3 ms·

I agree but I'd like to add that in my opinion "successful" is probably quite risky to use in general, meaning that there are multiple levels (e.g. successful f

I agree but I'd like to add that in my opinion "successful" is probably quite risky to use in general, meaning that there are multiple levels (e.g. successful for yourself, for the company/government, for the investors/people, for the future maintainability, etc...) and timelines (e.g. now, in 1 year, in 10 years, ...). For example Stephen Elop can probably be considered "successful" as having managed to be CEO of Nokia for a while, but not the same could be said for the company itself (not sure about its investors)? In any case I think that it would be safe to say that sociopaths have at least the embedded advantage of being "quicker", as they most probably ponder less than other people about in/direct consequences of their actions.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
Agreed. I was referring to people that are able to get to the top of their games because they are able to "get shit done." Whether that shit is good or bad is another issue entirely. Without getting too political, take Donald Trump, who in my mind kind of exemplifies this definition of success. Whatever your thoughts about Trump, he's definitely not lazy, and his early morning tweet storms seem to signify that he gets by on little to no sleep. Of course, he may cause WWIII in the process.
- zepearl 8y ago
  Concerning D.Trump: being swiss, if he gets little or no sleep (because or routine work or anything which he triggered himself) I would judge that as mismanagement :)
  - darkpuma 8y ago
    Good leaders identify good delegates. Poor leaders micromanage.
    - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
      I hear this a lot, and while I generally agree with it, I feel like it ignores the significant counterexamples. You can argue whether Elon Musk and Steve Jobs were good leaders, but I think it's difficult to argue they weren't able to accomplish something uniquely remarkable. In my experience, good leaders may not micromanage but the best leaders are able to, and often do, "get into the weeds" and are actually able to understand and act on the nitty-gritty details even better than the people doing those jobs.

hn_throwaway_99 8y ago

Agreed. I was referring to people that are able to get to the top of their games because they are able to "get shit done." Whether that shit is good or bad is another issue entirely. Without getting too political, take Donald Trump, who in my mind kind of exemplifies this definition of success. Whatever your thoughts about Trump, he's definitely not lazy, and his early morning tweet storms seem to signify that he gets by on little to no sleep. Of course, he may cause WWIII in the process.

zepearl 8y ago
Concerning D.Trump: being swiss, if he gets little or no sleep (because or routine work or anything which he triggered himself) I would judge that as mismanagement :)
- darkpuma 8y ago
  Good leaders identify good delegates. Poor leaders micromanage.
  - hn_throwaway_99 8y ago
    I hear this a lot, and while I generally agree with it, I feel like it ignores the significant counterexamples. You can argue whether Elon Musk and Steve Jobs were good leaders, but I think it's difficult to argue they weren't able to accomplish something uniquely remarkable. In my experience, good leaders may not micromanage but the best leaders are able to, and often do, "get into the weeds" and are actually able to understand and act on the nitty-gritty details even better than the people doing those jobs.