[mikkupikku]

Best way to get a manager position is to be a few inches taller than everybody else. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but pay attention to how often the boss is taller than everybody else on the team. Not always, but far more often than random chance can account for.

(Incidentally, the best boss I ever had was barely 5 feet.)

[bombcar]

This reminds me that SkyMall (RIP) always had those advertisements for height increasing shoes.

Now that I think of it, the inflight magazines still have those ...

Amusingly enough the best CEO and best salesman I ever knew (two different people) were below average height.

[neilv]

It could be that height says nothing about competence as a CEO, or it could be that the people who attain CEO and succeed despite height bias need to have an exceptionally strong mix of merit/will/effort.

I've heard the latter theory at least a couple times about US Navy SEALs.

The first time, it was a retired SEAL I knew (well over 6', and a brick wall) who one day out of the blue said something like, "You shouldn't feel bad about being short. The best SEAL I knew was a short guy, and he could kick my ass."

Later, I heard a similar anecdote in a speech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxBQLFLei70&t=440s

[bombcar]

As famously quoted by Darth Vader: https://youtu.be/6A0rwG39Jzkt=349

I've heard a number of times that you want to be worried about the guy who looks out of place because he's there through pure grit, skill, and determination.

[mikkupikku]

Reminds me of Mike Vining in his dress shirt: https://primegazette.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/mike-vin...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Vining

[mikkupikku]

I've heard that special forces guys tend to be smaller, but I'm not sure that's true. It seems like there could be a few tactical advantages to being shorter, less likely to bump your head maybe, but who knows.

[Ostrogoth]

Spec ops tend to be more averaged sized, with denser builds (as opposed to bulkier muscle mass)(1). Although, quick caveat, take a look at old photos of Vietnam War era special forces vs modern late GWOT; the difference in average muscle mass is rather stark.

Historically, military selection emphasized calisthenics and load carrying capacity (body armor/weapons/rucks) + endurance. Although modern assessments have somewhat shifted towards weightlifting components, calisthenics/rucking are still a major focus. There is generally a disadvantage with height, where longer limb length creates more leverage to overcome, which is a disadvantage in both calisthenics and moving external weight around.

Average size is ~5’10” @ 180lbs at selection

(1) https://sofprepcoach.com/special-forces-selection-body-compo...

[yencabulator]

I've heard the expression "gazelle build" used there. Think more long distance runner than weight lifter. Long legs, short back. Strong sure but even more than that, high endurance.

[Obscurity4340]

Putin and DeSantis all wear them

[ecshafer]

IIRC CEOs have a very high average height, and height can account for a very large portion of the female vs male management disparity.

[Ifkaluva]

I think the full factoid is that CEOs who were promoted to the job are taller than average, but founders are average or slightly below.

Zuck is like 5’11”, Satya Nadella is a giant.

[Jensson]

> and height can account for a very large portion of the female vs male management disparity.

Actually it accounts for more than the difference, controlled for height men are discriminated against for leadership positions since there are barely any short male leaders and there are plenty of tall female leaders.

[someguynamedq]

Makes sense that the best boss would be shorter since they have to be better to compensate for the bias against them

[torginus]

Cool observation, might be more to it than I would like to admit. Interestingly, most of the CEOs of the biggest tech companies are not particularly tall (with the notable exception of Musk and late Steve Jobs) were exceptionally tall.

I wonder if this reflects on organizational culture, with firms being led by 'alpha males' being more authoritarian, and prone to these personality cults, where the boss has this aura of ineffable leader.

I have worked at these places, and there's no wonder nerds hate these. Since nerds tend to be on the less assertive, more thoughtful side (even if physically speaking they wouldn't need to be), and they're the only ones who can figure out hard problems, the ones behaving assertively, as well as being invested in politics and status games tend to come out on top.

Which makes technical work be seen as an inherently 'low status' thing, where the 'beta' works and the 'alpha' swoops in to claim the prize. This attitude alienates nerds, as they feel rightly exploited and unrewarded, and they move on to somewhere else, and suddenly these domineering people find themselves without anyone competent to do the actual work.

Which usually sets these orgs on a path to slow decline, which can go on forever. I feel like most orgs are like this.

Considering many orgs understand this on a deep level, they try to prevent technical folks being sidelined, by oversized egos, which, while good in intent, often lead to these same alphas use these new tools they're given, and hide behind doublespeak, and process, democratic gerrymandering, shutting down nerds complaining about tech debt by accusing them of 'not being team players' or quietly turning the less invested, but politically savvy members of the team against the nerd arguing for a good solution, by accusing him of going against group consensus to feed his own ego.

[jimbokun]

I think this only applies to men?