3 ms·

People organize themselves into hierarchies. I'd say this isn't because of any biological predisposition, but because hierarchies are the most efficient power s

People organize themselves into hierarchies. I'd say this isn't because of any biological predisposition, but because hierarchies are the most efficient power structure for decision making among large groups of people. This is only because the alternative of weighing everybody's opinion equally is chaotic, and prone to poor decision making due to lack of education and experience among an entire set of people. Look at any election, and the consequences of letting everybody have a voice become evident (that said, there are other tremendously good qualities of elections that make us keep them around). Leadership is the ability to make decisions on behalf of the group under you that are good. It's seen as being altruistic because it can enhance, or detract from the quality of work, and the quality of life of everybody beneath you. The effect of good decision making is multiplicative based on how great the scope of your 'leadership' is. A good decision maker in charge of 100,000 people will therefore bring a lot more productivity and positivity to society than a good decision maker in charge of only 100 people. Moving forward by replacing 'leadership' with the term 'decision making' - which is really what it is - there are a lot of individuals who have consistent history of good decision making. These individuals exemplify good decision making far too often for it to be a function of luck or random chance. Of course, there are definitely some people who got lucky and were mistakenly labeled as 'good decision makers' (lest we forget November 2016). I'd also say that because we don't live in anything remotely close to a meritocracy, some people achieve leadership and management only because they come from a position of privilege in society. Nevertheless, the concept of good decision makers bearing great importance in society should not be dismissed, because historically the human race has excelled, or completely grinded to a halt based on how, and who we let make decisions.

CamTin 8y ago
Exactly. Hierarchies aren't inherently bad (though I think newer forms of organization are increasingly ripe to displace the largest hierarchies. Amazon's success in moving to computer-mediated APIs between departments rather than strict up-the-org-chart, down-the-org-chart communication, "networked" companies like Uber or Bird, etc). My objection, or I guess social critique, is that we have a lot of undue reverence for decision-making. It's important yes, and can have a big impact, but it's just a skill, not fundamentally different from other skills, and isn't especially more difficult than most. The Little Dutch Boy had a huge impact too, because of the leverage of the situation he found himself in, but we don't seem to imbue sticking your thumb in things with any special reverence.
- aitrean 8y ago
  Ha! You're right. But at the same time, The Little Dutch Boy is looked up to with reverence because he made a significant impact. As far as leadership goes, I'd argue that the skill is polarizing in terms of reputation because of your responsibility. Good decision makers contribute highly to society, but bad, or even mediocre decision makers are seen with disdain. Middle management is hated because it's associated with barely-experienced decision makers. So I'd say that the net sentiment towards leadership isn't that high (once you factor out those noisy MBA's and middle managers on LinkedIn who obviously have a bias, that is). The brand of leadership which gains actual reverence in society seems to be top performers. And top performance in any role is revered. Brain surgeons, athletes, "rockstar programmers", investment bankers, etc. all possess a certain 'aura' about them that makes people idolize them, perhaps disproportionately or unfairly in some cases. But I would say your "Steve Ballmer" brand of CEO does not get much reverence in society whatsoever.

CamTin 8y ago

Exactly. Hierarchies aren't inherently bad (though I think newer forms of organization are increasingly ripe to displace the largest hierarchies. Amazon's success in moving to computer-mediated APIs between departments rather than strict up-the-org-chart, down-the-org-chart communication, "networked" companies like Uber or Bird, etc). My objection, or I guess social critique, is that we have a lot of undue reverence for decision-making. It's important yes, and can have a big impact, but it's just a skill, not fundamentally different from other skills, and isn't especially more difficult than most. The Little Dutch Boy had a huge impact too, because of the leverage of the situation he found himself in, but we don't seem to imbue sticking your thumb in things with any special reverence.

aitrean 8y ago
Ha! You're right. But at the same time, The Little Dutch Boy is looked up to with reverence because he made a significant impact. As far as leadership goes, I'd argue that the skill is polarizing in terms of reputation because of your responsibility. Good decision makers contribute highly to society, but bad, or even mediocre decision makers are seen with disdain. Middle management is hated because it's associated with barely-experienced decision makers. So I'd say that the net sentiment towards leadership isn't that high (once you factor out those noisy MBA's and middle managers on LinkedIn who obviously have a bias, that is). The brand of leadership which gains actual reverence in society seems to be top performers. And top performance in any role is revered. Brain surgeons, athletes, "rockstar programmers", investment bankers, etc. all possess a certain 'aura' about them that makes people idolize them, perhaps disproportionately or unfairly in some cases. But I would say your "Steve Ballmer" brand of CEO does not get much reverence in society whatsoever.