I don’t think people high up in existing power structures have anything to worry about.
At times, it seems like there are not enough high performers to go around. We always need more A-players and leadership material.
If nerds rise up, their natural tendency would be to create new value rather than shuffle around existing value like others might.
I gave a simple example to a scientist friend of mine whose boss relies on government grants to fund his team’s salaries.
Let’s assume a few parameters here:
- Government assigns $100 million in grants to scientific research
- 100 influential scientists vie for the grants
- They get equal payout (not reality, but bear with me)
- $1 million per science team to do their research
If we are able to increase the efficacy of 100 more scientists within these teams, there are suddenly 100 new opportunities to explore.
In the early stages, there would be competition for that limited pie of $100 million. But the government would eventually realise something.
There’s a positive effect from a visibility perspective from having much more talent doing globally-significant research in its backyard.
The grant pool should increase at this point to factor in the increase in noticeably more high-end individual contributors and leaders.
I presume the same would go for a corporation that had an increase in technically-proficient and performance-oriented staff.
There would be a reduction in false positives – people who allude that they’re great at the work or leadership when they’re not.
A stronger talent pool would also open opportunities for exploring areas of new value creation.