position is also fairly privileged: the pay of a Silicon Valley engineer -- even if you take into account the standard of living (provided you live in a part of Bay Area that's comparable to most suburbs e.g. San Jose, rather than a hip part of SOMA) -- is more than middle management in most other parts of the country. The starting salary for a software engineer out of college can be as high as $75,000-$95,000. They can live a very comfortable lifestyle, where additional money (outside of "fuck you money") just brings diminished returns. This isn't true for many scientists (postdocs generally make a pittance).

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#36

Post by incandenza »

wsprague wrote: post #31
strlen wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could also argue that engineers derive a meaning from their work that isn't in terms of money or power (they do work that they enjoy).

Which means that an engineer is a "loser" in this system; and in terms of monetary gain, they may very well be. The author stresses that "loser" is not the same as "bad person" or "living their life according to wacked principles".

True; I would say that 'pure craftsman' type of person would be totally comfortable with the 'loser' position in this analysis. They would not be looking askance at the 'sociopath' types; whereas another type of person might be saying, "Hmm, these executives are making 100x as much as me, and yet my work is quite critical to this business. Is that really fair?" etc.

Again, I want to emphasize that I realize these terms are shockingly harsh--and of course, if we're staying with this analysis, one or another of them applies to every single person in a (medium to) large organization. I'm trying to use them in a neutral, not inherently insulting way, even if that's almost impossible to do :) I'm just trying to extend the analysis of the article a little, and so I kind of have to use its terms (and of course, it wouldn't have drawn as much attention if it were phrased in a more neutral way, etc.)

It could be that the original article's analysis is just flawed, which I would consider a valid position, etc.--but I'm just going along with its terms because they do seem to fit shockingly well (to the point that the whole thing seems like a bit of a punch in the gut when I re-analyze some past experiences).

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#37

Post by 3pt14159 »

gamble wrote: post #29

"The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse." I'm surprised this post is so popular on HN. Isn't working for a startup - pouring your time into someone else's company for below-market wages and some piddly fraction of a percent in equity - b…

If you have stock options, even a small slice of the company, it's not wasted effort.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#38

Post by bd »

strlen wrote: post #32
gamble wrote: post #29

"The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse." I'm surprised this post is so popular on HN. Isn't working for a startup - pouring your time into someone else's company for below-market wages and some piddly fraction of a percent in equity - b…

The article handles the case of people who derive a meaning from outside of their work and the people who are looking for financial success and power/status within a corporation. As I've mentioned in a previous comment, the article doesn't take into account the fact that there are people who a) look for a meaning that isn't centered around money or power b) derive it from their work If you're an engineer working for…

I think the author has these options covered:

- If you do it because you enjoy it, then you are, by article's definition, a "loser" (in terms of potential monetary gains) [1].

- If you do it in order to learn about running your own startup, then you are "sociopath-in-training" (ala Ryan from The Office).

And that's it. The author doesn't claim you cannot have happy and meaningful life as "loser" (by his definition), deriving pleasure from the work itself.

He just tells that for "losers" somebody else will reap a significant part of the monetary reward for the value that their work creates.

-----

[1] Similar principle works for "sexy" jobs - that's why poor game developers get abused so much.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#39

Post by gamble »

strlen wrote: post #32
gamble wrote: post #29

"The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse." I'm surprised this post is so popular on HN. Isn't working for a startup - pouring your time into someone else's company for below-market wages and some piddly fraction of a percent in equity - b…

The article handles the case of people who derive a meaning from outside of their work and the people who are looking for financial success and power/status within a corporation. As I've mentioned in a previous comment, the article doesn't take into account the fact that there are people who a) look for a meaning that isn't centered around money or power b) derive it from their work If you're an engineer working for…

I agree wholeheartedly with Paul, but you do have to balance it against the amount of work involved. Something that's fulfilling at 40 hours a week can be grinding when you're at it 60+ hours a week.

The problem with working as an employee for a start-up is that you're required to have the commitment of a founder, without the upside. There may be some people who will knowingly invest their youth in buying someone else a yacht, but in my experience many startup employees are unrealistic about their chances. Most businesses aren't going to change the world or make average employees rich.

From a rational perspective at least, I think it's hard to justify being an employee at an early-stage startup unless you're there to build the experience and contacts necessary to start your own company. There are plenty of medium-sized companies out there that offer similar opportunities for employees without their bureaucracy of a bigcorp or the risk and time commitment of a startup.

Re: The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office"

#40

Post by gamble »

3pt14159 wrote: post #37
gamble wrote: post #29

"The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse." I'm surprised this post is so popular on HN. Isn't working for a startup - pouring your time into someone else's company for below-market wages and some piddly fraction of a percent in equity - b…

If you have stock options, even a small slice of the company, it's not wasted effort.

The typical employee's <1% share won't even make up for the overtime they put in unless their company turns out to be the next Google.
Post reply on HN