4 ms·

> Zhu believes his preference to seek consensus instead of shutting down dissenting views or engaging in noisy debates is a cultural trait his investors mistook

> Zhu believes his preference to seek consensus instead of shutting down dissenting views or engaging in noisy debates is a cultural trait his investors mistook for weakness—a stereotype about East Asians that academics researchers have cited as a reason for their underrepresentation in leadership positions in the U.S. Can we just stop for a sec and collectively roll our eyes at VCs (and our own) trope of a “tech leader”? We want some kind of decisive, basically tech bro, alpha to come in and boss people around without any context. We want the startup CEO to be a wunderkind, and magically know the right call to make at any given point. There’s little room for consensus based leadership, which has its own place. How often have you had the “hard charging leader” come in and make a mess because their confidence outstrips their know how? I’m not saying one leadership style is better than the other, I just hope we recognize good consensus based leadership should be valued as well, and it’s rather undervalued in tech culture in favor of people that sometime make a lot of noise, but end up being completely full of it.

mc32 6y ago
>” Zhu believes his preference to seek consensus instead of shutting down dissenting views or engaging in noisy debates is a cultural trait his investors mistook for weakness—a stereotype about East Asians...” I could be wrong but on the surface it looks like he’s looking for an excuse to blame something else. That stereotype was for Japanese who stereotypically seek consensus (but it’s more an expectation that you will agree with the boss rather than achieving managerial nirvana). In any case I have not seen that as a stereotype for Chinese or Taiwanese or any of the Chinese diaspora enclaves in Southeast Asia so it almost seems like someone wanting to take advantage of other people’s uncertainty of a stereotype where it’s kinda plausible.
caturopath 6y ago
> I’m not saying one leadership style is better than the other, I just hope we recognize good consensus based leadership should be valued as well, and it’s rather undervalued in tech culture in favor of people that sometime make a lot of noise, but end up being completely full of it. It seems likely that some leadership styles are better than others and plausible that techbrocracy is better than a more circumspect style for companies like this. Variety of styles at various similar firms might have benefits, but I don't think it's fair to assume that variety is worth while without an actual argument or evidence.
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > techbrocracy is better than a more circumspect style for companies like this. I haven't seen solid evidence that that is the case. Here's an alternate hypothesis: high-capital investors & wall street types aren't actually that good at determining quality management at all, they grew up in affluent social circles where "professional bro"-esque (be it finance or tech) people were common and respected, and they project those views onto the companies they invest in. Getting investment capital from these people is as much about cultural homogeneity with the "old money" types as it is about having a brilliant idea or a good execution plan. It's worth remembering that most of this capital is being invested by people who just inherited the wealth from their parents, they're not necessarily genius market participants. e: And I'm downvoted, why?
  - caturopath 6y ago
    > I haven't seen solid evidence that that is the case. (Note, I called this plausible, not correct or even likely.)
  - bluecalm 6y ago
    You would also need a source for most of the capital being sourced from inheritance. It sounds like unsupported assertion especially when you look at the landscape of the richest tech people. Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk all have built the capital themselves even if they had a nice start in life. Seeing how much more wealth there is now than there was 40-60 years ago it just doesn't seem plausible that most of the investors just inherited it. Extraordinary claims - extraordinary evidence please.
    - whimsicalism 6y ago
      > It sounds like unsupported assertion Sure, the estimates range from 50% to 65% of all private wealth in the US being inherited by the 5% most affluent households [0]. This logically implies most of the wealth held by affluent households is inherited. Certainly, those at the very, very top (ie. the literal top 10, like Gates, Bezos, Musk) of households are likely to have built their own capital, but I'd also point out that there are plenty on the top list that have inherited it, if you look at the top 15 wealthiest Americans, 5 of those arguably did not earn their wealth (the Waltons, MacKenzie Scott, and Charles Koch). [1] [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-like-estate-tax-whole-lot-more-when-they-learn-how-wealth-is-distributed/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-l... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth#Top_25_richest_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth...
tziki 6y ago
> We want some kind of decisive, basically tech bro, alpha to come in and boss people around without any context Who exactly wants this? Neither Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai nor Zuckerberg fit this description. The vast majority of tech leaders seem like consensus builders, as opposed to this "alpha leader" trope.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  Theranos investors? Given how taken they were by Holmes's affected deep voice and piled money in without so much as asking some biology professors about the limits of small blood samples. The fact that even the most assertive tech leaders are more "chair throwing tantrum incident" at most may be part of their aggro. "Normal people" get irrationally pissed off at things not meeting their prejudices and preconceptions. In this case the lack of "alpha bro" at the top. They cannot imagine a lack of this as seen in the shibboleth of the clueless "techbro" perojative. You don't see vandalism for decades saying "Wall street go home!" in the Bronx in the face of gentrification even though the rough consensus is that Wall Street is a bunch of priveledged douchebags.
- shard 6y ago
  Hard to get a grip on exactly what proportion of tech leaders are consensus builders versus alpha tech bros, but there is a trope of the highly opinionated leaders who rules tyrant-like, for example Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer.
  - ObserverNeutral 6y ago
    Bill Gates is undefeated when the DOJ isn't summoned up. Except for Google.
  - tziki 6y ago
    Gates definitely doesn't come across as tyrant-like, and quick googling suggests he's participative as a leader.
    - shard 6y ago
dogman144 6y ago
Yeah the golden combo is hard charging leader who takes their first 90 days to ID what to be hard charging about. High EQ and being more often than not the last (or at least the third) person to offer an opinion is the mark of a mature leader. Otherwise it’s just a bull in a china shop stepping on and sh*ting on a lot of pre-existing work and stakeholders who did the work. Easy way to lose an org trust and never get it back unless a ton of headcount churn occurs such that no one really recalls how much of a moron the lead was.

mc32 6y ago

>” Zhu believes his preference to seek consensus instead of shutting down dissenting views or engaging in noisy debates is a cultural trait his investors mistook for weakness—a stereotype about East Asians...” I could be wrong but on the surface it looks like he’s looking for an excuse to blame something else. That stereotype was for Japanese who stereotypically seek consensus (but it’s more an expectation that you will agree with the boss rather than achieving managerial nirvana). In any case I have not seen that as a stereotype for Chinese or Taiwanese or any of the Chinese diaspora enclaves in Southeast Asia so it almost seems like someone wanting to take advantage of other people’s uncertainty of a stereotype where it’s kinda plausible.

caturopath 6y ago

> I’m not saying one leadership style is better than the other, I just hope we recognize good consensus based leadership should be valued as well, and it’s rather undervalued in tech culture in favor of people that sometime make a lot of noise, but end up being completely full of it. It seems likely that some leadership styles are better than others and plausible that techbrocracy is better than a more circumspect style for companies like this. Variety of styles at various similar firms might have benefits, but I don't think it's fair to assume that variety is worth while without an actual argument or evidence.

whimsicalism 6y ago
> techbrocracy is better than a more circumspect style for companies like this. I haven't seen solid evidence that that is the case. Here's an alternate hypothesis: high-capital investors & wall street types aren't actually that good at determining quality management at all, they grew up in affluent social circles where "professional bro"-esque (be it finance or tech) people were common and respected, and they project those views onto the companies they invest in. Getting investment capital from these people is as much about cultural homogeneity with the "old money" types as it is about having a brilliant idea or a good execution plan. It's worth remembering that most of this capital is being invested by people who just inherited the wealth from their parents, they're not necessarily genius market participants. e: And I'm downvoted, why?
- caturopath 6y ago
  > I haven't seen solid evidence that that is the case. (Note, I called this plausible, not correct or even likely.)
- bluecalm 6y ago
  You would also need a source for most of the capital being sourced from inheritance. It sounds like unsupported assertion especially when you look at the landscape of the richest tech people. Gates, Jobs, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Musk all have built the capital themselves even if they had a nice start in life. Seeing how much more wealth there is now than there was 40-60 years ago it just doesn't seem plausible that most of the investors just inherited it. Extraordinary claims - extraordinary evidence please.
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > It sounds like unsupported assertion Sure, the estimates range from 50% to 65% of all private wealth in the US being inherited by the 5% most affluent households [0]. This logically implies most of the wealth held by affluent households is inherited. Certainly, those at the very, very top (ie. the literal top 10, like Gates, Bezos, Musk) of households are likely to have built their own capital, but I'd also point out that there are plenty on the top list that have inherited it, if you look at the top 15 wealthiest Americans, 5 of those arguably did not earn their wealth (the Waltons, MacKenzie Scott, and Charles Koch). [1] [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-like-estate-tax-whole-lot-more-when-they-learn-how-wealth-is-distributed/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/02/06/people-l... [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth#Top_25_richest_Americans https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Americans_by_net_worth...

tziki 6y ago

> We want some kind of decisive, basically tech bro, alpha to come in and boss people around without any context Who exactly wants this? Neither Tim Cook, Sundar Pichai nor Zuckerberg fit this description. The vast majority of tech leaders seem like consensus builders, as opposed to this "alpha leader" trope.

Nasrudith 6y ago
Theranos investors? Given how taken they were by Holmes's affected deep voice and piled money in without so much as asking some biology professors about the limits of small blood samples. The fact that even the most assertive tech leaders are more "chair throwing tantrum incident" at most may be part of their aggro. "Normal people" get irrationally pissed off at things not meeting their prejudices and preconceptions. In this case the lack of "alpha bro" at the top. They cannot imagine a lack of this as seen in the shibboleth of the clueless "techbro" perojative. You don't see vandalism for decades saying "Wall street go home!" in the Bronx in the face of gentrification even though the rough consensus is that Wall Street is a bunch of priveledged douchebags.
shard 6y ago
Hard to get a grip on exactly what proportion of tech leaders are consensus builders versus alpha tech bros, but there is a trope of the highly opinionated leaders who rules tyrant-like, for example Steve Jobs, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer.
- ObserverNeutral 6y ago
  Bill Gates is undefeated when the DOJ isn't summoned up. Except for Google.
- tziki 6y ago
  Gates definitely doesn't come across as tyrant-like, and quick googling suggests he's participative as a leader.
  - shard 6y ago

dogman144 6y ago

Yeah the golden combo is hard charging leader who takes their first 90 days to ID what to be hard charging about. High EQ and being more often than not the last (or at least the third) person to offer an opinion is the mark of a mature leader. Otherwise it’s just a bull in a china shop stepping on and sh*ting on a lot of pre-existing work and stakeholders who did the work. Easy way to lose an org trust and never get it back unless a ton of headcount churn occurs such that no one really recalls how much of a moron the lead was.