Why Leaders Must be Motivated to Send To X * D
The two most absurd and sometimes dangerous concepts in modern business are leadership and motivation. As the classic said, “when Harvard professors have nothing more to say, they sit down to write a book about leadership.”
My personal opinion is leadership and motivation, this is a “net negative” concept. In other words, they do more harm than good. Something like fascism - yes, it’s zaebato that everything was clean in Germany and there was no crime, but in my opinion 80 million dead and ruined Europe - this is not quite an adequate price for ordnung. It is said that Mr. Propper can wash even the dirtiest stains without exterminating Jews, Slavs and other non-Aryans.
Let's start with a small base — motivation and motivation — it's almost always deception, manipulation, or submission (if we are talking about motivating others). Take any phrase when the head of the personnel department speaks about the motivation of subordinates - the meaning is always like this - “they don’t do ... and we want them to do ...”. Insanity in motivation is nothing more than finding a way to get people to do what you need, but to make it happen without open violence and, as it were, of their own accord.
')
Now a little about the "leadership". There is a wonderful book by James Surovecki - The Wisdom Of The Crowd, which explores the psychology of the masses. And there is a very simple concept - when the mass, this large number of independent-minded people - the collective answer is almost always accurate, even when individual members are greatly mistaken (see the example of beans). But if the mass is a crowd — which someone controls or controls by itself, disabling the critical thinking of individual members, then these are almost always guaranteed problems (see fascism, pogroms, bubbles).
This is not some kind of super secret. Psychologists have long conducted tests for influence, I already wrote about this. If all the teams start (deliberately, but to the experimenter’s team) to give the wrong answers, then most people start to give the wrong answers too. This would never have happened if the answers were given anonymously, to envelopes.
Finally, the last basic statement. A mature person is self-sufficient and self-motivated. He chooses what to do and how to live. He will not go to engage in garbage, such as MLM or the School of His Cause or the sect Anastasia. The more developed a person is, the less inspired he should become. Roughly speaking, a mature person is a homing organization; he doesn’t need Dima Davydov to tell him how to live and what to do.
Let's go back to the leaders. Take, for example, Napoleon. Was Napoleon a good leader? Yes, of course it was. Now tell me, those 120 thousand French who died during the Russian campaign (if anything, correct the historians) - what did they get?
If you digress from the leaders and look at the followers - the insane inefficiency of the concept will become obvious to you. Hitler was a charismatic leader - so what did the Germans get? Jack Welch was a charismatic leader - he had a hundred thousand slaves all over the world and he cut a billion from that, but what about that ordinary GE employee?
Think - what if being an unmotivated employee in certain cases is MUCH more correct? I once read an interview with the founder Pyaterochka. There was a couple of pages of shit (which is not surprising, an article by Secret Firmovskaya) about the “Pyaterochka passport” and “Pyaterochka anthem” and corporate culture. About all the missions of the company, which should motivate the staff to do something.
Is it not a wildly flawed concept that adult men and women should (for a penny) work 8 hours a day (minimum) and deal with all sorts of garbage, so long as Pyaterochka becomes “number one retailer”?
If leadership is a system of submission of will, then, according to Dames Surovecki, it will always turn a mass of independent individuals into a manipulated crowd, which is always worse for people. The only beneficiaries of the system are the leaders who direct the efforts of the crowd to where they need and have this grandmother. If, by the end of his life, Mahatma Gandhi was sleeping in the same bed with the bare twelve-year-old girls (ostensibly to test his willpower), then what about the mere mortals. Oh, fuck, so the leaders are mere mortals, to whom we, by our own stupidity, attribute super-sacredness, which they do not have and never had, fucking - this is the same in any textbook of psychology written in the section "superidealization".
In other words, leaders and leadership will always have a net negative effect for those who obey the leader of their own will (although some of the “slaves” can sometimes fall to benefit from time to time, as in youth gangs, for example).
Moreover, it is not the institutions of leadership that need to be developed, but the institutions of self-sufficiency, so that a person can successfully build his life without parasitizing on others, as various charismatic leaders from Tony Robbins to Brayan Tracy do. Like Napoleon, who needs soldiers who did the right thing, these “motivators” need millions of suckers to buy their courses and attend seminars.
My call is not just "do not be a chode," but also "do not be a scammer." It is naive to believe in all this “charismatic leadership”, which is essentially nothing more than the manipulation of others and the subordination of people to their own will. These concepts need to be buried, just as productive as clean German windows at the cost of concentration camps.
Also on the topic:
My Second Reaction
Why Psychology Can't Make Man Happy?
Mythical Relations
My personal opinion is leadership and motivation, this is a “net negative” concept. In other words, they do more harm than good. Something like fascism - yes, it’s zaebato that everything was clean in Germany and there was no crime, but in my opinion 80 million dead and ruined Europe - this is not quite an adequate price for ordnung. It is said that Mr. Propper can wash even the dirtiest stains without exterminating Jews, Slavs and other non-Aryans.
Let's start with a small base — motivation and motivation — it's almost always deception, manipulation, or submission (if we are talking about motivating others). Take any phrase when the head of the personnel department speaks about the motivation of subordinates - the meaning is always like this - “they don’t do ... and we want them to do ...”. Insanity in motivation is nothing more than finding a way to get people to do what you need, but to make it happen without open violence and, as it were, of their own accord.
')
Now a little about the "leadership". There is a wonderful book by James Surovecki - The Wisdom Of The Crowd, which explores the psychology of the masses. And there is a very simple concept - when the mass, this large number of independent-minded people - the collective answer is almost always accurate, even when individual members are greatly mistaken (see the example of beans). But if the mass is a crowd — which someone controls or controls by itself, disabling the critical thinking of individual members, then these are almost always guaranteed problems (see fascism, pogroms, bubbles).
This is not some kind of super secret. Psychologists have long conducted tests for influence, I already wrote about this. If all the teams start (deliberately, but to the experimenter’s team) to give the wrong answers, then most people start to give the wrong answers too. This would never have happened if the answers were given anonymously, to envelopes.
Finally, the last basic statement. A mature person is self-sufficient and self-motivated. He chooses what to do and how to live. He will not go to engage in garbage, such as MLM or the School of His Cause or the sect Anastasia. The more developed a person is, the less inspired he should become. Roughly speaking, a mature person is a homing organization; he doesn’t need Dima Davydov to tell him how to live and what to do.
Let's go back to the leaders. Take, for example, Napoleon. Was Napoleon a good leader? Yes, of course it was. Now tell me, those 120 thousand French who died during the Russian campaign (if anything, correct the historians) - what did they get?
If you digress from the leaders and look at the followers - the insane inefficiency of the concept will become obvious to you. Hitler was a charismatic leader - so what did the Germans get? Jack Welch was a charismatic leader - he had a hundred thousand slaves all over the world and he cut a billion from that, but what about that ordinary GE employee?
Think - what if being an unmotivated employee in certain cases is MUCH more correct? I once read an interview with the founder Pyaterochka. There was a couple of pages of shit (which is not surprising, an article by Secret Firmovskaya) about the “Pyaterochka passport” and “Pyaterochka anthem” and corporate culture. About all the missions of the company, which should motivate the staff to do something.
Is it not a wildly flawed concept that adult men and women should (for a penny) work 8 hours a day (minimum) and deal with all sorts of garbage, so long as Pyaterochka becomes “number one retailer”?
If leadership is a system of submission of will, then, according to Dames Surovecki, it will always turn a mass of independent individuals into a manipulated crowd, which is always worse for people. The only beneficiaries of the system are the leaders who direct the efforts of the crowd to where they need and have this grandmother. If, by the end of his life, Mahatma Gandhi was sleeping in the same bed with the bare twelve-year-old girls (ostensibly to test his willpower), then what about the mere mortals. Oh, fuck, so the leaders are mere mortals, to whom we, by our own stupidity, attribute super-sacredness, which they do not have and never had, fucking - this is the same in any textbook of psychology written in the section "superidealization".
In other words, leaders and leadership will always have a net negative effect for those who obey the leader of their own will (although some of the “slaves” can sometimes fall to benefit from time to time, as in youth gangs, for example).
Moreover, it is not the institutions of leadership that need to be developed, but the institutions of self-sufficiency, so that a person can successfully build his life without parasitizing on others, as various charismatic leaders from Tony Robbins to Brayan Tracy do. Like Napoleon, who needs soldiers who did the right thing, these “motivators” need millions of suckers to buy their courses and attend seminars.
My call is not just "do not be a chode," but also "do not be a scammer." It is naive to believe in all this “charismatic leadership”, which is essentially nothing more than the manipulation of others and the subordination of people to their own will. These concepts need to be buried, just as productive as clean German windows at the cost of concentration camps.
Also on the topic:
My Second Reaction
Why Psychology Can't Make Man Happy?
Mythical Relations
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/23750/
All Articles