People are automatons.

They need to be programmed.

Whenever you are in leadership position my opinion is that one should adopt a public and private persona. You can do cheery whatever BS to keep people feeling like they “psychologically belong” and whatever woke lingo is hip in HR.

Behind the scenes, you need to ensure single responsibility principle applies to everyone. They need to do one or only a few things, but each thing they do should be what they’re good and capable at. Just fire or kick out people who are annoying. If you think they’re a huge stinker on social media who might ruin things more, adapt and put them doing something else. If they are really hopeless then hopefully they fuck up in that role and you can fire them, or you can just let them organically drop off.

You can’t let feels get in the way when you’re in charge. A follower operates on feelings.

▲

codingdave 6 days ago | parent [-]

While you are expressing a leadership style that that would fit the research from 2010 that corporate leadership has 3x as many leaders who are sociopaths/psychopaths compared to the overall population, that adds up to only 20% of leaders, and is not a recommendation for a good leadership style to adopt.

▲

moomoo11 6 days ago | parent [-]

Zero index. I don’t prescribe to psychologists and behavioral science considering it can be gamed by the subject once they also know the system. People who follow that stuff and “HR” crap are also the types that probably don’t realize that they’re a row in some expense sheet.

First of all I’m not a corporate ladder climbing rat because I’d rather be the captain of the ship or THE GUY. It’s not about being nice it’s about completing the mission.

Second, corporate psychopaths are usually not self-aware in the way I am. They do it out of selfishness purely for themselves, not for any other greater purpose that drives them (some ego shit). So I agree that those people are just selfish assholes and they hinder everyone in the long run. It’s not a good way to run.

Ultimately, I do it because I’m a mission leader. The mission is greater than me, and as such it is greater than any or all individual on the team. If I’m dedicating a huge portion of my time to leading some effort, then either I’ll shape my team or replace as necessary.

I’m not motivated my money nor “dominance” because those aren’t that interesting. And I could give no less fks about corporate ladders and proving myself.

If anything I’m dangerous to dishonest people because they’re the ones who will doom the mission. Time is most important to me because I don’t get it back. Building something meaningful as a founder or leader takes time, and I don’t like wasting time and by extension effort without efficient resource optimization.

Sorry if I’m harsh. When I was a team lead at $job I learned that most of this “be kind” and do a drum circle (anything but the actual work!) nonsense is window dressing for mediocrity and I just… I hated it. No dead weight. No babysitting. And no illusions. I will go to war together with someone if they’re real and capable of sticking to the mission.

	▲	bsenftner 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Sounds like my kind of team player. Time is our enemy, as well as the dishonest and the shortsighted - typically the same people. 'Danger to dishonesty' should be a slogan.