|
|
|
|
|
|
by adam_arthur
1608 days ago
|
|
|
Results should be what's assessed. A lot of analysis around ideal leaders focuses on the "inputs" instead of the outputs. Of course, important to understand and try to correctly attribute what factors led to success or failure. But if a charismatic, visionary leader chooses to pursue projects that don't have a hope of succeeding, I don't see that as a success. That being said, don't know much about this guy's background. Maybe everything he's worked on were perfectly great ideas and failures were not due to his direction/leadership. Anyway, I only comment on this because there's something of a bias to put extroverts/outspoken people into management roles, but I've found introverted people often do just as well. Of course always comes down to the individual. |
|
|
A great example is surgeons deciding not to perform riskier surgeries, because their % success rates would get dinged. This means if you're a patient with a rare / difficult to treat condition, you may not be able to get life saving surgery. And looking at the counterfactual, by being so risk averse, advancement in the field is slower because experimental surgeries aren't attempted.
Another example is finance. It can be a pretty unscrupulous place because money is the only real success metric, and they outsource their conscience to regulatory bodies that are always a few steps behind. This can lead to some serious negative externalities while enriching those participating - pretty much the same criticism leveled at this guy. A sort of horseshoe theory in play here.
I totally agree the extraverts & outspoken have an advantage in (getting into) management roles, and it comes down to the individual. So many factors related to learning from failure, luck, entrepreneur:market match, etc to consider.