[IncreasePosts]

That's one way to look at it. Another way is that people who are aligned with the CEOs mission will help achieve the mission, and people who are not aligned will not help achieve the mission. And it's the CEOs job to define the mission

[godelski]

Being aligned with the goals of an organization is different from being aligned with the organization. Do not conflate the two.

See Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.

https://jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

[philipov]

When the mission is to screw over the employees, we don't need people who will align with that. CEOs should be held responsible for the enemies they create within their organization. Treating people as necessary collateral damage is unacceptable.

[array_key_first]

The mission is usually stupid and also dumb, and it would be in the CEOs best interest to surround himself or herself with people willing to tell them that.

Meta could've saved billions of dollars if more people told Zuck that the Metaverse is stupid, because it was. The end result is the same. The death of the idea. That much is actually unavoidable, because stupid and bad ideas will always fail, with or without support. So, it shifts to a question of it being a long, drawn-out, expensive death or a quick Old Yeller type putting down.

I think the issue we're seeing across a lot of companies is that leadership is incredibly stupid. I think we have this wrong idea that, because a CEO exists purely to make decisions, they must be pretty good at it. But that's not really the case. You can only be capable of doing one thing and still be shit at that one thing, it's definitely possible.

The problem is, I think, we assume that CEOs and other leadership work like normal people, but I don't think this is the case. I think there is a brain decay that occurs as people become more rich and powerful. It's becoming evident to me that the human brain was never intended to be in that type of situation, and there are consequences. There's a sort of detachment of reality that comes along with that, and it almost seems unavoidable. Like a type of delusional psychosis that just onsets when you become rich and powerful enough.

It's not a new thing, either. You can basically see this across all of history with kings and rulers of all kinds. The really good ones do something remarkable: they predict their own oncoming psychosis. They build in controls and preventative measures so that, when they inevitable go off the rails, the damage is minimized. It's wild, isn't it? I think about everything George Washington did prior to his rise in US politics, and it can only be describes as stopping his future self from eventually becoming drunk with power.

[godelski]

  > I think there is a brain decay that occurs as people become more rich and powerful.

My prevailing hypothesis is that as you advance in leadership roles there's a natural tendency to have the ego grow. After all, you have evidence for your ego: you make important decisions and you've risen up in whatever social structure. And I think there's a natural bias to surround yourself with yesmen. They create less friction, so naturally we want that. And it's hard to distinguish yesmen from people who genuinely believe in the same things as you. But the yesmen are able to hide this way, even by being "disagreeable" in just the right way (which makes it hard to distinguish). With the more proficient yesmen themselves rising to the top too.

So I think it's important for leaders to surround themselves with a distribution of opinions. I think in order to make good decisions we need friction. We need frustration. We need people to tell us we're wrong when we're wrong. We also need people to tell us we're wrong even when we're right, because the challenge of the idea forces us to think deeper. But I think the real challenge is implementing this correctly. It needs most "advisors" to be acting honestly, independently, and in good faith. It's hard to cultivate that and I think to do so you need to let people trash talk you, even egregiously. Because a misinterpretation of punishing someone can be seen interpreted as retaliation (even if completely fair), and upsetting the whole balance. Context can easily be lost

I suspect it's an unstable equilibrium, making it really difficult to maintain.