[canadaduane]

I've thought a lot about this. I think there is actually a form of manipulation / abuse that makes a leader objectively GOOD at their job. They become successful, wealthy, etc. That said, that form of leadership has costs. I think there are other modes of leadership that can be even better (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teal_organisation) and that's what many company cultures are trying to cultivate.

[weare138]

> I think there is actually a form of manipulation / abuse that makes a leader objectively GOOD at their job.

Based on my experience, I'm more inclined to think the inverse it true. Those types of leaders are actually pretty bad at their jobs but appear subjectively good through manipulation and abuse.

[mikekchar]

I'll be honest. I like working in companies where the top executives are good at making money. Sometimes that coincides with working for people who treat others terribly, but are good at extracting money out of situations. I often wonder if certain people I've worked for are actually bad at their job. You've got survivor bias, so the fact that the company is successful is not necessarily due to the actions of the management. However I have to say that I've seen a really impressive number of situations where I think management has made the most incredible cock-ups and yet end up with considerably more money than they started with. I'm left with the impression that I'm actually a poor judge of what makes a good senior executive.

[twomoretime]

Some people are motivated better by reward. Some people are motivates better by fear of punishment.

[orestarod]

> Some people are motivated better by reward. Some people are motivates better by fear of punishment.

Some people just want a fair trade of labor provided in exchange for money. All sane people, actually. Save the motivation bs for the army.

[cafard]

OK. Do most of us want to get wrapped up in the latter group's pathologies?

[eldavido]

I think you're right, but like politicians (or anyone entrusted with handling large amounts of power), the real test is how you fare over the long run.

Quoting Buffett, recessions like we're heading into now are where the tide goes out and you can see who's swimming naked.

Like you, I've also thought about this a lot, but if anything, it's changed my opinion toward "career politicians", a category people love to dish on. It takes real talent to deal with conflicting interests over years/decades and not self-destruct.

[rhizome]

>I think there is actually a form of manipulation / abuse that makes a leader objectively GOOD at their job

You don't even have to get into cutting-edge management theory, the entire USA was built for the first half of its life by slaves of one kind or another.