

 Why clever and lazy people make great leaders - mathattack
http://theweek.com/article/index/255825/why-clever-and-lazy-people-make-great-leaders

======
bitcuration
Great leader if efficiency and productivity are the expectation. In most of
cases, politician, not leader is the one who climb to the top, because
efficiency and productivity are not priorities in society and most of
corporate.

Only in the case of military, leaders are expected to be of real leadership,
as otherwise the consequence is obvious. In non-military environment, this is
rarely the case hence often you would find the stupid and diligent types,
which should be fired according to these nazi's theory, are actually in
charge.

~~~
mathattack
I sometimes find the smart and lazy in charge, because their laziness forces
them to be charismatic.

In reality this seems like a false classification. People of all types make it
to the top, and it's hard to find some simple metric that says what will do
it.

At a prior large consulting firm that I worked for, they did a huge analysis
and found the only predictors of success as a senior consultant were "Did they
get a 3.0 in a tech degree or a 3.2 in a non-tech degree?" and "Did they have
any kind of job while in college?" That seems to suggest smart enough and
diligent enough for entry level. The same firm did an analysis to see which
managers made good partners, and they couldn't find any predictors. The entry
level predictors no longer mattered. School didn't matter. Competency
(process, technology, etc) didn't matter. Industry didn't matter. Length of
time to get promoted to manager didn't matter.

Net - it's hard to predict winners!

------
kimonos
True! They can be great leaders but annoying at the same time (basing on my
experience)..

------
michaelochurch
I tend to look at the MacLeod hierarchy through a three-dimensional analysis:
subordinacy, dedication, and strategy (knowing what to work on).

People with 0 or 1 of the 3 traits will never become players and aren't worth
worrying about. To have all 3 is almost a contradiction. If you're strategic,
you'll choose dedication (to advance fast) or subordinacy (to have an easy
life) but never excel in both-- that's a fool's errand. You only get a 3-for-3
match in a protege situation (it makes sense for someone to be dedicated and
subordinate, because he's subordinating to someone powerful who's protecting
his career).

Strategic and subordinate (but not dedicated) people are the MacLeod Losers,
the clock-punching 9-to-5ers.

Subordinate and dedicated (but not strategic) people are the Clueless. Their
unconditional work ethic can bring them into middle management but they never
get any further, because they never learn how to "work smart".

Strategic and dedicated (but not subordinate) people are the MacLeod
Sociopaths (most of whom aren't sociopaths). But even though they tend to be
highly dedicated, they're also often accused of laziness since they commit so
little to the efforts they judge not to have value (and they're often open
about doing so).

------
pistle
Hi. I'd like an inverse Godwin argument for $200.

1\. Pigeon-hole people in a way that resonates with the audience 2\. Call in a
Nazi leader to buttress the argument 3\. Conclude 4\. Post link bait

Wehrmach lost the war. The logic is flawed.

