4 ms·

I hate fear-driven cultures where presentations/meetings/casual talk with the CEO are treated as a gladiator match. In addition to Bezos, of course Jobs and (fr

by Jun8 15y ago

I hate fear-driven cultures where presentations/meetings/casual talk with the CEO are treated as a gladiator match. In addition to Bezos, of course Jobs and (from what I read) Gates created such cultures. Another interesting, lesser known example was Col. Robert R.MacCormick, the editor for the Chicago Tribune for long years. He was described as "remote, coldly aloof, ruthless aristocrat, living in lonely magnificence, disdaining the common people... an exceptional man, a lone wolf whose strength and courage could be looked up to, but at the same time had to be feared; an eccentric, misanthropic genius whose haughty bearing, cold eye and steely reserve made it impossible to like or trust him." [Interesting anecdote: He had all the walls of his penthouse office at the Tribune covered with dark wood, including the door, so that after your meeting ended, you would have great difficulty finding the door to get back out, suffering under his humiliating gaze.] That doesn't mean that such draconian cultures are unsuccessful, just the opposite. The problem is, success becomes very much dependent on the quality of the leader(s), e.g. compare Libya and China; the performance becomes very brittle. The main paradox of humanity, of course, is why people continuously create such fear-driven, hero-worshiping hierarchies, although it causes great personal stress to them. Belief in a strong, super-genius, infallible leader that we can never equal and/or please, may be ingrained in our brains, be it religion or, as in this case, CEO worship.

twoodfin 15y ago
I don't think all the "gladitorial"-style preparation is necessarily fear-driven. To a great extent it's an acknowledgement that the CEO's time and attention is a valuable, limited resource and should be treated accordingly.
- curiouskat 15y ago
  Is it the case that some people only respect and respond to fear? So Jobs, rather than waste time trying to figure out what makes every Apple employee tick (which wasn't a practical option considering Apple's size), he instituted a culture of fear and awe. This is akin to him wearing the same black turtleneck every day because he didn't want to waste brain cycles figuring out what to wear.
srdev 15y ago
My observation is that a fear-driven culture is often not intentional. They usually stem from a culture where cutting the bullshit and getting to the point is encouraged. Most people are used to a culture where niceties are important, and when they are put in front of a person that cares about results more than niceties, they can misinterpret that behavior for aggressiveness. In turn, the people who misinterpret that behavior take their cues from it, and turn it into actual aggressiveness, in sort-of a cultural game of telephone.
- drzaiusapelord 15y ago
  > They usually stem from a culture where cutting the bullshit and getting to the point is encouraged. My observation is the opposite. The incompetent use fear and anger. The competent don't need to resort to the lizard part of their brain to communicate with their subordinates. Imagine if this guy worked at Apple. He'd be fired and blacklisted. Some companies just have better cultures than others. Sorry I just don't buy the whole "ubermen should piss on everyone else because they are better than everyone and any show of manners is a show of weakness!!" Ayn Rand-fest. While I undestand the importance of good work and brevity and being challenged, I suggest you actually read about what its like working with characters like Steve Jobs. Phrases like "What the fuck is wrong with you, moron?" are casually tossed around. That's not executive bullshit cutting, that's petty personal and childish attacks.
  - srdev 15y ago
    I think there's a balance. One should spend effort on showing manner and being considerate of peoples' feelings. At the same time, sometimes these sorts of things can become pathological to the point where you spend more time making people feel good rather than getting things done. As an example, I'm thinking of meetings where everyone speaks up to be heard whether or not they have something valuable to say. Often times, its warranted to simply say "Let's stay on-topic," or "Let's off-line that discussion." Peoples' feelings will be hurt by this, but its necessary to stay productive. Likewise, if someone has an uber-urgent task for me to accomplish that isn't really urgent, I'll tell politely but firmly tell them that I don't have the time and that they should put it in my back-log. This sometimes results in hurt feelings, but its necessary to keep focused. Regardless, that's a digression from my main point, which is that I don't think the fear-based culture is always intentional. Your experiences don't reflect mine, which is fine, and I concede that incompetent may use fear and anger to keep people in line. I've simply not worked in those sorts of organizations before.
FD3SA 15y ago
Hero worship exists as a powerful evolutionary parasite, designed to extract submission from a competing male from within your tribe. If a member of your tribe is climbing the totem pole rapidly, you can either let him by or challenge him. If you challenge him, you need to believe that you are better. This is risky, since objectively measuring human ability has proven difficult even to this day. Thus, personality cults emerge whose purpose is to make one seem superhuman with wild stories, and discourage potential challengers. Whoever has the strongest personality cult wins the status challenge, and moves up. The one who submits to the personality cult without challenge preserves his status relative to others, and is not removed from the totem pole. Competence is a necessary, but not sufficient, trait to reach the top. There are a great many people in the world more competent than Jeff Bezos. They do however, lack the cult of personality and thus are not at the top of their own totem poles. The lack of personality cults in Microsoft and Facebook is the reason why they always receive bad press for not having "visionary leaders" or "creative energy". This is all code speak for the fact that employees do not fear the personalities of Zuckerberg and Gates (and Allen), so they have less respect for the company and thus believe it is not a place worth working for as they'd rather not "work under an equal". Simply put, Zuck and Gates did not cultivate their personality cults enough for the average employee to fear AND respect them as a superhuman CEO demigod. And they pay the price to this day by being on the receiving end of slightly veiled slander at their abilities and thus, their right to rule. I wonder how many people realize this as they read about Steve Jobs, the tech CEO who should have been a politician.
snorkel 15y ago
I find the fear-our-mighty-CEO culture is encouraged by sycophant senior management more so than the CEOs themselves. I just consider the fact most CEOs have very small attention spans and present accordingly.

by Jun8 15y ago

twoodfin 15y ago

I don't think all the "gladitorial"-style preparation is necessarily fear-driven. To a great extent it's an acknowledgement that the CEO's time and attention is a valuable, limited resource and should be treated accordingly.

curiouskat 15y ago
Is it the case that some people only respect and respond to fear? So Jobs, rather than waste time trying to figure out what makes every Apple employee tick (which wasn't a practical option considering Apple's size), he instituted a culture of fear and awe. This is akin to him wearing the same black turtleneck every day because he didn't want to waste brain cycles figuring out what to wear.

srdev 15y ago

My observation is that a fear-driven culture is often not intentional. They usually stem from a culture where cutting the bullshit and getting to the point is encouraged. Most people are used to a culture where niceties are important, and when they are put in front of a person that cares about results more than niceties, they can misinterpret that behavior for aggressiveness. In turn, the people who misinterpret that behavior take their cues from it, and turn it into actual aggressiveness, in sort-of a cultural game of telephone.

drzaiusapelord 15y ago
> They usually stem from a culture where cutting the bullshit and getting to the point is encouraged. My observation is the opposite. The incompetent use fear and anger. The competent don't need to resort to the lizard part of their brain to communicate with their subordinates. Imagine if this guy worked at Apple. He'd be fired and blacklisted. Some companies just have better cultures than others. Sorry I just don't buy the whole "ubermen should piss on everyone else because they are better than everyone and any show of manners is a show of weakness!!" Ayn Rand-fest. While I undestand the importance of good work and brevity and being challenged, I suggest you actually read about what its like working with characters like Steve Jobs. Phrases like "What the fuck is wrong with you, moron?" are casually tossed around. That's not executive bullshit cutting, that's petty personal and childish attacks.
- srdev 15y ago
  I think there's a balance. One should spend effort on showing manner and being considerate of peoples' feelings. At the same time, sometimes these sorts of things can become pathological to the point where you spend more time making people feel good rather than getting things done. As an example, I'm thinking of meetings where everyone speaks up to be heard whether or not they have something valuable to say. Often times, its warranted to simply say "Let's stay on-topic," or "Let's off-line that discussion." Peoples' feelings will be hurt by this, but its necessary to stay productive. Likewise, if someone has an uber-urgent task for me to accomplish that isn't really urgent, I'll tell politely but firmly tell them that I don't have the time and that they should put it in my back-log. This sometimes results in hurt feelings, but its necessary to keep focused. Regardless, that's a digression from my main point, which is that I don't think the fear-based culture is always intentional. Your experiences don't reflect mine, which is fine, and I concede that incompetent may use fear and anger to keep people in line. I've simply not worked in those sorts of organizations before.

FD3SA 15y ago

Hero worship exists as a powerful evolutionary parasite, designed to extract submission from a competing male from within your tribe. If a member of your tribe is climbing the totem pole rapidly, you can either let him by or challenge him. If you challenge him, you need to believe that you are better. This is risky, since objectively measuring human ability has proven difficult even to this day. Thus, personality cults emerge whose purpose is to make one seem superhuman with wild stories, and discourage potential challengers. Whoever has the strongest personality cult wins the status challenge, and moves up. The one who submits to the personality cult without challenge preserves his status relative to others, and is not removed from the totem pole. Competence is a necessary, but not sufficient, trait to reach the top. There are a great many people in the world more competent than Jeff Bezos. They do however, lack the cult of personality and thus are not at the top of their own totem poles. The lack of personality cults in Microsoft and Facebook is the reason why they always receive bad press for not having "visionary leaders" or "creative energy". This is all code speak for the fact that employees do not fear the personalities of Zuckerberg and Gates (and Allen), so they have less respect for the company and thus believe it is not a place worth working for as they'd rather not "work under an equal". Simply put, Zuck and Gates did not cultivate their personality cults enough for the average employee to fear AND respect them as a superhuman CEO demigod. And they pay the price to this day by being on the receiving end of slightly veiled slander at their abilities and thus, their right to rule. I wonder how many people realize this as they read about Steve Jobs, the tech CEO who should have been a politician.

snorkel 15y ago

I find the fear-our-mighty-CEO culture is encouraged by sycophant senior management more so than the CEOs themselves. I just consider the fact most CEOs have very small attention spans and present accordingly.