No good leader is taking unnecessary risks. In fact, if you study history, taking unnecessary risks has been the downfall of many otherwise great leaders

IMO, everyone who has left a steady job to found a company has taken an unnecessary risk.

That's a very subjective definition of unnecessary risk. Clearly there are potential rewards (ev+ if you're into poker or ai) in starting your own company.

Helping a stranger get promoted? At the risk of ending your career (a massive loss for most people)? With the only reward being feeling good for Doing The Right Thing (tm)? Not so much

> Clearly there are potential rewards (ev+ if you're into poker or ai) in starting your own company.

That a risk is +EV does not make it a necessary risk.

Surely a more necessary risk than ev-, wouldn't you agree?

More advisable? Yes. More necessary? No.

Okay then. It took you a while, and a few unnecessary (ho ho ho) downvotes of my posts but we finally agree: The smart move for any male leader is to never spend any 1on1 time with female subordinates, and unfortunately ignore how that might affect her career

To be clear: I do not agree.

How you reach that conclusion and seem to claim that to be an inevitable/logical chain of reasoning is literally beyond my understanding. I started this subthread with the claim that an interesting life is full of risks and that leaders must be willing to take risks that do not have any obvious selfish benefit.

For the record, I have not downvoted a single one of your posts. (You can't downvote posts that are in reply to one of your own anyway, but I haven't downvoted any others either.)