Historian Bruce Catton portrays General George McClellan, the "tech bro of his day," as a brilliant engineer promoted rapidly but too risk-averse to be an effective commander. His story serves as a counterargument to the modern idea that simply elevating technically skilled individuals will produce better military leaders without experiential learning.

Related Insights

The military's career path rewards generalist experience, effectively punishing officers who specialize in critical fields like AI and cyber. Talented specialists are forced to abandon their expertise to get promoted, leading many to leave the service not for money, but to continue doing the work they excel at.

Our default method for promotion—open competition—is flawed because it disproportionately attracts and rewards individuals who most desire power, not necessarily those best suited for leadership. The Founding Fathers understood this, preferring reluctant leaders. Alternative models, like deliberation by a select body, can produce more competent and less self-interested leaders.

Leaders in investment organizations are often promoted for their exceptional technical skills—analysis, presentations—not for their management abilities. This creates a leadership deficit that requires deliberate focus and coaching to overcome.

Grant was a brilliant Civil War general because his skills perfectly matched the desperate need for military commanders. However, he was a mediocre president because he meshed poorly with the political environment of the White House. This highlights that leadership skills are not universally transferable; context is everything.

The U.S. military discovered that leaders with an IQ more than one standard deviation above their team are often ineffective. These leaders lose 'theory of mind,' making it difficult for them to model their team's thinking, which impairs communication and connection.

Ryan Holiday uses Elon Musk as a case study for how genius can curdle. When a brilliant leader stops receiving challenging external inputs, surrounds themselves with sycophants, and starts to believe their own hype, their decision-making faculties degrade, leading to poor outcomes and a loss of wisdom.

Tech leaders, while extraordinary technologists and entrepreneurs, are not relationship experts, philosophers, or ethicists. Society shouldn't expect them to arrive at the correct ethical judgments on complex issues, highlighting the need for democratic, regulatory input.

While experience builds valuable pattern recognition, relying on old mental models in a rapidly changing environment can be a significant flaw. Wise leaders must balance their experience with the humility and curiosity to listen to younger team members who may have a more current and accurate understanding of the world.

A critical cultural lesson from Facebook is that all engineering leaders must remain hands-on. Seeing a VP fix bugs in bootcamp demonstrates that staying technical is essential for making credible, detail-driven strategic decisions and avoiding ivory-tower management.

Dick Stack's resistance to change, stemming from a past failure, forced his son Ed to meticulously research and justify every new initiative. This constant opposition, while frustrating, acted as a rigorous training ground, forcing Ed to develop bulletproof strategies and a deep understanding of the business, making him a more effective leader.

Civil War General McClellan Is a Cautionary Tale Against Promoting "Tech Bro" Leaders | RiffOn