Promoting top individual contributors into management often backfires. Their competitive nature, which drove individual success, makes it hard to share tips, empathize with struggling team members, or handle interpersonal issues, turning a perceived win-win into a lose-lose situation.

The assumption that superintelligence will inevitably rule is flawed. In human society, raw IQ is not the primary determinant of power, as evidenced by PhDs often working for MBAs. This suggests an AGI wouldn't automatically dominate humanity simply by being smarter.

We gain 20 IQ points advising others but lose 20 advising ourselves. 'Deep sparring'—collaborative problem-solving with trusted peers—leverages this effect. A few hours of this per quarter provides outside perspective that can break through personal biases more effectively than weeks of isolated work.

A common misconception is that a super-smart entity would inherently be moral. However, intelligence is merely the ability to achieve goals. It is orthogonal to the nature of those goals, meaning a smarter AI could simply become a more effective sociopath.

Leaders who always have the right answer often create an environment where others feel devalued and excluded. The blocker's real cost is not the accuracy of their ideas, but the damage done to team connection and collaborative decision-making, which prevents the team from arriving at the best solutions together.

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.

A common leadership trap is feeling the need to be the smartest person with all the answers. The more leveraged skill is ensuring the organization focuses on solving the right problem. As Einstein noted, defining the question correctly is the majority of the work toward the solution.

Leaders are often insulated from the daily operational friction their teams face. This creates an illusion that tasks are simple, leading to impatience and unrealistic demands. This dynamic drives away competent employees who understand the true complexity, creating a vicious cycle.

Biologist William Muir's 'super chicken' experiment revealed that groups of top individual performers can end up sabotaging one another, leading to worse outcomes than more cooperative, average teams. In business, this 'too much talent problem' manifests as ego clashes and a breakdown in collaboration, undermining collective success.