Accepting failure is the prerequisite of learning. This works great when people can do things mostly by themselves - they try something, they fail and learn. Wh

Accepting failure is the prerequisite of learning. This works great when people can do things mostly by themselves - they try something, they fail and learn. When the basic unit to do something becomes a company coordination becomes more important than personal achievements. For coordination you need more stability, less agility. This is quite intuitive - when the leader changes the direction too often - then people tend to stop following him. But I have a feeling that this can also be formalized in terms of the system theory - it is a basic fact that in a system with feedback loops it is often that you need to react slower and less intensively or you can destabilize the system completely (think of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_distribution_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_distribution_game or even just one basic Business Inventory https://books.google.pl/books?id=JSgOSP1qklUC&lpg=PA51&vq=business%20inventory&pg=PA51#v=snippet&q=business%20inventory&f=false https://books.google.pl/books?id=JSgOSP1qklUC&lpg=PA51&vq=bu...). Personally I feel unfit for the position of a leader because I tend to be frank about my failures, react to changes quickly. I have been thinking much about making a starup - I have lots of ideas etc. - but I am afraid I would not be a good CEO. Fortunately I discovered that it works quite well when speculating (I now trade crypto - but that is just coincidental). At the dawn of the era experimenting on a small scale was essential - now we need bigger experiments and this means more coordination, and that means politics unfortunately.