The Gervais Principle: Theory of Management & Organizations

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 21 - 27 of total 27 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Lovegasoline

Trad climber
Brooklyn, NY
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 14, 2016 - 05:00pm PT
The smartest and the best people in any business are the sales people.

DMT

It's difficult to know what smartest and best refer to here.

Is a salesperson who is eminently cable of regularly closing sales contracts and generating profits for the firm, who is loyal, but who hasn't rigourously negotiated better compensation and position upwards ... is this (hypothetical) salesperson the smartest and/or the best?

(I think) according to the Gervais Principle, meritocracy, loyalty, and exceptional performance can be values held by the Clueless.

The theory states that the organisation is a wholly pathological construct and it's within the functioning of that construct, and in service of the sociopaths that shape them, that value is apportioned. Sociopaths are identified and promoted.


Lovegasoline

Trad climber
Brooklyn, NY
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 14, 2016 - 05:45pm PT
[quote]gary wrote:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovici/2011/06/14/why-some-psychopaths-make-great-ceos/#30cdb6d84fac[/quote]


Interesting, I just did some quick searches and came upon this:

"Cut to a pleasantly warm evening in Bahrain. My companion, a senior UK investment banker and I, are discussing the most successful banking types we know and what makes them tick. I argue that they often conform to the characteristics displayed by social psychopaths. To my surprise, my friend agrees.

He then makes an astonishing confession: "At one major investment bank for which I worked, we used psychometric testing to recruit social psychopaths because their characteristics exactly suited them to senior corporate finance roles."

Here was one of the biggest investment banks in the world seeking psychopaths as recruits.

Mr Ronson spoke to scores of psychologists about their understanding of the damage that psychopaths could do to society. None of those psychologists could have imagined, I'm sure, the existence of a bank that used the science of spotting them as a recruiting mechanism." [emphasis mine]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/brian-basham-beware-corporate-psychopaths-they-are-still-occupying-positions-of-power-6282502.html
Dingus Milktoast

Trad climber
Minister of Moderation, Fatcrackistan
Mar 14, 2016 - 07:25pm PT
I was just teasing LG. Parroting a narcissistic sociopath of a CEO I used to know who barked that out to a room full of newly acquired talent ;)

DMT
MikeL

Social climber
Seattle, WA
Mar 20, 2016 - 06:51pm PT
Lovesgas:

“Sociopath” is a severe term. I get “narcissist”; there is plenty of research to support that view. (See, Kets de Vries writings, especially about entrepreneurs.) But “sociopath” is a term with an evil connotation.

Recently I watched three drama-mentaries about the mortgage debacle of 2007-2008. (I worked in financial options and futures, but left in 1985, so I know at least the technical terms and concepts pretty well.) After watching the 3 films, I asked my wife who she thought was to blame for the results. She said the regulators and the incestuous nature of the industry with government.

I then spoke to her about the challenge of regulating an industry by theory without experience in an industry. It just seems to me that one cannot finally pin down clear and unequivocal authority or responsibility. It’s a big, inter-connected world.

What’s wrong with wanting to make money? What’s wrong with wanting to promote medical well-being? What’s wrong with wanting to further artistic sensibilities? What’s wrong with wanting to promote democracy (even in societies that appear to be unprepared for it)? What’s wrong with promulgating religion or tribal shamanism? What’s wrong with anything?

Most notions of common people who do not study organization are naive. Studies of the leadership (of organization) indicate that leaders are indisputably immodest, inauthentic, untruthful, untrustworthy, and people who will serve themselves rather than others first. Apparently this offends many sensibilities.

There are long lists of empirical research that say that’s how things work presently. (Much of which is premised on evolutionary forces.) You may not like it. Others may not like it. That’s how all of us are if we are honest with ourselves and with each other. (Yes, it’s sad.)

If anyone wants to do anything about it, he or she must first see things as they are. As Pogo said: “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Look in the mirror. Are you not immodest, inauthentic, untruthful, untrustworthy, and do you not serve yourself first?
Lovegasoline

Trad climber
Brooklyn, NY
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2016 - 04:09pm PT
First let me repeat that II have no dog in the fight regarding regarding the accuracy of the theories. Nor do I have an agenda of changing corporate/organisational structure. My direct interaction with those structures is as an outsider and is incidental ... I have no way of observing (or participating in) the dynamics and evaluate the theories. That's why I'm curious what other folks direct experience is and if they had any thoughts.

The terminology used to classify the various groups isn't flattering, however, I think it's accurate based on the qualities each group represents in the theory. [The 3 behaviors: checking out Losers, Clueless overperformance and Sociopathic Machiavellian scheming, animate the hierarchy and create its people flows].

Regarding sociopaths I'm comfortable with the term and my understanding is it's an expression of behavioural/personality traits, for ex. lack of empathy, confidence, etc. I understand there's a spectrum for how many traits exist in an individual and how pronounced they are. If you read through the entire work, he describes the various roles in the organisation based on several qualities.

The theory isn't solely about sociopaths at the top. The Clueless and Loser layers are fleshed out with equal or more detail.
Lovegasoline

Trad climber
Brooklyn, NY
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2016 - 10:55pm PT
Hammerstein-Equord Hierarchy (1933)
General Kurt von Hammerstein-Equord, from the German military:

"I divide my officers into four classes; the clever, the lazy, the industrious, and the stupid. Most often two of these qualities come together. The officers who are clever and industrious are fitted for the highest staff appointments. Those who are stupid and lazy make up around 90% of every army in the world, and they can be used for routine work. The man who is clever and lazy however is for the very highest command; he has the temperament and nerves to deal with all situations. But whoever is stupid and industrious is a menace and must be removed immediately!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_Hammerstein-Equord
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Mar 21, 2016 - 11:25pm PT
The smartest and the best people in any business are the sales people.

If they were, then they'd be able to explain exactly how their compensation works. But, we spend billions per year on sales compensation analysts whose principal occupation is insuring that 90% of sales people won't understand how they are compensated.
Messages 21 - 27 of total 27 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews