Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Television News

Explaining Corporate Culture Through "The Office" 224

Writing in the ribbonfarm.com blog, Venkatesh Rao uses The Office to explain and illustrate a theory of management he calls the Gervais Principle (after the TV series's creator). Taking off from Hugh MacLeod's cartoon laying out a corporate hierarchy in layers of Sociopaths, the Clueless, and Losers, Rao riffs on and updates the Peter Principle, in these terms: "Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into [clueless] middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves." Don't know about you, but this analysis suddenly makes sense of much that mystified me in my sojourn in corporate America.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Explaining Corporate Culture Through "The Office"

Comments Filter:
  • by symbolset ( 646467 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @02:37AM (#29741619) Journal

    That makes better sense for slashdotters.

    /I believe you have my stapler.

  • Re:Yes men (Score:3, Funny)

    by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @02:53AM (#29741673) Homepage Journal

    Chin up, your situation can't be all that bad. I noticed you referred to "boss" in the singular. It only gets rough when multiple bosses say conflicting things that all must be correct. Then you have to start redefining words.

    Don't get me started on matrix management across different countries with nationalistic paranoia thrown into the mix....

  • Re:Yes men (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @03:04AM (#29741717)

    Cheer up. It could be worse!

    For example your name could have been Michael Bolton, and/or one of your co-workers might make a "jump to conclusions" board game after he botches his suicide.

    And don't get me started on the TPS reports.

  • by cjfs ( 1253208 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @03:17AM (#29741781) Homepage Journal

    Clearly you have never worked in an environment when one boss has several personalities, they change several times a day, and each one contradicts what the last one just said.

    Now that you mention it, I have had a few bosses that looked awfully similar...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @03:18AM (#29741783)

    IIRC, the Kirk principle was to kill it if it was male and f*ck it if it was female. At least in the early Trks.

  • by oever ( 233119 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @03:39AM (#29741871) Homepage

    A very similar theory was outlined in the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. There, a planet was in apparent danger. The population was to be evacuated to a new planet in three ships. The first ship would contain the leaders, the third ship would contain the workers and artists. The second ship, the B ark containing amongst others hairdressers, tired T.V. producers, and insurance salesmen, personnel officers, was encountered by Arthur and Ford en route to a new planet.

    The B ark left first to make sure the population would be comfortably received on the new planet. The other two arks never followed.

    transcript [clivebanks.co.uk]

  • by linguizic ( 806996 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @03:41AM (#29741875)
    I agree completely. It MUST be your fault my boss is Zap Brannigan in a Hawaiian shirt.
  • by Hognoxious ( 631665 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @03:57AM (#29741927) Homepage Journal
    I'm going to invent a theory about soldiers and armies and stuff. I'll do it by watching "Band of Brothers" and "Saving Private Ryan".
  • by broknstrngz ( 1616893 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @06:03AM (#29742525)
    who thinks "corporate culture" is an oxymoron?
  • Re:Yes men (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @09:18AM (#29743549)

    Reverse the polarity?

    Yes, I know... it would be suicide, but it's your only shot!

  • Re:Yes men (Score:3, Funny)

    by jandersen ( 462034 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @09:25AM (#29743613)

    Some companies do 'deliver value' by being downright nice and wonderful. The majority however, get ahead by being more ruthless than the others.

    The fact that you have this impression does not in itself make it universally true. I suspect you get your impression of how companies are from the news about Enron-style scandals; but most companies are simply not like that. In fact, most companies are fairly small businesses that survive because they deliver a good service to their customers, no matter what you say. And most companies know that they have to treat their staff with a certain measure of respect and dignity in order to get the best out of them.

    At least, that is my experience - if you have evidence to the contrary, please let us know.

  • by HungWeiLo ( 250320 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @12:47PM (#29746473)
    I've worked at a company with 1 colleague, a boss and the boss' wife.

    So were you the guy holding the camera, or the guy doing the website?
  • by infinite9 ( 319274 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @01:23PM (#29746931)

    I have you all beat. I once worked in an office where 3/4 of the people were scientologists.

  • Re:Yes men (Score:3, Funny)

    by Cornflake917 ( 515940 ) on Wednesday October 14, 2009 @01:32PM (#29747065) Homepage

    The United States is antisocial. All its residents share in a sort of collective sociopathy where our very lifestyle represents a disregard for and violation of the rights of others. If you could be made to feel the suffering caused by the production of a product when you buy a new car or stereo receiver you'd keel over and die of heartbreak.

    Wow, sounds like someone really loves his country.

    I hate to break it to you, but it's a completely natural thing for people to care about themselves more than others. It's probably has something to do with natural selection. Obviously, some people are more outwardly caring than others, but to make a sweeping generalization about a whole nation like that is pretty naive.

    If you could be made to feel the suffering caused by the production of a product when you buy a new car or stereo receiver you'd keel over and die of heartbreak.

    If you didn't buy the car or stereo receiver, how do you know that the were wouldn't be even more pain and suffering caused by the lack of economic growth? As a guy that many people would consider a bleeding heart liberal, I have to say: you need to stop being such an oversensitive pansy.

For large values of one, one equals two, for small values of two.

Working...