Or maybe you are perfectly adapted to your circumstances according to "The Gervais Principle, Or The Office According to “The Office”"? https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
"The Sociopath (capitalized) layer comprises the Darwinian/Protestant Ethic will-to-power types who drive an organization to function despite itself. The Clueless layer is what Whyte called the “Organization Man,” but the archetype inhabiting the middle has evolved a good deal since Whyte wrote his book (in the fifties). The Losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks. ... The difference between [upwardly-aspiring Ryan] and the average checked-out Loser is illustrated in one brilliant scene early in his career. He suggests, during a group stacking effort in the warehouse, that they form a bucket brigade to work more efficiently. The minimum-effort Loser Stanley tells him coldly, “this here is a run-out-the-clock situation.” The line could apply to Stanley’s entire life. Stanley’s response shows both his intelligence and clear-eyed self-awareness of his Loser bargain with the company. He therefore acts according to a mix of self-preservation and minimum-effort coasting instincts. ... The career of the Loser is the easiest to understand. Having made a bad bargain, and not marked for either Clueless or Sociopath trajectories, he or she must make the best of a bad situation. The most rational thing to do is slack off and do the minimum necessary. Doing more would be a Clueless thing to do. Doing less would take the high-energy machinations of the Sociopath, since it sets up self-imposed up-or-out time pressure. So the Loser — really not a loser at all if you think about it — pays his dues, does not ask for much, and finds meaning in his life elsewhere. For Stanley it is crossword puzzles. For Angela it is a colorless Martha-Stewartish religious life. For Kevin, it is his rock band. For Kelly, it is mindless airhead pop-culture distractions. Pam has her painting ambitions. Meredith is an alcoholic slut. Oscar, the ironic-token gay character, has his intellectual posturing. Creed, a walking freak-show, marches to the beat of his own obscure different drum (he is the most rationally checked-out of all the losers)."
Since you mentioned depression, see especially the related health sections.
All the best and good luck!
P.S. Something I wrote in 2008 on ideological challenges inherent in Google inspired by contradictions in the "Project Virgle" April Fools joke:
https://pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Proje...
"Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too :-). And that jest came almost half a century after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness) .... Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more decades to shake off that ideological discipline. I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there. :-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change. Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a good thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology? :-( ... Google-ites and other financially obese people IMHO need to take a good look at the junk food capitalist propaganda they are eating and serving up to others, as in saying (even in jest): ... "we should profit from others' use of our innovations, and we should buy or lease others' intellectual property whenever it advances our own goals" -- even while running one of the biggest post-scarcity enterprises on Earth based on free-as-in-freedom software. :-( Until then, it is up to us other ... "semi-evil ... quasi-evil ... not evil enough" hobbyists with smaller budgets to save the Asteroids and the Planets (including Earth) ... from financially obese people and their unexamined evil plans to spread profit-driven scarcity-creating Empire throughout every nook-and-cranny of the universe. :-("
It introduced me to the idea that most employees are "economic losers" who are "people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks." (At least in the early - middle life cycle of a company).
It encapsulates this as "The Gervais Principle":
Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.
(The terminology is quite specific to the article - i.e. not sociopaths in the movie-cliche view).
I won't attempt to summarise the article here. Suffice to say it altered my thinking about future roles. Search HN for many prior discussions here of that post.
then OP is a "loser", and most answers divide into "losers" ("coming clean will be worse, so just keep doing the bare minimum") or "clueless" ("it is unethical to mislead your corporate masters"). I'd like to see what's the "sociopath" answer.
A very cynical but funny take on this premise can be had in Venkatesh Rao's series of essays ["The Gervais Principle"][0]. He posits three groups: Sociopaths, Losers, and The Clueless. Here the Sociopaths are the intelligent but ruthless C-levels who build and oversee organizations. The Losers are the ones who actually get the day-to-day work done, at the expense of their own progress in life. And the Clueless are moved "up" from the ranks of the Losers by Sociopaths into middle management, where they insulate the two productive groups from each other.
I'm surprised nobody has linked to the Gervais principle. You fit nicely into his model:
"The losers are not social losers (as in the opposite of “cool”), but people who have struck bad bargains economically – giving up capitalist striving for steady paychecks."
For those like me unfamiliar with what's here termed the "psycho-clueless-loser model", it appears to be what is more commonly termed the "Gervais Principle", and you can find what looks to be a reasonable overview of the subject here: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
I'm surprised the Gervais principle[0] isn't there, as it supercedes the Peter Principle and Dilbert's law as far as I'm concerned:
All organizations are perfectly pathological, their hierarchy being divided up between sociopaths (management), losers (middle-management) and the clueless (everyone else). Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves.
Basically, instead of people being promoted to incompetence; the IC level is thought of as "economic losers"; IE: the exploited. People who are exploited and throw a lot of effort in are considered "the clueless" and occupy most middle management, and the high leadership of every company is considered sociopathic.
It's a much more compelling ideology to me as it maps unfortunately well into real life; at least as described (maybe the particular chosen words for the classifications evoke the wrong assumptions though).
Learn to spot and understand the perspective of people who expect to get the whole cake in life - the loser/clueless/sociopath model being of some use here:
I love the Gervais Principle, but only as a cynical joke that can sometimes be applied to real life. There's really no need to read the book. If you're interested in a laugh, just see the blog post [1].
The gist of it is that there are only three types of people who work in organizations:
1. At the top of the food chain are the sociopaths. Executives.
2. Below it are the clueless, the mid-manager who works nights and weekends out of a sense of loyalty to the company. Unlike the sociopaths and the losers (explained below), they don't have it within themselves to straight up leave the company for something better. To them, this is life.
3. And below that, are the losers. That's everyone else. The pawns in this little corporate game designed by the sociopaths and coordinated by the clueless. They won't be promoted. But unlike the clueless, they have a sense of freedom. They can go work for a competitor if it pays more. Or they'll have a real work-life balance, etc..
It (should be) no more than a humorous take on corporate culture. Don't try to take away any life lessons from this.
And I don't think there are really any Losers destined for Cluelessness. The Clueless are the people who don't understand office politics, or think they can climb the career ladder simply by working hard and being loyal employees (not through strategic social climbing). Losers are people who understand and see the ladder there but choose not to be social climbers. They gossip, do crossword puzzles, punch out and go spend time with their kids. There are lots of Clueless destined to become Losers once they get burned out and realize what's up. Once you've learned that you can't unlearn it.
>It took me a couple years to realize the smart people are just playing the game, the unsuspecting losers are "playing it straight" and getting endlessly frustrated.
That Gervais Principle series, and the Company Hierarchy chart that opens it, was one of the first things that came to mind when I read this article.
My takeaway from the Gervais Principle: the only way to win, if you're not a sociopath, is to be a loser.
I've made my peace with that fact.
Or, well, a little more positively: just try to avoid the whole corporate rat race all together. But it often has a way of finding you as this great HN comment, which was actually the first thing that came to mind, explains:
Everyone is familiar with the Peter Principle at this point. I believe there is something to it, but it doesn't explain what we find in modern companies. It's too passive a mechanism to explain the malevolence that typically quickly develops in most successful companies.
The Gervais Priciple seems to much better explain the modern organization:
"Sociopaths, in their own best interests, knowingly promote over-performing losers into middle-management, groom under-performing losers into sociopaths, and leave the average bare-minimum-effort losers to fend for themselves."
If you want to change Google into a better company or alternatively build or find a better place to be, here is a reading list I've put together which might help: https://github.com/pdfernhout/High-Performance-Organizations...
Since you mentioned depression, see especially the related health sections.
All the best and good luck!
P.S. Something I wrote in 2008 on ideological challenges inherent in Google inspired by contradictions in the "Project Virgle" April Fools joke: https://pdfernhout.net/a-rant-on-financial-obesity-and-Proje... "Even just in jest some of the most financially obese people on the planet (who have built their company with thousands of servers all running GNU/Linux free software) apparently could not see any other possibility but seriously becoming even more financially obese off the free work of others on another planet (as well as saddling others with financial obesity too :-). And that jest came almost half a century after the "Triple Revolution" letter of 1964 about the growing disconnect between effort and productivity (or work and financial fitness) .... Even not having completed their PhDs, the top Google-ites may well take many more decades to shake off that ideological discipline. I know it took me decades (and I am still only part way there. :-) As with my mother, no doubt Googlers have lived through periods of scarcity of money relative to their needs to survive or be independent scholars or effective agents of change. Is it any wonder they probably think being financially obese is a good thing, not an indication of either personal or societal pathology? :-( ... Google-ites and other financially obese people IMHO need to take a good look at the junk food capitalist propaganda they are eating and serving up to others, as in saying (even in jest): ... "we should profit from others' use of our innovations, and we should buy or lease others' intellectual property whenever it advances our own goals" -- even while running one of the biggest post-scarcity enterprises on Earth based on free-as-in-freedom software. :-( Until then, it is up to us other ... "semi-evil ... quasi-evil ... not evil enough" hobbyists with smaller budgets to save the Asteroids and the Planets (including Earth) ... from financially obese people and their unexamined evil plans to spread profit-driven scarcity-creating Empire throughout every nook-and-cranny of the universe. :-("
reply