Hacker News Reader

Comment by thinkingkong | Hacker News Reader

"Peacetime CEO does not raise her voice. Wartime CEO rarely speaks in a normal tone."

"Peacetime CEO strives for broad based buy in. Wartime CEO neither indulges consensus-building nor tolerates disagreements."

Oh good just what we need. More permission to be a jerk at work to try and communicate urgency. This is one of those things where a smart accomplished person says a thing and we're supposed to listen but even in 9 years this behavior is outmoded. If we framed all of this up as ruthless prioritization and clear understanding of urgency, then that tells you what you need to know. Figure out what works for you in a way that doesn't violate your teams' principles and values.

View on HN

If the ship is on fire, you need the urgency that comes with the wartime CEO. But it kills the people during peace.

A ship isn’t on fire for years.

Yes. This is why companies (and countries) fire wartime leaders when the war is over. Look at Churchill.

After Steve Jobs returned to Apple early in 1997, and then became de facto CEO later that year, he was unquestionably a wartime CEO.

Yet many years after he'd successfully turned Apple around and, arguably, become a peacetime CEO, he wasn't fired. Moreover, were it not for his declining health, I don't think he would have stepped away even as Apple became the dominant force it's turned into over the last few years.

Maybe eventually he'd have stopped but, were he still alive, I imagine he'd still be leading Apple now.

He also said that he learned a lot in his time away from Apple, that he became less tyrannical in the interim. So there's a strong argument to be made that he learned to be a peacetime CEO during his time at Pixar et al.

Disagreements affect morale and slow down execution time, and consensus-building dilutes ownership which also affects morale and in the mid-term also slows down decision making.

You can deactivate consensus-building and encourage disagree and commit without being a jerk. It's one of the though ones when you are leading, but it can be pulled off. Of course you need to collectively make the judgement that you want to give ownership to tight groups and that people will need to sense if they need to disagree and commit, otherwise you will sound delusional and get out of touch with the rest of the team.

Agreed; In an emergency. You aren't having an emergency for years at a time. That's just normal.

Nonsense.

Tell many people who lived through World War II in an active theatre or, in more recent decades, conflicts in Somalia, Syria, or Yemen, that, "You aren't having an emergency for years at a time. That's just normal."

Steering back from warfare to business, after returning to Apple it took Steve Jobs several years it around and put it on a long-term firm stable financial footing. He avoided bankruptcy fairly quickly (he had no other option), but they were by no means out of the woods.

In the auto industry it took years for Toyota and, particularly, Nissan to turn around after WWII. In the early 1980s Chrysler were in a dreadful state after a combination of years of mismanagement and the second oil shock of 1979.

These problems were not quick or easy to fix.

I’m genuinely curious why he thinks a wartime leader needs to yell all the time, whereas a peacetime leader doesn’t.

I would think that yelling is either effective, or not effective, in producing outcomes and that should be true regardless of external circumstances. But maybe the desired outcomes are different in the two times? And the effectiveness of yelling varies by desired outcome?

I find that explanation unlikely, but possible. More likely he likes to yell, and is looking for justification.

>Figure out what works for you in a way that doesn't violate your teams' principles and values.

What works for me is to be a jerk

and if it violates my teams' principles and values, I replace those individuals until it doesn't

;)

Why not be honest about in during the interview process so that they can choose to not be around you if they don't like your management style? Save you time and money on hiring people who aren't a good fit.

Some of us like this in our leaders. I guess I subconsciously want to hear the truth, and assume less subterfuge if people are not using political speech. Kindness and political speech have me second guessing, which is more uncomfortable than taking criticism and moving on.

There's a far cry from having integrity and honesty, and being a jerk.

Using political speech is often being a huge jerk, because you have a power imbalance and someone calling you out on it has to fight against the tide.

Consider who you are speaking to, in what context, and be as authentic as you can.

Completely agree. Theres also a difference between the wartime CEO who issues order and doesn't stop to consider every word. He says what he means, sometimes that isn't what others hear, sometimes it is abrasive, sometimes it runs over people...and someone who is just verbally abusive.

I think there is a critical element here, which is that the wartime CEO must actually be leading. If you behave like that, but can also inspire people to work for the cause, then it can work. If you behave that way, but also just say meaningless, mean, and average stuff, nobody needs to be exposed to that.

Mostly, over time, you get the team you deserve ;)

Looks like we've got a badass on our hands!

Seriously though, looking at your linkedin profile, you have been out of school for less than 2 years. There's a lot more to learn about other people.

The winking smiley was meant to give it away as a joke.. because the parent's final statement doesn't actually mean anything (because it still justifies any behavior... including the one being attacked)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com