Venkatesh Rao wrote a very provocative set of essays called the Gervais Principle. Armed with a PHD in control systems, Rao analyzes the Office through a theoretical framework where society is split into 3 types of people: the sociopaths, losers, and clueless.
The sociopaths have will-to-power but lack morality. The losers have well-maladjusted and competency but lack ambition. The clueless have no idea what’s going on and sometimes this works in their favor.
As Scott summarizes Rao’s work:
- Sociopaths run the company.
- They identify overperforming entry-level workers as Clueless (why would you overperform? unless you have some clear route to leverage your success into extra money or power, you’re just giving the company free labor for no reason). They promote them to middle-management, where they can serve as useful toadies and pawns who will never predict the inevitable backstab.
- They identify underperforming entry-level workers as potential new Sociopaths. Sociopaths realize that entry-level work is “a bad bargain” and immediately start scheming to get promoted. These schemes are usually very clever but don’t involve doing a great job at their object-level position. Leadership puts these people on a track to upper management.
- They identify people who perform at exactly the expected level as Losers, who understand their side of a bargain (perform at the expected level in exchange for a paycheck) and accept it. Leadership keeps these people somewhere around entry-level forever, and the Losers are fine with this.
Right off the bat, it’s clear that this is a cynical reading of power, and Rao spends a lot of time in his essay putting in leg-work to help us conceptualize how this works, especially since this reads as very Robert Greene, for the uninitiated, it’s not intuitive.
The standard reading of the success sequence seems to be more of the opposite:
You start out bad at things, and are only suited for entry-level work. You get better at things. You use being better at things to go further in the company.
Rao flips this perspective on its head, believing that rather than being limited by your weaknesses, you are often addicted to your strengths. And, it kind of makes sense. If you get too into any one thing, it becomes hard to generalize and build out your toolkit further. This culminates in the idea that mediocrity advances faster than talentedness or untalentedness because it doesn’t get addicted to any specific strength.
This idea, while not intuitive has absolutely been true in my development. I’ve been a very talented debater and have enjoyed writing for quite some time. So, I tend to default to viewing that, alongside rigorous analysis as my preferred methods for solving problems. Problems that may be better suited to other methods lots of the time. In this sense, I have had elements of Dwight Schrute in that I’m familiar and good at one thing, making it hard to step outside my comfort zone. The mediocre by contrast, have not nearly as much reason to stay involved.
The power profiles and psychology of each group is laid out in a straightforward-ish way. The Clueless tend to have a very linear and easy to follow goal, as a result of their incomplete development. This makes them easy to control, and great candidates for middle management. The losers care a lot about power dynamics within groups, and have no major strengths or weaknesses, except when in group form. At this point, everyone wants to feel that they are above-average in groups. Groups must be murky among status rankings as a result, except for the most and least popular person in the group. Going through the motions to be accepted and to feel like a broader part of the community are important. This can be used to get a deal that doesn’t really help them gain. The sociopaths are most likely to see clearly as a result of not quite fitting it, and wanting to see the truth. Unconstrained by group delusions, they become the people who are most likely to be able to grab power, but as they unveil more and more dishonesty, their faith gets shattered a little bit. Whereas losers and the clueless may be more mass-producible, sociopaths are molded individually, like works of art, in their own twisted sort of way. Sociopaths are the institution builders that allow for society to cohere for the clueless and sociopaths.
With this broad framework understood, let’s delve into SSC’s characterization. I would say that Scott is generally somewhat bearish on this framework because he notes that A. We are some combination of all of these features. B. Low performers usually don’t get promoted either C. Successful people he knows who would be typecast as sociopaths care about social validation, and D. People don’t know who the stragglers are in the group.
Generally speaking, I agree with Scott on A, and think that because people are often mix-ups of these archetypes, as a theoretical framework it can be kind of hard to define people because they may be socially clueless in one context, but a sociopath in another. Lay-person versus expert and their amount of jargon may be similarly understood. Since Rao acknowledges this, I can understand how it’s easier to divide in this basic structure, and that middle managers are often useful idiots who can obey orders.
I think B is probably the most controversial of Scott’s claims because I think promotions are often somewhat arbitrary, and based on how much others like you. One of the challenges is that as one rises, people become suspicious of others, and status has a temporary dip. In the sense that one needs to be willing to not feel included for some time, and disregard taboos to pull oneself up, I think the definition of sociopath semi-applies. I think the big problem with Rao’s original formulation is the type of people who start companies and the type of people who sustain companies as sociopaths don’t seem to be the same type of person, even though they don’t fit into the clueless or loser category. I would imagine that those starting companies tend to be more like under-performers because they struggle to understand the value they’re creating. However, those who have enough influence to change the trajectory of organizations once established seem more like lateral climbers. I don’t think the psychology is similar between these, as they have different competencies, and emotional intelligence + ambition makes not a group.
I think C is addressed by splitting sociopath into two sub-categories. I really like the idea that individuals are made by their circumstances, and it comes off as very much allegory of the cave. However, I think there are conformist ways to be a good manager. Those who are generative have a whole host of different considerations, ones that I’m not going to develop in a offshoot reply to a reply.
I disagree with Scott on D. Generally, you know within a group who is the popular people versus the unpopular people, and who makes up the groups. I think it’s often not said explicitly, so it takes some intentional noticing, but status is everywhere, and those who focus on it, who are attuned to the specific environment, tend to be among the more popular, even if exact rankings are nebulous.
I wanted to take a quick digression from Scott’s thoughts to talk about a couple other things I found interesting about the essay, since this post is already quite long:
- The author is emulating the Robert Greene style of ‘I have a secret to tell you’. I find this refreshing, as even if I’m not learning anything, I get to see a subversive way of viewing the world, one which attributes competence to people more than maybe what is realistic.
- The breakdowns of sociopaths is interesting too. It kind of reminds me of some of the IDW people who when they become untethered from maybe a paternalistic, kind of incorrect worldview, and go off the deep end. Sometimes there is something to be said for complying with taboos, even if some are ridiculous. I’d like to see that explored a little more.
- Tactical communications seem very valuable, and something that would theoretically be actionable. I’d like to see more talk of this. I haven’t read all of the blog, and so I don’t feel confident saying that there isn’t more information about this, this does after all seem like a layperson psycho-analysis.
- Depth of knowledge is interesting, and I think the concept of addictions to strengths is interesting. What I’d like to know more about is when addictions to strength level out, and what makes it so. We’ve been told it happens, but not enough to know when one leans into overmensch territory.
Isadore Johnson's Website 