To quote from Ribbon Farm article: "The simple reason is that if you over-perform at the Loser level, it is clear that you are an idiot. You’ve already made a bad bargain, and now you’re delivering more value than you need to, making your bargain even worse. Unless you very quickly demonstrate that you know your own value by successfully negotiating more money and/or power, you are marked out as an exploitable clueless Loser. "
[1] http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-o...
Can someone explain this formulation of 'performance' without referencing "the Wire"? Ie is it simply long hours? Or is it long hours coupled with getting a lot done, in a good way? Or is it getting a lot done, and breaking things for everyone else? Or ...?
For example if you are a developer and realise your project needs to engage another team NOW for a critical deliverable due in 3 months and you spend your time on this task then you run the serious risk of pissing off both your manager and the project manager.
Or for example putting together a prototype that shows how another teams work could be automated.
Or pointing out flaws/discrepancies of a high profile product. Or telling a senior manager how a project is really doing, etc.
The bottom line doesn't matter as much in terms of respect and career progress as it should. There is a misconception that you can get away from politics if you work for startups or smaller firms but that's just not the case.
As a previous overperfomer(who got burned for it) I find overperforming is often a product of misunderstanding what the company wants you to do, and in the end it doesn't help you, your peers, or anyone except your personal idea of what you think is right, without regard to reality.
Most obviously, Michael urges young programmers deciding how much effort to put into their work to "ebb towards underperformance".
That's not what I said. From the source (on Quora, here: http://www.quora.com/What-do-software-developers-age-30-and-...):
3. Recognize underperformance and overperformance and avoid them. There are a lot of low-effort players who stay employed for years. This isn't a bad strategy if you're settled, but I wouldn't fall too low. That said, the only people who typically get fired for underperformance are the people who fail so badly that they generate work for others. People who hide and do little tend not to make any enemies. At the same time, be cautious of overperformance. This isn't like college where challenging your professor's ideas could earn you an 'A' if you argued your point well. Overperformers often also generate extra work for their superiors and colleagues and draw unwanted attention (see: McNulty in The Wire) and are more likely to be culled for "performance" (98 percent of "performance management" in companies is politics) than underperformers. I'm not saying that you shouldn't work hard and do a good job and learn as much as you can. That's not necessarily overperformance. In my experience, though, overperformance is much more dangerous than underperformance. It can get you just as fired and it will happen a lot faster. If you end up stuck between the two, prefer underperformance.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't work hard or do a good job. On the contrary, I think young people should bust their asses at growing the skills and contacts that will serve them well for the rest of their lives. I'm saying "avoid overperformance", and overperformance isn't the same thing as "doing a great job". I'm saying, "don't become like McNulty on The Wire" (or a certain person at Google who tried to prevent a product failure and got burned for it). McNulty is a textbook overperformer: he loves the job, it doesn't love him back, and he puts so much into it that it destroys his life and career.
Sorry, but I'm pretty fucking pissed out this being out there like that. That was way the fuck out of context. I wasn't happy with the Lifehacker edit either but I didn't speak up about that because I didn't see it as a big deal. But I am definitely not telling a generation of people to slack off at their jobs.