8 ms·

Good leaders know you can’t fight reality

96 points by adrian_mrd 5y ago

jfengel 5y ago
Sure you can. Maybe not forever, but for a really long time. At least long enough for you to turn a serious profit and get out. As the saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. TFA isn't really about markets, but the same principle applies. People aren't rational, and can deny reality indefinitely. The reckoning comes eventually, but even when it does, it's almost always messy and unclear. You're practically never forced to admit that you're wrong, even if it's obvious. Going with reality is the safe bet. But real winners, and real leaders, can look for an edge by skirting the safe bet. Maybe reality will slam them in the face for it, but it may not. If it always did, we wouldn't have to write articles about it.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  There's a book in there somewhere...
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    The book's title is Bad Blood, and it describes Theranos in close personal detail.
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      I'll add it to my list!
- bopbeepboop 5y ago
  Also! That same reality warping ability is necessary for a company: The truth is no five people with a less than $1M are impressive as they are, so you need to sell that vision. And you need to sell at the next rounds of funding. Okay, now you’re all grown up — but your leaders are accustomed to that mindset. And when you’re mature, you need to sell the workforce on a vision of the world as it could be. If you can’t imagine a different world and believe it, you won’t make an iPhone. The secret sauce of being a good leader is balancing the reality as-it-is with as-it-could-be. I think like many healthy-but-complex behaviors this dreaming can go really wrong when abused or with comorbidities (eg, narcissistic CEO).
- bobthechef 5y ago
  > People aren't rational People are rational by nature, but they can either choose irrationality because pride stands in the way of accepting the truth, or because of some mental defect or error. > Going with reality is the safe bet. But real winners, and real leaders, can look for an edge by skirting the safe bet. Maybe reality will slam them in the face for it, but it may not. If it always did, we wouldn't have to write articles about it. No idea what you're claiming here with this mumbo jumbo. Reality is nonnegotiable. It's already here. It doesn't consult with us. You can't skirt it because it is the case. What you can do is skirt something undesirable by acknowledging that things as they are are headed in the direction of the undesirable and change course, or repair after you've gotten into a undesirable place.
  - alexpetralia 5y ago
    Much of what we call "reality" is really just social consensus, and thus is liable to negotiation and redefinition.
  - LocalH 5y ago
    Sure, reality is objective. But that's not what we perceive. We perceive reality as filtered through our psyche. No human has ever perceived objective reality, and none ever will.
    - goatlover 5y ago
      A skeptical response would be to question the justification for a belief in objective reality if we can never perceive it. The veil of perception hiding the world as it is from us leads to skepticism about the world independent of perception. A way out would be to allow some perception of objective reality alongside all the filtering. We are supposedly part of that objective reality after-all.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  I think a better way of phrasing this might be "Don't believe your own bullshit." Fighting reality can be an effective tactic, particularly if by distorting reality, you make the reality you want to exist come about. But you should know this is what you're doing. Understand the risks you're taking and what has to go from bullshit to reality to make your larger vision come true. A lot of leaders sink because they mistake their vision for the world, and then block out uncomfortable information that they really need to pay attention to in order to make their vision come true.
- kaiju0 5y ago
  This is perfectly shown through We Work with Adam Neumann. He pushed bullshit for a very long time. Then ran out before the collapse came. By defying reality he won.
  - peakaboo 5y ago
    All companies currently pushing the "we are family" culture are doing exactly what he did. Making dumb employees work harder because they feel their life purpose is to help the company.
    - Nasrudith 5y ago
      The most honest form of roughly "we are family" I have seen is a maintained social contract of avoiding layoffs but a relatively stagnant base salary. A trade of stability for worse rates.
  - andrei_says_ 5y ago
    The documentary about rework is an excellent testimony of the success a sociopaths in leadership.
  - pnvdc 5y ago
    But thats not an example of a Leader. Thats an example of some one who failed at leadership. gp comment is misleading cuz its talking about people who get away with something for sometime.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
  Agreed. The 'fake it till you make it' is a saying for a reason. My favorite example is Tesla, where Musk himself eventually agreed they almost went bankrupt at one point. It is a fascinating lesson in perception, but I am not sure it is a good one.
- mokss 5y ago
  You dont get it. Leaders are people who dont get out.
- lumost 5y ago
  There was one fortune 10 company which had an internal team dedicated to making a specific kind of metric for many stakeholders. The problem was that these stakeholders didn’t exist for this metric. Most teams simply did not care about the metric or any version of it. Every now and then a brave leader would try to point this out and then be shown the door. The problem was that a very senior individual got it in their head that this metric should exist and that people should care about it. After N years proving that no one cared was equivalent to saying this senior leader wasted N years of resources.
kordlessagain 5y ago
Now if only everyone would stop inviting their own reality we would have it made!
- mistermann 5y ago
  If people didn't imagine their own reality, what then are they to believe? "Real" reality? Which one?
spaetzleesser 5y ago
“You can’t defeat reality” has been my favorite line with some managers lately. I have been in plenty of planning meetings where somebody declared that something needs to be done by end of month or the world will go under. When you point out to them that X,Y and Z need to be done before that and historically they never got done in under six weeks they just don’t accept it. Of course things don’t get done by end of month, the world doesn’t go under and the same thing will happen again with the next project. I find it really tiring to not being able to have an honest conversation with leaders. There are probably plenty of things that can be improved but first you need to accept reality before you can make meaningful changes. I often feel that middle management is one big pyramid of people bullshitting each other constantly and people seem ok with that.
- whatshisface 5y ago
  I found that never saying no, but always responding with a list of what would be necessary in order to accomplish something, will connect a lot better than negativity. Contrast: "We need this by January." "No." with, "We need this by January." "Let's discuss the hiring process for the new team members we're going to need to accomplish that." Then they will either say "no" (what you were going for all along), or they will say "yes" and give you more resources. It is really quite rare to be asked for something that is truly impossible, usually it is merely impossible within the organizational boundaries you're used to working within. Also, people hate being told no but love saying it, so if you want a "no," you need to work out how it's going to be them saying it.
  - rprospero 5y ago
    Most experienced managers that I've met can work around that sort of comment: "We need this by January" "Let's discuss the hiring process for the new team members we're going to need to accomplish that." "We don't have the budget for hiring at the moment. If more headcount is truly necessary, you are welcome to use your salary to obtain it." 90% of the time, the project arrives lat, but there's no other major consequences and the manager points to this as evidence that you were padding your budget with superfluous resource. 9% of the time, you buy a new web server on your own credit card and the manager brags to his boss about coming in under budget. 1% of the time, catastrophe hits, the company goes bankrupt, and he tells everyone that call for a reference that your incompetence drove the company out of business. If you think this is hyperbole, a previous employer stated that a competent sysadmin would never lose data, so back-ups were a waste of money and made admins pay for them out of pocket.
jterrys 5y ago
Hmm. The article is a fluff piece about not being an asshole. (And not leading like Stalin i.e getting rid of everyone that brings any negative news) That being said, the author is a consultant for large cap corporations with rigid cost structures and well defined business plans. I mention this because this forum is primarily startup focused. You always need some amount of err, "hopium" to struggle through the initial phases. Accepting reality isn't necessarily in your best interests. Businesses have different life cycles, the growth phase compared to the mature/sunsetting phase of a business are vastly different. The author is a consultant that has worked primarily on the latter.
ajb 5y ago
So much. It's so frustrating to work under someone who fights reality. Effective leaders may be enormously determined, but they can still factually assess the details of the situation in order to understand what needs to change in order to change reality. Where a "reality distortion field" becomes a problem is when it undermines the leaders ability to observe and orient to the situation. At the best of times a leader is at risk of setting up a situation where they are told what they want to hear. A CEO can always find someone willing to tell them "yes". It requires self discipline to avoid this pitfall, and it also requires judgement - sometimes your staff do develop tunnel vision and another voice is required. This is not easy. The article paints a good picture of the problem, but doesn't really offer much in the way of actionable solutions.
bobthechef 5y ago
I'm shocked by this article. If it has wide appeal, then it is a condemnation of ALL OF US. Those who do not accept things as they are when they know what they are are living in denial. Is that not obviously bad? It should be. Even if you are in denial about something, you should at least know that what you're doing is bad. The four cardinal virtue begin with prudence, and prudence presupposes humility. What is humility (the real meaning, not the common counterfeit meaning of false modesty)? It is a habitualized disposition to readily accept truth when you see it, without that inner rebellion and refusal to accept what doesn't conform to your desires. That habit puts you in alignment with reality which allow for prudence which is the ability to make good decisions based the prevailing reality you find yourself in. With prudence, it is possible to be just; with justice, courageous; with courage, temperate. The absence of humility is pride, a rebellious and frankly infantile attitude toward the truth because it's not what you want. It is insanity achieved through immorality and the very basis for all immoral acts. With the pervasiveness of belief in subjectivist "narratives", constructivist thinking, indifference to the truth (characteristic of bullshitters), and all sorts of stupid New Age-y superstitions that revolve around the preposterous notion that you can create your own reality, I am not surprised the obvious needs to be stated. To place truth above all things, above ourselves even, and our conformity to it, are our moral obligation and essential to the good life. If your car is headed toward a cliff, imagining you're in an airplane won't save you from the fall, and it won't help lashing out at those who warn you of where you're headed.
WalterBright 5y ago
The trouble is, everyone has a different opinion on what reality is.
- dredmorbius 5y ago
  Reality is that which doesn't care about opinions.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jeffrallen 5y ago
In humanitarian aid security management, you take rumors seriously, as a reflection of the reality "the street" dictates. I've been in a situation where staff was worried that a currency was going to be devalued, and "word on the street" was that there could be trouble after pay day if pay was in the wrong currency. My country financial controller made a quick decision: we don't pay in that currency, we pay in the one "the street" believes is safe. It didn't change anything for us as an employer, just kept our staff safe by being on the "right side" of reality. We left it to the embassy and national bank to fight the (losing) war trying to prop up confidence in the currency.
627467 5y ago
If only reality was easily known...
cryptica 5y ago
Good leaders may know you can't fight realty but the the best leaders know how to create a new reality.
joe_the_user 5y ago
Here, "reality" is just shorthand for "what you can't fight". So if you can fight it, it wasn't really reality, now was it? Determining whether a given situation can be changed or just needs to be accepted is a difficult challenge, one where there's not absolute formulas. The main thing in these discussions is bosses or higher bosses tend to demand results regardless of the challenge of a situation. And oppositely, underlings often ask constantly for exceptions. So the word "reality" is great as rhetoric for justifying those things you can't or just don't want to change. Which to say all this discussion about how things should be framed and very little is "reality-reality", how the world is, since that's complex and difficult to be certain of. IE, saying "that's just reality" a good tactic to get out of tough binds.
- ironmagma 5y ago
  Another way to say it is that leaders know what to fight and what not to fight. This is why doers will always be the best leaders; what better way to know what's reasonable in a practice than by practicing it yourself?
- lisper 5y ago
  A better way to phrase it would have been: "You cannot bend reality to your will simply by denying that it is what it is at the moment." (c.f. the manager who bellowed "I will not accept this forecast!") But that's not nearly as catchy a slogan as "you can't fight reality" notwithstanding that the latter is, as you point out, a vacuous tautology. For better or worse, part of current reality is that people are more attracted to catchy slogans than to nuanced truths, and so choosing to use the slogan is actually an example of employing the underlying advice.
- atoav 5y ago
  "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ― Philip K. Dick, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon
jokoon 5y ago
A very important fallacy to remember is the just world hypothesis. A thriving civilization brought democracy, the republic and free speech which allowed many improvements in society. But civilization has improved so much, and religion has really taught us the world should be fair, we still have good vs evil ingrained in our thought system. Evil is completely natural, so you can't bring progress if people refuse to investigate where there's evil. When people are really able to understand the world is unfair by definition, and that fairness is the exception and not the rule, everything becomes much easier.
- imtringued 5y ago
  The "Just-world hypothesis" is a fallacy on the individual level. On a societal level it is pretty close to the truth though. People want an unfair society and that is what they get, ironic isn't it? It should be renamed justly unjust world hypothesis.
- thibran 5y ago
  > religion has really taught us the world should be fair... Religion has taught us that a claim without evidence leads to suffering, oppression and mass murder.
svilen_dobrev 5y ago
What were the 5 stages in the All that jazz movie... found it: https://wiki.c2.com/?FiveStagesOfGrief https://wiki.c2.com/?FiveStagesOfGrief Denial - Anger - Bargaining - Depression - Acceptance
marktangotango 5y ago
One thing I've noticed is that the perception of reality varies by scope of the viewer. An example I've lived a few years ago; from a high level (c-suite) an acquisition can have subsidiarys that aren't aligned with the main business and will never meet the profit margin required. Thus if the low margin subsidiary loses customers and whithers away, it's not really a big deal. In fact it's probably favorable to the bottom line for the subsidiary to do the bare minimum to keep the lights on. Ideally the subsidiary can be sold or spun off. Sometimes that's not possible. I lived the smaller scope as a software development manager in the subsidiary. Merit increases were minimal or non existent, annual layoffs were normal. My peers were passionate about the customers and continuing to support them even though it was clear from the C-level actions they cared nothing for the business. At my level there was a lot of anguish and consternation about the customers and business. As expected, the subsidiary started seeing a lot resignation as the most experienced people left, accelerating the decline. My team saw 75% attrition in 6 months. Customers started leaving. The old saying "perception is reality" has some bearing here. I still ask myself, is this not the outcome the executive sought in this situation? I personally believe it was, no one could be that incompetent, could they?
- PeterisP 5y ago
  This could very well be a calculated decision. It's well known in financial management how product lines develop in general and how you manage their lifecycle profitably; most product lines aren't forever, some of your products will be at a investment stage (expenses with a calculation of future profit extraction), for many there's a growth stage where you reinvest profits to gain revenue, there's a stable running stage where you get some sustainable margins, and there's often an extraction/"milking" stage with intentional unsustainably high margins - one well-known way to shut down a product is to milk it until death while starving it of any resources. In quite a few (though not nearly all) cases that is the most profitable way of closing down a product line for which you don't think a long-term future is profitable; you cut expenses so that you extract at least some profits out of the inertia as opposed to running at near-zero profits until it eventually dies anyway. It would certainly be incompetent to just keep investing in all declining product lines; it's a valid business strategy to buy (or build) a product with no long-term future and extract as much as you can before it collapses - the point of the business is not to sustain/operate products as long as possible, but to extract as much profit as possible from those products. Extra investment in a declining product might make the product last, say, two years longer - but will those last two years be profitable enough (as opposed to just self-sustaining) to repay that investment? Business always has to take care to not fall for the sunk cost fallacy.
BatFastard 5y ago
Stress is your resistance to reality.
moneytide1 5y ago
"Your ambitions blind you to the nature of reality." https://youtu.be/44f3mxcsI50?t=1445 https://youtu.be/44f3mxcsI50?t=1445
m0llusk 5y ago
Having worked a long time under Steve Jobs most of his input was exceptionally basic and straightforward. The incident that sticks most with me is his reaction when during a demo of an early prototype an Out of Memory alert was triggered. He paused briefly, said "I don't know what that means", and just continued to try to use the demo. If anything that was a masterful take on the situation. He didn't launch into technical details, only read the alert, couldn't figure out how to react, said that and kept going more like a user than a geek.

96 points by adrian_mrd 5y ago

Sure you can. Maybe not forever, but for a really long time. At least long enough for you to turn a serious profit and get out. As the saying goes, the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. TFA isn't really about markets, but the same principle applies. People aren't rational, and can deny reality indefinitely. The reckoning comes eventually, but even when it does, it's almost always messy and unclear. You're practically never forced to admit that you're wrong, even if it's obvious. Going with reality is the safe bet. But real winners, and real leaders, can look for an edge by skirting the safe bet. Maybe reality will slam them in the face for it, but it may not. If it always did, we wouldn't have to write articles about it.

hungryforcodes 5y ago
There's a book in there somewhere...
- whatshisface 5y ago
  The book's title is Bad Blood, and it describes Theranos in close personal detail.
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    I'll add it to my list!
bopbeepboop 5y ago
Also! That same reality warping ability is necessary for a company: The truth is no five people with a less than $1M are impressive as they are, so you need to sell that vision. And you need to sell at the next rounds of funding. Okay, now you’re all grown up — but your leaders are accustomed to that mindset. And when you’re mature, you need to sell the workforce on a vision of the world as it could be. If you can’t imagine a different world and believe it, you won’t make an iPhone. The secret sauce of being a good leader is balancing the reality as-it-is with as-it-could-be. I think like many healthy-but-complex behaviors this dreaming can go really wrong when abused or with comorbidities (eg, narcissistic CEO).
bobthechef 5y ago
> People aren't rational People are rational by nature, but they can either choose irrationality because pride stands in the way of accepting the truth, or because of some mental defect or error. > Going with reality is the safe bet. But real winners, and real leaders, can look for an edge by skirting the safe bet. Maybe reality will slam them in the face for it, but it may not. If it always did, we wouldn't have to write articles about it. No idea what you're claiming here with this mumbo jumbo. Reality is nonnegotiable. It's already here. It doesn't consult with us. You can't skirt it because it is the case. What you can do is skirt something undesirable by acknowledging that things as they are are headed in the direction of the undesirable and change course, or repair after you've gotten into a undesirable place.
- alexpetralia 5y ago
  Much of what we call "reality" is really just social consensus, and thus is liable to negotiation and redefinition.
- LocalH 5y ago
  Sure, reality is objective. But that's not what we perceive. We perceive reality as filtered through our psyche. No human has ever perceived objective reality, and none ever will.
  - goatlover 5y ago
    A skeptical response would be to question the justification for a belief in objective reality if we can never perceive it. The veil of perception hiding the world as it is from us leads to skepticism about the world independent of perception. A way out would be to allow some perception of objective reality alongside all the filtering. We are supposedly part of that objective reality after-all.
nostrademons 5y ago
I think a better way of phrasing this might be "Don't believe your own bullshit." Fighting reality can be an effective tactic, particularly if by distorting reality, you make the reality you want to exist come about. But you should know this is what you're doing. Understand the risks you're taking and what has to go from bullshit to reality to make your larger vision come true. A lot of leaders sink because they mistake their vision for the world, and then block out uncomfortable information that they really need to pay attention to in order to make their vision come true.
kaiju0 5y ago
This is perfectly shown through We Work with Adam Neumann. He pushed bullshit for a very long time. Then ran out before the collapse came. By defying reality he won.
- peakaboo 5y ago
  All companies currently pushing the "we are family" culture are doing exactly what he did. Making dumb employees work harder because they feel their life purpose is to help the company.
  - Nasrudith 5y ago
    The most honest form of roughly "we are family" I have seen is a maintained social contract of avoiding layoffs but a relatively stagnant base salary. A trade of stability for worse rates.
- andrei_says_ 5y ago
  The documentary about rework is an excellent testimony of the success a sociopaths in leadership.
- pnvdc 5y ago
  But thats not an example of a Leader. Thats an example of some one who failed at leadership. gp comment is misleading cuz its talking about people who get away with something for sometime.
A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
Agreed. The 'fake it till you make it' is a saying for a reason. My favorite example is Tesla, where Musk himself eventually agreed they almost went bankrupt at one point. It is a fascinating lesson in perception, but I am not sure it is a good one.
mokss 5y ago
You dont get it. Leaders are people who dont get out.
lumost 5y ago
There was one fortune 10 company which had an internal team dedicated to making a specific kind of metric for many stakeholders. The problem was that these stakeholders didn’t exist for this metric. Most teams simply did not care about the metric or any version of it. Every now and then a brave leader would try to point this out and then be shown the door. The problem was that a very senior individual got it in their head that this metric should exist and that people should care about it. After N years proving that no one cared was equivalent to saying this senior leader wasted N years of resources.

kordlessagain 5y ago

Now if only everyone would stop inviting their own reality we would have it made!

mistermann 5y ago
If people didn't imagine their own reality, what then are they to believe? "Real" reality? Which one?

spaetzleesser 5y ago

“You can’t defeat reality” has been my favorite line with some managers lately. I have been in plenty of planning meetings where somebody declared that something needs to be done by end of month or the world will go under. When you point out to them that X,Y and Z need to be done before that and historically they never got done in under six weeks they just don’t accept it. Of course things don’t get done by end of month, the world doesn’t go under and the same thing will happen again with the next project. I find it really tiring to not being able to have an honest conversation with leaders. There are probably plenty of things that can be improved but first you need to accept reality before you can make meaningful changes. I often feel that middle management is one big pyramid of people bullshitting each other constantly and people seem ok with that.

whatshisface 5y ago
I found that never saying no, but always responding with a list of what would be necessary in order to accomplish something, will connect a lot better than negativity. Contrast: "We need this by January." "No." with, "We need this by January." "Let's discuss the hiring process for the new team members we're going to need to accomplish that." Then they will either say "no" (what you were going for all along), or they will say "yes" and give you more resources. It is really quite rare to be asked for something that is truly impossible, usually it is merely impossible within the organizational boundaries you're used to working within. Also, people hate being told no but love saying it, so if you want a "no," you need to work out how it's going to be them saying it.
- rprospero 5y ago
  Most experienced managers that I've met can work around that sort of comment: "We need this by January" "Let's discuss the hiring process for the new team members we're going to need to accomplish that." "We don't have the budget for hiring at the moment. If more headcount is truly necessary, you are welcome to use your salary to obtain it." 90% of the time, the project arrives lat, but there's no other major consequences and the manager points to this as evidence that you were padding your budget with superfluous resource. 9% of the time, you buy a new web server on your own credit card and the manager brags to his boss about coming in under budget. 1% of the time, catastrophe hits, the company goes bankrupt, and he tells everyone that call for a reference that your incompetence drove the company out of business. If you think this is hyperbole, a previous employer stated that a competent sysadmin would never lose data, so back-ups were a waste of money and made admins pay for them out of pocket.

jterrys 5y ago

Hmm. The article is a fluff piece about not being an asshole. (And not leading like Stalin i.e getting rid of everyone that brings any negative news) That being said, the author is a consultant for large cap corporations with rigid cost structures and well defined business plans. I mention this because this forum is primarily startup focused. You always need some amount of err, "hopium" to struggle through the initial phases. Accepting reality isn't necessarily in your best interests. Businesses have different life cycles, the growth phase compared to the mature/sunsetting phase of a business are vastly different. The author is a consultant that has worked primarily on the latter.

ajb 5y ago

So much. It's so frustrating to work under someone who fights reality. Effective leaders may be enormously determined, but they can still factually assess the details of the situation in order to understand what needs to change in order to change reality. Where a "reality distortion field" becomes a problem is when it undermines the leaders ability to observe and orient to the situation. At the best of times a leader is at risk of setting up a situation where they are told what they want to hear. A CEO can always find someone willing to tell them "yes". It requires self discipline to avoid this pitfall, and it also requires judgement - sometimes your staff do develop tunnel vision and another voice is required. This is not easy. The article paints a good picture of the problem, but doesn't really offer much in the way of actionable solutions.

bobthechef 5y ago

I'm shocked by this article. If it has wide appeal, then it is a condemnation of ALL OF US. Those who do not accept things as they are when they know what they are are living in denial. Is that not obviously bad? It should be. Even if you are in denial about something, you should at least know that what you're doing is bad. The four cardinal virtue begin with prudence, and prudence presupposes humility. What is humility (the real meaning, not the common counterfeit meaning of false modesty)? It is a habitualized disposition to readily accept truth when you see it, without that inner rebellion and refusal to accept what doesn't conform to your desires. That habit puts you in alignment with reality which allow for prudence which is the ability to make good decisions based the prevailing reality you find yourself in. With prudence, it is possible to be just; with justice, courageous; with courage, temperate. The absence of humility is pride, a rebellious and frankly infantile attitude toward the truth because it's not what you want. It is insanity achieved through immorality and the very basis for all immoral acts. With the pervasiveness of belief in subjectivist "narratives", constructivist thinking, indifference to the truth (characteristic of bullshitters), and all sorts of stupid New Age-y superstitions that revolve around the preposterous notion that you can create your own reality, I am not surprised the obvious needs to be stated. To place truth above all things, above ourselves even, and our conformity to it, are our moral obligation and essential to the good life. If your car is headed toward a cliff, imagining you're in an airplane won't save you from the fall, and it won't help lashing out at those who warn you of where you're headed.

WalterBright 5y ago

The trouble is, everyone has a different opinion on what reality is.

dredmorbius 5y ago
Reality is that which doesn't care about opinions.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jeffrallen 5y ago

In humanitarian aid security management, you take rumors seriously, as a reflection of the reality "the street" dictates. I've been in a situation where staff was worried that a currency was going to be devalued, and "word on the street" was that there could be trouble after pay day if pay was in the wrong currency. My country financial controller made a quick decision: we don't pay in that currency, we pay in the one "the street" believes is safe. It didn't change anything for us as an employer, just kept our staff safe by being on the "right side" of reality. We left it to the embassy and national bank to fight the (losing) war trying to prop up confidence in the currency.

627467 5y ago

If only reality was easily known...

cryptica 5y ago

Good leaders may know you can't fight realty but the the best leaders know how to create a new reality.

joe_the_user 5y ago

Here, "reality" is just shorthand for "what you can't fight". So if you can fight it, it wasn't really reality, now was it? Determining whether a given situation can be changed or just needs to be accepted is a difficult challenge, one where there's not absolute formulas. The main thing in these discussions is bosses or higher bosses tend to demand results regardless of the challenge of a situation. And oppositely, underlings often ask constantly for exceptions. So the word "reality" is great as rhetoric for justifying those things you can't or just don't want to change. Which to say all this discussion about how things should be framed and very little is "reality-reality", how the world is, since that's complex and difficult to be certain of. IE, saying "that's just reality" a good tactic to get out of tough binds.

ironmagma 5y ago
Another way to say it is that leaders know what to fight and what not to fight. This is why doers will always be the best leaders; what better way to know what's reasonable in a practice than by practicing it yourself?
lisper 5y ago
A better way to phrase it would have been: "You cannot bend reality to your will simply by denying that it is what it is at the moment." (c.f. the manager who bellowed "I will not accept this forecast!") But that's not nearly as catchy a slogan as "you can't fight reality" notwithstanding that the latter is, as you point out, a vacuous tautology. For better or worse, part of current reality is that people are more attracted to catchy slogans than to nuanced truths, and so choosing to use the slogan is actually an example of employing the underlying advice.
atoav 5y ago
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." ― Philip K. Dick, I Hope I Shall Arrive Soon

jokoon 5y ago

A very important fallacy to remember is the just world hypothesis. A thriving civilization brought democracy, the republic and free speech which allowed many improvements in society. But civilization has improved so much, and religion has really taught us the world should be fair, we still have good vs evil ingrained in our thought system. Evil is completely natural, so you can't bring progress if people refuse to investigate where there's evil. When people are really able to understand the world is unfair by definition, and that fairness is the exception and not the rule, everything becomes much easier.

imtringued 5y ago
The "Just-world hypothesis" is a fallacy on the individual level. On a societal level it is pretty close to the truth though. People want an unfair society and that is what they get, ironic isn't it? It should be renamed justly unjust world hypothesis.
thibran 5y ago
> religion has really taught us the world should be fair... Religion has taught us that a claim without evidence leads to suffering, oppression and mass murder.

svilen_dobrev 5y ago

What were the 5 stages in the All that jazz movie... found it: https://wiki.c2.com/?FiveStagesOfGrief https://wiki.c2.com/?FiveStagesOfGrief Denial - Anger - Bargaining - Depression - Acceptance

marktangotango 5y ago

One thing I've noticed is that the perception of reality varies by scope of the viewer. An example I've lived a few years ago; from a high level (c-suite) an acquisition can have subsidiarys that aren't aligned with the main business and will never meet the profit margin required. Thus if the low margin subsidiary loses customers and whithers away, it's not really a big deal. In fact it's probably favorable to the bottom line for the subsidiary to do the bare minimum to keep the lights on. Ideally the subsidiary can be sold or spun off. Sometimes that's not possible. I lived the smaller scope as a software development manager in the subsidiary. Merit increases were minimal or non existent, annual layoffs were normal. My peers were passionate about the customers and continuing to support them even though it was clear from the C-level actions they cared nothing for the business. At my level there was a lot of anguish and consternation about the customers and business. As expected, the subsidiary started seeing a lot resignation as the most experienced people left, accelerating the decline. My team saw 75% attrition in 6 months. Customers started leaving. The old saying "perception is reality" has some bearing here. I still ask myself, is this not the outcome the executive sought in this situation? I personally believe it was, no one could be that incompetent, could they?

PeterisP 5y ago
This could very well be a calculated decision. It's well known in financial management how product lines develop in general and how you manage their lifecycle profitably; most product lines aren't forever, some of your products will be at a investment stage (expenses with a calculation of future profit extraction), for many there's a growth stage where you reinvest profits to gain revenue, there's a stable running stage where you get some sustainable margins, and there's often an extraction/"milking" stage with intentional unsustainably high margins - one well-known way to shut down a product is to milk it until death while starving it of any resources. In quite a few (though not nearly all) cases that is the most profitable way of closing down a product line for which you don't think a long-term future is profitable; you cut expenses so that you extract at least some profits out of the inertia as opposed to running at near-zero profits until it eventually dies anyway. It would certainly be incompetent to just keep investing in all declining product lines; it's a valid business strategy to buy (or build) a product with no long-term future and extract as much as you can before it collapses - the point of the business is not to sustain/operate products as long as possible, but to extract as much profit as possible from those products. Extra investment in a declining product might make the product last, say, two years longer - but will those last two years be profitable enough (as opposed to just self-sustaining) to repay that investment? Business always has to take care to not fall for the sunk cost fallacy.

BatFastard 5y ago

Stress is your resistance to reality.

moneytide1 5y ago

"Your ambitions blind you to the nature of reality." https://youtu.be/44f3mxcsI50?t=1445 https://youtu.be/44f3mxcsI50?t=1445

m0llusk 5y ago

Having worked a long time under Steve Jobs most of his input was exceptionally basic and straightforward. The incident that sticks most with me is his reaction when during a demo of an early prototype an Out of Memory alert was triggered. He paused briefly, said "I don't know what that means", and just continued to try to use the demo. If anything that was a masterful take on the situation. He didn't launch into technical details, only read the alert, couldn't figure out how to react, said that and kept going more like a user than a geek.