Old Cliché, but appreciate the difference between Leaders and Managers. Managers get promoted along with leaders, sometimes further up the chain. For a nauseating exploration of the tyranny of Management, and perverse rewards, read Robert Jackall's "Moral Mazes."
The mythos of leadership
31–40 of 66 posts
Re: The mythos of leadership
#32Highly recommend Jeffrey Pfeffer’s books about power and leadership. He has developed a great mental model about how leadership works in the real world, which explains the pitfalls of common ways to think about it. Humans want to believe in a just world and those in power are happy to provide narratives to that end. Meanwhile they are not correlated with how power is actually gained in the real world.
Pfeffer's book "Power" will let you know pretty fast whether you are suited to or ready for leadership. +1
Re: The mythos of leadership
#33This rings true because as someone without a religious background, I definitely feel the opposite: that progress is inevitable and the people who are "in charge" while it progresses are a commodity. I also find the "deification" of leaders (like say Steve Jobs) to be damaging to culture, leading to arrogance, political fighting and empire building. Trying to have a good life and be good to those around you, while rid…
Yep. Everyone praises the "great men," as the article mentions, and Western culture is heavily individualistic, so it stands to reason that we should deify the most visible leaders of things. But they aren't that special. Often, they're high-performing individuals with a somewhat-damaged attachment that they have found ways to channel productively. Their success and visibility feed more success and visibility. So we…
I don't think this argument is all that great - most rational people have already internalized that luck plays a role for everyone in the world.
To start with there is the "i was born healthy, wasn't malnourished, wasn't in a war zone" kinda luck.
Then there is the "being at the right place at the right time" kinda luck - which is part luck, part perseverance and persistence. You won't be in the right place if you never try or want it.
Then there is the "my direct reports did all the work, but I took the credit" kinda luck - which is pretty much any manager in the world.
Then you come to the "i have the title & power to affect change, the high standards/insight to enforce certain ideas or create certain products, and the financial backing to work through failures" kinda luck, which is where everyone wants to be, and thinks they can execute better then the other guy - but they're almost always wrong. The person who got there was self-selected by the system, and fought their way to reach the spot. The kinda of personality traits, qualities and other attributes that got that person the job, are not simply borne out of luck. Its the combination of their life experience and working through difficult situations, taking a collection of people of varying ability, personalities, etc along for the journey and getting a a large chunk of people to agree with them, etc. Its not that easy to hand-wave this away. The seeming counter-examples of people who were just gifted the role through nepotism or what have you, are not really examples, because they don't have the respect and don't play in the same league.
Re: The mythos of leadership
#34Highly recommend Jeffrey Pfeffer’s books about power and leadership. He has developed a great mental model about how leadership works in the real world, which explains the pitfalls of common ways to think about it. Humans want to believe in a just world and those in power are happy to provide narratives to that end. Meanwhile they are not correlated with how power is actually gained in the real world.
Just read some summary of his points elsewhere and had a hard time taking it seriously. For instance, > rule seven—which is basically that once you have power, money, and success, people will forget and forgive how you got there—is such an important rule is that it frees you to do everything else. This rule says that at the end, if you are successful, success excuses almost everything.
The "rule" is about how people behave. Not a moral judgement. It's more like:
"People excuse almost anything for those in power got into power."
instead of:
"It was morally OK to do the things that led them to obtain that power."
Re: The mythos of leadership
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Everyone praises the "great men," as the article mentions, and Western culture is heavily individualistic, so it stands to reason that we should deify the most visible leaders of things. But they aren't that special. Often, they're high-performing individuals with a somewhat-damaged attachment that they have found ways to channel productively. Their success and visibility feed more success and visibility. So we…
I don't think this argument is all that great - most rational people have already internalized that luck plays a role for everyone in the world. To start with there is the "i was born healthy, wasn't malnourished, wasn't in a war zone" kinda luck. Then there is the "being at the right place at the right time" kinda luck - which is part luck, part perseverance and persistence. You won't be in the right place if you ne…
This is essentially arguing that systems ultimately select for competence, given a long enough timespan. And I'd agree!
But I lack faith that the system produces people that I look up to. They did well at their game, I can respect that. It may not be my game, though.
Re: The mythos of leadership
#36This rings true because as someone without a religious background, I definitely feel the opposite: that progress is inevitable and the people who are "in charge" while it progresses are a commodity. I also find the "deification" of leaders (like say Steve Jobs) to be damaging to culture, leading to arrogance, political fighting and empire building. Trying to have a good life and be good to those around you, while rid…
I could have just fallen prey to exactly the flaw that you're describing, but if I look at Apple during the Sculley years and immediately prior to Jobs' coup vs afterwards, I think that the company changed direction and the subsequent progress was by no means pre-ordained in 1991-1997. Likewise, Microsoft during the early Gates' years was not a lock to rise to the level it attained. Or the Buffett Partnership and eve…
I'm talking about a larger timescale than an individual product or company. Bronze age -> iron age -> industrial revolution -> information age...
There's going to be some noise when you zoom in but I firmly believe that human technology marches forward over time.
Re: The mythos of leadership
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Everyone praises the "great men," as the article mentions, and Western culture is heavily individualistic, so it stands to reason that we should deify the most visible leaders of things. But they aren't that special. Often, they're high-performing individuals with a somewhat-damaged attachment that they have found ways to channel productively. Their success and visibility feed more success and visibility. So we…
I don't think this argument is all that great - most rational people have already internalized that luck plays a role for everyone in the world. To start with there is the "i was born healthy, wasn't malnourished, wasn't in a war zone" kinda luck. Then there is the "being at the right place at the right time" kinda luck - which is part luck, part perseverance and persistence. You won't be in the right place if you ne…
Except there is incredible luck and bias. Being born to rich or connected parents. Being white. Being male. Business culture has rarely been a meritocracy. Like the post above you said, there really isn't a lot going on here that millions others don't have. Its luck, failing upwards, and cultural biases and corrupt business culture making these people leaders.
Scientifically, the only trait we've found these people have in common is that they're all low empathy, dark triad types, sociopaths, etc. That is to say, to climb to the top, like in the royal courts of old, the system tends to choose not those with the most merit, but those who are the most ruthless and dishonest socially.
Steve Jobs was a ruthless bully and had a mess of a personal life. Apple workers accepted being screamed at him as part of the job. Elon Musk walks the floors of his factory and fires people on whims, then bought twitter to spread hate speech. Torvalds is a bully of the highest order and regularly has child-like tantrums over code suggestions. etc, etc.
The meritorious in our system tend to get locked down in skill worker positions, bullied out of jobs, burned out by being the hard worker to the 'idea guy' or the 'chummy country club guy' or the 'rich kid' or the 'bully' or the 'loud mouth political player', have their work and labor surplus stolen, etc. The game-playing sociopath is the one who ends up in the c-suite.
You do not live in a just universe. This is trivially provable.
Re: The mythos of leadership
#38Almost every Marx-related model makes sense from the perspective that he was a NEET(Doesn't feel control over any aspect of his existence) and it manifested in his life and writing. The description of ancient rulers like David being tyrannical juxtaposes the fact that they were at some point saviors. And so ancient stories like the myth of David hold leadership not necessarily as performance in moral virtue but effectiveness (when it matters) much more so. The shift from Biblical law to Machiavelli highlights this.
Re: The mythos of leadership
#39bear in mind that leadership is not the same thing as representation
people in congress aren't "leaders" in the same way people in the executive power are leaders.
in the executive power, the representative elected by the people must indeed be leaders in the full sense of the word.
but in the legislative branch, the elected people aren't leaders but representatives, this is perhaps too subtle of a difference for most voters?
Re: The mythos of leadership
#40This rings true because as someone without a religious background, I definitely feel the opposite: that progress is inevitable and the people who are "in charge" while it progresses are a commodity. I also find the "deification" of leaders (like say Steve Jobs) to be damaging to culture, leading to arrogance, political fighting and empire building. Trying to have a good life and be good to those around you, while rid…
[dead]