I was listening to Simon Sinek’s TED talk earlier today, and I couldn’t help but to feel uncomfortable. Simon (born in England) is this quasi-intellectual who rode on the wave of fame and fortune with the success of his one book: “Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action.” Simon sure has created a name for himself talking about leadership. His main idea is the concept of the “golden circle” that illustrates (in a similar way to Dante’s hell) the levels of human understanding inside a metaphorical circle. In the very center we have the “why,” in the second level is the “how,” and the outer level is all about the “what.” He states that effective communication focuses on the “why,” and he expands from there.

What’s problematic about Simon is that, even though the premise of his talk is the “why,” I can never understand why he’s doing this. His motivation seems to be more about the “what.” He is all about finding results for the sake of results. As an effervescent salesman he tries to repackage an old marketing concept by throwing in a couple of buzz words like “leaders” and “action” to make his ideas pop. But his lack of sincerity is apparent, and can be appreciated in many of the comments users have written in the TED website. Simon seems to be more in love with himself and his empty rhetoric, than with the ideas he’s “spreading.” In his talk, he doesn’t focus on the applications of leadership and simply offers a template for mental manipulation of the masses. At least Machiavelli was less hypocritical when writing The Prince. Simon sounds more like an Apple Fanboy trying to rationalize his love for good marketing.

What really ticked me off though is how he brings up the Law of Diffusion of Innovation, just after he’s talking about virtuous leadership. He contextualizes this law inside the realm of consumption and standing in line for hours to get a new iPhone. Seriously? Is this his interpretation of leadership? Simon is giving a gold star to all those people who are followers. Just because you are an early adopter, that doesn’t mean you are less of a follower than the late adopters. In fact, some might say that weak minds who are more easily manipulated are the ones adopting early technologies. He is grouping in the same metaphor Martin Luther King Jr.’s supporters and bored bourgeois with a surplus.

Is this really what contemporary intellectuals are getting off on nowadays?