
The Gervais Principle, or The Office According to "The Office" - mcdoh
http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/
======
boredguy8
This is the first blog post that's ever been good enough that I donated to the
author merely for having written it. Both brilliant textual analysis and
insightful social commentary - definitely worth the read.

Or maybe I'm just constructing my delusional world to justify having spent $3
on a public blog post!

~~~
Alex3917
You're right, the author is insanely smart. My only real critique is that he
is overly embracing of the sociopath concept, probably because his only
personal experience comes from within organizations. If he ran his own
business I think he'd be able to see this more objectively. Still, he gets a
ton of credit for creating all the insights that he does.

~~~
netsp
I think he has a certain admiration for the sociopath.

~~~
gaius
They get the job done, no arguing with results.

------
gamble
"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 - basically the definition of
cluelessness, according to the author?

~~~
strlen
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...](http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-there-more-to-life-than-
money.html)

~~~
bd
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.

~~~
geebee
Very good points. The author _does_ try to disambiguate "loser" (though I
don't think he does disambiguate "sociopath").

My problem with these terms is that they just can't be disassociated with
their common meanings. This is a common rhetorical trick - an author defines
the word one way, and sticks to that definition, but inevitably uses the
impact of the more common word (while claiming that the earlier disambiguation
clears him of the need to defend the more common usage).

In short, I think we need a different word than "loser" to describe the
category of workers who 1) make a good salary 2) enjoy their work, and 3) yes,
could make more money or get a better deal outside the organization.

I'm also unwilling to accept the use of "sociopath" to describe all start-up
founders, no matter how airtight the author has been in locking down a
definition that avoids all the negative connotations of the more general use
of "sociopath."

I guess that I'm really just saying that some words just can't be
disambiguated.

In this case, the ambiguity is in the interest of being humorous and
interesting, which is why it doesn't bug me all that much (though in other
contexts, it can be infuriating).

------
incandenza
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
business operates (maybe from being an early employee or founder of previous
startups). They're never truly comfortable at the 'loser' level, but maybe not
willing or capable of making a move to the 'sociopath' level, and consciously
avoid the 'clueless' level (which I think they eventually enter anyway, even
if they avoid becoming managers, by entering some kind of 'emeritus'
engineering position).

The article suggests that Toby might be in this category, which I didn't think
fit at first, but maybe it does--this type of person seemed to me to generally
be laconic, cultivated a high degree of irony about the nature of the
organization and their role within it, and usually carried an 'escape plan' as
a prominent part of their mental outlook (based on either past actual or
future fantasized stock option earnings) --all quite similar to the Toby
character.

I also think there's a type of person who views anyone at the 'sociopath'
level as being inherently morally corrupt, and therefore preemptively excludes
him/herself from ever reaching that level, even if they'd otherwise be capable
of it. I don't think this is a correct view; the 'sociopath' type may just be
the type of person who is more willing to face the full reality of how the
business is run and make tough decisions that involve firing and so on. For
example, even in the show I don't think the David Wallace character is
portrayed as being particularly corrupt. Ryan, on the other hand, is purely
selfish and greedy for power--but this actually causes him to fail at the
higher levels (which I think often happens in real life as well).

(By the way, in case it's not obvious, I'm trying to use these terms in the
sense they're defined in the article--I don't mean them to be truly pejorative
to anyone operating at any of these levels.)

~~~
strlen
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).

~~~
wsprague
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".

~~~
strlen
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).

~~~
turtle4
I think you're getting out of scope. This isn't a 'life' theory, it is a
'business/management' theory. In terms of business/management, those
scientists/engineers are losers. They will never rise to the top, and are
destined to work for people less skilled them themselves.

Note that there isn't anything -wrong- with that. As you say, there may be
reasons they do that, whether it is derived pleasure, or something else, but
because they aren't actively gaming the 'ladder', they aren't going to move up
it, and thus will always be losers.

I think this article works better, if you don't call them losers, and instead
call them exploited, because there is such a strongly negative connotation
associated with the term loser that it is hard to get past. The author is
really saying that bottom layer is exploited (not compensated sufficiently).

------
keeptrying
This is just the most amazingly accurate description of working in a
corporation that I have ever read. This is mindblowing. Simply amazing. The
one thing that I think he may have missed is that people do go from clueless-
loser to checked-out loser. Amazing amazing amazing.

I've been aware of this for a long time as I do work in a BigCorp but I've
never seen it written down so well. Amazing.

~~~
keeptrying
I bought the guy a coffee too.

Amazing. I wish my command of the english language was half as good as this
guys. I'm really gushing here. I just cant get over this post.

Wow.

------
chops
Google Cache, since the site isn't responding for me:

[http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:7rjRSf4HfywJ:www.ribbonf...](http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:7rjRSf4HfywJ:www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-
gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-
office/+the+gervais+principle&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1)

------
RevRal
_MacLeod’s “Loser” layer had me puzzled for a long time, because I was
interpreting it in cultural terms: the kind of person you call a “loser.”
While some may be losers in that sense too, they are primarily losers in the
economic sense: those who have, for various reasons, made (or been forced to
make) a bad economic bargain: they’ve given up some potential for long-term
economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability[....]The
good news is that losers have two ways out, which we’ll get to later: turning
sociopath or turning into bare-minimum performers._

That makes all kinds of crazy sense.

~~~
orangecat
Yes, although I'd disagree that it's objectively a "bad bargain". You won't
get rich quick, but if you have a basic understanding of finances and a
moderate amount of self-discipline you can get rich slowly. If you don't want
to go into management, I'd say that's a good bargain.

~~~
seigenblues
but why should it be this way at all? The fact that their compensated wealth
has become totally disconnected from the reality of productivity makes this a
pretty shocking way to run a world. But one very compatible with our simian
social organizing.

Or to put it another way, why should someone who is (arguably) producing most
of the value have to stand for getting rich slowly, when the clueless middle
managers fail upwards into nicer cars & long vacations, and sociopaths -- who
seem to spend most of their "workday" jockeying for position, power, &
prestige rather than doing useful things -- get 6, 7, 8 figure salaries &
giant stock options?

The real crime is that the productive, competent people are encouraged &
incentivized to coast because of the ludicrousness of the system.

Sounds objectively like a bad bargain to me.

So much so that those productive losers should start a company & try to keep
the sociopaths out. in fact, if you buy that web -> lower barriers to entry ->
less need for predatory sociopathic apes. They'll always try to get in, but
that's another story...

~~~
jwesley
The reason that losers are losers is that they don't have the balls to start
their own company or seize power within an organization. They are free to
attempt those things, but they don't, either because they fear risk, don't
understand the nature of business, or are too nice to make the sociopathic
choices necessary to survive. Sociopaths might not lay the bricks themselves,
so to speak, but they take the risks and make the leaps that result in true
productivity gains.

------
ajju
I have never read a more apt description of large organizations or a better
deconstruction of a tv show. The author should turn his incisive intellect
onto startups next (although I don't know of any "The Office" like shows to
aid his analysis)

~~~
philwelch
There was actually a story arc in The Office where Michael gets fired and
founds a competitor. All the normal dynamics are upset--Michael is freed from
the role of the clueless middle manager and manages to put his sales skills to
use, Pam elevates herself to a sales position, and the now disgraced, out-of-
the-industry Ryan seizes the opportunity to get back into the game.

------
Harj
i've never felt as happy about not working in a large organization as when i
finished reading this

------
lionhearted
It gets this half-right/half-wrong:

> While some may be losers in that sense too, they are primarily losers in the
> economic sense: those who have, for various reasons, made (or been forced to
> make) a bad economic bargain: they’ve given up some potential for long-term
> economic liberty (as capitalists) for short-term economic stability.

Halfway with the author so far. Generally, being salaried is a bad economic
bargain for people with the self-discipline and perseverance to go off on
their own. There's other reasons it can be good - a friend of mine is a
business consultant that's really good, really brilliant, could definitely run
his own shop. But he makes decent enough coin and loves his work and
coworkers, and said he doesn't want to deal with the highs and lows of self
employment. He's trading off lifetime net income, most definitely, but maybe
he's happier? I keep trying to convince him to do some kind of entrepreneurial
project with me and failing, but maybe someday. He certainly is extremely
happy.

But anyway, I'm still with the author mostly. Next point:

> Traded freedom for a paycheck in short. They actually produce, but are not
> compensated in proportion to the value they create...

This is sometimes true. If your work isn't set on incentives, then you aren't
compensated in proportion to the value you create. This relates to the above:
If you want lifetime net income, look to get compensation tied to incentives
as closely as possible.

Being self employed and only getting paid for performance gets you there the
fastest, but that doesn't only mean you only make more money! Some months you
work very hard, and have LESS money at the end of the month for your troubles.
This sucks quite badly when it happens.

> ... (since their compensation is set by sociopaths operating under
> conditions of serious moral hazard).

And herein lies the author's mistake - the reason people aren't compensated
accordingly to their production is that it's incredibly hard to judge
production. Jack Welch, one of the better HR people of all time, said he only
got 2/3rds of his hiring decisions correct at the very end of his tenure and
peak of his skills at GE.

The person who holds back the coin from the productive salaried employee is
not his boss or the company owner. It's the unproductive salaried employee.
Great companies recognize highly productive people and try to compensate and
reward them accordingly, but production is notoriously fickle and variable.

Bosses and especially owners don't scheme to keep pay for productive people
down - they _want_ to pay stars, because they want to retain their stars. And
if a competitor isn't paying their stars, they'll happily give them a raise
and a signing bonus for jumping ship. It's just that it's so damn hard to
evaluate who _really_ is producing. The guy that produces 10x the normal
amount of production for his job isn't having his pay thwarted by any
"sociopaths", he's having it thwarted by colleagues who shuffle papers,
schedule meetings, and make themselves appear busy while producing nothing of
value.

There's reasons (primarily stability, but others too) to stay in this
arrangement, but if you want to maximize your net income, you need to move to
a way where you get paid based on what you produce, and be willing to accept
the swings and bad things that come with that. That's easy to do in measurable
fields like sales. To do it in a more intangible field you might have to open
your own company.

~~~
wsprague
"the reason people aren't compensated accordingly [sic] to their production is
that it's incredibly hard to judge production." ... perhaps ....

... but perhaps Karl Marx was correct when he said that (basically) the
essence of capitalism is in the systematic skimming of "surplus production" by
the controllers of capital. In other words, EVERY employee is not paid
according to their production.

I also think that this commenter has really swallowed the ideology (ie, is
clueless): not every boss wants production from their underlings. Perhaps the
_owners_ want production, but _managers_ don't necessarily -- changes in
production might make them look bad, it might reset the expected quota level
for their department, it might upset next years budget, etc. The interests of
employees <> interests of owners, and managers are employees.

~~~
philwelch
Marx's argument is not based on this kind of thing at all, but rather on the
mere existence of profit.

It all comes down to your theory of value. Marx uses a labor theory of value
that might say that a chair is worth exactly the wood and the human labor that
is invested in producing it. When a chair manufacturer employs people to build
chairs, they pay the employees less than their labor is worth, sell the
chairs, and pocket the margin.

The market theory of value says that something is worth what someone is
willing to buy and sell it for. So if you decide to work at the chair factory
for $5/hr, you and the chair company have agreed that your time is worth
$5/hr. If the chair company sells a chair for $50, the chair company and the
consumer agree the chair is worth $50. (Of course, the chair company might be
willing to sell for $20 and the consumer might be willing to pay $70, so there
is a "surplus" to both sides. But that simply arises from the distinction
between individual value judgments and market value.)

The market perspective is the only one where productive activity makes any
sense at all. From a labor theory of value, a chair, a table, a skyscraper, or
a startup is only worth the amount of labor that was invested in it. But if
this was true, then wouldn't we be just as well off to spare the labor and
hang out on the beach instead of working? The market theory of value says that
if you invest labor, you might create something more valuable than the labor
you put into it, which is the only theory that justifies productive labor in
the first place. It also says that if you invest your labor into building
something no one wants or is willing to pay for, you simply waste it. The
labor theory of value would gel with many people's naive ideas here: I put so
much work into this damned thing, isn't it worth something?

------
balding_n_tired
"Protestant Ethic will-to-power".

Was that the wind in the weatherstripping, or Nietzche's ghost howling?

~~~
angusgr
Possibly Nietzche's ghost being chased around the house by Ayn Rand.

~~~
eru
You forgot Max Weber.

------
netsp
Darwin has contributed so richly to our metaphysical vocabulary.

~~~
eru
I guess he just replaced other phrases. And Lamarck could have done the word
trick just as well.

~~~
netsp
I'm using Darwin to mean Evolution by Natural Selection. Perhaps Lamark. I
honestly know very little about Lamark, but my understanding is that his
theories didn't turn out to be very strong. Interestingly, even if they don't
describe biology important ideas metaphysics.

I don't think so. Darwinian evolution is not just a description of a natural
process. It is a powerful metaphysical principle. IE, Darwinism could happily
exist in theory, without any physical form. It just happens to have a physical
form, biology. But this fact is the reason that it has had such an impact on
our vocabulary.

People that have used Darwinian-like thought before can apply it elsewhere.
This kind of analysis draws a lot from that. I think there are few
philosophical principles that have this power. I cannot think of a many pieces
of philosophical work with this kind of an impact.

------
alecco
A great movie on corporate darwinism:

    
    
      The Method (2005) Spain/Argentina
      http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427582/

------
known
You weren't meant to have a boss <http://paulgraham.com/boss.html>

------
allenbrunson
i tried to read this, since so many of you seem to like it. i couldn't make
myself read more than two or three paragraphs before i had to give up.

i am really surprised this is popular amongst this particular group of
entrepreneurs. i think if you have to put this level of thought into how
crappy your workplace is, you should have quit years ago.

