Forms of leadership
There are three kinds of leadership: coercive, charismatic, and conventional.
Coercive leadership is what you get in a dictatorship, or a pack of dogs. The leader is whoever took the post by force. They stay in power as long as they can defeat or deter challengers, which requires that the leader is the strongest, literally or in the sense of being the most ruthless. There is a top-down power structure that keeps the majority in line by reminding them that they have no choice.
Charismatic leadership is what you find in a band, or other relatively fresh voluntary association. The leader is perceived as being the best at whatever is the aim of the organization. Followers follow the leader because they value their inspiration and direction. Any challengers would have to demonstrate superior ability, rather than attack the leader as such.
Conventional leadership is the kind found in democratic states and other large, mature organizations. The leader has no distinguishing characteristics other than fairness and commitment. The members of the organization subscribe to the leadership because they see the benefits of structure and coherence. The leader is expected to identify and publish a consensus direction, but not primarily to steer the group.
All three kinds of leadership have validity, including the coercive one in certain contexts. Problems in leadership typically occur when the leader misrepresents, is not true to, or changes the kind of leadership that they are in charge of.
Marketing in software
Apple marketing
Hey, we understand you. You want a laptop to do these five or six things, right? Here, we’ve built one for you that’s very attractive and well-made and does the things that you want really, really well.
Microsoft marketing
You don’t really know what you want from your PC, and neither do we. We’re all in the same boat! So we made this software that has a whole bunch of features. Put it in your PC and it’ll do things. By the way your friends all have it, so if you go with the flow you’ll be able to share stuff.
Open Source marketing
User! You have no idea what you need and we’re not even going to attempt to tell you. Behind this link is our latest software, which we’re very proud of. If you use it, maybe you will see…
Guess who wins… Read the rest of this entry »
The one useful thing I learned at school
Despite being a good student, I never had a high opinion of school. I felt, and still mostly feel, that school is where you learn to feign respect to superiors who are less smart than yourself, and get used to spending half your day indoors, sitting at a desk. That’s what school is for. It’s to prepare intelligent, active, vibrant kinds for an adult life of compliance and submission.
Despite this, somehow, the Greek school system managed to give me one valuable teaching.
It was the story of Antigone, by Sophocles. The story opens after an insurgency. Antigone’s brother, who had attempted to overthrow the king, has been defeated and lies dead on the street. The king declares that he is not to be buried, as a form of debasement. Antigone insists that he has to be buried, because that is their duty to the gods. They both insist, and the substance of the play is them making their case. The king sets out the formal, legal right. Antigone, the individual, argues that there is a moral right. The legal and the moral right are not always the same. And when they differ the moral right is compelling.
I don’t know how this 2500 year old brazen story of humanist conviction and rebellion managed to make it through the stolid, reactionary school system and be taught saliently in substance. But I’m grateful.
The new Apple tablet
Pavlos’s Thoughts – Episode 1 – The Apple tablet and what they should have built instead
Talking post (podcast). Click to open as MP3.
The garden of ideas
What is a person? What are you?
Mostly we don’t exist. The self, the thing that we experience as such, is one of many mental constructs, and not a particularly important one.
What each of us is is a collection of active ideas. Memes is the trendy word. The mind is only a vehicle and an environment for them. If we want to undertand human actions and work effectively with each other, or take moral decisions, the conscious mind or the self aren’t very useful theories. The garden of ideas is the theory that works.
The entertainment industry needs to learn to love consumers
Have you been to a movie recently? Do you get subjected to these industry warnings against unauthorised copying? Well, don’t know about you but they really put me off going to the cinema. These warning ads say to me “Go and watch free content on YouTube”. I get the same reaction when I hear about some industry lawsuit against a random citizen who was sharing music (or their kid was sharing music). The clear message is “Stay away from the recording industry and its products for the time being”.
What I’m worried about
I’m worried about the future. Not mine, since I’m almost 40 and have a kid so it’s pointless and selfish to worry about my future, but the near future of humanity. I feel the world will see some challenging decades ahead. The three big risks are:
- The oil running out. As we run out of fossil fuels, we’ll see an “oil endgame” played out across the world. The seizure of Iraq by the US over the past two decades, as well as ongoing control over the Middle Eastern oil reserves, are mid-game steps along the way. As we get into the endgame, I expect there will be sharp imbalances of power between those that play the endgame well and those who lose out. Overall, I see the US as excessively focused on winning the endgame, as zero-sum, and would rather see a more cooperative plan to bring the world safely over to sustainable energy.
- The top-heavy Western economies. One might title this the crisis of capitalism, but I think that would be inaccurate. The issue is not about the normative system of property that we use in the West but about the emergent distribution of ownership that has resulted over the years. It is top heavy. The major part of western economies is not primarily productive but is a superstructure that concentrates wealth. This doesn’t mean everyone in the superstructure is rich – they might be an ordinary bank clerk, but still fundamentally unproductive. The crisis is that the primarily productive layers are increasingly unable to support the passive consumption of this superstructure, or their occasional abuses such as the recent financial crisis.
- Conflict between the West and Asia over property rights. China, India, Korea, and some other Asian economies already control the world’s means of production. These consist in productive capital, such as factories and industrial techniques, and the exploitable labor of their people. These economies, by being younger, are not as top-heavy as western ones. What prevents, say, China from selling their own Macs and iPhones is a system of intellectual and other property rights organized mainly by the US. I expect the Asian powers to challenge that, either by disobedience or more forcefully. Also, wars are started when a military power such as the US wants to take over an exploitable resource such as Chinese labor from the power that’s currently exploiting it.
So, the future will probably bring forced lifestyle changes, serious economic discomfort at least for us in the west, and possibly a kind of war. A global war may be too destructive to undertake (and I hope it is thus averted) but I think a more limited conflict such as the one that keeps the Middle East under US control may unfold in Asia, to the misery of billions of people.
My short advice to you is stop worrying about terrorism, healthcare, global warming, and other minimal threats and start worrying about these real problems that will jeopardize life in the 21st century.
Reflections on parenting
Your opinion on your kid is of no import. It matters to nobody. Your kid’s opinion of you is everything that matters.
If you prepare your kids to do well in the world, they’ll live in an ugly world. You have to prepare your kids, everyone’s kids, to take it over.
Kids are smart people who lack experience. They’re not simple-minded. If they ask you a question, they mean it. Answer it properly. If it’s complicated, describe the complexity of it. If they ask why, answer the correct causal question. Don’t invent myths as barriers to learning. Do provide myths… as myths.
Achievement focused and risk focused types
When it comes to performance there are two personality types. We’ll call them achievement focused and risk focused. These two types of people approach success and failure in almost opposite ways and it’s good to realize this and know which type you are, as well as recognize these categories in the other stakeholders of your projects.
Risk focused people see success as a bar that they have to reach.
The best example of a risk focused professional is an airline pilot. The pilot has to get the plane and the passengers to the destination airport, safely. That’s a complete success. Nobody is going to thank the pilot for flying further, higher, faster, visiting a new city on the way, or doing acrobatics. Rather, the pilot has to look out for everything that can go wrong during the flight and avoid or recover from that situation. They’re risk focused in the sense that they are constantly looking at risk, or potential failure, and try to avoid it.
Other examples of risk focused people are accountants, business managers of stable organizations, project managers, film producers, civil engineers, security and military officers, criminals, surgeons, mountaineers, and unfortunately many parents.
Achievement focused people assume a baseline level of success and strive to maximize value from there.
The purest achievement focused person is an artist. Every artist, once competent, will succeed in applying paint to canvas, delivering a song, or remembering their lines. Artists are not concerned with reaching this baseline but with how far they can go from there. Is it new? Is it inspiring? Is the audience ecstatic? Can it be better? Can the work or the artist push new boundaries? Artists are always focused on achievement, and by definition this focus always has to be ahead of what they can at any time reach.
Other examples of achievement focused roles are entrepreneurs, other growth-oriented managers, scientists, product managers, film directors, architects, most doctors, misfits and agitators, athletes, and all kids.
Cheers for Barack Obama!
Barack Obama has the easiest and at the same time the hardest job of any leader in recent history, possibly since WWII. He can use all the goodwill and support that we can give him.
At one level, his new job is stupidly easy. Obama could be anywhere from a grey centrist-conservative like Bill Clinton all the way to a towering historical figure like Abraham Lincoln, and in any case the world will be delighted. We are all just so happy we got rid of George W. Bush. Just by being elected, Obama has already delivered what the world expected of him, and he has his entire presidency ahead of him to use as an opportunity. That doesn’t happen often.
Twelve myths of capitalism
Posted on LJ in July 2005. Not edited. If I had to leave behind just one political text, it would be this one.
Myth 1: Privatisation makes things efficient
Good management, consolidation, low corruption, and a strong drive to work (whether spontaneous or coercive), make things efficient. These factors may be present in private enterprises or state-managed ones (including science, military, transport, or healthcare). The converse problems may also plague both private and state enterprises.
The only parameters where there is an identifiable difference is corruption. Capitalism institutionalises the self-interest of managers and owners as a controlled (mostly) inefficiency called profit, whereas the same motives in public institutions result in unofficial profiteering called corruption. It’s debatable which kind of inefficiency is worst.
However, efficiency is an academic point or a red herring. The main purpose of privatisation is to increase the value of money, by allowing wealthy individuals to buy high-quality services without having to subsidise similar, or indeed any, services for the majority. Education, transport, and healthcare are the most common examples. Once private services are established, political pressure from the rich to scale down and gradually abandon the public systems is inevitable, and usually results in a two-tier system. Maybe this is “efficient” in the sense that the system only has to provide good services to a few people.
A second purpose of privatisation is to increase the value of capital by replacing nominally efficient (non-profit), in practice somewhat corrupt enterprises with officially exploitative (profit-oriented) ones. This process thus expands the scope of capitalism to the detriment of consumers. In developed countries the rich feel they can tolerate this cost as consumers, and in poor countries it’s not their problem.
Qualities of a successful computer game
I posted this on USENET in March 1994. Edited here for brevity and to remove the references to ancient games nobody has heard of. I still think the list holds, 15 years later.
Hello world!
Right, let’s get started. The address of this blog should be http://pavlos.geekhost.org once the DNS trickles through.
