Mutiny is good for us

Interesting:

When mutiny occurs, the leader involved usually sees it as a sudden flash that is obscene. But the members involved in the action see it differently. Like an entrepreneurial team, they formulate a strategic plan for mutiny in secret, execute it tactically, and face the risks with a sense of justice and purpose. And here is the real surprise of our research: the mutinies are usually for the better. Given the connotations of the term mutiny, and the images it brings to mind, few would expect that it would have a largely ameliorative function. In our post-industrial age, mutiny is taboo. But the culture of the Age of Discovery assumed that members should depose a bad leader. It was understood that mutiny could save a venture or help it succeed.

Ship captains recognized this and the best of them were, amazingly, able to harness the mutinous energy and put it in service of the venture. Christopher Columbus dealt with three mutinies during his most famous enterprise; he used the first mutiny to bolster commitment from members and discover land. Although there were also some infamously fierce mutinies, those cases turn out to have been the exceptions.

Reflect for a moment on the nature of high-risk business ventures, and you might conclude that this mutinous ethos still exists. If you are familiar with entrepreneurial communities, then you know that not deposing bad leadership is hostile to the survival of a venture. Entrepreneurial founders and leaders are often removed via mutinies, and it usually happens when environmental uncertainty is most salient.

Indeed, the current entrepreneurial age, launched in mid-twentieth century Silicon Valley, is itself the product of a mutiny. The brief history is that it all began when the team at Shockley Semiconductor rose up against its founder William Shockley. The “traitorous eight” as Shockley would call them ever after, went on to found the set of firms (including Intel and AMD) that made Palo Alto the center of technology innovation. It was a culture-defining event that embedded assumptions still present in the Valley about the value of trained specialists, delegated power, autonomy, flat and adaptable organizational structures, and questioning flawed authority.