3 ms·

No, it doesn't make Jobs remarkable, it makes him a toxic leader... a textbook one at that. > treated people in ways they felt uncomfortable with and achieved

No, it doesn't make Jobs remarkable, it makes him a toxic leader... a textbook one at that. > treated people in ways they felt uncomfortable with and achieved things that people thought were out of reach. The biggest misunderstanding about leadership from people and orgs who don't appreciate that it's a science vs. an art is that to do the impossible, to stretch orgs and do it in unorthodox fashions, that "make people uncomfortable," the Jobs-isms that made him awful part has to come along with it. This is just patently untrue. Where this trope comes from is understanding a bit more about toxic leadership. Toxic leaders tend to excel. They're very talented. They can produce. The thing is: they do it by shredding their teams. If the incentives are right and the feedback loops are a certain way, they'll rise all the way to the top (and possibly stay there) just on the back of their product/production sense, with a history of angry teams, colleagues, partners and "a rep." Just like jobs. That's all there is to it. What's happened is the growth of a narrative, in part via posts like this to be respectfully candid, that the toxic stuff has to come with the unothordox/visionary leadership stuff. It really does not. Kevin Mandia (showing up in another thread today on HN) is a good counter-example. If it's a stretch to compare Mandia vs. Jobs, and it definitely is outside of a lab setting, look at the Google founding team's reps vs. Jobs, or the netscape crew vs. Gates. Why this screed - leadership is important, and it's a science that goes beyond running on pure charisma or pure talent. Tech must learn it better.

late2part 5y ago
Your comment is toxic and offensive to me.
- numinos1 5y ago
  Would you care explaining?
  - sangnoir 5y ago
    Not OP, but that's a solipsistic method of "debate", similar to "your pointing out racism is the real racism". It's a way to delegitimize an opposing view by making the position seem insincere or possibly meaningless (in the semantic satiation sense). The person using this tactic may cynically thinks its just a game of words, and the other side really doesn't genuinely hold the views they communicated; so they too will "play that game"... or to add another layer of cynicism: they are fully aware of their minimization, but want to reframe such that other readers interpret the original speaker as playing semantic games, and nothing is real. You'll notice it a lot, once you start looking for it.
    - dogman144 5y ago
      Nope! Not using any tactics. I'm sorry you felt so much cynicism in my commentary though, it's good to be aware of how good-faith discussion can be interpreted like you have mine it seems. Leadership is a science, most people suck at it without training except for the very gifted few. The good news is you can train on it. Because a norm exists of believing leadership is a "have it or not" vs. a "have it or train it" skill like any other, second order effects like toxic leadership being mistaken for difficult but acceptable genius are common. The whole industry suffers for it. In the same way a horrible design pattern might work but will make your app a nightmare to maintain, in the soft sciences like leadership understanding these "architectural differences for similar outcomes" come down to understanding the semantic differences - well what really is "toxic" in a toxic leader. What are the traits of that? Are they repeatable? Doesn't make it any less true to state though as the science is sort of settled on a lot of this. To mirror some of the snark in this response, once you start looking, you'll see clear leadership style, which can be taught, and their impacts everywhere you look (transformational leader, servant leader, toxic leader, transactional leader). I'm not saying the OP is playing semantic games, but I'm saying the OP doesn't understand how leadership works under the hood and as a science.
      - sangnoir 5y ago
        We may have crossed lines here - I was criticizing @late2part's[1] reply to your comment which said - in its entirety - "Your comment is toxic and offensive to me." I take no issue with your original comment (I mostly agree with it), but late2part's comment doesn't seem like it was given in good faith; hence my rant. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601390 edit: I've realized what may have cause the confusion: I ought to have said "parent" rather than "op" in my first response - oops!
        dogman144 5y ago
        All good! Thanks for the clarification. Love HN dialogue b/c of discussions like this.
faeriechangling 5y ago
I recall Google in the early days was, not jobs level hostile, but rather combative to the point the founders later regretted it. The Netscape crew got crushed by Microsoft. Despite Jobs allegedly shredding his teams, they kept producing hit after hit for him. You’re not really making your point whatsoever. You’re just vaguely alluding to unspecified science.
- dogman144 5y ago
  You're actually sort of proving an aspect of my point. Toxic leaders excel. Microsoft crushed Netscape. Jobs shreds his teams, but they still do very well. Why is this? It's because exactly what I said above. The right feedback loops and the right incentives, they'll keep rising. Science can be discovered here, to start: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=toxic+leadership&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=tox... To talk to your implied point more with an edit - the real question becomes how do orgs excel if they're not doing the slash and burn technique that seems to get rewarded in the economic system we have. For what it's worth, this is a great question to ask. There are similar continual questions/counterpoints like yours re: toxic leadership instead about leadership and ethics. Aside from the occasional Enron, there really doesn't seem to be much accountability for doing bad in the corporate world, or more commonly it's dealt with a mucky in-between ground of virtue signals/corporate activism and employee support groups internally that's pretty easy to spot and very distasteful because it feels so surface and hypocritical. Short answer - not being a toxic leader does not mean failing at producing a good product, standing up for oneself/beliefs and related candor, and general aggressive pursuit of an outcome with a bias for action. It gets difficult to find these types out in the wild, but that's sort of my point. It's hard to learn how to do this, and there isn't a good training pipeline either, so prior to pointing out "here's a great example of a non-toxic, transformational leader who ships great products and wins at corporate life," we're still by and large at the stage of "hey, there are other ways to do this, stop idolizing Jobs to start." It's also important not to idolize the individual behind the leader. Someone can lead teams and be great to work for, but they might be really awful in their personal life. Jobs is an interesting example of this as well oddly enough. That said, counterpoints you're basically asking for proof of do show up in the wild. If you've ever worked for someone who was (a) great to work for and with and (b) had the vibe just passing through your team onto some serious success in tech, those types tend to fit the bill of non-toxic, transformational leaders. Zelensky is another example of someone really grokking this well. I haven't worked for Brian Armstrong at Coinbase, but some of what he signals seems to fit the transformational, non-toxic bill and it'd be interesting to learn more about his day-to-day style. Google founders in their later iterations are good examples possibly. Anyway, lots of practical and academic resources out in this direction.

late2part 5y ago

Your comment is toxic and offensive to me.

numinos1 5y ago
Would you care explaining?
- sangnoir 5y ago
  Not OP, but that's a solipsistic method of "debate", similar to "your pointing out racism is the real racism". It's a way to delegitimize an opposing view by making the position seem insincere or possibly meaningless (in the semantic satiation sense). The person using this tactic may cynically thinks its just a game of words, and the other side really doesn't genuinely hold the views they communicated; so they too will "play that game"... or to add another layer of cynicism: they are fully aware of their minimization, but want to reframe such that other readers interpret the original speaker as playing semantic games, and nothing is real. You'll notice it a lot, once you start looking for it.
  - dogman144 5y ago
    Nope! Not using any tactics. I'm sorry you felt so much cynicism in my commentary though, it's good to be aware of how good-faith discussion can be interpreted like you have mine it seems. Leadership is a science, most people suck at it without training except for the very gifted few. The good news is you can train on it. Because a norm exists of believing leadership is a "have it or not" vs. a "have it or train it" skill like any other, second order effects like toxic leadership being mistaken for difficult but acceptable genius are common. The whole industry suffers for it. In the same way a horrible design pattern might work but will make your app a nightmare to maintain, in the soft sciences like leadership understanding these "architectural differences for similar outcomes" come down to understanding the semantic differences - well what really is "toxic" in a toxic leader. What are the traits of that? Are they repeatable? Doesn't make it any less true to state though as the science is sort of settled on a lot of this. To mirror some of the snark in this response, once you start looking, you'll see clear leadership style, which can be taught, and their impacts everywhere you look (transformational leader, servant leader, toxic leader, transactional leader). I'm not saying the OP is playing semantic games, but I'm saying the OP doesn't understand how leadership works under the hood and as a science.
    - sangnoir 5y ago
      We may have crossed lines here - I was criticizing @late2part's[1] reply to your comment which said - in its entirety - "Your comment is toxic and offensive to me." I take no issue with your original comment (I mostly agree with it), but late2part's comment doesn't seem like it was given in good faith; hence my rant. 1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601390 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601390 edit: I've realized what may have cause the confusion: I ought to have said "parent" rather than "op" in my first response - oops!
      - dogman144 5y ago
        All good! Thanks for the clarification. Love HN dialogue b/c of discussions like this.

faeriechangling 5y ago

I recall Google in the early days was, not jobs level hostile, but rather combative to the point the founders later regretted it. The Netscape crew got crushed by Microsoft. Despite Jobs allegedly shredding his teams, they kept producing hit after hit for him. You’re not really making your point whatsoever. You’re just vaguely alluding to unspecified science.

dogman144 5y ago
You're actually sort of proving an aspect of my point. Toxic leaders excel. Microsoft crushed Netscape. Jobs shreds his teams, but they still do very well. Why is this? It's because exactly what I said above. The right feedback loops and the right incentives, they'll keep rising. Science can be discovered here, to start: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=toxic+leadership&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31&q=tox... To talk to your implied point more with an edit - the real question becomes how do orgs excel if they're not doing the slash and burn technique that seems to get rewarded in the economic system we have. For what it's worth, this is a great question to ask. There are similar continual questions/counterpoints like yours re: toxic leadership instead about leadership and ethics. Aside from the occasional Enron, there really doesn't seem to be much accountability for doing bad in the corporate world, or more commonly it's dealt with a mucky in-between ground of virtue signals/corporate activism and employee support groups internally that's pretty easy to spot and very distasteful because it feels so surface and hypocritical. Short answer - not being a toxic leader does not mean failing at producing a good product, standing up for oneself/beliefs and related candor, and general aggressive pursuit of an outcome with a bias for action. It gets difficult to find these types out in the wild, but that's sort of my point. It's hard to learn how to do this, and there isn't a good training pipeline either, so prior to pointing out "here's a great example of a non-toxic, transformational leader who ships great products and wins at corporate life," we're still by and large at the stage of "hey, there are other ways to do this, stop idolizing Jobs to start." It's also important not to idolize the individual behind the leader. Someone can lead teams and be great to work for, but they might be really awful in their personal life. Jobs is an interesting example of this as well oddly enough. That said, counterpoints you're basically asking for proof of do show up in the wild. If you've ever worked for someone who was (a) great to work for and with and (b) had the vibe just passing through your team onto some serious success in tech, those types tend to fit the bill of non-toxic, transformational leaders. Zelensky is another example of someone really grokking this well. I haven't worked for Brian Armstrong at Coinbase, but some of what he signals seems to fit the transformational, non-toxic bill and it'd be interesting to learn more about his day-to-day style. Google founders in their later iterations are good examples possibly. Anyway, lots of practical and academic resources out in this direction.