There is always a good reason to be writing about Mark Zuckerberg.
Take Meta’s intention to end third-party fact-checking.
The $1 million donation made to Donald Trump’s inauguration fund and Mar-a-Lago dinner, after the President-Elect had previously accused Zuckerberg and Facebook of being ‘anti-Trump’.
Or the announcement Meta will be cutting 5% of its global workforce in a bid to “move low performers out faster”.
It has been another busy week in a longline of busy weeks for The Zuck.
However, like many of the guests before him, it is Mark Zuckerberg’s recent comments about the perceived “neutering of corporate culture” during his appearance on the eponymous Joe Rogan podcast that have caused the switchboards to light up.
“I think a lot of the corporate world is pretty culturally neutered. Masculine energy is good, and obviously, society has plenty of that, but I think corporate culture was really trying to get away from it,” he said. “I think having a culture that celebrates the aggression a bit more has its own merits that are really positive.”
The rebrand from awkward, t-shirted, humble tech genius to swashbuckling, meat-smoking, flag-waving-while-surfing defender of free speech is a road well travelled.
Another of Rogan’s infamous billion dollar guests scarcely requires mentioning, but as a clue, was last seen exasperating L.A Fire Command.
In citing aggression as a component of masculinity, Zuckerberg joins the rising number of male public-figures who appear to be making a calculated decision to appeal to the machismo world view of those seeking to profit from the ‘male identity crisis’. The obvious problem to this double-edge remedy, is it is often conflated with incredibly harmful views of women.
In the UK, nowhere is this more potent than in the case of Andrew Tate, the American-British social media influencer who gained a following by promoting misogyny on the ‘Manosphere’. YouGov data reveals that, of the 12% of men who “like” Tate in the UK, just over half say they share his views on women.
Young men in the workplace would do well to reconsider the merit of Zuckerberg’s comments and those of toxic influencers, which could prove to be damaging for them, and those they work with.
I cannot recall a single moment in my career where more aggression would’ve led to a positive result for me, my team or the organisation.
While mental resilience, assertiveness, and a focus on results can be virtues, you’d be hard-pressed to find any leadership programme or management book that suggests a more hostile or forceful approach will yield success.
The representation of women in senior roles is not where it should be, but considering that the female employment rate in the UK is at 72%, it will be in the offices and on the shop floors where the divide in values and outlook between young men and women will play out.
The shift to remote working also introduces a challenging dynamic for managers attempting to cohere their teams, with co-workers generally having less rapport through face-to-face interaction, and communications by email or messenger leaving space for misunderstanding.
In 2025, men are attempting to redefine masculinity in their own terms. There is dark and light to be found, with a steady increase in anti-toxic masculinity influencers and civil society groups promoting more diverse and positive role models.
If we’re being charitable, Zuckerberg may be clumsily reaching for something real. Large organisations can become cautious places. Consensus can calcify into inertia; process can quietly replace purpose.
Anyone who has spent time in a sprawling corporate or public institution will recognise the peculiar sensation of sitting in a meeting while people carefully agree to achieve absolutely nothing.
But aggression feels like a strange cure for this ailment. Like treating a leaking roof with a flamethrower.
Because in nearly every successful team I’ve worked in, the qualities that actually moved things forward were less cinematic: trust, curiosity, resilience and the occasional quiet courage to tell a room full of people they were solving the wrong problem.
The fantasy version of masculinity currently being sold by billionaire podcasters and shirtless internet philosophers imagines leadership as domination; a kind of permanent alpha audition.
But most workplaces are not gladiatorial arenas. They are simply collections of tired people trying to navigate competing priorities while answering emails they forgot to send three days ago.
Which is perhaps why, despite all the chest-beating rhetoric about masculine energy, I remain unconvinced that what modern offices really lack is more aggression.
Leave a Reply