No, I haven't ever met the guy, but I've met many people like him. That's because Harvey Weinstein isn't only an actual person; he is primarily a stereotype.
Some of the people who lived the Miramax heydays tell that working with him was like being next to an old Hollywood mogul. He was powerful, intimidating, and fearless, and his mere presence could make extraordinary things happen. It was a great time, that's what they say.
Of course, there was the other side – a much darker side of abusive behavior and outbursts of rage. But that was OK; after all, people were in the presence of genius. Genius can get away with everything. And greed combined with intimidation can let people bear almost everything.
If you work in marketing, communication, and entertainment, you've probably met or heard about the "Harvey Weinsteins" in the business. You might even have survived them, but you'll probably carry the scars for the rest of your career. And unfortunately in your personal life too.
In my experience, there isn't a way to go through an abusive professional experience without suffering the damaging effects of it in your personal life as well.
I wonder why we still think that it's fair to equate abusive behavior with geniuses? Or, aren't we confusing intimidation with brilliance?
It seems we celebrate this persona because they are fearless in their quest to achieve whatever they want. Because they are so bold, we excuse their blusterous nature and let them do what we are afraid of doing. We celebrate something very primitive that yet reveals our conception of what it takes to be a leader. We hide behind it in the hopes that we can get something out of it. We convince ourselves that it's "OK" while we slowly give away our principles.
Suddenly, we become Ann Hathaway in the "The devil wears Prada," whispering to ourselves in the corridor that 1000 girls would die for this job just to survive another day.
Even this classic modern tale of exploitation ends with a nice note to Miranda Priestley, Meryl Streep's fictional version of Anna Wintour. In the end, she had a heart.
Speaking about Anna Wintour, she's another example of how our culture celebrates the genius behind her evil public persona. People can say she is a trailblazer that opened up the path for women in leadership. One may even say that her behavior "wouldn't be a problem if she was a man".
Wrong. A dick is a dick no matter if he or she carries one or not.
Is there anything wrong with us, or it's always been like this?
Perhaps it's always been like this, but isn't time to rethink our idea of what's makes a leader?
We have been living with this binary perception of the world – where there are leaders or followers, winners or losers, good or bad – for too long.
Frankly, the two sides of something are just different angles of the same thing. The problem isn't the side we take about something; the problem is the thing itself.
The whole concept of leadership needs to be reviewed. Actually, the idea of success it's been outdated too.
I remember working not long ago at a company where there was a guidebook teaching how to be courageous and brave to become number one. It literally glorified discontent as the most important virtue on the path to success. It always made me think about what you do after you fight hard and successfully become number one? One day I dared to ask it to one high preacher of this cult. He looked at me perplexed and answered: you keep fighting to keep being number one.
I thought to myself that it was exhausting and a sad waste of one's existence.