4 ms·
The title was intriguing. The setup, too. But then another 3,500 or so words that amounted to not much more than a rant and to conclude with “see, I was right!”
by doodaddy 3y ago
The title was intriguing. The setup, too. But then another 3,500 or so words that amounted to not much more than a rant and to conclude with “see, I was right!” Author isn’t wrong to be upset with the sorry state of leadership in the business world. But it should be a two-way street - you get what you give and the tone in this piece doesn’t sound like someone willing to give anything, not even four hours of their already-shortened workweek.
I was happy to see the distinction drawn between leadership and management. Leaders manage but not all managers lead. Sometimes that’s just fine - a good manager who stays in their lane will be effective. Sometimes they will even turn into decent leaders without knowing it. But the ones who are oblivious to the distinction will probably fail in both.
- lukan 3y ago"you get what you give and the tone in this piece doesn’t sound like someone willing to give anything, not even four hours of their already-shortened workweek." Why should you give time and energy for something worthless? Listening to 4 hours of bullshit rants about leadership on a monday morning, while you could be relaxed and productive at your home office? Also, of course he was "willing" to give those 4 hours. He had to as it was mandatory.