|
|
|
|
|
|
by dogman144
1564 days ago
|
|
|
Nope! Not using any tactics. I'm sorry you felt so much cynicism in my commentary though, it's good to be aware of how good-faith discussion can be interpreted like you have mine it seems. Leadership is a science, most people suck at it without training except for the very gifted few. The good news is you can train on it. Because a norm exists of believing leadership is a "have it or not" vs. a "have it or train it" skill like any other, second order effects like toxic leadership being mistaken for difficult but acceptable genius are common. The whole industry suffers for it. In the same way a horrible design pattern might work but will make your app a nightmare to maintain, in the soft sciences like leadership understanding these
"architectural differences for similar outcomes" come down to understanding the semantic differences - well what really is "toxic" in a toxic leader. What are the traits of that? Are they repeatable? Doesn't make it any less true to state though as the science is sort of settled on a lot of this. To mirror some of the snark in this response, once you start looking, you'll see clear leadership style, which can be taught, and their impacts everywhere you look (transformational leader, servant leader, toxic leader, transactional leader). I'm not saying the OP is playing semantic games, but I'm saying the OP doesn't understand how leadership works under the hood and as a science. |
|
|
1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601390
edit: I've realized what may have cause the confusion: I ought to have said "parent" rather than "op" in my first response - oops!