Episode Details

Augustus III, King of Poland, received a cover letter in July 1733 from a German musician — some fella named Bach — attached to a bunch of sheet music. Here’s part of that letter:

“In deepest Devotion I present to your Royal Highness this small product of that science which I have attained in music, with the most humble request that you will deign to regard it not according to the imperfection of its Composition, but with a most gracious eye ... and thus take me into your most mighty Protection.”

That small, imperfect product? It was only his Mass in B Minor, widely regarded as one of the greatest compositions of all time.

Here’s how the Netherlands Bach Society describes it on YouTube, “In between an awe-inspiring Kyrie and the jubilant final Dona nobis pacem, there are nine completely unique arias and duets, fourteen impressive ensemble sections for four, five, six and even eight voices, a broad spectrum of instrumental solos, and an incredible variety of styles.”

A “small product” indeed ;)

I can’t read Bach’s mind (I’ve played violin since 1974, and I can barely read his Sonatas and Partitas), so I’m curious: was he really that modest, or was the self-deprecation a strategic gambit to get the job he wanted: court composer?

But what I really wonder about is how Augustus himself reacted to that letter.

Imagine the king's secretary handing him the package. Your Highness, a musician from Leipzig sent this. Says it's a small product of his attempts at music. Asks for your indulgence.

If Augustus had taken Bach at his word — if he'd glanced at the inscription, registered the apology, and filed the parts away unexamined — the world might have lost the Mass in B minor for another century.

He didn't. Three years later, Bach got the court composer title he was angling for.

But here's what I find myself thinking about: Augustus had to look past the packaging.

And most of us, most of the time, don't.

So what I want to talk about today is: how should leaders handle self-deprecation?

Why Not Just Take the Discount?

Somewhere on your team this week, someone is going to walk into your office or open a Slack thread with a sentence that begins:

"This is probably a dumb question, but..."

"I might be totally wrong here, but..."

"You probably already know this, but..."

What’s the best way to address the self-doubt?

Some leaders — not you, obviously — would welcome it.

Their thinking goes like this: if folks in their organization lack self-confidence, they can keep them at the low end of the salary ladder. Make them feel like they're lucky to have a job, so they won't complain or organize or jump ship. Feel good themselves by "lending" them their confidence.

There are good reasons to discourage self-deprecation, even though it can feel like having discount employees.

First, it’s not a discount. Self-deprecators are actually bringing a worse product at the same price. The person who hedges their words almost always hedges their thinking as well, editing ideas before bringing them. They don't challenge you when pushing back could be valuable.

They aren’t JS Bach with a humble cover letter. You're getting PDQ Bach, the one who mailed you only the bits they’re sure you’ll like.

Second, you’re going to end up pushing down or driving away good people.

People who self-deprecate in environments that reward self-doubt either shrink further, or end up leaving when they feel sufficiently under-appreciated. And those who leave first are the ones with options.

Third — and this is the one that should keep you up at night — the contributions most likely to be hedged are also the contributions most likely to contain information you don't already have.