It's very easy for Simon Sinek to write and speak about leadership when he has never actually done it. Divorced from the messiness of reality, you can write a lot of nice-sounding platitudes.
Exactly right. Each of these is just obviously wrong.
Leaders Overshare? Simon shares material non-public information on linkedin. Now he and the company are in trouble.
Leaders bend the rules? Simon bent the rules for some of his team but not others, now multiple past employees are bringing discrimination lawsuits.
Leaders coach and help people land softly? Simon kept too many low performers on his team and now the company's product is buggy, behind competitors and forced to downsize so his entire team is being cut.
> Leaders Overshare? Simon shares material non-public information on linkedin. Now he and the company are in trouble.
I think this is within the team. Maybe you never worked for someone who doesn't share, who keep secrets, within the team. I did. It is frustrating. It makes you doubt every word they say, even a simple "everything is going fine" sows doubt in you, making you wonder if they are hidding bad news. It makes you doubt what you are doing is useful, because some time ago they hide a change of focus for weeks.
Then the secrets are revealed, they are stupid and pointless (not industrial secrets like you imply), they kept it secret just in case.
A nugget of advice distilled from Bill Hader: when people tell you what you're doing isn't working, they're right. When they tell you what you should do instead, they're wrong.
If someone is giving life-coach type advice, an ad hominem actually might be relevant, right? The blog post doesn’t really make any arguments, it is just advice based on his observations. Which is fine, but it hinges on his expertise.
An ad hominem isn't always a fallacy. If you put yourself out as someone with credibility or expertise in a field and use that to back up your ideas, you have put your credibility on the table to attack.
