I've just read the post https://sourcehut.org/blog/2021-07-17-the-10x-programmer-is-a-leader/ from Drew DeVault and triggered. Usually my hate for "leaders" is so strong that I can't even write, but here I agree with everything Drew said, except for the word "leader". Maybe it was my experience, but I often encounter self-proclaimed "leaders" who are people that want to put themselves above others.
First time I encountered this pattern in MLM sect. The sect had no real product. Everything they did was paid teaching on how to wear a suit, and how to mess with people to bring more paying followers.
I hate self-proclaimed leaders the same way I hate self-proclaimed presidents. I know that both mostly exist in post soviet countries and holywood movies. Types I've rarely seen in successful business environment, but living in hierarchical country where I see some young people want to become a "leader", I imagine that they want to be a suit-case "leader" who rides in a black car and can not give a f* about "plebs". I can understand them. The pressure of living in an authoritarian country, where the rules are dumb and you are punished for everything with no sane explanation is too high. The "peaceful" terror is so draining, that it becomes a dream to climb higher to escape it, and take revenge on others. When you speak of "leadership" this is what it means to me.
The Drew's article is an awesome reference, and I will probably show it to people, who believe in "leadership" from company management courses. But I would prefer a word that would be neutral towards me, and won't make me suffer, because in the world of "leadership" if I am not the leader, then I am the slave. And I can't be happy in being one or the other. I don't want people like me to hate me, and I don't want to treat others low. There must be a different gameplay. Evolved for 21th century. Now we are all synchronized. Don't need to waste this opportunity until some "leaders" who are uncomfortable without their crowns, to break this down back into medieval times when network connection was a privilege.
The net made it obvious that people are limited. Those who have the time and interests to see what needs to be done are not necessarily those who can make it done. And people who are doing actual things may not have interest in coordinating and even talking to other people. But why some of the people are starting to name others as "leaders"? I can only have one explanation - they don't know alternative gameplay. And the "leader" will make sure they won't, because then they will lose their authority.
To explain alternative gameplay, where people can help each other without going through a rigid hierarchical model, there should be different role names than just a single superhero "leader". Roles that would make those who seek to put themselves above others, uninterested.
Top comments (0)