THOSE WHO STRUGGLE

I often see business leaders, managers, or entrepreneurs searching for the most ambitious people. The most skilled, smartest, motivated, take your pick. I also often wonder “what about those who struggle with ambition, motivation, or skill acquisition”? Where are the think tanks who are willing to absorb these kinds of people and bring them up to speed? Where are the thought leaders who are able to look past the inadequacies of a person and look at them as people who are just as capable as anyone else to learn, grow and get better? Why are these so called paragons of leadership and thought unwilling to take on the challenge of raising someone to their level? I don’t underestimate the challenge of finding competent people, and successfully on-boarding them to an organization, but I would argue that a higher level challenge is taking someone who genuinely struggles with these traits, and successfully leading them up the mountain where many of the other people within the organization can be found in a small mountain community, carrying out their respective responsibilities.

I find the idea that in order to build world changing technology you need to adopt a mindset of only allowing the “best and brightest” access to the opportunity you so graciously provide, while outcasting the rest, boring. I find the notion of doing so, while probably accepting some title like “world changer”, at best, cognitively superficial and even naive to think you’re a deep thinker if this is what comes from the depths of your enigmatic, 1/1 mind. Now, I’m not going to pretend that I understand what it takes to build a business like Tesla, or Amazon. I know that it takes amassing an organization of the highest level thinkers and practitioners. What I disagree with is that this competence is void in the people who most people would say are void of this level of competence. It might not be on the surface, but that doesn’t mean it’s not underneath somewhere. Do I think it takes a certain level of competence to materialize visions? Absolutely, but I don’t believe in sifting through human beings, on a search to find the person who already carries that competence, assuming that everyone else simply has nothing to offer. I think that’s lazy, and forgive my aggression, but I believe that anyone who calls themselves a leader, but also believes in this mode of operation is more of a fraud than they are a leader. I don’t think they’re bad people, I just think they’re mistaken on what it truly means to be a leader. They may be able to lead the people in their organization, who come equipped and ready to listen, but are they the type of people who can lead the blind until they see? I’m not so sure. Call me naive, but I refuse to believe that good ideas, innovation, and high quality work will only ever be found among the sect of people who produce these on day 1 of their employment. Call me childish, but I think the hidden potential within people who many cast off as a lost cause is in astronomical abundance, and that they simply haven’t been taught to dig into themselves and harness that potential.

Maybe my beliefs are more passionate than they are logical, because I relate with the person who just can’t seem to get it right, only to realize the potential within themselves that someone else helped them see, but I do believe in this potential because I’ve seen it in myself. This passion isn’t anger. I don’t look back and say “if only these stupid people would’ve given me a chance”. I understand it wasn’t anyone’s responsibility but my own to rise to any occasion, and it’s no one’s responsibility to rise to the occasion other than those who I feel I’m representing with this essay. What I won’t agree with is that an organization can only succeed by casting those people away, and only recruiting those who (again) already exhibit the appropriate traits.

AN ORGANIZATION OF LEADERS?

It’s my own belief that if you’re not actively leading then you’re not a leader. Leading is a skill, and like any other skill there are those who practice at lower levels and higher levels. Logically a leader who successfully takes people who struggle with motivation, ambition, or skill acquisition and helps them become motivated, ambitious and acquire skills is a higher level leader than someone who seeks people who already have those traits, and assigns them tasks. The way I see it, that’s like saying the dog trainer who works exclusively with dogs who already sit, lie down, and come when they call is a better dog trainer than Cesar Milan. If it’s not clear why the first trainer wouldn’t be considered a real dog trainer then at the very least one trainer is more skilled than the other. Again, I don’t want it to sound like I think companies like SpaceX or Amazon could replace their model of only seeking the best, and still have experienced the same level of growth. I don’t think it’s the only way, but I don’t have the blueprint for another way. However, I don’t think that every single company needs to seek the same things, and I don’t think that a company can’t be successful unless they seek “only the best”, while shunning everyone else who doesn’t fit the mold. I think the company, whose leadership aims to build up their talent, will not only amass an organization of people who are far more grateful, but they will in turn build leaders who also want to do the same thing. An organization of people helping lift everyone else up to the level of the organization. It’s a common quip to say that A players don’t want to babysit C players, and it’s not surprising that in an organization where the main goal is growth there would be a lack of tolerance for anyone who doesn’t fit that mold, but I think the term “babysit” is a bit of a misnomer that stems from an organization of people who don’t know how to lead. If you don’t know how to lead then yes, any person who needs more attention than the next person feels they should give them is going to be seen as babysitting. I believe that in an organization of people who want to lead, this attention would be seen as what’s necessary to create an environment of cohesive progress among everyone, not just “A players”.

I think organizations can deliberately hire those who just want to work, and aim to lead them. I think leaders can accept the responsibility to do everything in their power to bring them up to speed and unlock the ambition within them, as well as the accountability that if it doesn’t happen then it was something the leader did, or didn’t do. That’s what I believe true leadership is, leading.