Achilles could defeat men armies struggled to defeat. Napoleon could make armies accomplish things individual soldiers could never accomplish. Augustus built a political system that outlived almost everyone involved in creating it. They represent three different ways of creating leverage: the Warrior, the General, and the Administrator.

In economics, there's something called Comparative Advantage. The core idea is, the ability to produce specific goods and services at a lower opportunity cost than others. Surprisingly enough, if we look more closely, it does happen throughout history and in modern companies.

To simplify this complex reality, let's divide them into The Warrior, The General, and The Administrator.

Textbook love to generalize them into two: Individual Contributor, and Managers. However based on my experience and observation, it seems there are three generalizations instead of just two.

The Warrior

We all know all the warriors throughout history and legends. They tend to be romanticized. Achilles, Leonidas, Lu Bu, Miyamoto Musashi, and even Alexander the Great (yeah he led from the front). In the present days you might hear the name Yann LeCun, Ilya Sutskever, etc.

These are the senior software engineers of the past. They are great individuals. In the past, they could slay great many enemies and defend bridges by themselves. They can duel with the opposing champion and demoralize the whole opposing force. In the present, they are the great individuals who solve great problems by themselves.

When there's a problem in a need of "fixing", the General may trust and deploy these individuals.

The General

These are the great names of Napoleon Bonaparte, Alexander, Julius Caesar, Pompey the Greatt, Marcus Agrippa, Zhuge Liang, and many others. They are not as romanticized as the warriors, but we all know their impact is very profound.

They are the Chief Technology Officer, the VP of Engineering, and the Engineering Managers, of the present. They are the problem solvers at scale. There's a problem need solving, and this person will solve it by coordinating resources.

In the present day, Bill Gates is a good example. He's a brilliant engineer and a brilliant tech leader. However, he might not be the brightest company-wide leader. He hired Steve Ballmer for that, and he stepped down as the Chief Software Architect of Microsoft. He can lead technology departments very well, but that might not be leading the whole company very well.

The Administrator

They are greatly underrated. Their rule is usually marked with peace, and peaceful eras are usually forgotten in history because what else to note down. We know the household name of Augustus Caesar, he did establish a Pax Romana in the past, but he became a household name mainly because he's the first princeps of ancient Rome. What about Antoninus Pius? probably not many eyes are looking at him, because his rule was remarkably peaceful by roman standards from the start to the end.

These administrators are the CEOs of the present days. There might not be a "problem" to be solved, because it's peaceful (and should be peaceful), but there's a system to be maintained. They creates value through systems that coordinate people repeatedly. A general might asks "how do we win this campaign?", while an administrator might asks "how can we keep the population happy and productive?".

In the present day, most of the established company CEOs are like this. They keep the system beating, and keep improving the system as well.

Can we be good at all of them?

Historically, a person often appears disproportionately strong in one or two. Quite rare for a person to master all three. Take for example Napoleon Bonaparte. He's a great general and a great administrator. There are many reforms in France's economy and civil law in his era besides his infamous victorious campaigns. However he's not leading from the front doing the dirty work. Take another example Alexander the Great. He's a great warrior and a great general. He lead from the front, and look at the territories he conquered. However he's quite a standard administrator, as you can see how his empire crumble as soon as he passed away.

Take another example Marc Antony. He's an excellent general but a very bad administrator. He caused an unrest when he administer Rome in the absence of Julius Caesar during the Roman civil wars.

We individually might unable to master all of them, but we can find a pair. Take for example Augustus Caesar. He acknowledge he's a bad general, but he's an excellent administrator. What did he do? he asked Marcus Agrippa to do the general and warrior stuffs which he excell at.

But this doesn't mean you should be discouraged to master all three. There's Jeff Bezos in the present days. You see, he's excellent in all three. It's rare, but possible. He's a great engineer as he built so many technical things during the early days. He's a great general as he devised strategy, resource concentration, and competitive timing of Amazon. He's also a great administrator as he made the mechanism, operating principles (like One Way Door, Two Way Door, etc), and decision making framework of Amazon.

Which one are you?

I am personally currently a general (tech leader) first and a warrior (senior engineer), quite a horrible administrator. That doesn't mean I give up on administrator experience. But when there's a high stake thing in hand, I would rather find a great administrator to complement myself.

What about you? which one are you? let's talk (audipasuatmadi@gmail.com)...