Leadership is a hell of a drug
Corporate “leadership” culture comes under heavy scrutiny as engineers and managers trade experiences of mandatory all-hands meetings, buzzword-laden initiatives, and executives who lack domain expertise but demand reverence. Many argue that true leadership is rare and rooted in competence, humility, and protecting teams, while most modern management functions as a status game or a way to hide incompetence behind process and rhetoric. A minority push back that running organizations is genuinely hard and that some leaders do add value, but even they acknowledge how easily leadership language is co‑opted into empty performance.
Overall reaction to the post & tone
- Many commenters find the piece sharply written, funny, and cathartic; they share it with colleagues and say it captures their experience of “fake leadership.”
- Others see the author as negative or an “energy drain,” arguing that relentless complaining can itself be toxic and demoralizing.
- Some note that the post resonates precisely because it says aloud what many feel but can’t safely say at work.
Leadership vs management
- Strong agreement that “management” (resource allocation, administration) and “leadership” (setting direction, taking responsibility, protecting teams) are different.
- Several argue that real leadership usually comes from people with deep domain skill who are “in the trenches,” not from generic “leadership professionals.”
- Others note that leadership is a skill, not a job title, and that many roles (e.g., military officers, technical leads) genuinely depend on it.
The four‑hour all‑hands meeting
- Large majority view a mandatory, inspirational four‑hour meeting as wasteful, self‑indulgent, and a sign of managerial narcissism or disconnection.
- Detractors counter that “running companies is hard,” alignment is important, and sometimes unpleasant, time‑consuming rituals are part of being an adult professional.
- Several say that even with good leadership, that particular format and timing (Monday morning, all‑hands) is very hard to justify versus a well‑written memo.
“Leadership” as identity and LinkedIn theatre
- Many mock self‑described “leaders” and “thought leaders” in titles and profiles, seeing it as cringe, performative, or a signal of compliance with vacuous corporate norms.
- Comparisons are drawn to inflated titles (“vice president of…”, “everyone is a leader/engineer”) and to propaganda‑like language drift.
- Some argue leadership should be conferred by others (“you lead, therefore we call you a leader”), not self‑proclaimed.
Toxicity, employment structures, and incentives
- Several claim modern management is systematically bad: at‑will employment, easy firing, and saturated labor markets make churn cheap and erode any incentive to develop people.
- Others push back: hiring and reputation still cost; many large firms can’t practically churn endlessly; good managers do invest in individuals and adapt to personalities.
- Recurrent theme: management is a great place to “hide” incompetence, because outcomes are hard to attribute and buzzword‑heavy “leadership” culture provides cover.
Paths forward
- Commenters highlight small, high‑functioning companies, “benign neglect” by management, and strong technical team leads as healthier models.
- Some urge moving into leadership to do it better; others warn the burden and burnout are real, and many prefer staying as ICs or founding small companies instead.