Kind of an inflammatory title, but I like to let it match for accessibility.
I’ve been enjoying Ed Zitron’s articles lately, because they call out CEOs who aren’t doing their jobs.
I’m sharing this partly because I’m honestly surprised to see criticism of Satya Nadella’s leadership. I think Satya has been good for Microsoft, overall, compared to previous leaders. And I was as convinced as anyone else when the “growth mindset” first hit the news cycle. It sounds fine, after all.
TL;DR:
- Satya has baked “growth mindset deeply into the culture at Microsoft”
- Folks outside of the original study authors have generally failed to reproduce evidence of any value in “growth mindset”
- Microsoft is, of course “all in” on their own brand of AI tools, and their AI tools are doing the usual harmful barf, eat the barf, barf grosser barf, re-eat that barf data corruption cycle.
- Some interesting speculation that none of the AI code flaunted by Microsoft and Google is probably high value. Which is a speculation I confidently share, but still, I think, speculation. (Lines-of-code is a bat shit insane way to measure engineer productivity, but some folks think it’s okay when an AI is doing it.)
Ed knows how to write for his audience. He’s a shock jock for the modern age.
Shock jocks don’t typically include research though, or extensive background information, or very detailed descriptions.
Are there any shock jocks still out there? Who listens to drive time radio?
They include “research” when it suits their argument. And speak in absolutes. No drive time radio isn’t as popular as what it used to be… but he’s using all the same tricks.
He sells controversy. That’s his schtick.