 |
|
|
|||||
We live in a culture that glorifies leadership. Titles like manager, director, or CEO are treated not just as jobs, but as glamorous career destinations (even when the actual job is anything but). In the corporate world, ambition and talent are often defined by how many people report to you, and the ladder of success is measured by headcount under your name. You can be the most talented coder, designer, analyst, or scientist, but sooner or later the corporate current will push you toward leading others. It is the professional equivalent of a rite of passage: You can only go so far unless you manage people. This obsession with leadership explains why nearly everyone wants to be one, and why admitting that you dont may get interviewers and recruiters to label you as unambitious.” The fact of the matter is, that the number of people aspiring to lead far exceeds the number of people who can actually lead, especially if we measure leadership talent not by the ability to get the job but actually having a positive impact on your team and organization after you do (yes, this applies to politics, too). Data from organizational psychology is sobering: Most people are not competent leaders. Studies suggest that 50% to 60% of leaders are seen as ineffective by their employees, and engagement surveys regularly show that my manager is the single biggest factor driving dissatisfaction at work. In other words, the demand for leadership positions is far greater than the supply of leadership competence. The real problem is not the enthusiasm for leadership, but that people are bad at evaluating their own leadership potential. Many confuse ambition with aptitude, confidence with competence, or popularity with effectiveness. Fortunately, science has given us some reliable markers. Leadership is not mystical. It can be assessed. And while there is no perfect recipe, there are 10 questions you should ask yourself if you are considering the move from individual contributor to leader of others. Think of this as a checklist, not a guarantee of success, but a necessary starting point. Do you have technical expertise? In the past, leaders were legitimized because they knew more than the people they supervised. The master craftsman became the workshop head. The top surgeon ran the department. The best soldier led the unit. Today, AI and automation are eroding the value of expertise. A machine can often answer factual questions faster and better than your boss. Still, expertise matters, not just what you know but whether others see you as credible. A leader without expertise is like a captain who cannot sail: The crew will not follow. The key is not to be the smartest in the room, but to have demonstrated competence in a domain that earns you the respect of those you lead. This legitimacy is essential. Without it, your authority will be questioned at every turn. Are you a fast learner? Intelligence is often misunderstood. It is not about trivia knowledge or SAT scores. It is about the ability to learn new things quickly. In leadership, this matters enormously. Every new project, crisis, or strategy requires you to absorb information, process it, and adapt. Smarter leaders are more likely to solve complex problems, avoid repeating mistakes, and keep pace with change. The real measure is not raw IQ but whether you can demonstrate learning agility. The best leaders are not those who never make mistakes, but those who rarely make the same mistake twice. Are you curious? If IQ is the ability to learn, curiosity is the willingness to do so. It fuels exploration, questions, and the humility to say I dont know. Curiosity also enhances intelligence because it pushes you to acquire knowledge you did not have. Meta-analytic studies show that trait curiosity predicts leadership effectiveness. The paradox is that curiosity tends to decline with age and expertise. The more senior we become, the more tempted we are to rely on what we know instead of questioning it. The best leaders resist this temptation. They continue to ask questions even when they already have answers. Do you have integrity? This should go without saying, but it rarely does. Leadership without integrity is not just ineffective, it is dangerous. Integrity is not about never making mistakes, but about having a moral compass. It requires altruistic values and, critically, self-control: the ability to resist temptations, avoid abusing power, and make decisions that benefit the group rather than the individual. History is full of leaders who failed on this count, from corporate scandals like Enron to political leaders who enriched themselves while destroying their nations. A lack of integrity may not always prevent people from climbing to the top, but it always determines how they are remembered. Do you have humility? Humility is the underrated secret of leadership. It means knowing what you do not know, being self-critical, and acknowledging when proven wrong. It also means being able to surround yourself with people who are smarter than you in certain areas and not feeling threatened by it. We crave humility in leaders precisely because it is so rare. Politicians who admit mistakes are refreshing because they are exceptions. CEOs who credit their teams rather than themselves stand out because they are uncommon. Humility is not a weakness, but an understated strength. Without it, leaders become delusional. With it, they inspire trust. Are you ambitious? Ambition has a bad reputation, but it is essential. Leaders need drive, energy, and persistence. The crucial distinction is motivation: Why do you want to lead? If your ambition is fueled by power hunger, vanity, or narcissism, you will likely harm others in the process. The right kind of ambition is prosocial. It is about wanting to make others better, to create impact beyond yourself, and to leave a legacy that matters. Do you have people skills? Leadership is the ability to build and maintain a high-performing team. That requires emotional intelligence: empathy, listening, influence, and conflict resolution. It will be very hard for you to lead if you cannot manage yourself, or manage others. You can be brilliant, curious, and ambitious, but if you cannot connect with people, you will never sustain their trust or loyalty. Think of great coaches in sports. Their tactical knowledge is important, but their ability to motivate, read the mood of a locker room, and manage egos is what separates the great from the mediocre. Leaders in business face the same test. Your success is measured not by your individual performance, but by the collective performance of the group you lead. Can you tame your dark side? Everyone has one. For some, it is arrogance. For others, impulsivity, paranoia, or aggression. These dark side traits are not inherently bad, since they often fuel ambition and resilience, but when unchecked they derail careers. The difference between great and terrible leaders is not the presence of flaws, but the ability to control them. Good leaders know how to edit themselves, even when nobody forces them to. They resist the temptation to just be themselves when their unfiltered selves would damage relationships. As I illustrate in my latest book, Dont Be Yourself: Why Authenticity is Overrated and What to Do Instead, some of the best leaders succeed not by being authentic, but by being disciplined versions of themselves. Can you inspire others? Charisma is a multiplier. When you are competent and ethical, charisma amplifies your impact. Leaders who can communicate a vision with confidence, passion, and clarity are far more effective at rallying teams. But charisma without substance is dangerous. It can make bad leaders even more destructive by persuading people to follow them off a cliff. Think of Martin Luther King Jr., his charisma mattered because it was grounded in integrity, purpose, and competence. Compare that with countless populist leaders whose charisma fuels division and chaos, not to mention charismatic leaders who were utterly destructive (most populist brutal dictators or colorful tyrants fit the bill). If you are ethical and competent, be as magnetic as possible. If you are not, please be boring. Are you coachable? Leadership is never a finished product. Even if you check every box above, the world will keep changing, and your skills will eventually become outdated. The only way to stay relevant is to be coachable: to seek feedback, listen, and adapt. Some of the most successful leaders in history were relentless learners. Leaders who stop learning become rigid, outdated, and irrelevant. Being coachable is not about deference. It is about evolution. So, should you be a leader? If you can answer yes to most of these questions, you are better prepared than the majority of people who aspire to lead. If not, it is worth reconsidering. There is no shame in remaining an expert, an individual contributor, or a collaborator without a managerial title. In fact, organizations increasingly recognize the value of technical specialists who do not want to, or should not, manage people. Of course, it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge the elephant in the boardroom: Plenty of people ascend to leadership not because they are especially talented, but because they lucked into the right family, the right network, or the right school tie. Nepotism, privilege, and elite membership still grease the wheels of many leadership careers. Ive left these off the checklist for the simple reason that not everything that is should be. Just because these forces still work doesnt mean we should celebrate them, let alone confuse them with actual leadership potential. Leadership is not for everyone, nor should it be. But when done well, it can transform teams, organizations, and societies. When done badly, it can destroy them. The checklist above is not just about career advancement, it is about protecting others from the wrong kind of leadership. If you do not have the integrity, humility, or people skills to lead, the most responsible thing you can do is abstain. In the end, leadership is not about you. It is about what you do for others. And that is the question worth asking before you chase the title: Do you want to lead for their sake, or yours?
Category:
E-Commerce
Tis the season for carved pumpkins, god-awful candy corn, and an inevitable workplace costume that lands someone a well-earned talking-to from HR. Halloween is near, which means its the perfect time to reflect on a tale from the cubicle thats even spookier than Tales From the Crypt. It starts with three words that would strike fear in the heart of anyone who’s ever worked in corporate America. Performance. Improvement. Plan. Taken at face value, the phrase sounds gentle, maybe even helpful, like the start of a company-sponsored self-care journey. In reality, a PIP is usually the workplace equivalent of a death sentence, a corporate guillotine that gives being on the clock a whole new meaning. At least thats how it felt early in my career when it happened to me. The news hit like a cold email from HR with no greeting. I remember sitting across from my manager (lets call her Lisa) at a long-ass boardroom table, fluorescent lights humming, my coffee going cold as she explained the expectations moving forward. She had that tone people use when theyre rehearsing empathy. And while I tried to keep my composure, all I could hear as Lisa spoke was, Your days here are numbered. I was working at a startupone of those scrappy, ever-changing companies where job descriptions are more like suggestions. Every few months, my priorities shifted, as did my boss, team, and sometimes the department I worked in. Still, I kept my head down, remained adaptable, and did solid work. But at some point after my third job title change, I started to lose steam. Projects dragged. Deadlines slipped. Some of it was on meconstant change can burn out even the most proactive employee. But a lot of it came down to the chaos: unclear direction, competing priorities, constant pivots. Id go from one urgent request to another, without anyone assessing my workload or considering whether I was merely spinning my wheels. So it was a wake-up call when Lisa summoned me into that 1:1 meeting and told me I was being put on a PIP (no Gladys Knight). I didnt just need to tighten up; I needed to learn how to move in a room full of vultures. Theres something humbling about having your performance questioned in black and white. I felt embarrassed, frustrated, and, honestly, a little angry. Id been juggling a revolving door of responsibilities while management kept changing the rules mid-game. But once the sting wore off, I realized this was a turning point. I could either take it as a big L like the late Harlem rapper or treat it as feedback. I decided to lock in. The thing is, I had a publicity problem. So many of my contributions were going unseen, unrecognized, or worse, attributed to someone else. I set out to change that. Asana became my amigo. Weekly emailed status updates to Lisa became the norm. Long division had nothing on the way I was showing my work. I also stopped waiting for clarity. If directions were vague, I asked all of the questions until I got specifics. If priorities clashed, I pushed for alignment. It wasnt easy; when youre a young professional, advocating for yourself can feel like being confrontational. But I also understood how silence had been making me complicit in my own confusion. Believe it or not, things improved. My work got sharper. My time management leveled up. Even Lisa softened a bit, noticing that I was handling the pressure with a new kind of steadiness. I started to believe I might survive the PIP and come out on the other side even strongernot unlike how 50 Cent emerged from the gunsmoke of nine bullet wounds before becoming a household name. Then the layoffs hit. Lisa sat there silent while her boss broke the news: My role was being eliminated as part of a restructuring. I raised an eyebrow when she assured me it had nothing to do with the PIP. It didnt really matter, though. All that growth, all that effortand I was still out of a job. But I didnt walk out defeated. I knew Id done my best work during that PIP. I learned the annoying art of workplace communication and receipt-taking. I stood up for myself. And I left that job with more confidence than I had going in. That was the real win. (Not to mention the years-later apology from Lisa, who admitted that she undervalued me. Better late than never, I guess.) My Scottie PIPpen days taught me a difficult but necessary truth: Sometimes you can do everything right and still get caught in the wrong storm. But if you use that pressure to sharpen your processes, youll come out stronger, no matter how it ends. So if you ever find yourself cast as the main character in your own workplace horror story, dont panic. Get organized. Get visible. Get curious. (And get your résumé updated, just in case.) Because its not about proving anyone else wrong. Its about proving to yourself that even when things get scary, youre built to survive. The Only Black Guy in the Office is copublished with LEVELman.com.
Category:
E-Commerce
OpenAI never wanted to build a chatbot. As an early beta tester for OpenAIs GPT-3 model, I can vouch for the fact that the company was caught totally off guard by ChatGPTs runaway success. An email that OpenAI sent me on November 28, 2022just two days before ChatGPT came to market and kicked off a trillion-dollar, multiyear, economy-distending AI scrambledidnt even mention the new interface. Rather, it bragged about the companys then-revolutionary DaVinci model and how it could deliver clearer, more engaging, and more compelling content and allow developers to take on tasks that would have previously been too difficult to achieve. From the breathless tone of the email, it was clear that OpenAI had bigger ambitions than creating a text-based tool to help you argue with your insurance company or write KPop Demon Hunters fanfics. As Nick Turley, OpenAIs head of product, admitted this week, the company got a little sidetracked by ChatGPT. Now OpenAIs true ambitions are becoming increasingly clear. In Turleys words, OpenAI never meant to build a chatbot. Instead, the company always planned to build a super assistant. And thats exactly what its now doing. The super app In America, our app landscape is highly fragmented. Yes, if you want to know how fast bamboo grows or figure out the chords for R.E.M.s 1985 classic Wendell Gee, you might fire up the ChatGPT, Claude, or Gemini app and ask the bots. If you want to post to social media, though, youre likely to reach for Instagram, TikTok, orperhaps steeling yourself for the possibility of encountering MechaHitlerX. Need to bank? Open up the crappy app for your local bank branch with the UI from 2012, and hope for the best. Buying something? Theres Amazon, Instacart, and DoorDash for that. Want to secretly determine how much wealth your friends have accumulated? Zillow to the rescue! In other parts of the world, apps arent like that at all. Many countries, especially in Asia, have super apps that integrate all those functions and more into one tool, often controlled by a single, über-influential company. In China, WeChat provides messaging and gaming, but also mobile payments, social media, and mini apps for things like ride-hailing, paying bills, and even getting city services. In many Southwest Asian countries, Grab provides financial services, rides, food delivery, and much else. In the Middle East, Careem provides similar functions. Africa, Latin America, and many other geographies have similar super apps. America doesnt. And to American technology companies, thats a big problem. Because the apps are so all-encompassing, their creators control incredible amounts of capital and power. Tencent, the company behind WeChat, had revenues of more than $90 billion and profits approaching $30 billion in 2024much of it driven by WeChatand is growing fast. Thats an especially colossal sum in China, making Tencent one of the country’s most profitable companies, behind only a handful of largely state-controlled banks and conglomerates. Here in America, Elon Musk had ambitions to turn X into a super app, but his politics and penchant for second grade humor got in the way. No one else has really taken up the gauntlet. Until now. OpenAI Eats Everything At its October 2025 Developer Day, OpenAI made clear that it intends to create a super app, and will spend an almost limitless amount of money to make that happen. During the event, the company announced the ability to run apps directly within the ChatGPT interface. These are very similar to the mini apps that have made WeChat so powerful. Initial partners include Spotify and Zillow, but the list will inevitably grow. Simultaneously, the company has rolled out multiple functions that make it look less like a chatbot maker and more like a super-app company. Last week, OpenAI launched new features that let the bot spend your money for you, as well as a protocol to allow direct purchasing from any merchant who opts in. OpenAIs Sora social networkwhere all the content is joyfully faketakes on TikTok and has immediately leapt to the No. 1 spot in Apples App Store. And earlier this year, OpenAI shared that it plans to launch a browser to rival the ubiquitous Google Chrome. OpenAI seems to suddenly be everywhere, doing everything. That broad-ranging ambition is the hallmark of a super-app maker. And again, if all the signals werent clear enough, Turley essentially confirmed the companys new direcion with his super assistant comments. So, will it work? If any company can create a super app, its OpenAI. With its wild consumer success, the company has access to bottomless pits of capital. ChatGPT has 800 million weekly active users, and that number continues to grow. OpenAI is the first company in a generation to create an entirely new way of interacting with computers. Its intelligent chat interface lends itself to the integration of other apps and services. My own experience using Instant Checkout confirms that buying things within the ChatGPT interface really is seamless. Still, Americas existing tech titans wont go quietly. Google is reportedly expanding its own Gemini app, and its Nano Banana system proves it can still grab the publics attention. Meta already has its own Sora doppelgänger. And while OpenAI is growing quickly, its revenue is only around $10 billiona drop in the bucket compared to Googles $350 billion, and still a fraction of the revenue of its Chinese super-app rivals. OpenAI would love to take over every aspect of your digital life. And it may. But despite the hype, the company still has a very long way to go.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||