isn't OP employing the loser strategy? they are doing (what they consider) barely okay work. the prospective sociopath strategy in that serious of articles is to do below-acceptable work and vie for political advantages.
There is another option for the under-performer - they might be on the sociopath track:
The future Sociopath must be an under-performer at the bottom. Like the average Loser, he recognizes that the bargain is a really bad one. Unlike the risk-averse loser though, he does not try to make the best of a bad situation by doing enough to get by. He has no intention of just getting by. He very quickly figures out — through experiments and fast failures — that the Loser game is not worth becoming good at. He then severely under-performs in order to free up energy to concentrate on maneuvering an upward exit. He knows his under-performance is not sustainable, but he has no intention of becoming a lifetime-Loser employee anyway. He takes the calculated risk that he’ll find a way up before he is fired for incompetence.
That's not entirely correct. The sociopath strategy is to employ your time looking for ways up - instead of whatever the company is paying you to do - i.e., the up or out strategy. However, there's no reason it can't be up _and_ out, such as starting your own thing.
I do the same thing. But as MichaelOChurch said, losers and sociopaths are actually quite similar. It is possible to be either a safe loser or a sociopath using this method.
It is possible to live a very good life as a loser if you manage it correctly.
I think both you and the parent have missed the point.
The word “loser” is not the colloquial use of the term, and there is no “winner” (despite the confusing quotations above). Here it simply means loser in the economic sense — they produce an outsized amount of value for the company. They may be fully aware of this, and be happy and productive. They are simply unwilling or unable to do what’s necessary to climb the corporate ladder. If they have awareness of this dynamic, then they’re also unlikely to be promoted in middle management, since the sociopaths want people that will be loyal to them and support their agenda.
Similarly “clueless” doesn’t mean they are idiots — simply that they don’t have what it takes to be a sociopath, and aren’t aware of how they are being used. In other words, they are thinking exactly like the parent post — that’s exactly the kind of person the sociopath wants to promote to middle management.
Finally, “sociopath” is an exaggeration, and it doesn’t mean these people are terrible humans with no redeeming qualities. It just means that they are focused on their own outcomes above others, and internally may be lacking in the conscience department.
"Sociopath" is probably a little too harsh. But you need to look out for your advantage and not always only do what's good for the company. You also need to make sure you get credit for your accomplishments.
> 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.
Doesn't sound like you make a difference. Human always think in terms of benefits. It speaks about complexity of human behavior that you might not see simple facts about it. You can't reduce it to a simple formula, calculating beneficial strategy can go a long way. You may believe that it's beneficial to be a sociopath until you know what it entails.
Your earning potential is fine. You really, really don't want to be a sociopath, because sociopaths suck at taking advantage of win-win opportunities. As a rule, they more or less hate the world around them and feel that the only way to win is to screw everyone else. Just focus on playing the game well and you'll beat them easily. Most average people don't care much about doing either, the one real advantage sociopaths have is their focus.
Sociopaths, the clueless and losers. This great essay analyzing The Office argues that in a modern business context you're one of the three. [1]
Those "functional elites" you mentioned? Usually they're working 20-50% more for 0-25% percent more pay. They're called the clueless because they've been conned into working more for less, usually under some clever guise like company being family or company values or the promise of a promotion that's always a cycle or two away. The essay then goes on to argue that losers are really just the clueless once they "get it." Losers understand the treadmill and lean into the tedium always aiming to save their time by playing dumb as needed. Sociopaths break out of the cycle by operating only with concern for power and switching up how they talk to folks based on whether they're clueless, losers or fellow sociopaths.
Sociopaths speak in powertalk -- an exchange of information on clear terms. It's usually veiled because the clueless and losers listen in and it makes them feel uncomfortable. If it weren't veiled it would probably sound like lawyer-jargon with lots of plausible deniability, conditions, arguing and explicit shared definitions.
Losers and clueless speak in their own languages based on who they're talking with. It's basically just lots of trying to feel okay... except for when it comes to losers speaking with sociopaths. There the only communication is straight talk, which is basically just direct requests of a master-slave dynamic (i.e. "do this"). The essay is well worth the read!
"in any company, some people chug along, some people work hard, and some people are in it to win, and they have the following dynamics"
That's an oversimplification.
Sociopaths are not just "in it to win". They will do whatever it takes to win, and trample as many people under foot as it takes takes them to get ahead without a twinge of conscience.
The clueless in the article aren't merely working hard, they're also true believers in the organization who "build up a perverse sense of loyalty to the firm, even when events make it abundantly clear that the firm is not loyal to them."
Unlike the clueless, the losers see clearly and do the bare minimum to get by and will (like the sociopaths) abandon the ship when it starts to sink, unlike the clueless, who will loyally sink right along with it. While they're in the organization, "they traded freedom for a paycheck .. mortgage their lives away, and hope to die before their money runs out."
While the losers have no more loyalty to the company than the sociopaths "they do have a loyalty to individual people, and a commitment to finding fulfillment through work when they can, and coasting when they cannot."
If I had to be bucketed into one of these categories it would be the sociopath one. But, I've done it without doing the things described by the author as necessary, and seeing those who have tries to work in that way eventually fail.
The primary flaw of the article is that it gives FAR too much agency to the "sociopaths".
Most of the sociopaths are where they are because of randomness, too. The sociopaths often recognize that a situation could benefit them personally so they grab ahold--this is the point where they may stab somebody in the back.
However, after they mount up for the ride, the tiger goes where it wants and they really don't have any control over it. If it goes well, congrats on your promotion. If it goes badly, even with a scapegoat your promotion path is done so start looking for a new job.
So, the "sociopaths" are a product of 8 coin flips that all came up heads--unfortunately they all think they are geniuses.
It's okay to be a sociopath to people so long as others have it worse?
No, sorry. Nothing requires Amazon to behave this way, and it is foolish besides - if you burn through people you are are basically training people up who then walk away and work for your competition. By having them work 80+ hours you are getting less actual work out of them then 40 hours. You are spending more on health care because this sort of environment causes stress. Etc.
We ain't going to shut up and take it just because there are worse things out there.
I think the author comes across a bit doe-eyed (although this is perhaps just them taking a necessarily politic angle, given the venue of the article), but I also think what they're saying is generally true.
The vast majority of people aren't actively malicious. I'd go so far as to say the majority of people who would be described by their colleagues as "assholes" don't get up in the morning planning to be shitty. Typically, at least in my experience, it's the product of a vast intent / ability gap, usually in communications / EQ-type skills. They honestly think (generally, overestimate!) they're being constructive or "honest".
reply