5 ms·

As I get older and see what most of "technology leadership" is turning out to be, I'm unhappy with it. I feel like a lot of technological new money behaves lik

As I get older and see what most of "technology leadership" is turning out to be, I'm unhappy with it. I feel like a lot of technological new money behaves like women in gangs. How so? Well, many sociologists have found that women who join gangs are more prone to violence and cruelty than the men; they go overboard in "proving themselves" and miss the fact that gangs are mostly about business, not cruelty and machismo (which are necessary, at measured but sometimes severe levels, to protect an illegal business; but otherwise undesirable) for their own right. Why? Of course, it's not that women, across the board, are more that way. It has more to do with the small set of people who join criminal gangs, and the fact that the even smaller set of women who join end up getting into a try-too-hard pattern. We see a lot of so-called "technological leadership" falling into historically-common new-money patterns of right-wing politics and bad workplace cultures (fast firing, closed allocation) because, instead of replacing the old elite, they become a caricature of what they were supposed to be pushing out. On the whole, the resurgent right-wing business elite of the Welch era (1977-95) was worse than the politically centrist old-board northeastern elite it replaced. And it seems that the "technology elite", when they go into business proper (i.e. personnel matters, not merely new product development) and politics is even uglier than that one. They aren't right-wing because it's not "cool" to be conservative, but they're politically apathetic and can be played by more skillful operators in both parties. So now I'm going to reveal the secret about "technology leadership". They aren't either. Mark Zuckerberg may be an exception; he's too young and too successful to have a refined skill at the judgment of character, so I'll give him a pass, because he seems to be a good guy in spite of his visible mistakes. But most of the people who have swept in and become the "fundable" (now MBAs with connections, who have outcompeted true technologists for VC and tech-press attention) don't really care about technology. They just heard that "tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take advantage of them. That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our" industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it turns out to be true.

huherto 14y ago
interesting comment. I am not sure if I agree, but it is thought provoking in many levels. | They just heard that "tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take advantage of them. People assume that if you are technically minded then you lack social skills. A lot of people lack social skills, some are technical and some are not. We should break that prejudice.
incision 14y ago
>That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our" industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it turns out to be true. First time I've heard it articulated this way. It rings true to me and would explain an awful lot.
thetrumanshow 14y ago
Love this. I have felt at times that I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. This kind of relationship is becoming more and more frustrating over time. I feel like we sold our birthright.
- seiji 14y ago
  I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. You've gotta flip your situation around. Try to be someone they can't do without. That's the acquihire game. Instead of being a resume monkey, go make something (useful? popular? at least popular with useful people.) then sell yourself (and n employees) to a company for $30 million dollars (you, as founder, of course keep about $20 million, $10 million goes to investors (?), and your employees each get nice $30k "retention packages" at the new employer). People end up making $875 million dollars because they become symbols. They become seen as giant symphony conductors forcing the unwashed masses to act harmoniously — without them, there would be no Success, therefore they deserve most of the reward. We all know Success is foresight and direction, not physical labor. All labor is replaceable cogs and should be priced to the floor. Executed Vision has infinite demand and severely limited supply. Our birthright, if we can state it so audaciously, is understanding how things work and building new solutions the general public can't make on their own. These days, normal brilliant tech people get squeezed out of economic validity from two sides. On on side, there's an influx of strong personality tech people who want all the glory for themselves and they end up exploiting the quiet brilliant tech people. On the other side, there's strong personality non-tech people who swoop in and think they can "control" or "manage" or "direct" quiet brilliant tech people towards greatness (because they have Vision and quiet brilliant tech people just sit around staring at little colored dots all day long). But, in actual non-HN-everybody-is-a-change-the-world-founder reality, most quiet brilliant tech people are, on balance, not interested in organizing and building crush-the-world corporations. They're sitting around spewing off enough wasted potential to fuel six entire earth economies until they are picked up and organized together into a coherent operation. But, they will be paid 1/10th to 1/1000th of their actual value to the corporation, economy, and world. (also amusing, if you paste this into google (no quotes) you get a pg article ("How to Make Wealth") as the second result: I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value.)

huherto 14y ago

interesting comment. I am not sure if I agree, but it is thought provoking in many levels. | They just heard that "tech" has a lot of people who (a) add a lot of value, but (b) are so deficient in social skills and negotiation that it's a cake-walk to take advantage of them. People assume that if you are technically minded then you lack social skills. A lot of people lack social skills, some are technical and some are not. We should break that prejudice.

incision 14y ago

>That attracts sociopaths into the upper reaches of "our" industry (no longer ours in any real way) who come in (always as boss-level implants) because they hear it's full of easy pickings and who stay because it turns out to be true. First time I've heard it articulated this way. It rings true to me and would explain an awful lot.

thetrumanshow 14y ago

Love this. I have felt at times that I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. This kind of relationship is becoming more and more frustrating over time. I feel like we sold our birthright.

seiji 14y ago
I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value. You've gotta flip your situation around. Try to be someone they can't do without. That's the acquihire game. Instead of being a resume monkey, go make something (useful? popular? at least popular with useful people.) then sell yourself (and n employees) to a company for $30 million dollars (you, as founder, of course keep about $20 million, $10 million goes to investors (?), and your employees each get nice $30k "retention packages" at the new employer). People end up making $875 million dollars because they become symbols. They become seen as giant symphony conductors forcing the unwashed masses to act harmoniously — without them, there would be no Success, therefore they deserve most of the reward. We all know Success is foresight and direction, not physical labor. All labor is replaceable cogs and should be priced to the floor. Executed Vision has infinite demand and severely limited supply. Our birthright, if we can state it so audaciously, is understanding how things work and building new solutions the general public can't make on their own. These days, normal brilliant tech people get squeezed out of economic validity from two sides. On on side, there's an influx of strong personality tech people who want all the glory for themselves and they end up exploiting the quiet brilliant tech people. On the other side, there's strong personality non-tech people who swoop in and think they can "control" or "manage" or "direct" quiet brilliant tech people towards greatness (because they have Vision and quiet brilliant tech people just sit around staring at little colored dots all day long). But, in actual non-HN-everybody-is-a-change-the-world-founder reality, most quiet brilliant tech people are, on balance, not interested in organizing and building crush-the-world corporations. They're sitting around spewing off enough wasted potential to fuel six entire earth economies until they are picked up and organized together into a coherent operation. But, they will be paid 1/10th to 1/1000th of their actual value to the corporation, economy, and world. (also amusing, if you paste this into google (no quotes) you get a pg article ("How to Make Wealth") as the second result: I am simply a mine from which some smart business guy with some capital leverage can delve and extract value.)