c***z
发帖数: 6348 | 1 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com | y***n
发帖数: 1594 | | g**s
发帖数: 2331 | 3 换头像了？
谢谢，去拜读了
题。
【在 c***z 的大作中提到】
: 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com
| c***z
发帖数: 6348 | 4 节选，关于culture
Workplace cultures
I mentioned rank and tough cultures above, so let me get into more detail of
what those are. In general, an organization is going to evaluate its
individuals based on three core traits:
subordinacy: does this person put the goals of the organization (or, at
least, his immediate team and supervisor) above her own?
dedication: will she do unpleasant work, or large amounts of work, in order
to succeed?
strategy: does she know what is worth working on, and direct her efforts
toward important things?
People who lack two or all three of these core traits are generally so
dysfunctional that all but the most nonselective employers just flush them
out. Those types– such as the strategic, not-dedicated, and insubordinate
Passive-Aggressive and the dedicated, insubordinate, and not-strategic Loose
Cannon– occasionally pop up for comic relief, but they’re so incompetent
that they don’t last long in a company and are never in contention for
important roles. I call them, as a group, the Lumpenlosers.
MacLeod Losers tend to be strategic and subordinate, but not dedicated. They
know what’s worth working on, but they tend to follow orders because they
’re optimizing for comfort, social approval, and job security. They don’t
see any value in 90-hour weeks (which would compromise their social polish)
or radical pursuit of improvement (which would upset authority). They just
want to be liked and adjust well to the cozy, boring, middle-bottom. If you
make a MacLeod Loser work Saturdays, though, she’ll quit. She knows that
she can get a similar or better job elsewhere.
MacLeod Clueless are subordinate and dedicated but not strategic. They have
no clue what’s worth working on. They blindly follow orders, but will also
put in above-board effort because of an unconditional work ethic. They
frequently end up cleaning up messes made by Sociopaths above and Losers
below them. They tend to be where the corporate buck actually stops, because
Sociopaths can count on them to be loyal fall guys.
MacLeod Sociopaths are dedicated and strategic but insubordinate. They
figure out how the system works and what is worth putting effort into, and
they optimize for personal yield. They’re risk-takers who don’t mind
taking the chance of getting fired if there’s also a decent likelihood of a
promotion. They tend to have “up-or-out” career trajectories, and job
hopping isn’t uncommon.
Since there are good Sociopaths out there, I’ve taken to calling the
socially positive ones the Technocrats, who tend to be insubordinate with
respect to immediate organizational authority, but have higher moral
principles rooted in convexity: process improvements, teamwork and
cooperation, technical and infrastructural excellence. They’re the “
positive-sum” radicals. I’ll get back to them.
Is there a “unicorn” employee who combines all three desired traits–
subordinacy, dedication, and strategy? Yes, but it’s strictly conditional
upon a particular set of circumstances. In general, it’s not strategic to
be subordinate and dedicated. If you’re strategic, you’ll usually either
optimize for comfort and be subordinate, but not dedicated, because that’s
uncomfortable. If you follow orders, it’s pretty easy to coast in most
companies. That’s the Loser strategy. Or, you might optimize for personal
yield and work a bit harder, becoming dedicated, but you won’t do it for a
manager’s benefit: it’s either your own, or some kind of higher purpose.
That’s the Sociopath strategy. The exception is a mentor/protege
relationship. Strategic and dedicated people will subordinate if they think
that the person in authority knows more than they do, and is looking out for
their career interests. They’re subordinating to a mentor conditionally,
based on the understanding that they will be in authority, or at least able
to do more interesting and important work, in the future.
From this understanding, we can derive four common workplace cultures:
rank cultures value subordinacy above all. You can coast if you’re in good
graces with your manager, and the company ultimately becomes lazy. Rank
cultures have the most pronounced MacLeod pyramid: lazy but affable Losers,
blind but eager Clueless, and Sociopaths at the top looking for ways to gain
from the whole mess.
tough cultures value dedication, and flush out the less dedicated using
informal social pressure and formal performance reviews. It’s no longer
acceptable to work a standard workweek; 60 hours is the new 40. Tough
culture exists to purge the Loser tier, splitting it between the neo-
Clueless sector and the still-Loser rejects, which it will fire if they don
’t quit first. So the MacLeod pyramid of a tough culture is more fluid, but
every bit as pathological.
self-executive cultures value strategy. Employees are individually
responsible for directing their own efforts into pursuits that are of the
most value. This is the open allocation for which Valve and Github are known
. Instead of employees having to compete for projects (tough culture) or
managerial support (rank culture) it is the opposite. Projects compete for
talent on an open market, and managers (if they exist) must operate in the
interests of those being managed. There is no MacLeod hierarchy in a self-
executive culture.
guild culture values a balance of the three. Junior employees aren’t
treated as terminal subordinates but as proteges who will eventually rise
into leadership/mentoring positions. There isn’t a MacLeod pyramid here; to
the extent that there may be undesirable structure, it has more to do with
inaccurate seniority metrics (e.g. years of experience) than with bad-faith
credibility trading.
Rank and guild cultures are both command cultures, insofar as they rely on
central planning and global (within the institution) rule-setting. Top
management must keep continual awareness of how many people are at each
level, and plan out the future accordingly. Tough and self-executive
cultures are market cultures, because they require direct engagement with an
organic, internal market.
The healthy, “Theory Y” cultures are the guild and self-executive cultures
. These confer a basic credibility on all employees, which shuts off the
panic trading that generates the MacLeod process. In a guild culture, each
employee has credibility for being a student who will grow in the future. In
self-executive culture, each employee has power inherent in the right to
direct her efforts to the project she considers most worthy. Bosses and
projects competing for workers is a Good Thing.
The pathological, “Theory X” cultures are the rank and tough cultures. It
goes without saying that most rank cultures try to present themselves as
guild cultures– but management has so much power that it need not take any
mentorship commitments seriously. Likewise, most tough cultures present
themselves as self-executive ones. How do you tell if your company has a
genuinely healthy (Theory Y) culture? Basic credibility. If it’s there, it
’s the good kind. If it’s not, it’s the bad kind of culture. | J*********r
发帖数: 5921 | | a***e
发帖数: 413 | 6 感觉很tough。
版上有人愿意不给加班工资而星期六长期加班么？
‘ If you
make a MacLeod Loser work Saturdays, though, she’ll quit. She knows that
she can get a similar or better job elsewhere.’ | l*****a
发帖数: 14598 | 7 你的新工作看起来很咸啊
题。
【在 c***z 的大作中提到】
: 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com
| s*******w
发帖数: 498 | | x*******6
发帖数: 262 | | S*******o
发帖数: 17 | 10 Mark
题。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.6
【在 c***z 的大作中提到】
: 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com
| | | c***z
发帖数: 6348 | 11 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com | y***n
发帖数: 1594 | | g**s
发帖数: 2331 | 13 换头像了？
谢谢，去拜读了
题。
【在 c***z 的大作中提到】
: 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com
| c***z
发帖数: 6348 | 14 节选，关于culture
Workplace cultures
I mentioned rank and tough cultures above, so let me get into more detail of
what those are. In general, an organization is going to evaluate its
individuals based on three core traits:
subordinacy: does this person put the goals of the organization (or, at
least, his immediate team and supervisor) above her own?
dedication: will she do unpleasant work, or large amounts of work, in order
to succeed?
strategy: does she know what is worth working on, and direct her efforts
toward important things?
People who lack two or all three of these core traits are generally so
dysfunctional that all but the most nonselective employers just flush them
out. Those types– such as the strategic, not-dedicated, and insubordinate
Passive-Aggressive and the dedicated, insubordinate, and not-strategic Loose
Cannon– occasionally pop up for comic relief, but they’re so incompetent
that they don’t last long in a company and are never in contention for
important roles. I call them, as a group, the Lumpenlosers.
MacLeod Losers tend to be strategic and subordinate, but not dedicated. They
know what’s worth working on, but they tend to follow orders because they
’re optimizing for comfort, social approval, and job security. They don’t
see any value in 90-hour weeks (which would compromise their social polish)
or radical pursuit of improvement (which would upset authority). They just
want to be liked and adjust well to the cozy, boring, middle-bottom. If you
make a MacLeod Loser work Saturdays, though, she’ll quit. She knows that
she can get a similar or better job elsewhere.
MacLeod Clueless are subordinate and dedicated but not strategic. They have
no clue what’s worth working on. They blindly follow orders, but will also
put in above-board effort because of an unconditional work ethic. They
frequently end up cleaning up messes made by Sociopaths above and Losers
below them. They tend to be where the corporate buck actually stops, because
Sociopaths can count on them to be loyal fall guys.
MacLeod Sociopaths are dedicated and strategic but insubordinate. They
figure out how the system works and what is worth putting effort into, and
they optimize for personal yield. They’re risk-takers who don’t mind
taking the chance of getting fired if there’s also a decent likelihood of a
promotion. They tend to have “up-or-out” career trajectories, and job
hopping isn’t uncommon.
Since there are good Sociopaths out there, I’ve taken to calling the
socially positive ones the Technocrats, who tend to be insubordinate with
respect to immediate organizational authority, but have higher moral
principles rooted in convexity: process improvements, teamwork and
cooperation, technical and infrastructural excellence. They’re the “
positive-sum” radicals. I’ll get back to them.
Is there a “unicorn” employee who combines all three desired traits–
subordinacy, dedication, and strategy? Yes, but it’s strictly conditional
upon a particular set of circumstances. In general, it’s not strategic to
be subordinate and dedicated. If you’re strategic, you’ll usually either
optimize for comfort and be subordinate, but not dedicated, because that’s
uncomfortable. If you follow orders, it’s pretty easy to coast in most
companies. That’s the Loser strategy. Or, you might optimize for personal
yield and work a bit harder, becoming dedicated, but you won’t do it for a
manager’s benefit: it’s either your own, or some kind of higher purpose.
That’s the Sociopath strategy. The exception is a mentor/protege
relationship. Strategic and dedicated people will subordinate if they think
that the person in authority knows more than they do, and is looking out for
their career interests. They’re subordinating to a mentor conditionally,
based on the understanding that they will be in authority, or at least able
to do more interesting and important work, in the future.
From this understanding, we can derive four common workplace cultures:
rank cultures value subordinacy above all. You can coast if you’re in good
graces with your manager, and the company ultimately becomes lazy. Rank
cultures have the most pronounced MacLeod pyramid: lazy but affable Losers,
blind but eager Clueless, and Sociopaths at the top looking for ways to gain
from the whole mess.
tough cultures value dedication, and flush out the less dedicated using
informal social pressure and formal performance reviews. It’s no longer
acceptable to work a standard workweek; 60 hours is the new 40. Tough
culture exists to purge the Loser tier, splitting it between the neo-
Clueless sector and the still-Loser rejects, which it will fire if they don
’t quit first. So the MacLeod pyramid of a tough culture is more fluid, but
every bit as pathological.
self-executive cultures value strategy. Employees are individually
responsible for directing their own efforts into pursuits that are of the
most value. This is the open allocation for which Valve and Github are known
. Instead of employees having to compete for projects (tough culture) or
managerial support (rank culture) it is the opposite. Projects compete for
talent on an open market, and managers (if they exist) must operate in the
interests of those being managed. There is no MacLeod hierarchy in a self-
executive culture.
guild culture values a balance of the three. Junior employees aren’t
treated as terminal subordinates but as proteges who will eventually rise
into leadership/mentoring positions. There isn’t a MacLeod pyramid here; to
the extent that there may be undesirable structure, it has more to do with
inaccurate seniority metrics (e.g. years of experience) than with bad-faith
credibility trading.
Rank and guild cultures are both command cultures, insofar as they rely on
central planning and global (within the institution) rule-setting. Top
management must keep continual awareness of how many people are at each
level, and plan out the future accordingly. Tough and self-executive
cultures are market cultures, because they require direct engagement with an
organic, internal market.
The healthy, “Theory Y” cultures are the guild and self-executive cultures
. These confer a basic credibility on all employees, which shuts off the
panic trading that generates the MacLeod process. In a guild culture, each
employee has credibility for being a student who will grow in the future. In
self-executive culture, each employee has power inherent in the right to
direct her efforts to the project she considers most worthy. Bosses and
projects competing for workers is a Good Thing.
The pathological, “Theory X” cultures are the rank and tough cultures. It
goes without saying that most rank cultures try to present themselves as
guild cultures– but management has so much power that it need not take any
mentorship commitments seriously. Likewise, most tough cultures present
themselves as self-executive ones. How do you tell if your company has a
genuinely healthy (Theory Y) culture? Basic credibility. If it’s there, it
’s the good kind. If it’s not, it’s the bad kind of culture. | J*********r
发帖数: 5921 | | a***e
发帖数: 413 | 16 感觉很tough。
版上有人愿意不给加班工资而星期六长期加班么？
‘ If you
make a MacLeod Loser work Saturdays, though, she’ll quit. She knows that
she can get a similar or better job elsewhere.’ | l*****a
发帖数: 14598 | 17 你的新工作看起来很咸啊
题。
【在 c***z 的大作中提到】
: 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com
| s*******w
发帖数: 498 | | x*******6
发帖数: 262 | | S*******o
发帖数: 17 | 20 Mark
题。
★ 发自iPhone App: ChineseWeb 8.6
【在 c***z 的大作中提到】
: 这哥们简直是神一样的存在。他的文章非常有洞见，回答了很多困扰我很久的职场问题。
: http://michaelochurch.wordpress.com
| j*****y
发帖数: 101 | |
|
