3 ms·

Though there is room for fierceness as an engine for motivation, generally kindness/understanding over bluntness/abrasiveness is the way to go for meaningful lo

Though there is room for fierceness as an engine for motivation, generally kindness/understanding over bluntness/abrasiveness is the way to go for meaningful long term impact. There’s a reason, for example, why Sundar Pichai became CEO instead of anyone else. This is also an argument against Paul’s proclamation of “fierce” leaders being required for successful businesses. Overall though, I agree with the general sentiment of the post. The end paragraph was a nice touch: > There has never been a better time to be a nerd. In the past century we've seen a continuous transfer of power from dealmakers to technicians — from the charismatic to the competent — and I don't see anything on the horizon that will end it. At least not till the nerds end it themselves by bringing about the singularity.

lazide 5y ago
Eh, as in all things 'it depends'. Sundar could not have built Google to be what it became (and he ended up running), anymore than Tim Cook could have done that for Apple. Larry and Sergei could not run what Google became, but it would not have gotten there without their leadership (As many problems as there were). It takes different kinds of leaders to be successful in different kinds of environments/challenges. Especially early on, you rarely win by making everyone happy or following the rules. You can rarely run a huge megacorporation if you aren't a master of keeping people on message and motivated across a huge swath of expertise and experience, and if you aren't following (or making) the rules in a wider sense you're going to get stomped by lawsuits and other legal issues once you reach a certain size. Before that, you often can't make much progress if you're not willing to do that (and can often get away with it). The list of people who can be the best effective leaders in both environments is even smaller than the list of billionaire tech founder CEOs and giant megacorp unicorn FAANGs.
- lawrenceyan 5y ago
  Those are good points. Given Paul’s focus on startups, his perspective makes a lot more sense.

lazide 5y ago

Eh, as in all things 'it depends'. Sundar could not have built Google to be what it became (and he ended up running), anymore than Tim Cook could have done that for Apple. Larry and Sergei could not run what Google became, but it would not have gotten there without their leadership (As many problems as there were). It takes different kinds of leaders to be successful in different kinds of environments/challenges. Especially early on, you rarely win by making everyone happy or following the rules. You can rarely run a huge megacorporation if you aren't a master of keeping people on message and motivated across a huge swath of expertise and experience, and if you aren't following (or making) the rules in a wider sense you're going to get stomped by lawsuits and other legal issues once you reach a certain size. Before that, you often can't make much progress if you're not willing to do that (and can often get away with it). The list of people who can be the best effective leaders in both environments is even smaller than the list of billionaire tech founder CEOs and giant megacorp unicorn FAANGs.

lawrenceyan 5y ago
Those are good points. Given Paul’s focus on startups, his perspective makes a lot more sense.