I’ve worked in IT my entire life, the people who’s infrastructure takes a dive and they end up pulling an all-nighter are celebrated, but if your infrastructure is always consistently working and there’s never any drama, you’re somehow ignored and treated as just an extra body when you’ve been the most reliable person there.
haha.. similar to my experience.. We did the job so good that there have been no major issue, but we have been requesting for additional member due to overload. Then somehow other branch with half of our workload and troublesome performance would get the approval to hire new member. 😅
A leader makes things happen by convincing people to do things. Is it the leader's fault that their group is incompetent? I think that's dubious at best. The best leaders are also the best people for the job, but if they can't lead, they end up doing the whole job alone. It is better that the most incompetent person lead the best people to work together, if (s)he is good at leading.
And a smart person realizes that people who are not experts in your field do not understand the problem, the solution, or the prevention, and thus its your job to make them aware of this and sell yourself. You can be 10/10 at your job but if you're 3/10 at selling yourself you're gonna run into issues.
I remember one of the prominent scientists in government saying this about the obviously very expensive measures during the pandemic: "there is no glory in prevention (of harm)". He probably wasnt the first to say it, but it was very fitting to the ongoing discussion.
Slightly unrelated, but it's the same reason that most reviews for businesses and products are negative. If something worked, you have no reason to take note of it. If you had a negative experience, you want to tell everyone. Problems are louder.
old tale my mom used to tell me: An emperor's son was sick, so he called the best doctor in the kingdom. While the doctor was treating the prince, he said that although he was indeed very well known, his brother was a better doctor. The emperor asked why he never heard of the brother. The doctor said: Because he taught people how to avoid getting sick, so nobody ever gave him credit for anything.
As a software engineer, I've actually gotten quite a lot of credit for creating reliable products and improving workflows. It's why people have looked to me for leadership from pretty early on during my career.
Lessons we learned: - speak more no matter what you say - walk around confidently - always acting like you are needed urgently and always on calls - paint everything as a crisis 👍🏻 thanks for the promotion
@@jaslavie you know, in my experiences, only people who don't live well feel the need to call others sheep so they can justify themselves not making it in a strict social hierarchy (income, degree, wealth). That's almost invariably true. But hope that's not you. Cheers
ive been under leaders who paints everything as a crisis or always wants things urgently. They burn people out in 1 to 2 years, and a few months for some.
The challenge is how long can you do that - even if you are promoted, at some point that success is likely to feel hollow - I guess unless you go full delusional that you are what everyone tells you :)
I have run several factories in the last 30 years and can't count the number of "action oriented managers" I have encountered (especially in sales). Invariably I have taken over under-performing production lines and been told that making the workers "work harder" is the key to success. After a year, or sometimes more, when the numbers are up, I have to explain that making people's jobs easier has been the key to the change.
Hey Alan! I have a factory, and I am interested in learning more about your perspective and approach towards driving change in the organization. Is there any way we can connect ?
Where I work, this applies more to the workers than the managers, who are largely just rearranging the deck chairs while the rest of us are bailing out the ship.
This is often true for toxic people as well - many times people don’t know who the toxic person in their circle/workplace is until they leave and suddenly everything is smooth and peaceful again.
It's why I hate salespeople. We need sales people they're important, but they are sound in fury signifying nothing. Someone on the sales team sold a product we didn't sell, that we had to then create in ops, but it didn't go through development so it was hack. When trying to explain what the software actually does, the salesperson told my coworker " don't tell me how the software works, if I don't know, I'm not lying."
@@obliviouz Well, that's kind of the issue: the mentality that effort, without results (or, at least, without *recognizable* results), is counted as "meaningless". In other words, people treat it no different than not trying at all. This is why we often see unsuccessful people struggling with disability, mental health issues, homelessness, unemployment, etc. given the ever so unhelpful advice, "well, if you just _try,_ then maybe you'd succeed." It assumes their situation arises from them *not* trying. There are an awful lot of people who try very, very hard, but _still_ don't succeed. There are people who must spend all their effort on a daily basis merely to tread water and keep themselves from going under. They have nothing to spare to "try harder". But the attitude of "if you're not succeeding, you might as well not bother" plagues modern society and paralyzes many people. And then, "results" doesn't distinguish useful results from just spinning wheels. How many workplaces and employers are obsessed with employees "looking busy", even if not doing anything productive? "If you've got time to lean, you've got time to clean." That's a common trite, vacuous saying in workplaces. The problem is that too many people, particularly those in positions of authority and supervision, fail to comprehend that _downtime_ and _standby positions_ can *also* contribute to productivity. Well-rested workers are, plain and simple, more productive than overworked ones. Thus, "conserving effort" and "strategic application of effort" can yield greater results than reckless application of effort. Having extra workers whose *job* it is to be _available_ to step in when needed and *not* occupied with busy work to fill their otherwise empty time, is more productive than shoving frivolous tasks onto them.
@@omargoodman2999 Yeah I'm sorry but effort that doesn't lead to results IS absolutely useless. You ever try to feed a family on "effort"? I don't assume that lack of results come from not trying: I *plain do not care* because it doesn't matter how hard you try if you don't achieve results. To use your example, "downtime and standby also contribute to productivity" - you're exactly right: it's the fact that they contribute *TO PRODUCTIVITY* (end results) that makes them valuable. Results are results. Long-term, and not immediately obvious results are still results, not merely effort.
Had a supervisor who talked a lot with our team lead, did not support the team in any way and was only talking down to us to repeat what team lead already told us. She got promoted and I was puzzled why. I realized then exactly that, people who make noise and appear to be busy get rewarded, even if they had done nothing for the team.
Indeed. I used to work in industrial robotics and oversaw several cells, providing preventive and diagnostic maintenance for several robotics systems. Sounds technical, but it wasn't that bad, really. Anyway, I used to regularly get in trouble because it never appeared that I was working, and everyone thought I was slacking off. The reality was that I took my preventive measures seriously and didn't cut corners with any on-the-spot maintenance. I also had a great partner who always backed me up. As a result, things rarely broke down, and when they did, we were often able to implement an easier fix than if we let things degrade too far. When I explained these things to my supervisor, his answer was, "Yeah, but you have to think about appearances..." Give me a break.
This was exactly what I needed to hear. My boss is asking for a report on staff morale, which I've told him repeatedly was low, and I've been resistant to doing it. I now know why. I've talked to him about it before to head off problems, but he inevitably ignores what i say, until the wheels come off. I'm exhausted. I think he doesn't realize how low my morale is as well. He dismisses people who are steady and reliable for those who make "busy work" for others to do to make themselves look good. This talk helped me to figure out how I want to address it again with him. Thank you, I need it.
Good luck. Be cautious how you report it back. When ppl ask for things like that, they often want to hear the things that are re assuring them they are doing the right thing. Try and present the data without personal impressions on what is going on. 48 Laws of Power is great book for office politics
People tend to shoot the messenger, especially when he brings bad news they don't want to hear. Management has often sand in the ears; this happens when you put your head in the sand.
There's a Chinese saying (I know...how cliche, but this one is real...) -- "the skilled warrior achieves no spectacular feats" 善战者无赫赫之功. Some competent leaders achieve wonderful results but just don't make enough noise to be noticed.
Me!! That’s me! But sadly as I’ve discovered, the modern work place paradigm requires self-celebration and narcissistic marketing! Sadly when you are a highly able / successful leader with humility, you are taken advantage of and people take credit for your achievements. We live in an era of celebrity and not just that, celebrating stupidity. Look at Trump, look at the Cardassians, look at glitzy pop cultures fascination with glamour over musical talent etc etc. But I still can’t be anything but who I am, so people like me need to find a way to survive this environment without losing their integrity!
@@thelesserzdoctor2345 Kudos for living your values! The good thing is those external metrics for success aren't the only thing that matters in life. People who say nice (or honest in this case) people finish last don't know where the finish line is😋
@@thelesserzdoctor2345 I can relate to your situation. The best thing to do over here is stop caring about "noise" altogether. Appreciation is noise in today's age, as it is mostly fake. People appreciate others thinking they'll do the same when it's their time, that's all there is to it. I have learnt to compete with myself and have learnt to be recognized by God and the universe. Maybe the last bit isn't too appealing but trust me, when the majority has a "herd mentality", you can only look up to God for guidance, appreciation, competition and inspiration.
Alexander the Great is known, the people who died for his idea to conquer the persian empire are not. So you gad to be at least in the rank of a general to get a piece of the pie after Alexander's early death
@@TorianTammas Everyone knows Alexander today, but Alexander knew which of his generals were worth knowing and respecting. The point being - people choose whether they want to be known for their achievements today, or whether they would like to be discussed in the future. In Alexander's case, the two coincided. Today, you will be remembered anyway because your videos will not be deleted unless someone reports on them.
One of the best TED talks I heard so far. As an IT specialist, I often had to present the problems I solved to my boss in a more dramatic way, even if they were relatively easy to resolve. After some time, I requested a pay raise and received a 10% increase. Now, I’m preparing my reports for the next six months to request another pay raise. It's unfortunate, but this is the reality of how management often thinks.
Especially if you work in IT, I, like you, quickly discovered that what people wanted is a 'story' where the plot is a nicely embellished 'problem existed, problem now solved', not "the cable was unplugged, and btw, you probably shouldn't have your password stuck to your monitor on a post-it note". (Also, you might have noticed this too about human psychology and working in IT, but I always knew if I went into an office and somebody immediately came up to me and very smugly described the problem, then that person caused the problem, and they knew it - the people who are innocent are the people who panic about such things).
Reminds me of something I was told years ago, "Everyone is a salesperson, and everything is a sales pitch". Sometimes the thing we sell is an idea, or a solution, or the value we bring. Either way, a good story is a great way to pitch it.
Shows you the power of the Anglo Anerican media circus where they dominate so much of the global headlines. Marketing, Brands and advertising rules and wrongly drives so much of global trade.
The main story Shackleton is famous for is the one where he left the survivors on Elephant Island promising to rescue them, and did, returning 137 days later.
@@tuckerbugeaterAnglo American population in comparison to world's population? Relatively small. American culture, big. There are a few countries, which have still an own film industry of relevance. India, France, China, Russia are the most important one.
In life and leadership, we often mistake noise and drama for true capability. The allure of dramatic stories and visible action can overshadow the quiet, steady work of those who plan meticulously and avoid crises. Effective leaders are not those who constantly battle emergencies, but those who prevent them through careful preparation, deep understanding, and thoughtful execution. True success often appears effortless because it is the result of rigorous behind-the-scenes work. Therefore, we must learn to recognize and celebrate the quiet, diligent leaders who create stability and guide us smoothly through challenges, rather than those who thrive on chaos and spectacle. The best leadership often goes unnoticed because it is proactive, not reactive.
@@kishoresoma6534 if you’re going to comment, use your own brain and tell people what you think. Anyone can ask ChatGPT to write a comment for them. Meaningless
This describes perfectly my 37 year career both with the Government and Contractor business I was in!!!!! When my company picked internal “Leaders” to speak at our leadership symposiums for the last 15 years, they picked people who were part of the root cause of a major issue who were then flooded with resources to become the “hero” to get through the self imposed crisis. Haha, ANYONE with unlimited support can get through a tough issue….most people don’t even stop to think about why the issue happened in the first place and who are the real leaders who consistently prevent them!
Last Christmas we celebrated both a step-change reduction in lead time to market AND the wonderful effort spent firefighting quality issues at a lead customer. The presentation was so smooth I have no idea how many people understood both were the result of squeezing QA to the point they couldn't do their job anymore.
I'm an anesthesiologist, and we value those who never run into problems. As a profession, we have this mindset of avoiding problems in the first place and look down on those who can "fix problems" but keep on running into new ones to fix.
I worked at a place one time that had a project that started with four people, and it got into trouble. Management started adding people to the project, figuring that the more people working on it, the quicker the work would get done, and it worked. By the end, the project had 12 people on it, and it was finally successful. Management celebrated their success in navigating the project out of its crisis without recognizing what had really happened: Two of the last four people they added to the project did the entire thing, and the other 10 people, including the original four, accomplished nothing. All of which is to say that one trait I notice over and over in bad managers is that they treat everyone as interchangeable and fail to recognize that different people have different capabilities.
I noticed this within my life as well. If you're too competent, you're taken for granted because there's no obvious and visible example of struggle and "hardwork." This is even more true for family and friends than at work.
Additionally, the competent person will often be asked to take on the work of others because they will actually do it. Management finds that easier than trying to get the responsible parties to actually do their jobs.
"We confuse a good story for good leadership." So true! This is such an important Tedx Talk. So spot on. We need to hear this, as a society. Reimagine leadership... "Ignore the captains of crisis" (um, Putin, Trump, etc, etc, etc)... "Celebrate those who mitigate, rather than promote drama"...
His river example makes me think of soldiers we celebrate. We fixate on extreme examples of heroism but ignore the smaller things that made a huge difference. The men responsible for maintaining food and ammo to frontline troops are often forgotten but were invaluable.
American logistics and british intelligence are what won the second world war, but the credit goes to the soviets because stalingrad is quite legendary
Even as far back as the Roman Empire (even before that), a conquering or defending army could not stand whatsoever without the logistical units (farmers, cart drivers, blacksmiths, etc) supporting soldiers at every turn.
The "noise" aspect is a variation on Dunning-Kruger. Someone who knows a little bit about a subject tends to publicly exhibit more confidence WRT that subject. Someone who genuinely knows about a subject tends not to seem particularly confident. They're not loud. They tend to be quietly confident and genuinely make it all look easy. The clueless think it's easy because they genuinely don't know just what they're getting into. When you know about Dunning-Kruger, it changes how you behave and what you look for.
Not necessarily. A bias for action, or at least the abiity to take action in the face of a hard challenge is indeed a skill. The curse of management is having to take decisions based on incomplete information. That needs a certain amount of trust in one's ability to work things out along the way. Of course, the higher you climb, the more you have control over the tools which help you overcome such problematic situation, over the people and processes that are in place to help you. I have seen a number of people, among them a few so-called "high-potentials", climb the career ladder around me, and rarely undeserved. They all had one thing in common: they would not shy away from taking on tough challenges. In the end, what is important is that an organization evaluates its leadership candidates honestly, and sorts out those who fail to deliver on their confident claims. That's how you get strong leaders, and you need those once an organization reaches a certain size.
We use to teach school children in the UK how to wire plugs. We stopped doing that because it teaches enough to inspire diy electrical work and wire things up in the home. But not enough to show how to do it safely, hence giving no knowledge is safer than giving too little.
I work in HR and this really really resonated! We constantly hires and celebrate leaders who is mostly in it for themselves and building their own career, making a lot of noise for the short period they are here (noise that doesn't lead to anything, cause it's too shallow and short to have a lasting effect on anything) rather than the people willing and able to invest the time, energy and lack of praise actually needed to implement meaningful and real change in the organization. Those leaders and workers are often overlooked and considered slow and not progressive enough. It's a shame.
6:50 "That looks pretty easy" YES! Finally, someone who understands this. It's a trick question, that the more someone succeeds at whatever deeds, the less impressive it looks. It's linked as well with the Dunning Kruger effect
This is what i saw at all workplaces in my career.... While i worked hard, but quiet and efficient, i always had co-workers that always complained, needed a long time for projects and always talked how hard he is working while using every opportunity to talk to people or the boss... They get promoted and you get fired. And i saw the most incompetent people in leadership positions at all my workplaces
This is a great talk. Loved it! Truly great leaders don't set out to want to become great leaders. They are always in pursuit of a higher purpose bigger than their own self needs and tend to be both authentic and empathetic. This combination leads to leadership in its truest form. These kinds of leaders quietly create positive working environments for their teams, encourage new ideas and innovation, and tend to know how to inspire their teams into action.
I met good leaders, and I didn’t notice until I had a problematic one (just as described in the video). The lesson I learnt was to be aware that a good leader avoid problems, is honest and learn from experience.
This is just brilliant. I started as software engineer in 2012, right out of college. Initially for few years, I was really confused to see people being promoted whom I thought would be fired. over period of times I figured out what exactly is happening. Well articulated, I could relate to it, so true
4:55 An analogy in baseball is one of my pet peeves. It's the outfielder who dives and makes a "fantastic" catch. Disregard the team status if the catch is missed and everyone is scrambling. Contrast with a better outfielder who knows from experience, either general experience or related to that specific batter, who sets up in a better location and makes an "easy" catch. Unfortunately, the better outfielder doesn't make the highlights video, the evening news, or a photo in a newspaper or magazine.
There is a Poldi cartoon (of Swiss origin, possibly from the '30s or '40s) that I remember from a Turkish translation. A child asks Poldi (a grown man) something like: "Of the two, which is more useful to us, the Sun or the Moon?" Poldi's answer is something like: "Of course it is the moon! During daytime, it is naturally light."
I had a conversation with my friend the other day who is heavily involved in politics. We were talking about how important it is for a politician who can keep the trains running on time rather than a politician who is always in the news, whether good or bad.
I just had this conversation with one of my mentors. They love Shackelton's ability to shift focus from his hubris to his care for his team. He wasn't initially celebrated for his failure, while Falcon was even more celebrated for a graver Antarctic journey that led to he and his team not succumbing to the journey. Need more books about Amundson.
Likewise. Knew of Amundsen since childhood (educated in the Soviet Union) and never hears of Shackleton. Must be the Anglo-Saxons' arrogance - celebrating only their own and overlooking heroes from other countries. ))
Shakleton was admired for his recruiting tactics and overcoming adversity. Hence the self help books praising him!!! One of Shackleton's most famous recruitment ads for the Endurance expedition read: "Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."
People like Shakleton are also necessary. Ones who are beyond algorithms, who get more meaning out of experiences than the set "end goal". The aim was to reach some obscure part of a polar ice cap, or maybe chart a route but he ended up having an adventure. Not saying that that is better than someone who actually completed doing what he planned to do, but the adventure sounds more fun. The issue is people tend to follow blindly instead of actually thinking. If more people do something, then it gravitates more and more - that is the "common consensus". Boring is boring, but it works impeccably. Adventure is exciting but it fails to get to the point. Is there a middle ground? The meticulous planning, understanding currents etc - sounds like algorithms in action. The latter sounds like a child waiting for a brain freeze. Balance is key, but because of impatience, we hardly get to see that in the real world.
Also just realized that his leadership failed in the recruitment also. Who do you think responded to this ad? Was it the experienced and highly competent? No, because they recognized from the ad that he was going to be a poor leader. The ones who responded were probably those without enough experience or insight or good judgment to recognize the early signs of a probable disaster in the making. So Shackleton likely set up the poor end result right from the beginning …. (if he truly posted this ad. apparently it is historically uncertain.)
That’s kind of the point of this talk, I think. Leaders like Shackleton aren’t bad at all aspects of leadership, they can inspire us, forge a team, and motivate people to get through a bad patch. The problem is that we seem to select our leaders only on these criteria: the loud and heroic parts, not quiet competence and the humility to take good advice. I think listening to good advice (and recognising it), and deferring to those who know better, are some of the most important and most overlooked qualities of leadership. A good leader does not lead his team; he organises it, removes obstacles, facilitates. And sure, at the end of the day someone needs to carry responsibility and have the final say, and that is the leader. But most leaders feel a need to be in charge, visible at the helm, in control, all the time. I wish the leadership self help books would focus a bit more on that more boring part: finding some humility.
Holy mackerel, this was the talk I needed to help me get through this workday and then look for a new job with an organization that doesn't reward and celebrate "dynamic" clowns. Thank you for saying what desperately needs to be said!
I am delighted that I came across this talk. The question 'Why do we celebrate incompetent leaders?' has been troubling me for a long and I was thinking what can be the reason for that. I felt that the problem was with the current generation but now I know it is human nature and we can always change that.🙂
Its the same concept as a road, or a powerline, or even a powerplant. Leadership is a type of foundation like infrastructure, you only notice it's existence when it fails.
Ive found that the foundation of good leadership is effective planning, self discipline, uncommon self control, and calculated risk taking. Being a great leader isn't hard, but it is relentless. Every moment of the day you have to set aside what your innate reaction is to act like the boss you wish you had. You have to practice fundamentals all day, every day, and convince your team to do it too. A good leader cares. Great leaders demand more from themself than those they lead. An exceptional leader cuts the path to success for their successors to pave over on their journey to cut their own path
It's tricky because leadership, by definition, is an active process. One has to take the initiative. Distinguishing this signal from the noise someone might be making is the key. Great talk.
I'm a fire chief and I've told my guys my ideal is that I never see any of them to get a reward for a heroic act on a fireground, because if they have, something has gone horribly wrong or someone has made a bad decision. Of course, sometime reality steps in and you have no choice, but it should be the exception, not the expected standard.
This is the core issue I have with encouraging the use if the “STAR” method for answering interview questions. It presupposes the existence of a “situation”.
I didn't know about Shackleton, but Amudsen was my dad's hero. He had been telling me about Amundsen's adventures before night sleep. And i am not Norwegian. So, some people are able to see the right qualities! I wish them to be more...
Two examples currently attracting attention. The D-Day landings. It is universally acknowledged that their succuss depended directly on thorough, exhausting and painstaking staff work. Boeing Aircraft. The names of the CEOs currently at the helm during the company's troubles are well known. Who can name the CEO that built the company into the behemoth that pioneered aircraft such as the 707 and 747?
This applies as well to plant maintenance and operation. Every manager and head seems to like firefighting since it raises their profiles. What you actually want is exactly the what the title states. A boring looking dept where everything is running smoothly and decisions are made for the sustainability of the operation. Not a douse the flame and move on method. Same in production, a nice quiet efficient process, everything planned and prepared up and down the supply chain.
Dismissing the quiet leaders affects their morale to work. I know how my opinions have often been ignored or overshadowed by the loud voices in the room. Being on the spectrum it is hard to find the support to help you grow as a leader when you have a lot to say that can be beneficial but struggle because you're in the corner of the room not under the bright light.
10:28 Being an autist, I feel this. It always perplexed me why this was so pervasive everywhere I went. Took me till my diagnosis to realize that I just think more about things, before doing things, and I try to never over sell myself than your average person. Sometimes having autism can be painful, other times I tha k my lucky stars I don't go about life living and acting so unintentionally.
Incidentally, I read the bio of Roald Amundsen as a teenager some 40 years ago, but because I am not particularly interested in polar expeditions I have not heard of Shackleton until the TV series came out... However, I agree - in Australia we celebrate some British explorers of the 19th century who basically set out from Australian coast poorly prepared and then lead expeditions inland with disastrous outcomes! People talk about them as brave!
Well, maybe part of the problem is that we over-value bravery (at least in certain circumstances). If you're well-prepared, etc., you don't need as much bravery as the person who is incompetent and ill-prepared. (In general, I think we over-value physical bravery and under-value moral bravery.)
Martin shares a very comprehensive prfound truths, and the prespective really resonates. And what I enjoyed most is reading the comments and insights which are sharp, some even cleverly use reverse tactics to highlight key points. Ultimately, it reminds us to ground our actions in our own ethics and serve what is right from our inner spirit, rather than seeking approval from the world.
When I was younger, I was obsessed with polar explorers. I'm going to say that definitely Roald Amundsen is underrated. He also grew up in the northern part of Norway and truly understood how to survive in the cold extremes. The incompetent leader he should be contrasted with is Robert Scott, the Englishman, whom he beat in the race to the South Pole. Scott tragically died along with most of his team because of impatience and poor planning. Amundsen's entire team lived and succeeded. As to Shackleton - he may have lacked judgment in planning but damn, when the crisis came, he was amazing. His story is one of incredible courage and fortitude. I would want to be with him in a foxhole. I'd just want Amundsen to be the general leading the troops so I wouldn't be in the foxhole in the first place.
There was an old saying I heard once that if you wanted the best planning and preparation so that there was minimal risk of things going wrong, you wanted Amundsen in charge. If things still went horribly wrong, for whatever reason, Shackelton was the guy.
How do you know that Shackleton would be the guy? After things initially go wrong, Amundsen might make a series of good (boring) decisions, whereas Shackleton might bluster and continue to make mistakes after mistake (as he did throughout the famous 2 year ice trek). In other words, you're still making the same mistake that the TED talks is advising you not to make.
I scrolled down way to far to find this comment. Scott is a great immediate comparison. Amundsen trained and prepared with inuits and sled dogs, had a plan and minimal obstacles. Scott‘s story aligns much more with the idea that Antarctica is harsh and inhospitable and full of obstacles. Scott faced so many obstacles only to end up second place and dying from the harsh environment. A hero‘s journey of bravery and problem solving and a tragic death on this risky mission. If you ignore the fact that he came without adequate winter clothes, ponies and machines instead of arctic dogs and without skis, the logical equipment to bring if you have to travel over snow and ice.
I've seen this so many times in movie and TV production. The directors and producers who run completely disfunctional organisations for months, only to then deliver a product in the knick of time and at the cost of hundreds of hours overtime, are celebrated and handed awards and press. Those who consistently deliver season after season of reliable entertainment (and really keep the teams together) are usually undervalued and often given titles like "coordinator" or "assistant".
Celebrating incompetent leaders can be a perplexing phenomenon, particularly when it undermines progress, fairness, and the well-being of communities or organizations. There are various reasons why this occurs, including deep-rooted social, political, and cultural factors. In many cases, leaders who may lack competence but possess charisma, popularity, or strong political connections are celebrated because they appeal to the emotions, beliefs, or biases of the people. This can create a cycle where superficial qualities are prioritized over true ability, leading to poor governance and decision-making. One reason for the celebration of such leaders is the influence of identity politics and partisanship. People often rally behind leaders who represent their social, economic, or political identity, regardless of their effectiveness. This loyalty can cloud judgment, making it difficult to hold leaders accountable for failures. Additionally, leaders who promise change, even if their strategies are flawed or unrealistic, can be embraced as symbols of hope or rebellion against the status quo, despite a lack of competency in their leadership. Another factor is the media's role in shaping public perception. Leaders who generate strong headlines and emotional responses are often favored, as they attract more attention and engagement. This can lead to the promotion of figures who are more adept at managing public relations than actual governance or policy-making. In turn, this perpetuates a cycle where people celebrate leaders who appear dynamic or powerful, even if their actions are not effective or sustainable. In some cases, incompetence is overlooked or celebrated due to systemic issues within political or organizational structures. For example, nepotism, corruption, or favoritism can place leaders in positions of power who lack the necessary skills or knowledge. When these leaders are part of a network that benefits from maintaining power, they may be celebrated or tolerated as long as they serve the interests of those in control. This can create an environment where incompetence is not just ignored but actively encouraged. Lastly, some people celebrate leaders who embody certain cultural or historical ideals, even if they do not have the practical skills to lead effectively. For instance, leaders who promote traditional values or champion a particular ideology can be seen as important figures, even when their leadership is marked by poor judgment or inability to manage crises. Ultimately, celebrating incompetent leaders can have serious consequences, including poor policy decisions, economic stagnation, social unrest, and a loss of trust in institutions. To move toward a more effective and accountable system, it is crucial to prioritize leaders based on their qualifications, integrity, and ability to enact positive change, rather than on superficial or temporary qualities that fail to serve the greater good.
Martin talk sheds light on the importance of celebrating leaders who prioritize planning and authentic leadership over drama. True success often comes from those who work diligently behind the scenes. 🔍
There is one problem, though: big corporations often exceed the size where a quiet, efficient leader is sufficient. Exactly because it often involves characters with more ego than brains. The quiet, efficient type may be able to lead an expedition to the south pole, but he might not be able to make himself heard in an organization that employs tens of thousands of people around the globe, and has departments that fight among each other for budgets and prestigious tasks.
I think people can self-sabotage with this kind of thinking too - they can feel they aren't special if things come easy for them, even if that "easy" is brought by slow, steady work.
@@rolandojrbriones3079 or the fact that it can hide your secret exchanges, and possibly make your life implode due to your inability to realise that the grass is not always greener as your secret partner promises, while they are hidden in their basement promising things they can't deliver. This is not my first time but it is the most annoying time as not only did the little basement dweller promise a better life, also while told how old my step daughter was, he claimed her age was older than she was ( paedophilia )
@@lunarious87 employers can judge you on your personal views before your ability to do the job you applied for, to then make sure that they only employ people who will only do the things they ask and have no views as a person
There isn't, but like the presenter of the talk, those driven by an agenda will be incapable of doing anything without bringing it into their actions. Being able to look at things critically and objectively goes out the window when you act on needing to be PC (the numerous examples in the talk) or when you look at everything through a political agenda (the original poster)
I work for the NHS and believe we continually fall into a similar trap. We celebrate clinically trained persons as leaders and go even further by assuming that certain clinical training creates better leaders than other training. The result is we often have leaders who are in posts because of their education rather than their ability. As a clinically trained person myself I left my profession to develop myself in management and leadership but all too often I am now labelled as a manager and am often overlooked for what I can offer because I am no longer clinical; mind you, even if I were still on a professional clinical register my clinical background is one that is not considered for leadership in the NHS.
I am struggling to get promoted. My manager said i don’t have “visibility”, upper management doesn’t know who I am because my project is smooth with no major issues, don’t get escalated to upper management. So I am thinking I should break stuff so that I get visibility. 😂
Like my former boss said: to get promoted in this company, you need to screw up big, real big". The reason is clear: you get visibility with management, are very visibly busy to clean up the mess that have created yourself, and at the end get kudos by reducing the 100% loss (that you created) to a 50% loss only. And nobody ask anymore, why a loss in the first place.
Governor Tony Evers (D) of WI, US had a very funny but true statement after winning the last gubernatorial election; "Some people call me boring, but you know what, Wisconsin? As it turns out, boring WINS." Tony Evers reminds me of the extremely boring but also extremely competent uncle who manages to fix problems despite horrible odds. He is literally Wisconsin's last defense against a predatory GOP state legislative branch.
All I saw was the title but this is what I keep saying. Good leaders need a separate marketing aspect with simple, catchy phrases and clever branding to go along with good leaders because that’s what people pay attention to. It’s just reality.
I am surprised this video 'found me'- popping into a suggested video on RUclips in my feeds. I say exactly the same thing to my staff, with your job as leaders and managers is to "MAKE SURE NOTHING HAPPENS. LACK OF DRAMA". SPOT ON.
These sayings from my country are present across the world, but it's a matter of if these are focused/practised: 'Deep water runs silent.' 'A lot of thunder results in very few rain.' (A barking dog seldom bites.) (Similar saying, but different focus in real life.) 'Empty vessel sounds much.' So we are taught from the childhood to avoid people who boast much, who shows too much confidence, rather judge by action. But we are a poor country. So we follow world leaders such as America and appreciate people who boasts much, shows confidence. Confidence can easily be faked, confidence is the fool's substitute for ignorance.)
I've long said that what we consider to be 'leadership qualities', are qualities that make for bad leadership. I'm one of 4 directors at a medium sized company. Every quarter, we have a team meeting, where all 30 or so employees gather together for a few hours. Every time, the same 3 people (2 male, 1 female) talk for probably 85% of the time. Then there's another employee, probably in her 40s, quite introvert, and she says very little in these meetings, until right at the end during 'AOB', when she always says "Just a couple of questions from me", and then........those 'couple of questions' will be by far the most insightful and useful bits of the meeting. Try as I might, I can't convince my fellow directors that we should just make this lady the chair of those meetings, we could take half the time and make twice as many decisions, if she set the agenda and could call on people to speak. But no. They say she's too 'quiet', and '(name of loud people) wouldn't like it'.
I think theres a fair bit of nationalism involved here. As a Norwegian, the name Shacklton didnt even ring a bell for me, but every single norwegian knows about Amundsen, I can guarantee it. I suppose the combination of us norwegians wanting to hail our hero, and the british not being too keen on promoting the idea that their hero was not actually no1 in his field, played a large role here. The british empire is without a doubt a winner in recent history,(since ca 1800 til now) and history is written by winners...
This is true to me, no other leader at work work as I do , yet there are bigger pay to the loudest ones and me just filled with more and more responsibilities because I get things done. Somehow I get overlooked on promotions and raises …
It's less that good leaders are boring, but that being able to be liked and market oneself is an independent attribute. So if you require both good leadership AND interesting/exciting then there are slim pickings.
I would say that this applies not only to leaders, but to many professions: those who produce more noise and appear confident are perceived as experts. The same is true for modern academia
The leadership analysis within the context of expeditions and people's retrospective opinions on the leaders is analogous to finding a leader for a small group given a specific common goal with a finite duration. In finding leaders for large enterprises in private or public sector, those leaders are often given an established context of environmental dynamics and an organization with a rooted mix of somewhat functional, but often largely dysfunctional behaviors of which, the leader has limited influence on the wider organization. We often celebrate (and congratulate ourselves when we're the leader) for victories that are largely of fortune or market context-right time, right place, surrounded by the right people. Then, when that environment changes and fortune is no longer their friend, we turn on the same people and evaluate them as "bad". Leadership research too often focuses on the individual. It wasn't until the late 1990's into the aughts that pockets of academia in leadership research started to consider and research context and its impact on leadership with respect to what people subsequently think of as good/bad leadership, so subsequently understanding that we fixate too much on individual characteristics and not enough on context. However, this idea has not yet permeated into the pop business, mainstream world yet. I feel that's because we are always seeking a savior and a scapegoat simultaneously-the idea that team performance must be the fault of the other, not ourselves-hence the "leadership" industry is as big as it is. Are there outright bad leaders? Of course there is. Are there any outright "good" leaders that perform consistently over long contexts? Unlikely. It's more likely that in growth and virtuous cycles-and subsequently increasing influence power, that they find themselves or self-select themselves in positions where a steady hand is what is required surrounded by largely favorable contexts. Extract them and place them into an underperforming organization surrounded by dysfunction, and we would evaluate them differently.
This video perfectly explains why military leaders are revered but often should not be. Remember this video next time you see a leadership book about or written by military personnel.
I’ve worked in IT my entire life, the people who’s infrastructure takes a dive and they end up pulling an all-nighter are celebrated, but if your infrastructure is always consistently working and there’s never any drama, you’re somehow ignored and treated as just an extra body when you’ve been the most reliable person there.
💯
You can always do a controlled failure and report it as a major win.
100%
💯 true.
haha.. similar to my experience.. We did the job so good that there have been no major issue, but we have been requesting for additional member due to overload.
Then somehow other branch with half of our workload and troublesome performance would get the approval to hire new member. 😅
"When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all"
So profound!!!
Good point of view
A leader makes things happen by convincing people to do things. Is it the leader's fault that their group is incompetent? I think that's dubious at best.
The best leaders are also the best people for the job, but if they can't lead, they end up doing the whole job alone. It is better that the most incompetent person lead the best people to work together, if (s)he is good at leading.
Nice one, tq 👌🏽 🙏🏽
Seriously!
The end message is why my favorite Einstein quote is "a clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it in the first place"
And a smart person realizes that people who are not experts in your field do not understand the problem, the solution, or the prevention, and thus its your job to make them aware of this and sell yourself. You can be 10/10 at your job but if you're 3/10 at selling yourself you're gonna run into issues.
to summarize as
better to prepare and prevent than to repair and repent
@@kampanartsaardarewut422 eloquently said. You are clearly someone of great wit and sagacity. 😎
Is that survival tactics
Like avoid, just avoid the problems.
😮
@@nikhilPUD01 No it means you take steps that ensure the problem doesn't happen in the first place.
_Nobody ever gets credit for fixing problems that never happened._
I remember one of the prominent scientists in government saying this about the obviously very expensive measures during the pandemic: "there is no glory in prevention (of harm)". He probably wasnt the first to say it, but it was very fitting to the ongoing discussion.
Slightly unrelated, but it's the same reason that most reviews for businesses and products are negative. If something worked, you have no reason to take note of it. If you had a negative experience, you want to tell everyone. Problems are louder.
old tale my mom used to tell me:
An emperor's son was sick, so he called the best doctor in the kingdom. While the doctor was treating the prince, he said that although he was indeed very well known, his brother was a better doctor. The emperor asked why he never heard of the brother. The doctor said: Because he taught people how to avoid getting sick, so nobody ever gave him credit for anything.
Even further, people often get criticised for taking preventative action when a problem then never arrives.
As a software engineer, I've actually gotten quite a lot of credit for creating reliable products and improving workflows. It's why people have looked to me for leadership from pretty early on during my career.
Lessons we learned:
- speak more no matter what you say
- walk around confidently
- always acting like you are needed urgently and always on calls
- paint everything as a crisis
👍🏻 thanks for the promotion
That was depressingly logical.
^^ Seth is what sheep would look like - followers in this society are overpopulated 😂
@@jaslavie you know, in my experiences, only people who don't live well feel the need to call others sheep so they can justify themselves not making it in a strict social hierarchy (income, degree, wealth). That's almost invariably true. But hope that's not you. Cheers
ive been under leaders who paints everything as a crisis or always wants things urgently. They burn people out in 1 to 2 years, and a few months for some.
The challenge is how long can you do that - even if you are promoted, at some point that success is likely to feel hollow - I guess unless you go full delusional that you are what everyone tells you :)
I have run several factories in the last 30 years and can't count the number of "action oriented managers" I have encountered (especially in sales). Invariably I have taken over under-performing production lines and been told that making the workers "work harder" is the key to success. After a year, or sometimes more, when the numbers are up, I have to explain that making people's jobs easier has been the key to the change.
This is the basis for organizational behaviour. Making people's lives easier and better makes them work better and provide higher quality product.
I wish my last job understood this
Reduce twists steps and turns as they say in McDonald's land
Hey Alan! I have a factory, and I am interested in learning more about your perspective and approach towards driving change in the organization. Is there any way we can connect ?
Spot on. Much of it is definitely self-inflicted. Living by the "do more with less" creates an environment of firefighting.
An old upper management I once worked for said "Many times you don't know what jobs a good manager does until they don't do them."
Where I work, this applies more to the workers than the managers, who are largely just rearranging the deck chairs while the rest of us are bailing out the ship.
This is often true for toxic people as well - many times people don’t know who the toxic person in their circle/workplace is until they leave and suddenly everything is smooth and peaceful again.
The biggest compliment ever was from an ex co worker who told a customer a year after I left the company: “only now we realize how much he did”.
My problem with upper management is that they create problems we then have to solve.
It's why I hate salespeople. We need sales people they're important, but they are sound in fury signifying nothing. Someone on the sales team sold a product we didn't sell, that we had to then create in ops, but it didn't go through development so it was hack. When trying to explain what the software actually does, the salesperson told my coworker " don't tell me how the software works, if I don't know, I'm not lying."
Something taught to me a long time ago: “Don’t confuse effort with results.”
Gotta be more specific here, because effort is pretty meaningless without results, and results are still results no matter the effort.
@@obliviouz
Well, that's kind of the issue: the mentality that effort, without results (or, at least, without *recognizable* results), is counted as "meaningless". In other words, people treat it no different than not trying at all. This is why we often see unsuccessful people struggling with disability, mental health issues, homelessness, unemployment, etc. given the ever so unhelpful advice, "well, if you just _try,_ then maybe you'd succeed." It assumes their situation arises from them *not* trying. There are an awful lot of people who try very, very hard, but _still_ don't succeed. There are people who must spend all their effort on a daily basis merely to tread water and keep themselves from going under. They have nothing to spare to "try harder".
But the attitude of "if you're not succeeding, you might as well not bother" plagues modern society and paralyzes many people. And then, "results" doesn't distinguish useful results from just spinning wheels. How many workplaces and employers are obsessed with employees "looking busy", even if not doing anything productive? "If you've got time to lean, you've got time to clean." That's a common trite, vacuous saying in workplaces. The problem is that too many people, particularly those in positions of authority and supervision, fail to comprehend that _downtime_ and _standby positions_ can *also* contribute to productivity. Well-rested workers are, plain and simple, more productive than overworked ones. Thus, "conserving effort" and "strategic application of effort" can yield greater results than reckless application of effort. Having extra workers whose *job* it is to be _available_ to step in when needed and *not* occupied with busy work to fill their otherwise empty time, is more productive than shoving frivolous tasks onto them.
@@omargoodman2999 Yeah I'm sorry but effort that doesn't lead to results IS absolutely useless. You ever try to feed a family on "effort"? I don't assume that lack of results come from not trying: I *plain do not care* because it doesn't matter how hard you try if you don't achieve results.
To use your example, "downtime and standby also contribute to productivity" - you're exactly right: it's the fact that they contribute *TO PRODUCTIVITY* (end results) that makes them valuable. Results are results. Long-term, and not immediately obvious results are still results, not merely effort.
great - yes, effort matters, not only results..
@@NithinMWarrier Ever try to feed your family on "effort" alone? "Effort matters" is a great motto for losers who can't achieve anything.
Had a supervisor who talked a lot with our team lead, did not support the team in any way and was only talking down to us to repeat what team lead already told us. She got promoted and I was puzzled why. I realized then exactly that, people who make noise and appear to be busy get rewarded, even if they had done nothing for the team.
At least the promotion got her out of your way.
@@mjmulenga3
And she's on her way to become the next PM!
Eventually the Peter principle will apply.
Failing upwards?
It's not only about leadership.
Any good professional will make his work look easy to an outsider.
Indeed.
I used to work in industrial robotics and oversaw several cells, providing preventive and diagnostic maintenance for several robotics systems. Sounds technical, but it wasn't that bad, really.
Anyway, I used to regularly get in trouble because it never appeared that I was working, and everyone thought I was slacking off. The reality was that I took my preventive measures seriously and didn't cut corners with any on-the-spot maintenance. I also had a great partner who always backed me up. As a result, things rarely broke down, and when they did, we were often able to implement an easier fix than if we let things degrade too far.
When I explained these things to my supervisor, his answer was, "Yeah, but you have to think about appearances..."
Give me a break.
@@thebestbelmont4273 God do i despise the word 'optics'.
@@thebestbelmont4273 thinking about appearances and not the competition is a recipe for failure.
@@DigSamurai Couldn't agree more
@@thebestbelmont4273
Management mantra: Visibility.
If upper management don’t know you then you are slacking.
This was exactly what I needed to hear. My boss is asking for a report on staff morale, which I've told him repeatedly was low, and I've been resistant to doing it. I now know why. I've talked to him about it before to head off problems, but he inevitably ignores what i say, until the wheels come off. I'm exhausted. I think he doesn't realize how low my morale is as well. He dismisses people who are steady and reliable for those who make "busy work" for others to do to make themselves look good. This talk helped me to figure out how I want to address it again with him. Thank you, I need it.
Good luck. Be cautious how you report it back. When ppl ask for things like that, they often want to hear the things that are re assuring them they are doing the right thing. Try and present the data without personal impressions on what is going on. 48 Laws of Power is great book for office politics
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
@@inesvetinparadise9715 Thank you.
People tend to shoot the messenger, especially when he brings bad news they don't want to hear. Management has often sand in the ears; this happens when you put your head in the sand.
Best of luck, please let us know how it goes.
There's a Chinese saying (I know...how cliche, but this one is real...) -- "the skilled warrior achieves no spectacular feats" 善战者无赫赫之功. Some competent leaders achieve wonderful results but just don't make enough noise to be noticed.
Me!! That’s me! But sadly as I’ve discovered, the modern work place paradigm requires self-celebration and narcissistic marketing! Sadly when you are a highly able / successful leader with humility, you are taken advantage of and people take credit for your achievements.
We live in an era of celebrity and not just that, celebrating stupidity. Look at Trump, look at the Cardassians, look at glitzy pop cultures fascination with glamour over musical talent etc etc.
But I still can’t be anything but who I am, so people like me need to find a way to survive this environment without losing their integrity!
@@thelesserzdoctor2345 Kudos for living your values! The good thing is those external metrics for success aren't the only thing that matters in life. People who say nice (or honest in this case) people finish last don't know where the finish line is😋
@@thelesserzdoctor2345 I can relate to your situation. The best thing to do over here is stop caring about "noise" altogether. Appreciation is noise in today's age, as it is mostly fake. People appreciate others thinking they'll do the same when it's their time, that's all there is to it. I have learnt to compete with myself and have learnt to be recognized by God and the universe. Maybe the last bit isn't too appealing but trust me, when the majority has a "herd mentality", you can only look up to God for guidance, appreciation, competition and inspiration.
Alexander the Great is known, the people who died for his idea to conquer the persian empire are not. So you gad to be at least in the rank of a general to get a piece of the pie after Alexander's early death
@@TorianTammas Everyone knows Alexander today, but Alexander knew which of his generals were worth knowing and respecting. The point being - people choose whether they want to be known for their achievements today, or whether they would like to be discussed in the future. In Alexander's case, the two coincided. Today, you will be remembered anyway because your videos will not be deleted unless someone reports on them.
One of the best TED talks I heard so far. As an IT specialist, I often had to present the problems I solved to my boss in a more dramatic way, even if they were relatively easy to resolve. After some time, I requested a pay raise and received a 10% increase. Now, I’m preparing my reports for the next six months to request another pay raise. It's unfortunate, but this is the reality of how management often thinks.
Especially if you work in IT, I, like you, quickly discovered that what people wanted is a 'story' where the plot is a nicely embellished 'problem existed, problem now solved', not "the cable was unplugged, and btw, you probably shouldn't have your password stuck to your monitor on a post-it note".
(Also, you might have noticed this too about human psychology and working in IT, but I always knew if I went into an office and somebody immediately came up to me and very smugly described the problem, then that person caused the problem, and they knew it - the people who are innocent are the people who panic about such things).
Reminds me of something I was told years ago, "Everyone is a salesperson, and everything is a sales pitch". Sometimes the thing we sell is an idea, or a solution, or the value we bring. Either way, a good story is a great way to pitch it.
Roald Amundsen is by no means forgotten in Norway. This guy Shackleton on the other hand is someone I barely have heard about.
Shows you the power of the Anglo Anerican media circus where they dominate so much of the global headlines. Marketing, Brands and advertising rules and wrongly drives so much of global trade.
The main story Shackleton is famous for is the one where he left the survivors on Elephant Island promising to rescue them, and did, returning 137 days later.
@@TheLRider How much larger is the population of "Anglo" countries?
@@tuckerbugeater?
@@tuckerbugeaterAnglo American population in comparison to world's population? Relatively small. American culture, big. There are a few countries, which have still an own film industry of relevance. India, France, China, Russia are the most important one.
In life and leadership, we often mistake noise and drama for true capability. The allure of dramatic stories and visible action can overshadow the quiet, steady work of those who plan meticulously and avoid crises. Effective leaders are not those who constantly battle emergencies, but those who prevent them through careful preparation, deep understanding, and thoughtful execution. True success often appears effortless because it is the result of rigorous behind-the-scenes work. Therefore, we must learn to recognize and celebrate the quiet, diligent leaders who create stability and guide us smoothly through challenges, rather than those who thrive on chaos and spectacle. The best leadership often goes unnoticed because it is proactive, not reactive.
Touché!
🫡
That’s cute. Care to cite your source, because you obviously didn’t write that. It’s either either stolen from someone else or generated with AI
@@pensivepenguin3000
You generate the same or better than this with AI and post. Best output is important.
@@kishoresoma6534 if you’re going to comment, use your own brain and tell people what you think. Anyone can ask ChatGPT to write a comment for them. Meaningless
This describes perfectly my 37 year career both with the Government and Contractor business I was in!!!!! When my company picked internal “Leaders” to speak at our leadership symposiums for the last 15 years, they picked people who were part of the root cause of a major issue who were then flooded with resources to become the “hero” to get through the self imposed crisis. Haha, ANYONE with unlimited support can get through a tough issue….most people don’t even stop to think about why the issue happened in the first place and who are the real leaders who consistently prevent them!
Last Christmas we celebrated both a step-change reduction in lead time to market AND the wonderful effort spent firefighting quality issues at a lead customer. The presentation was so smooth I have no idea how many people understood both were the result of squeezing QA to the point they couldn't do their job anymore.
THIS!!!
I'm an anesthesiologist, and we value those who never run into problems. As a profession, we have this mindset of avoiding problems in the first place and look down on those who can "fix problems" but keep on running into new ones to fix.
As a potential heart surgery patient I agree
There is a benefit in running into new problems, and should be encouraged in new/inexperienced people because then fewer things surprise you.
@@kylekillgannon you don't risk making problem in a uncontrolled environnement like a HUMAN BODY...
Being bored out of your mind is a good day.
I worked at a place one time that had a project that started with four people, and it got into trouble. Management started adding people to the project, figuring that the more people working on it, the quicker the work would get done, and it worked. By the end, the project had 12 people on it, and it was finally successful. Management celebrated their success in navigating the project out of its crisis without recognizing what had really happened: Two of the last four people they added to the project did the entire thing, and the other 10 people, including the original four, accomplished nothing. All of which is to say that one trait I notice over and over in bad managers is that they treat everyone as interchangeable and fail to recognize that different people have different capabilities.
Brooks's Law: _Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later._
I noticed this within my life as well. If you're too competent, you're taken for granted because there's no obvious and visible example of struggle and "hardwork." This is even more true for family and friends than at work.
Additionally, the competent person will often be asked to take on the work of others because they will actually do it. Management finds that easier than trying to get the responsible parties to actually do their jobs.
"We confuse a good story for good leadership." So true!
This is such an important Tedx Talk. So spot on. We need to hear this, as a society.
Reimagine leadership... "Ignore the captains of crisis" (um, Putin, Trump, etc, etc, etc)... "Celebrate those who mitigate, rather than promote drama"...
His river example makes me think of soldiers we celebrate.
We fixate on extreme examples of heroism but ignore the smaller things that made a huge difference.
The men responsible for maintaining food and ammo to frontline troops are often forgotten but were invaluable.
American logistics and british intelligence are what won the second world war, but the credit goes to the soviets because stalingrad is quite legendary
Even as far back as the Roman Empire (even before that), a conquering or defending army could not stand whatsoever without the logistical units (farmers, cart drivers, blacksmiths, etc) supporting soldiers at every turn.
The "noise" aspect is a variation on Dunning-Kruger. Someone who knows a little bit about a subject tends to publicly exhibit more confidence WRT that subject. Someone who genuinely knows about a subject tends not to seem particularly confident. They're not loud. They tend to be quietly confident and genuinely make it all look easy. The clueless think it's easy because they genuinely don't know just what they're getting into.
When you know about Dunning-Kruger, it changes how you behave and what you look for.
Not necessarily. A bias for action, or at least the abiity to take action in the face of a hard challenge is indeed a skill. The curse of management is having to take decisions based on incomplete information. That needs a certain amount of trust in one's ability to work things out along the way. Of course, the higher you climb, the more you have control over the tools which help you overcome such problematic situation, over the people and processes that are in place to help you.
I have seen a number of people, among them a few so-called "high-potentials", climb the career ladder around me, and rarely undeserved. They all had one thing in common: they would not shy away from taking on tough challenges. In the end, what is important is that an organization evaluates its leadership candidates honestly, and sorts out those who fail to deliver on their confident claims. That's how you get strong leaders, and you need those once an organization reaches a certain size.
We use to teach school children in the UK how to wire plugs. We stopped doing that because it teaches enough to inspire diy electrical work and wire things up in the home. But not enough to show how to do it safely, hence giving no knowledge is safer than giving too little.
Indeed. Also an illness in corporate life. Filled with incompetence in Management that self preserve itself by taking out of the way real competence.
I work in HR and this really really resonated! We constantly hires and celebrate leaders who is mostly in it for themselves and building their own career, making a lot of noise for the short period they are here (noise that doesn't lead to anything, cause it's too shallow and short to have a lasting effect on anything) rather than the people willing and able to invest the time, energy and lack of praise actually needed to implement meaningful and real change in the organization. Those leaders and workers are often overlooked and considered slow and not progressive enough.
It's a shame.
The business world needs to hear this
Need to, but will never listen because they need to act like they know it all.
This makes me think of our political leaders.
Yes! Just about all of them.
true, they have to be like this, to be promoted. in my opinion it is a cultural fallecy of thinking.
Precisely!
6:50 "That looks pretty easy" YES! Finally, someone who understands this. It's a trick question, that the more someone succeeds at whatever deeds, the less impressive it looks. It's linked as well with the Dunning Kruger effect
"Never confuse motion for action" - Hemingway
This is what i saw at all workplaces in my career.... While i worked hard, but quiet and efficient, i always had co-workers that always complained, needed a long time for projects and always talked how hard he is working while using every opportunity to talk to people or the boss... They get promoted and you get fired. And i saw the most incompetent people in leadership positions at all my workplaces
My Dad was the role model for me. He was a great leader that empowered his staff. This is back in the 60’s and 70’s.
This makes so much sense looking at all the psychopaths, sociopaths, and narcissists at the top
Yeah, because only they create drama.
“Unhappy is the land that breeds no hero!
No, Andrea....unhappy is the land that needs a hero.”
― Bertolt Brecht
Thank you for sharing. 🙏
👍🏼🙏🏼
Not really a role model despite his works constantly criticizing social injustice. So it is rather ironic.
This is a great talk. Loved it! Truly great leaders don't set out to want to become great leaders. They are always in pursuit of a higher purpose bigger than their own self needs and tend to be both authentic and empathetic. This combination leads to leadership in its truest form. These kinds of leaders quietly create positive working environments for their teams, encourage new ideas and innovation, and tend to know how to inspire their teams into action.
I met good leaders, and I didn’t notice until I had a problematic one (just as described in the video). The lesson I learnt was to be aware that a good leader avoid problems, is honest and learn from experience.
This is just brilliant. I started as software engineer in 2012, right out of college. Initially for few years, I was really confused to see people being promoted whom I thought would be fired. over period of times I figured out what exactly is happening.
Well articulated, I could relate to it, so true
Sounds like the military.
4:55 An analogy in baseball is one of my pet peeves. It's the outfielder who dives and makes a "fantastic" catch. Disregard the team status if the catch is missed and everyone is scrambling. Contrast with a better outfielder who knows from experience, either general experience or related to that specific batter, who sets up in a better location and makes an "easy" catch. Unfortunately, the better outfielder doesn't make the highlights video, the evening news, or a photo in a newspaper or magazine.
It's why moneyball works. Takes the drama out and let's ability shine
There is a Poldi cartoon (of Swiss origin, possibly from the '30s or '40s) that I remember from a Turkish translation. A child asks Poldi (a grown man) something like: "Of the two, which is more useful to us, the Sun or the Moon?" Poldi's answer is something like: "Of course it is the moon! During daytime, it is naturally light."
Fantastic insight on true leadership.
Winning before having to deal with conflict that was already unavoidable.
I had a conversation with my friend the other day who is heavily involved in politics. We were talking about how important it is for a politician who can keep the trains running on time rather than a politician who is always in the news, whether good or bad.
What a wonderful Ted talk. This is sooo true. Actually, it doesn't apply only to leaders, but to all professionals I would say.
I just had this conversation with one of my mentors. They love Shackelton's ability to shift focus from his hubris to his care for his team. He wasn't initially celebrated for his failure, while Falcon was even more celebrated for a graver Antarctic journey that led to he and his team not succumbing to the journey. Need more books about Amundson.
I knew about Amundsen since age of 9. Today I learned about Shackleton.
May I ask where you were educated?
Yes! I believe here in Ukraine a few people would know about Shackleton, but we hear about Amundsen a lot throughout our school program.
Likewise. Knew of Amundsen since childhood (educated in the Soviet Union) and never hears of Shackleton. Must be the Anglo-Saxons' arrogance - celebrating only their own and overlooking heroes from other countries. ))
Same in slovakia
You're not alone. Just the usual anglo-american way of seeing themselves as the whole world.
Shakleton was admired for his recruiting tactics and overcoming adversity. Hence the self help books praising him!!! One of Shackleton's most famous recruitment ads for the Endurance expedition read:
"Men wanted for hazardous journey. Small wages, bitter cold, long months of complete darkness, constant danger, safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in case of success."
People like Shakleton are also necessary. Ones who are beyond algorithms, who get more meaning out of experiences than the set "end goal". The aim was to reach some obscure part of a polar ice cap, or maybe chart a route but he ended up having an adventure. Not saying that that is better than someone who actually completed doing what he planned to do, but the adventure sounds more fun. The issue is people tend to follow blindly instead of actually thinking. If more people do something, then it gravitates more and more - that is the "common consensus".
Boring is boring, but it works impeccably. Adventure is exciting but it fails to get to the point. Is there a middle ground?
The meticulous planning, understanding currents etc - sounds like algorithms in action. The latter sounds like a child waiting for a brain freeze. Balance is key, but because of impatience, we hardly get to see that in the real world.
I think thats Amundsen.
Also just realized that his leadership failed in the recruitment also. Who do you think responded to this ad? Was it the experienced and highly competent? No, because they recognized from the ad that he was going to be a poor leader. The ones who responded were probably those without enough experience or insight or good judgment to recognize the early signs of a probable disaster in the making. So Shackleton likely set up the poor end result right from the beginning …. (if he truly posted this ad. apparently it is historically uncertain.)
ngl that looks unprofessional lol i dont think an experienced seaman will respond to that ad
That’s kind of the point of this talk, I think. Leaders like Shackleton aren’t bad at all aspects of leadership, they can inspire us, forge a team, and motivate people to get through a bad patch. The problem is that we seem to select our leaders only on these criteria: the loud and heroic parts, not quiet competence and the humility to take good advice.
I think listening to good advice (and recognising it), and deferring to those who know better, are some of the most important and most overlooked qualities of leadership. A good leader does not lead his team; he organises it, removes obstacles, facilitates. And sure, at the end of the day someone needs to carry responsibility and have the final say, and that is the leader. But most leaders feel a need to be in charge, visible at the helm, in control, all the time. I wish the leadership self help books would focus a bit more on that more boring part: finding some humility.
Holy mackerel, this was the talk I needed to help me get through this workday and then look for a new job with an organization that doesn't reward and celebrate "dynamic" clowns. Thank you for saying what desperately needs to be said!
You won't find such organization. Everywhere you go, you'll find that extroverts and incompetent by "self-confident" clowns are celebrated
I am delighted that I came across this talk. The question 'Why do we celebrate incompetent leaders?' has been troubling me for a long and I was thinking what can be the reason for that. I felt that the problem was with the current generation but now I know it is human nature and we can always change that.🙂
Love this. I've had a lot of egotistical and low intelligence bosses, and everyone suffered. Best wishes
Its the same concept as a road, or a powerline, or even a powerplant. Leadership is a type of foundation like infrastructure, you only notice it's existence when it fails.
Ive found that the foundation of good leadership is effective planning, self discipline, uncommon self control, and calculated risk taking.
Being a great leader isn't hard, but it is relentless. Every moment of the day you have to set aside what your innate reaction is to act like the boss you wish you had. You have to practice fundamentals all day, every day, and convince your team to do it too.
A good leader cares. Great leaders demand more from themself than those they lead. An exceptional leader cuts the path to success for their successors to pave over on their journey to cut their own path
It's tricky because leadership, by definition, is an active process. One has to take the initiative. Distinguishing this signal from the noise someone might be making is the key.
Great talk.
I'm a fire chief and I've told my guys my ideal is that I never see any of them to get a reward for a heroic act on a fireground, because if they have, something has gone horribly wrong or someone has made a bad decision. Of course, sometime reality steps in and you have no choice, but it should be the exception, not the expected standard.
This is the core issue I have with encouraging the use if the “STAR” method for answering interview questions. It presupposes the existence of a “situation”.
I didn't know about Shackleton, but Amudsen was my dad's hero. He had been telling me about Amundsen's adventures before night sleep. And i am not Norwegian. So, some people are able to see the right qualities! I wish them to be more...
Two examples currently attracting attention. The D-Day landings. It is universally acknowledged that their succuss depended directly on thorough, exhausting and painstaking staff work. Boeing Aircraft. The names of the CEOs currently at the helm during the company's troubles are well known. Who can name the CEO that built the company into the behemoth that pioneered aircraft such as the 707 and 747?
This applies as well to plant maintenance and operation. Every manager and head seems to like firefighting since it raises their profiles. What you actually want is exactly the what the title states. A boring looking dept where everything is running smoothly and decisions are made for the sustainability of the operation. Not a douse the flame and move on method. Same in production, a nice quiet efficient process, everything planned and prepared up and down the supply chain.
Dismissing the quiet leaders affects their morale to work. I know how my opinions have often been ignored or overshadowed by the loud voices in the room. Being on the spectrum it is hard to find the support to help you grow as a leader when you have a lot to say that can be beneficial but struggle because you're in the corner of the room not under the bright light.
Great talk. And a very refreshing point of view.
10:28 Being an autist, I feel this. It always perplexed me why this was so pervasive everywhere I went. Took me till my diagnosis to realize that I just think more about things, before doing things, and I try to never over sell myself than your average person. Sometimes having autism can be painful, other times I tha k my lucky stars I don't go about life living and acting so unintentionally.
This is oddly comforting as someone who feels very overlooked and taken for granted!
Incidentally, I read the bio of Roald Amundsen as a teenager some 40 years ago, but because I am not particularly interested in polar expeditions I have not heard of Shackleton until the TV series came out... However, I agree - in Australia we celebrate some British explorers of the 19th century who basically set out from Australian coast poorly prepared and then lead expeditions inland with disastrous outcomes! People talk about them as brave!
Well, maybe part of the problem is that we over-value bravery (at least in certain circumstances). If you're well-prepared, etc., you don't need as much bravery as the person who is incompetent and ill-prepared. (In general, I think we over-value physical bravery and under-value moral bravery.)
Martin shares a very comprehensive prfound truths, and the prespective really resonates. And what I enjoyed most is reading the comments and insights which are sharp, some even cleverly use reverse tactics to highlight key points. Ultimately, it reminds us to ground our actions in our own ethics and serve what is right from our inner spirit, rather than seeking approval from the world.
Incredibly valuable talk. Thank you!
My boss recently said: "If you are allways in crisis mode, then you don't have your company under control"
Happy to work with him.
He is so true. We do praise the wrong leaders.
When I was younger, I was obsessed with polar explorers. I'm going to say that definitely Roald Amundsen is underrated. He also grew up in the northern part of Norway and truly understood how to survive in the cold extremes. The incompetent leader he should be contrasted with is Robert Scott, the Englishman, whom he beat in the race to the South Pole. Scott tragically died along with most of his team because of impatience and poor planning. Amundsen's entire team lived and succeeded. As to Shackleton - he may have lacked judgment in planning but damn, when the crisis came, he was amazing. His story is one of incredible courage and fortitude. I would want to be with him in a foxhole. I'd just want Amundsen to be the general leading the troops so I wouldn't be in the foxhole in the first place.
There was an old saying I heard once that if you wanted the best planning and preparation so that there was minimal risk of things going wrong, you wanted Amundsen in charge. If things still went horribly wrong, for whatever reason, Shackelton was the guy.
we can all tell someone didn't learn anything from this talk...
How do you know that Shackleton would be the guy? After things initially go wrong, Amundsen might make a series of good (boring) decisions, whereas Shackleton might bluster and continue to make mistakes after mistake (as he did throughout the famous 2 year ice trek). In other words, you're still making the same mistake that the TED talks is advising you not to make.
@@BIGAPEGANGLEADER You make a fair point.
I scrolled down way to far to find this comment. Scott is a great immediate comparison. Amundsen trained and prepared with inuits and sled dogs, had a plan and minimal obstacles. Scott‘s story aligns much more with the idea that Antarctica is harsh and inhospitable and full of obstacles. Scott faced so many obstacles only to end up second place and dying from the harsh environment. A hero‘s journey of bravery and problem solving and a tragic death on this risky mission. If you ignore the fact that he came without adequate winter clothes, ponies and machines instead of arctic dogs and without skis, the logical equipment to bring if you have to travel over snow and ice.
I've seen this so many times in movie and TV production. The directors and producers who run completely disfunctional organisations for months, only to then deliver a product in the knick of time and at the cost of hundreds of hours overtime, are celebrated and handed awards and press. Those who consistently deliver season after season of reliable entertainment (and really keep the teams together) are usually undervalued and often given titles like "coordinator" or "assistant".
It’s the spontaneous action of bravery that make us fall in love with leaders
Bravo, Martin. Excellent talk. Completely turned my understanding of Shackleton on its head-and that is good.
Celebrating incompetent leaders can be a perplexing phenomenon, particularly when it undermines progress, fairness, and the well-being of communities or organizations. There are various reasons why this occurs, including deep-rooted social, political, and cultural factors. In many cases, leaders who may lack competence but possess charisma, popularity, or strong political connections are celebrated because they appeal to the emotions, beliefs, or biases of the people. This can create a cycle where superficial qualities are prioritized over true ability, leading to poor governance and decision-making.
One reason for the celebration of such leaders is the influence of identity politics and partisanship. People often rally behind leaders who represent their social, economic, or political identity, regardless of their effectiveness. This loyalty can cloud judgment, making it difficult to hold leaders accountable for failures. Additionally, leaders who promise change, even if their strategies are flawed or unrealistic, can be embraced as symbols of hope or rebellion against the status quo, despite a lack of competency in their leadership.
Another factor is the media's role in shaping public perception. Leaders who generate strong headlines and emotional responses are often favored, as they attract more attention and engagement. This can lead to the promotion of figures who are more adept at managing public relations than actual governance or policy-making. In turn, this perpetuates a cycle where people celebrate leaders who appear dynamic or powerful, even if their actions are not effective or sustainable.
In some cases, incompetence is overlooked or celebrated due to systemic issues within political or organizational structures. For example, nepotism, corruption, or favoritism can place leaders in positions of power who lack the necessary skills or knowledge. When these leaders are part of a network that benefits from maintaining power, they may be celebrated or tolerated as long as they serve the interests of those in control. This can create an environment where incompetence is not just ignored but actively encouraged.
Lastly, some people celebrate leaders who embody certain cultural or historical ideals, even if they do not have the practical skills to lead effectively. For instance, leaders who promote traditional values or champion a particular ideology can be seen as important figures, even when their leadership is marked by poor judgment or inability to manage crises.
Ultimately, celebrating incompetent leaders can have serious consequences, including poor policy decisions, economic stagnation, social unrest, and a loss of trust in institutions. To move toward a more effective and accountable system, it is crucial to prioritize leaders based on their qualifications, integrity, and ability to enact positive change, rather than on superficial or temporary qualities that fail to serve the greater good.
Martin talk sheds light on the importance of celebrating leaders who prioritize planning and authentic leadership over drama. True success often comes from those who work diligently behind the scenes. 🔍
There is one problem, though: big corporations often exceed the size where a quiet, efficient leader is sufficient. Exactly because it often involves characters with more ego than brains. The quiet, efficient type may be able to lead an expedition to the south pole, but he might not be able to make himself heard in an organization that employs tens of thousands of people around the globe, and has departments that fight among each other for budgets and prestigious tasks.
A true leader is person who never speaks out /does anything for his benefits but he who wants to pattern the team he leads gets better every time.
I think people can self-sabotage with this kind of thinking too - they can feel they aren't special if things come easy for them, even if that "easy" is brought by slow, steady work.
So true!
rly got me thinking
Thanks!
Thanks!
Social media is a nightmare
If taken wrongly spending time watching non educational content.
Why? I ask because I ... don't know for sure
@@rolandojrbriones3079 or the fact that it can hide your secret exchanges, and possibly make your life implode due to your inability to realise that the grass is not always greener as your secret partner promises, while they are hidden in their basement promising things they can't deliver. This is not my first time but it is the most annoying time as not only did the little basement dweller promise a better life, also while told how old my step daughter was, he claimed her age was older than she was ( paedophilia )
@@lunarious87 employers can judge you on your personal views before your ability to do the job you applied for, to then make sure that they only employ people who will only do the things they ask and have no views as a person
@@cdjtft cool
We ought to know who to vote for after watching this, but some will still prefer Shackleton.
Oddly, I’m not seen any Amundsen characteristics in either presumptive candidate.
There isn't, but like the presenter of the talk, those driven by an agenda will be incapable of doing anything without bringing it into their actions. Being able to look at things critically and objectively goes out the window when you act on needing to be PC (the numerous examples in the talk) or when you look at everything through a political agenda (the original poster)
We literally have an Amundsen in our office. And boy would our office fall apart without him.
Brilliant talk!! Most crises can be avoided with careful and deliberate planning- sticking out with the mundane stuff that no one wants to do.
I read “God leadership looks boring” and I was sooo ready to listen😭😂
Thank you for your message! I agree with what you shared. When we are good at anything, we make it look easy.
The correct lesson to be taken from this is that you should appeal to these aspects of human nature, while still being competent.
Too many commenters miss this, and I was hoping for tips in the video
Could not be bothered to! Way too much effort to "play the game"!
@@stevecarter8810just "create a crisis" and then "fix it - very visibly and vocally"!
I work for the NHS and believe we continually fall into a similar trap. We celebrate clinically trained persons as leaders and go even further by assuming that certain clinical training creates better leaders than other training. The result is we often have leaders who are in posts because of their education rather than their ability. As a clinically trained person myself I left my profession to develop myself in management and leadership but all too often I am now labelled as a manager and am often overlooked for what I can offer because I am no longer clinical; mind you, even if I were still on a professional clinical register my clinical background is one that is not considered for leadership in the NHS.
I am struggling to get promoted.
My manager said i don’t have “visibility”, upper management doesn’t know who I am because my project is smooth with no major issues, don’t get escalated to upper management.
So I am thinking I should break stuff so that I get visibility. 😂
Send them a link to this video plus take the best comments. There are many of them.
Start looking for promotion opportunities at other companies. It's easier to get promoted outside your company.
A good leader holds the team together through good and bad.
the person making it look easy is actually showing you how it's done. _pay attention_
Min 6:45 - I just like how he used "We will probably not notice HER".
I absolutely love this TedTalk!
Thank you!
Like my former boss said: to get promoted in this company, you need to screw up big, real big". The reason is clear: you get visibility with management, are very visibly busy to clean up the mess that have created yourself, and at the end get kudos by reducing the 100% loss (that you created) to a 50% loss only. And nobody ask anymore, why a loss in the first place.
Governor Tony Evers (D) of WI, US had a very funny but true statement after winning the last gubernatorial election; "Some people call me boring, but you know what, Wisconsin? As it turns out, boring WINS."
Tony Evers reminds me of the extremely boring but also extremely competent uncle who manages to fix problems despite horrible odds. He is literally Wisconsin's last defense against a predatory GOP state legislative branch.
All I saw was the title but this is what I keep saying. Good leaders need a separate marketing aspect with simple, catchy phrases and clever branding to go along with good leaders because that’s what people pay attention to. It’s just reality.
I am surprised this video 'found me'- popping into a suggested video on RUclips in my feeds.
I say exactly the same thing to my staff, with your job as leaders and managers is to "MAKE SURE NOTHING HAPPENS. LACK OF DRAMA". SPOT ON.
Good leaders who do the boring stuffs that keeps thing going smoothly are indeed hard to appreciate
These sayings from my country are present across the world, but it's a matter of if these are focused/practised:
'Deep water runs silent.'
'A lot of thunder results in very few rain.' (A barking dog seldom bites.) (Similar saying, but different focus in real life.)
'Empty vessel sounds much.'
So we are taught from the childhood to avoid people who boast much, who shows too much confidence, rather judge by action. But we are a poor country. So we follow world leaders such as America and appreciate people who boasts much, shows confidence. Confidence can easily be faked, confidence is the fool's substitute for ignorance.)
And now we look at theDonald and see a pattern. 95% noise, 5% achievemants (I would not say he did not achieve anything)
I've long said that what we consider to be 'leadership qualities', are qualities that make for bad leadership.
I'm one of 4 directors at a medium sized company. Every quarter, we have a team meeting, where all 30 or so employees gather together for a few hours. Every time, the same 3 people (2 male, 1 female) talk for probably 85% of the time.
Then there's another employee, probably in her 40s, quite introvert, and she says very little in these meetings, until right at the end during 'AOB', when she always says "Just a couple of questions from me", and then........those 'couple of questions' will be by far the most insightful and useful bits of the meeting.
Try as I might, I can't convince my fellow directors that we should just make this lady the chair of those meetings, we could take half the time and make twice as many decisions, if she set the agenda and could call on people to speak. But no. They say she's too 'quiet', and '(name of loud people) wouldn't like it'.
I think theres a fair bit of nationalism involved here. As a Norwegian, the name Shacklton didnt even ring a bell for me, but every single norwegian knows about Amundsen, I can guarantee it. I suppose the combination of us norwegians wanting to hail our hero, and the british not being too keen on promoting the idea that their hero was not actually no1 in his field, played a large role here. The british empire is without a doubt a winner in recent history,(since ca 1800 til now) and history is written by winners...
Amundsen is more famous in America, too. I'd never heard of Shackleton before.
this talk is ON POINT. and needs to be promoted all over ... i have already shared it on my FB ...
This is true to me, no other leader at work work as I do , yet there are bigger pay to the loudest ones and me just filled with more and more responsibilities because I get things done. Somehow I get overlooked on promotions and raises …
The "ehhhh, that looks pretty easy" is painfully true.
This is today's reality of India regarding modi
It's less that good leaders are boring, but that being able to be liked and market oneself is an independent attribute. So if you require both good leadership AND interesting/exciting then there are slim pickings.
We know what America chose on election day. Your message has not traveled far enough, Martin.
I would say that this applies not only to leaders, but to many professions: those who produce more noise and appear confident are perceived as experts. The same is true for modern academia
The leadership analysis within the context of expeditions and people's retrospective opinions on the leaders is analogous to finding a leader for a small group given a specific common goal with a finite duration. In finding leaders for large enterprises in private or public sector, those leaders are often given an established context of environmental dynamics and an organization with a rooted mix of somewhat functional, but often largely dysfunctional behaviors of which, the leader has limited influence on the wider organization.
We often celebrate (and congratulate ourselves when we're the leader) for victories that are largely of fortune or market context-right time, right place, surrounded by the right people. Then, when that environment changes and fortune is no longer their friend, we turn on the same people and evaluate them as "bad".
Leadership research too often focuses on the individual. It wasn't until the late 1990's into the aughts that pockets of academia in leadership research started to consider and research context and its impact on leadership with respect to what people subsequently think of as good/bad leadership, so subsequently understanding that we fixate too much on individual characteristics and not enough on context. However, this idea has not yet permeated into the pop business, mainstream world yet.
I feel that's because we are always seeking a savior and a scapegoat simultaneously-the idea that team performance must be the fault of the other, not ourselves-hence the "leadership" industry is as big as it is.
Are there outright bad leaders? Of course there is. Are there any outright "good" leaders that perform consistently over long contexts? Unlikely. It's more likely that in growth and virtuous cycles-and subsequently increasing influence power, that they find themselves or self-select themselves in positions where a steady hand is what is required surrounded by largely favorable contexts. Extract them and place them into an underperforming organization surrounded by dysfunction, and we would evaluate them differently.
This video perfectly explains why military leaders are revered but often should not be. Remember this video next time you see a leadership book about or written by military personnel.