Remember, this is in the context of trying to analyze a fictional program -- The Office. Although there's some truthiness there, it's all a bit too neat. Wow, there's only three kinds of workers. Okaaay.

I've done some analysis on my own of that. There are more, but those 3 tend to dominate the culture of an organization.

Organizations want 3 things from people: subordinacy, dedication, and strategy (working on the right things). You'll almost never see all 3, because a person who is strategic will either optimize for minimum discomfort (and not be dedicated/sacrificial) or for maximum personal yield (and, while he might follow orders, won't put the organization's goals above his own).

Moreover, people who have zero or one of those 3 traits are generally maladaptive and fall into a "Lumpenloser" category that excludes them even from the Loser in-group, and they'll usually be quickly let go.

This means that the interesting people will have 2 of those 3 traits. If they're subordinate and strategic (but not dedicated) they become minimum-effort Losers. If they're subordinate and dedicated (but not strategic) they become the middle-manager Clueless who clean up the messes made below and above them. If they're strategic and dedicated (but not subordinate) they fall into the category called "Sociopath".

The labels are a bit unfair. Most of the "Losers" aren't dislikable or inept people, and often the "cool kids" are MacLeod Losers. (In startups, the cool kids are Clueless.) Likewise, most of the "Sociopaths" aren't bad people-- just ambitious and not willing to sacrifice their own goals for the benefit of an organization that wouldn't return the favor.

So if we redefine all the words we're using, then we can come up with a framework that sort of works, sometimes, according to someone who's analyzing The Office. Ok.

>> Organizations want 3 things from people: subordinacy, dedication, and strategy (working on the right things).

Uh, where did "able to do good work" go??

Edit: "Dedication" and "productivity"/"capability" are different concepts. Trust me on this, I had an undetected bacterial infection for a while that lowered my capabilities seriously.

>> dedication

I'll expand on my "Edit:"

I had lowered productivity a couple of periods from undetected health problems (allergy troubles and a bacterial infection).

I have been both a high producer and a problem producer. And I have surprised bosses in both good/bad ways, and they have changed their opinions about me.

The main personal difference was self confidence ("I burn out easy these days? :-( More exercise/relaxation don't help?! I am old?! :-(". Afterwards, my reaction was/is "So I was physically sick, I am not a complete luser that turn everything I touch to shit.")

The only difference in "dedication" was a later natural effect -- of burnout from working like an animal to get productivity when it was failing.

And the lesson I have learned is compassion; the cynical failures that are a depressing pain on us others might not be stupid or sociopaths. I am happy for the insight, it made me less of an asshole, but it was probably not worth the high cost.

Edit: To make this into a point, I do believe in the "Pygmalion effect" and I have seen it in action. But it is far from the whole story. There are probably also many other effects than bosses' behaviour and those I know personally which influence workers.

Fair point, but usually this "future Sociopath" is not perceived as a low performer, at least not in the sense the article describes. He's seen as an inconsistent but capable person, and while he may not be liked, he has a certain status that keeps him from falling to the bottom. He shows early on that he can be a high performer, but he's not going to give that away lightly. The organization has to earn his respect.

The article describes people being sorted into a high and low status group, from which performance variations follow. It covers the majority of cases where performance follows directly from status.

The MacLeod-model Sociopath is someone who shows the capacity to perform at high levels, quite early, but also an unusual willingness to reduce his performance to zero if accorded low status. It's a "Go ahead, try to fire me" move. Sometimes (if done diplomatically) it gives him high status, begrudgingly. After all, a truly high-status person will ignore disrespectful leadership and underperform if given low status (but so will a low-status person; hence, there's a way of doing it.) More often, it leaves him ignored (rather than micromanaged) because the boss just doesn't want to deal with him, and this gives him the freedom to do whatever he wants with his time, as long as he stays out of the boss's way. Then he can usually bounce up-and-diagonal, given time.

You just described my situation and the way I work.

Work hard when you join, get status, show that you get shit done and have a fast turn-around. Your mission should be to make everyone happy. That way, when you lose interest in the job you will be able to slack and still get raises and go up the ladder. Bosses will act exactly as you said, by giving you freedom in hopes that you will spend that time working (which you are not). Sometimes when they really need/want something done they will micromanage, but basically they won't fire you because they know how productive you can be and desperately want to harvest your brain power.

Companies and girls are exactly the same. Everything is predetermined by the first three months (or less) you spend with them.

TIL: I'm a Sociopath

Geez, same TIL, and I didn't need that... Thought I was better than that (everyone thinks).

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.