4 ms·
Thank god for the clueless, who keep the world running. I share some of the author's cynicism, but the thesis is a bit flawed. There's a very key mistake, oft
by jasmer 4y ago
Thank god for the clueless, who keep the world running.
I share some of the author's cynicism, but the thesis is a bit flawed.
There's a very key mistake, often made from a populist perspective (those who have never had power) that somehow the people at the top are able to 'freely move' through society. They cannot. Most often, they are in a gilded cage, and they are never as rich, powerful or as mobile as we think.
Execs are often sociopathic and skittish precisely because they are in a precarious situation. Do you really think that most executives can just pop off to another, massively high paying job? No. They are mostly stuck. They have public profiles and have to be careful of what they say, who they interact with. They have to 'socialize' with the right groups. Their wealth does not buy them that-that much more and that slightly nicer cottage, ski vacay, private school etc. drain the accounts really fast.
Almost anyone who is 'working at a firm' - even as an executive - is not that powerful. If they could, most people would just retire. If someone chooses to work instead of retire, well that's probably a sign of commitment and integrity which is the opposite of sociopathy.
Exec layer is definitely full of whacky people and cynical Machiavellians who are protecting their power and nothing more sure, but they are not 'mobile' and not there by choice.
Also, from a populist perspective, a lot of corporate actions seem Machiavellian, but they are not. Just realist. Made by possibly an entitled class, who make mistakes. But when you have to move people around, hire and fire in large numbers, some people will get burnt, and sometimes in a way that doesn't feel or is not nice, and that will happen even with the most competent, well-meaning leadership.
So yes, if we look at the world purely through the lens of self-interest (and for some, there's no reason to fathom anything more, which is sad), then even with the above characterization it still seems pretty bad. Except thankfully, most of people don't share this cynical view, and usually find much more purpose in what they do than their salary. Teachers are perhaps the best example of that.
- titanomachy 4y ago“Their wealth does not buy them that-that much more and that slightly nicer cottage, ski vacay, private school etc. drain the accounts really fast.” This sounds more like middle management to me. The true Sociopaths in the places I’ve worked (I’m thinking SVP to C-level) are in the hundreds of millions net worth or on track to get there. EDIT: as I write this, I realize most of the places I’ve worked are huge, powerful companies and might not be representative. But the first company I worked at was worth less than a billion dollars, and I think the CEO might have been the only real Sociopath in the room.
- jasmer 4y agoGood points, but most CEO's don't really earn that much, and even net worth generally several million. And I don't mean to discount your experience, but even a lot of 'big time' CEO's are not worth 'hundred's of millions'. Maybe 10's. Not 100's. Also, CEO's are interesting and different people, it's actually hard to know if they are 'sociopaths' from just being in a meeting with them. In fact, even knowing them for some time it's hard to tell. Remember they are living in an identity, all the time. They have to be not just 'on' but 'really on' - so it just feels kind of otherworldly with them, that doesn't mean 'sociopath'. I think looking at actions, particularly layoffs, how they are handled, the kind of marketing, growth, underhanded tactics is more helpful.