Read on Twitter
There's a weird tech bro version of the American dream. They idolise generally distasteful people like Jobs or musk and excuse their behaviour, because they believe that one day they too will be a 'tech visionary' and will get to behave the same way. https://twitter.com/laurie_winkless/status/1347431250991058947
And they mistake the personality or management flaws as somehow being the things that make them 'creative geniuses'
They see a lack of empathy and a ruthless belief in one's own superiority as some part of the voodoo magic that somehow makes you successful or a genius.
It's not
They see a lack of empathy and a ruthless belief in one's own superiority as some part of the voodoo magic that somehow makes you successful or a genius.
It's not
Where genius has these traits, their genius is DESPITE it, not because of it. It's that their genius was just about enough to make those around them forgive or tolerate their worst traits.
They miss that those individuals may have been geniuses, but they were not nice people.
They miss that those individuals may have been geniuses, but they were not nice people.
Sometimes the genius was smart enough to spot this, even though they couldn't correct it, despite trying. Mozart is a good example of this.
But with people like Jobs or Musk it's not that they don't or didn't know. It's that they decide they don't care.
But with people like Jobs or Musk it's not that they don't or didn't know. It's that they decide they don't care.
If you want to be a tech leader. If you dream of being a Jobs or a Musk. Then start by being a good boss and an empathetic person.
Then, if it turns out you DO have that spark of genius, you will be BETTER than them.
And if you don't?
Well you'll still be a better person.
Then, if it turns out you DO have that spark of genius, you will be BETTER than them.
And if you don't?
Well you'll still be a better person.
ADDENDUM: Something that comes up a lot is:
"Well [x] who worked for [Jobs|Musk] says them being a hard arse got the best out of them."
And you know what? Maybe it DID. But ask:
"Who DIDN'T it work for?"
Let's talk a bit about Survival Bias in leadership stories & techniques.
"Well [x] who worked for [Jobs|Musk] says them being a hard arse got the best out of them."
And you know what? Maybe it DID. But ask:
"Who DIDN'T it work for?"
Let's talk a bit about Survival Bias in leadership stories & techniques.
Meet Abraham Wald. Wald was a Hungarian Jew, who fled to the US to avoid Nazi persecution in the 30s.
Wald was a mathematician, and part of the Statistical Research Group at Columbia U.
In WW2, the USAAF approached the SRG with a question:
"Why do our bombers get shot down?"
Wald was a mathematician, and part of the Statistical Research Group at Columbia U.
In WW2, the USAAF approached the SRG with a question:
"Why do our bombers get shot down?"
Now obviously this is a very general question. But what the USAAF SPECIFICALLY wanted to know was why one of the big pushes they'd been making to try and STOP this happening - increasing armour on aircraft - didn't seem to have any impact.
So Wald and the SRG listened to the USAAF experts, and looked at their processes, and studied what they were doing and then came back with a simple answer:
"You're putting the armour in the wrong place."
"You're putting the armour in the wrong place."
"No no no no" The USAAF said. "That can't be true!"
They explained that they'd done their homework. They'd been very carefully mapping where the worst damage was in returning aircraft, and increased the armour in those places accordingly.
They explained that they'd done their homework. They'd been very carefully mapping where the worst damage was in returning aircraft, and increased the armour in those places accordingly.
"Yes." Wald and the SRG explained. "But that's showing you the places where they took damage AND STILL MADE IT BACK."
The armour, they explained, should be increased in the OTHER bits. Because the planes that were lost WEREN'T around to tell their story of being damaged there.
The armour, they explained, should be increased in the OTHER bits. Because the planes that were lost WEREN'T around to tell their story of being damaged there.
The same is true in all the stories of tech (or general) leadership, when those stories are told with hindsight.
Yes, you're hearing true accounts of how [x] was motivated to deliver by the hard-arseness of Techy McBroleader.
But you're NOT hearing from those it failed for.
Yes, you're hearing true accounts of how [x] was motivated to deliver by the hard-arseness of Techy McBroleader.
But you're NOT hearing from those it failed for.
What about the creative people who felt bullied and left?
What about those NEVER HIRED because they weren't seen as the right gender or race?
What about those with kids or who just refused to deal with a shit work/life balance?
Survival Bias. You're not hearing from THEM.
What about those NEVER HIRED because they weren't seen as the right gender or race?
What about those with kids or who just refused to deal with a shit work/life balance?
Survival Bias. You're not hearing from THEM.
Remember that when you consider Jobs, or Musk or any other leader that revelled (or revels) in the 'hard boss' leadership meme.
If that is the ONLY way they, or you, lead then it's LIMITED.
And if you ARE successful, it is DESPITE limiting yourself, not because of it.
If that is the ONLY way they, or you, lead then it's LIMITED.
And if you ARE successful, it is DESPITE limiting yourself, not because of it.
When I see stories of successful leaders like that, I get angry. I acknowledge their SUCCESS, but I get angry nonetheless.
Because:
1) It propagates the myth that it is the ONLY way to lead
2) It makes me wonder HOW MUCH MORE thy could have done if they'd been flexible leaders.
Because:
1) It propagates the myth that it is the ONLY way to lead
2) It makes me wonder HOW MUCH MORE thy could have done if they'd been flexible leaders.
So remember all that in context of the first part of this thread, and in terms of how you see leadership yourself.
Remember that Survival Bias exists in this, and in everything.
Your BEST CHANCE to be successful, to be a business genius, is to lead inclusively and empathically.
Remember that Survival Bias exists in this, and in everything.
Your BEST CHANCE to be successful, to be a business genius, is to lead inclusively and empathically.
If you manage to succeed without that, then well done.
But sorry, you deliberately tied one hand behind your back to do it.
And what kind of Business Genius Brain voluntarily does that, once it's been pointed out to them?
It's just STUPID.
But sorry, you deliberately tied one hand behind your back to do it.
And what kind of Business Genius Brain voluntarily does that, once it's been pointed out to them?
It's just STUPID.
(BTW, if you're a @UCISA member, I'm doing a CPD module on this for them in March. Don't think details are up on their site yet, but subscribe to their newsletter etc. for details)
