Month: April 2024

Machiavelli famously addressed the question whether it is better for a ruler to be loved or feared in The Prince.  It’s better to be loved, but difficult.  So, at a minimum, be feared. 

That’s remains the sound counsel for rulers.  What about you, leading and managing in a less violent, less existential environment? My own view is that excellent leadership and management are acts of love, seeking the highest good for the organizations and individuals.  But love is an awkward word to use to describe our professional relationships.  Fear compels corrosive behaviors in the long run.  

Let’s ask “Is it better to be liked or respected?” 

I’ve met only a few people who didn’t want to be liked.  I didn’t think they had a healthy mindset about relationships.  I will posit that being liked is a good thing.  It feels good.

But leaders and managers must make decisions, and inevitably, some individuals and groups will not like your decision.  They’ll grow to dislike you, too, because the realm of “like” is fuzzy, messy, and does not carefully distinguish between decision, action, and fundamental person. 

Aiming to be universally, perpetually liked is an impossible goal. Even sustaining this for a few years will require self-deception on your part, and flat-out deceit on the part of others. That goal will force you into making poor decisions because you’re prioritizing the wrong things, and frequently.  Your downfall will be swift, with a painful crash.

Abandon the idea that you’ll always be liked.  Work hard to be respected. Respect is earnable.  It has staying power.  We know from experience that people can dislike a decision, even dislike you, but retain respect for you.  A certain amount of respect will be granted you by position.  You must consistently earn the rest.

True:  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.

Also true:  Humans, processes, and procedures are not points.  Product development, logistics, and sales are not linear.  Relationships cannot be built or mended by geometric proofs.

The “hero’s journey” story archetype involves interim defeats and struggles before the final victory — and the hero is transformed during the journey. 

Leadership has very little to do with straight lines.   This calls for patience with curves, roller-coasters, and dancing.

We have powerful stories in our heads.  They create a landscape of inner narratives.

We invent causation stories to make meaning of events.  “This happened because of that.”

We tell ourselves heroic stories about our situation.  “I’m fighting against X.”  “I’m taking a stand for this.”  “I won’t do that because I’m principled.” 

We have victim stories, too.  “It’s not my fault because…”  “I would be better off if only this hadn’t happened.”  Some we invent, others we inherit from influencers.

These stories don’t need to be true, only believed and treasured.  When I realize I have a un-truthful story in my head, I need to seek forgiveness, or at least clear out the head trash to make room for a truthful story.  This is difficult work.

Some of our strongest stories were seeded when we were children.  Jesus had such a harsh word for adults who mislead children, or exploited their naïve trust: “If anyone causes one of these little ones—those who believe in me—to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6, NIV)

We can make strong connections with someone when we can tap into the stories in their head.  This can be done for good and for evil. 

It’s an interesting exercise to read the Gospel accounts and see how Jesus is interacting with the stories people have been telling themselves about history, their circumstances, and their beliefs.  There are insights here about pastoral care.  Study any persuasive politician or business leader and you’ll see this engage-with-their-head-stories, too. 

…

One of the interesting, variable stories in our heads:  How much energy and reserve do we have?

Physiologists learned long ago that when your muscles are screaming to your brain “We’re done, stop!” you still have 40% or more in reserve.  (This is different than runners hitting the wall when the glycogen in your muscles and liver is exhausted, and your body switches over to less efficient gluconeogenesis.)  Your body is trying to protect itself from potential injury.  Your will can overcome this, and indeed, it’s good to train to overcome this.  Special Forces training reinforces that you can do far more than you think you can. 

I think many of us get to points where we say to ourselves, “I got nothin’ in the tank.  I’m done.”  Maybe that’s just a few hours or a day, sometimes it’s our story for a season.  Seasons can last a long, long time. 

Many people I know who ponder job changes are in just such a season.  And divorces.  And other addictions.  Many of us get confused about experiences of boredom, duty, and emptiness.  We put the wrong things in our tanks.  We develop unhelpful metrics about the passage of time.

One of the best reasons to take a weekly Sabbath rest is to forestall burnout.  I’ve written about this before and still think it’s remarkable:  Days, months, and years all have an astronomical basis, but not weeks. The idea of a week with a day of rest is a spiritual revelation.  The Sabbath is one of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20) because we’re commanded to do things which are good for us but aren’t natural.  At times we need more rest than we would usually give ourselves; at other times we need to work harder six days a week than we want to.

I find it helpful to say to myself as I lie down at night, “I’m tired, but this rest will be good for me and I will awake refreshed.”  I do the same thing when I take short naps.  This helps me keep the correct, truthful story in my head.

There are moments in life where our tank is truly empty.  This is where community and family are crucial.  Smart people get help. 

What about more typical moments when we’re running on fumes? People say “Dig deep.  Pull up strength from within.”  That works to an extent.  It’s not necessarily bad advice, especially when the truth is that we’re tougher than the story of weakness in our head.

An alternative to digging deep is reaching high.  The grace of God is inexhaustible.  He knows our frame.  He is ever before us, even (especially) when we feel desperately alone and weary.  The whole story of the Bible is God’s generosity at work with people He created to be co-laborers, co-operating the planet, sending rain and sun on the evil and the good.

Another story category:  Trust stories.  Who can you trust?  Who do you trust?  Our experiences shape these stories.  A friend who is in a “dark night of the soul” passage wisely tells me that he trusts in God’s unchanging character even if he can’t see how God is directing him.

…

Which brings us to another story in our heads:  Our identity.

If our identity becomes too closely bound up with our job, or things we do and don’t do, we’re going to accumulate and strengthen head trash on our roller-coaster ride through life.  I chatted recently with a 31-year-old digital marketer who is watching GPT bots do in minutes what he does in weeks.  He told me he’s curled in a fetal position wracked with anxiety about who he is if he has no living wage potential as an online marketer.  I know people in similar angst in their 20’s, 40’s, and 50’s. 

“Know thyself” was inscribed on the Temple of Apollo in the ancient Greek precinct of Delphi.  Oscar Wilde suggested that “Be Thyself” would be carved on modern temples.  Frankly, I wonder if we should be a wee bit less obsessed with ourselves!   But knowing ourselves – not arrogantly, not independently, not to enhance our selfishness – is necessary to a healthy identity.  Parts of our identity remain constant, and parts will evolve and adapt over time.  This is natural and expected.   Exploring the stories in our heads is key to understanding ourselves.

What stories are in your head?  What stories are occupying the people in your sphere of influence, and your enemies?  This landscape matters.

I know a subset of my readers shy away from military history for lessons on leadership.  War is ugly, awful.  It’s also a crucible where leadership lessons are driven into the heart and mind because the costs of mistakes are high – West Point cadets are taught that when they fail, people die and nations fall.

With that in mind, I highly recommend the book Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine (Patreus and Roberts).  Excellent historical descriptions.  They helpfully frame the necessary leadership in this way:

First, understand the situation deeply, and choose the best strategy.

Second, communicate this strategy to every level of the organization, plus all stakeholders.

Third, relentlessly execute the strategy, with every lever available, all your resources and capabilities.

Fourth, refine your execution when it becomes necessary to do so.

That’s a scalable model, functional for small organizations and massive military operations. 

 Also worthwhile: Peter Robinson interviews Roberts.

I look at current trends and think, “What a mess!”  Trust in institutions and between peoples has eroded badly.  The common mythos within many countries – shared identities and sense of purpose – feels more vapor than solid.  We’re splintering.  Our collective confidence is spongy, like punkwood.  Digital platform sharing swamps person-to-person connections.  Generalized anxiety, addictions, depression, and suicide are trending up.  It’s difficult to see past the global debt challenge, let alone the enemies of the ideals of western civilization.

Reviewing some similar moments in history, I wonder if we’re approaching a response point.  Will there be a pendulum swing back the other way?  Forces tend to invoke a counterforce.

Will there be a more optimistic, wholistic picture of the future that grips the imagination of people?  Will we have leaders who call people to embrace responsibility and adventure in the face of challenges?  Will the challenges themselves be great enough to call us to a new kind of greatness? 

Are we approaching a fork-in-the-road opportunity space?  It can be a moment of faith and hope.  On a morning walk earlier this week I strolled by the swamp area near our house and there it was – the first white water lily of the season, gorgeous against the black muck.  It felt like a signpost.

…

One of my favorite ‘grumpy’ friends grows more irritated when I recommend we choose optimism. “We’re going to suffer!” he says.

The older I get the more I savor the book of Job in the Bible.  When I was in my 30’s I would think “this whole suffering situation is so unfair, and Job’s friends (plus the younger man Elihu) just go on and on (and on), can’t we get to the end, please!”  With more life experience I’ve grasped something about suffering, and get more from Job.

People who think they have some “right” to expect a particular life – especially naïve views of freedom — will be heartbroken, maybe go mad. Everyone suffers, to some degree, to fulfill our calling and learn what we need to learn.  I’ve witnessed many people flee one uncomfortable situation where they needed to learn something deep, only to find themselves in the next situation where they’re still forced to learn it.  I should be clear, too, that the suffering that many of us experience is a teeny fraction of what others will bear. 

Some of this suffering can be alleviated by good teachers, mentors, and fathers.  (Mom has a complementary but equally important role.)  But there will still be suffering that you can’t control and can’t make go away. That’s when you need friends who say, “I’m not going anywhere.”  You also learn to distrust and ignore the ‘guru’ who claims to have an instant, pain-free solution for you.

There is a connection between this and the value of doing hard things.  I’m still mulling this over so it’s clearer in my mind.  In some way, doing hard things creates a feedback loop that surfaces meaning in our struggles. 

…

What are you intentionally NOT doing? 

From one of my mentors: “What you do NOT do is often far more important than what you DO. Because if you’re not ignoring most things, you’ll never do the things that are most important.”

Something I’m trying out (and it’s uncomfortable): Don’t check the news or social media until my work is done.  Willfully ignore it.  I can’t DO anything about most of the events reported in the news.  If something is important there are people in my life who surface it to me.  Partial success so far, but I can sense the benefits.

This kind of practice helps us overcome FOMO (fear of missing out).  We need this strength to seek adventures and challenges.  The real world is more soul-satisfying.

…

My ‘grumpy’ friend frequently states his frustration with what he calls ‘low IQ elites drunk on bureaucratic power.’  “It’s completely unfair in a democratic republic,” he says. 

We like to think that majorities run the world but it isn’t true.  Minority views generally do.  This is 80/20 applied to human power dynamics. 

A tell:  when a minority view uses all the tools at their disposal to appear to be the majority, or at least intimidate anyone who would dare to disagree.  

…

I pull this out periodically and review it.  Perhaps you need a list like this?

What is my why?

Physically strong to care for family members

Lean, fit for longer healthier life – which prolongs contribution

Prayer and meditation, intercession

Understand patterns of events to anticipate troubles and guide others to thriving

Study and Intellectual stimulation

Courage

Wisdom

Aim:  Be a large, clean conduit of God’s goodness to flow to people He puts in my sphere of influence.

…

Viktor Frankel is still correct:  We retain our power to choose, even amidst dreadful circumstances.  My imagination often creates fearful situations.  My Master says, “Fear Me above all, and trust in Me.”  I can also imagine positive events in the future.  I’m choosing to go with them, convinced the view out the windshield is forever larger than the rear-view mirror. 

Humanoid robots are coming – the technology is passing critical thresholds, and the economics of use-cases and capability are beginning to match.  It’s a clear example of William Gibson’s insight: “The future is already here.  It’s just not evenly distributed yet.”  It won’t be either The Terminator or The Jetsons. There’s an imperfect middle ground experienced differently by everyone, everywhere.  (Remember: there are still millions of people who do not have reliable electricity or sewage systems.) I’m optimistic about potential implications and hope we soberly address pitfalls before we’re compelled to. 

I organize my thoughts this way:

• Why humanoid robots are inevitable
• Beneficial use cases
• Social, Legal, and Religious implications

Note:  I am not going to address military applications here.  This is massive, complex, and inevitable, too, with deep concerns.

Why humanoid robots are inevitable

Humanoid robots fit into the spaces and tools we created for our bodies.  They’re different than robots custom-designed to assemble part of a car, or managed automated lab processes.  In principle a robot could do any physical task better than we can, more safely than we can.  We don’t need to completely re-engineer our world for humanoid robots to fit in.

Economists estimate the global value of human labor is about $40T annually.  Billions in venture capital is flooding into companies like Tesla and Figure seeking a sliver of that economic opportunity.  Many highly developed countries face skilled labor shortages; unfavorable demographic decline will make this worse in the decades to come.  Even unskilled labor is increasingly expensive. 

The technologies advance rapidly.  Companies like Boston Dynamics have worked out many of the difficulties for balance, coordination, and integrated sensors.  The combination of materials, powerful/cheap/tiny sensors, batteries, memory space and chip sophistication, computer vision, ubiquitous bandwidth, and ai make people nod when you say, “ChatGPT with a body.”  We can now train a robot how to do a task through repeatedly watching a person do it – machine learning allows a robot to learn by imitation, rather than someone having to algorithmically program every task.  Once a task is learned by one robot, it’s straightforward to transfer that learning to other robots.  Engineers are successfully building robots which mimic and emulate facial expressions, and (to a lesser extent) can interpret your facial expression and voice patterns.  Fine motor capability like delicate hand motions is steadily improving. Today most robots are hand-crafted, but we’re not far from robots being able to build robots.  It’s not difficult to imagine new robot version launches like we do cars and iPhones now. We’re near an inflection point where robots will become more capable through frequent software updates, meaning existing hardware has a significantly longer value. 

Science fiction, entertainment media, and human/work robotics have largely prepared people to accept humanoid robots.  Most people think they’re ingenious and interesting.  We name them.  We generally embrace tools and assistants which make our lives easier, at least if they’re reliable and don’t annoy us too much.  Owning and using these tools become social status markers.  Despite the ‘terminator’ robot dystopian themes our population is unlikely to resist humanoid robots, at least at first. 

How fast are humanoid robots coming?  Implementation won’t be uniform, but they are coming.  I’m skeptical about visions of the US having 100 million humanoid robots by 2040 because of limitations of materials, especially batteries and chips. Initial costs will be high enough that only wealthy families and some companies can afford them.  Maintenance and support will lag production. Also, these robots will add significant strain on our aging electrical grid.  Could we have 10+ million humanoid robots in the US by 2040?  Yes.

Beneficial use cases

There are many situations where a humanoid robot could be helpful.  Here are a few:

Construction of buildings and infrastructure

Agriculture

Light manufacturing, esp. more risky jobs

Warehouse and shipping logistics

Elder care

Mining, smelting

Road construction and repair

City infrastructure services (e.g., garbage collection)

Driving existing vehicles, including ships and planes

Assistants in space and oceanic exploration

Assistants in education

Any job which is dangerous or highly repetitive

Wet environment jobs will be less accessible to humanoid robots for a few years longer.  Water creates difficult challenges.  (Non-humanoid robots are more easily designed for immersible conditions.) 

The introduction of humanoid robots may be the biggest transformation of the labor market in the 21st century.  This will be another serious round of job elimination and new job creation.  Purely digital ai tools will destroy the living wage market for some historic jobs, but the fact that humanoid robots can do physical work affects an even larger job market.  ChatGPT can’t take out the kitchen trash; ChatGPT with a body can handle the trash in entire neighborhoods. There will be some new jobs in designing, building, and maintaining the robots, of course.  But overall the speed of job changes will come faster than compensatory adjustments.  Humanoid robots become another source of non-localized anxiety for our populations.

Social, Legal, and Religious implications

“It will be like slaves in the Roman empire, except better.  They’ll do all the hard work, they’ll obey perfectly, and free up our time for better things.  It will be better because robots don’t have souls, so we’re not abusing people.”  This is how my friend describes the idea of a world of ubiquitous humanoid robots.  His comments sparked many questions and thought-problems. 

Isaac Asimov’s 3 laws of robotics (first published in 1942!) hold up well:  

                The First Law: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

                The Second Law: A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

                The Third Law: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Humanoid robots, like ai software in recent years, continue to pressure our thinking about what makes humans distinct or special.  Woe to materialists who think there is no soul, no transcendence!  I observe their stance becomes something like “These intelligent robots are our children, so we must protect and nurture them so they can better help us.”  That is certainly correct in this: someone must program and teach a ‘moral’ code of behaviors, because they won’t form spontaneously. 

Let’s go back to all the jobs that can be replaced by humanoid robots.  If people don’t do that work, what do they do?  What makes for a living wage?  What new legislation comes to protect human worker rights, like an evolution of the unions?  How quickly can we adapt?

Agriculture has some lessons here.  We’ve gone from about 40% of the population living and working on farms to less than 1% in the last century in the US.  Why?  Increased productivity of crops and mechanization/automation.  This transition happened slowly enough that there were other jobs to occupy people. Yet some countries and regions have resisted automation in part because there is nothing else for the farmers to do, constructively, at a living wage.  Rulers throughout history have rightly worried about bored, unoccupied populations.  Many of the great forts, monuments, and temples in India and elsewhere were built in part to occupy men.  

Many consider increased leisure time as an automatic good.  “They’ll take up poetry and writing novels, fulfilling their creative potential.  They’ll volunteer more and help others.”  The self-disciplined people do.  Everyone else?  Let’s watch more cat videos!  Where do people learn self-discipline?  Through working.  See the problem?  We call it “work ethic” for a reason.

The current generations are learning that physicality is good for us.  “Doing hard things” makes us better in every way.  Maybe you’ve seen movie Wall-E where the people are effectively couch slugs, hardly an attractive image of humanity.  Our great-grandfathers would have laughed or disbelieved you if you told them that exercise coaches, gyms, and fitness apparel would become multibillion dollar industries.  We are physical creatures and even “people of the mind” thrive better with physicality.

What about legal rights for humanoid robots?  Don’t laugh – the precedents exist.  “But they don’t have souls,” you say.  “They’re our servants,” you say.  No one should be surprised when a legal rights conversation surfaces for a sophisticated humanoid robot which can interact with human speech, emotions, and exhibit significant intelligence.  They don’t have a God-infused soul, but we might behave like they do. Likely mindset: “They’re not just robots, they’re like our children, we’re responsible to them in unique ways.”  We will personify them.  Most Roomba owners delightedly name their floor sweepers.  You think they won’t give names to humanoid robot servants and companions?  Oh, and expect a patchwork of rights and obligations across states and countries.

Related to legal rights will be new questions about responsibilities and liabilities.  Who controls the algorithms, and shared learning across independent robots?  What responsibility does the ‘owner’ have vs. the creators?  Who will be sued for damages when bad things happen?  We will work all this out, just as we did for cars, but it will be a 2 steps forward 1 step back effort. 

Mistreatment of others begets soul-shriveling.  One of the worst attributes of historical cultures which had large numbers of slaves, even significant numbers of servants, is that the “masters” became ugly as they mistreated slaves and servants. Boys who torment and torture animals often become vicious men.  How will parents and employers teach and model how to interact with humanoid robots?  The robot doesn’t need to hear “thank you” but failing to be appreciative warps our character, which has other consequences.

Will owning and using humanoid robots become “keeping up with the Jones” social pressure?  Will they be status symbols?  We’re wired to imitate trend-setters. Humanoid robots might become a new measuring tool to distinguish the haves and the have-nots.  I can easily imagine people taking an “anti-robot” stance as a kind of virtue signaling.  Will we create social expectations where robots are not allowed to be present?  Will you bring your humanoid robot assistant to a worship service?  There are people today with robot phobias.  How will we handle that in the future?

I used the word ‘companions’ earlier.  Servant is a specific mindset, companion is distinct.  We expect something extra from companion, a form of kinship and protection.  At what point will humanoid robots be sophisticated enough to be considered companions for young children?  What boundaries might be best here?  I have more questions than answers, but we’ll need to make decisions eventually.  If you think parents have a challenge resisting a child’s demands for a smartphone, can you imagine a future conversation about a personal robot companion?

These robots are going to be relatively expensive. Costs will come down with mass production, but still pricey. I suspect we’ll think of them like we do cars today.  There will be a whole industry of financing them, like cars and houses – in fact, this could be one of the primary profit sources for humanoid robots.  What might this mean for personal and corporate debt? 

Will autocratic governments control who gets to own humanoid robots, and why?  (Of course they will, they’re autocratic governments!)  How much of this government oversight will show up in democratic republics? 

We will trust robots the same or differently than people?  We live now in a world where ai and digital manipulation means you can’t trust what you see or hear as authentic, which makes trust 100x more important to people.  If Asimov’s laws of robotics hold, then will we adopt a ‘trust _and_ verify’ model?  Will we trust them like we trust certain experts (e.g., doctors)?  When trust is broken – and it will be – how will forgiveness and restoration work? 

Some of you might be saying “Glenn, you’re being silly, they’re just machines.”  I beg to differ.  The market will tap into our default desires for robots that interact well with us, not noisy and clumsy bots but more elegant and attractive.  Perhaps that becomes a differentiator of humanoid robots for different jobs – much more machine-like for garbage collection and far more humanistic for family servants.  

Work has dignity.  We learn in Genesis that work is a “a “before the Fall” phenomenon, made 10,000X harder by sin and alienation.  Work is good for us and to help others. We can learn to work with humanoid robots just as we learn to work effectively with other people, if you think of humanoid robots as assistants and servants. 

Let’s be frank, humanoid robots will become better at doing (almost?) every physical task than we can.  This fosters the critical question: What work will we refuse to abdicate, even if a robot can do it better?  Some ideas to spark your imagination –

                reading to young kids

                preparing a family meal

                physical activities we enjoy (e.g., gardening)

                helping someone move into a new house

                kid’s chores that help them learn how to be responsible

                caring for sick person

                moral teaching

                playing musical instruments

                driving your child to school, or standing with them at the bus stop

                customer service

                coaching youth sports

Maybe one way to consider this question is to ask, “What are we optimizing for?”  There are many valuable aspects of family and community life where we do not optimize on efficiency of labor.  Life-on-life is prized.   

I suspect all these questions will deeply affect religious institutions.  What will religious communities advocate for and against?  To what extent will individuals and governments look to religious institutions for guidance on these matters?  This will not be driven purely by amoral capitalist economics or socialism/communism.  Will religious groups rise to defend the uniqueness of humans, or will they facilitate a continued slide to materialistic anthropology? 

One of the biggest drivers will be the difficult consequences of narrowing the number of living wage jobs for humans to do.  I can’t easily predict how that will turn forward, but it will generate anger, frustration, and opportunities to decide in advance what we should do. 

What do you think?  I’m curious to hear your ideas and questions, too.

It happens, and it’s incredibly frustrating:  You’ll occasionally have a weak boss.

I say “weak bosses” rather than “bad bosses” because in most situations the issue is about managerial inexperience and incompetence, rather than malice.  (Malice happens, but it’s rare.)  Hanlon’s Razor says, “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by foolishness.” Weakness represents immaturity, lack of skill, and sometimes unprofessionalism.  It’s not weak for your manager to have high expectations, to give you feedback on your performance, and to give you increased responsibility. 

Here are the foundational ideas you need to effectively work with a weak boss:

• Seek first to understand.  Remember the iceberg only shows 10% above the waterline.  What else is going on?  What are hidden drivers, larger context that might explain some behaviors or decisions? 
• Choose to be professional.  Act with gentleness (strength under control) and respect.  Don’t take things personally, and don’t make things personal.  Be appropriately subordinate to position authority in your organization.  Be supportive without being a sycophant.  Ask questions and give suggestions without complaining.
• Distinguish working styles and competence.  Adapt your leadership and followership styles to match the needs of the organization and the situation.
• Learn even from poor examples.  Take notes about what you would do differently.  Document concerns in case the time comes for a review of difficult or unprofessional behavior – framing these in terms of respect for people, and what’s best for the organization.
• Be wary about “going around” your boss, or “over their head.”  Don’t feed insecurity and paranoia of a weak boss by amplifying the appearance of being subversive or divisive.
• Think ‘team.’  Protect others if they’re being bullied or mistreated.
• Be intellectually persuasive, but don’t try manipulating your boss into doing what you think is right.
  
   

Common patterns of weak bosses	How you can respond
Abstract, non-specific vision	Make compelling proposals; lead from your position
Favoritism	Soldier on, do your best, be wary of comparison traps which waste your energy and focus
Narcissistic blame-shifters	Remember these individuals are filled with fears & insecurities; they’re smaller on the inside than the outside.
Control freaks, credit hoarders	Do the right thing; the universe has its ways to make the truth known
Indecisive, unwilling to take measured risks	Help them frame decisions.  Take some responsibility yourself.  Find ways to mitigate risks.
Lack technical savvy in your area	Educate them against B.S. so at least they’re less likely to be fooled by bad ideas
Ideologues, not realistic	Respectfully bring forward facts and help them see 2nd-order consequences
Unprofessional behaviors	Respond 1:1, take notes, understand that HR might need to be engaged
Limited toolbox, inflexible, “one trick pony”	Offer alternatives
Easily frustrated, take things personally	Use deep breathing to remain calm, maintain emotional distance.  Explore how to present information and suggestions in ways that are less likely to ‘trigger’ a poor reaction.
Insecure, fearful	Present ways to reduce risks and avoid problems
Live in the ‘glory days’ of the past	Learn from their stories, but lean into the future
Politically naïve, no relationship power	Strengthen your own strategic network
Focused on surface, not substance	Tactfully describe causes of effects, look for ways to solve underlying problem sources
Disengaged, inattentive, uncurious	Document your deliverables.  Don’t give up on your own learning plans.

The benefit of a weak boss is that you have even more opportunities to get better.  Help your boss get better, serve the organization as best you can, and learn what not to do. 

There’s a difference between the person and the job.  The job has incentive structures, pre-existing momentum, designated authority levels.  The job is part of a system.  The job is connected to institutional structures. It’s easy to see this in political positions in government, for example – we all know about some people we like personally who “somehow” failed to fulfill their promise after they were elected.  You’ll see the same thing happens in corporations and non-profits, too. 

These realities make massive change difficult.  We should not be surprised that passionate and decent people become ineffective in some jobs. 

Breaking things and starting anew is often easier than reforming something from within.  There are terrible problems with both approaches. 

Beauty is fractal.  Zoom in, it remains beautiful.  Zoom way out, it remains beautiful.  It’s quite difficult to define beauty but we can experience it.  I first started thinking about this when I came across this Roman Vishniac quote in the mid-1980’s, when I was in grad school:  “Everything made by human hands looks terrible under magnification–crude, rough, and asymmetrical. But in nature every bit of life is lovely. And the more magnification we use, the more details are brought out, perfectly formed, like endless sets of boxes within boxes.”

One of the ways we can recognize truth, wisdom, and everything worthwhile is to ask “Is this fractal?  Does it work at multiple levels?