My favorite one is leaders "Are Right, a Lot". The others are all generally "meta" about deciding what to do and how to do it, but that one actually calls out the concrete results of actions. It feels pretty meaty, and actually is a way to grade leaders. I've been thinking about it a lot lately, as a team lead, who recently very much was not right about something. But fortunately it's "a lot" and not "always".

▲

dh2022 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

When I was working at Amazon I did not like this principle. In my experience it led to people arguing: because whoever did not “win” the argument would not be a leader.

	▲	diskzero 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		There was a lot of "arguing" at Amazon, or you could call is strenuous discussions. Another principle was Disagree and Commit. I found this principle lacking at other companies. People would disgres and then sabatoge. The Amazon way was to agree to disagree and commit to sincerely work in the direction of the decision. Winning the initial argument did not make you the leader. You became the leader once your solution shipped, gained signifcant market share and some other succcess metric. This was not always the case!

▲

tj-teej 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

A missed aspect of "are right, a lot" LP is that the great leaders are able to quickly realize when they're wrong and get on the right side of the argument.

It's not "are right from the start, a lot", it's "are right, a lot", kind of works in hand with the Disagree and Commit LP