By Hiran de Silva
Every seasoned leader occasionally performs a subtle experiment to understand how people really behave.
One chairman I once worked for sent an all-staff email saying:
“Please read the attached article I’ve written.
I feel passionate about this.
Respond only if you have comments.
Thank you.”
Very normal. Very safe.
Inside the attachment, however, was just one line:
“Please reply saying you opened this attachment.
There is no article.
Do not tell anyone else.
You have earned a bonus.”
Only 1% of staff replied.
99% said nothing—perfectly happy for the chairman to assume, and expect, they had read his article and simply had “nothing to add.”
But the masterpiece was yet to come.
A handful replied with glowing reviews:
- “Beautifully argued.”
- “I completely agree with your analysis.”
- “More people should speak up like this.”
- “Count on my support for this important cause.”
They had not opened the attachment at all.
They were confidently praising something that did not exist.
Sycophantic or obsequious flattery, grovelling, fawning are the words that describe this phenomenon.
And so, without raising his voice or calling a meeting, the chairman suddenly understood everything he needed to know about the behavioural map of his organisation:
- 1% read carefully and respond appropriately. The honest ones.
- Most perform polite indifference. The ones that can’t be relies on when things get critical.
- A vocal minority loudly endorse things they haven’t examined. The dishonest ones now shortlisted to be FIRED!
Now let’s step into YouTube.
Sometime ago, a highly influential Excel educator posted a video.
A polished, articulate, delightful video.
It racked up:
- Thousands of likes
- A flood of adoring comments
- Widespread applause
- The usual popular downloadable template
- And, of course, the astronomical Views Count.
You know the type.
The tone was authoritative.
The music was uplifting.
The thumbnail featured the classic “I am about to change your life” expression.
And, predictably, the comments were electric:
- “Amazing!”
- “Game changer!”
- “So clear and so simple!”
- “I’m implementing this immediately!”
All very familiar.
Except for one detail:
The method demonstrated doesn’t work.
Not “rarely works.”
Not “works with caveats.”
It simply does not, cannot, will not work in the context and manner demonstrated.
It’s the technological equivalent of releasing a tutorial titled:
**“How to Drive from England to France.”
Step 1: Start engine.
Step 2: Press accelerator.
Step 3: In two hours you will arrive in Calais.**
The visuals are beautiful.
The instructions are flawless.
The narrative is reassuring.
Just one problem:
You will get wet.
Your car will sink halfway across the Channel.
That detail was somehow omitted.
But the most fascinating part?
Thousands of people liked this impossible tutorial.
Hundreds praised its “clarity,” “relevance,” and “practicality.”
Very few said:
- “I followed your instructions and my car is underwater.”
- “You can’t actually drive across the ocean.”
- “I think something crucial is missing here.”
And the few who did try to raise these questions were politely smothered:
- “Stop nitpicking.”
- “That’s not the point.”
- “Be positive.”
- “Don’t ruin the vibe.”
In other words, this the same as:
The people who actually opened the chairman’s attachment were punished.
The people who didn’t open it were rewarded.
And the ones praising the non-existent article became the heroes.
This is the core problem with social-media Excel education.
It is driven by:
- celebrity culture
- performance value
- fan-club dynamics
- emotional resonance
- surface impressions
- algorithmic incentives
…not by veracity, architecture, methodology, or whether the thing actually works. And in what context?
On YouTube:
- The view count is not a quality signal.
- The like count is not a validation.
- The comments are not a peer review.
- The polished presentation is not evidence of correctness.
- And accuracy does not trend.
We end up with videos that:
✅ look wonderful
✅ feel empowering
✅ encourage applause
✅ showcase cleverness
❌ but don’t actually deliver an implementable method
And because they gather engagement, they stay online forever—permanently enshrined as “recommended viewing,” gathering more likes and more unaware praise, even though a 90-second reality check exposes the fatal flaw.
It’s a library of beautiful tutorials explaining how to drive across the English Channel.
And the audience response is:
- “Superb!”
- “So helpful!”
- “Very well explained! Exacly what I need!”
- “Subscribed!”
Only a tiny percentage ask:
“Shouldn’t we be loading the car onto Eurostar or a ferry first?”
This is the crucial piece that’s missing!
And this is the heart of the matter.
The video I have referenced is merely one example among dozens.
The real insight is behavioural:
Most people do not test what they praise.
They respond to how something is presented, not whether it is correct.
Just like the chairman’s test, YouTube exposes the same three groups:
1. The Honest Minority
They test, evaluate, question, and think.
2. The Apathetic Majority
They may not even watch the video, and move on. But a View Count is registered, and maybe also a Like.
3. The Confidently Misaligned
They praise what they haven’t examined—and defend it fiercely.
Unfortunately, this third group often shapes the online conversation.
And the result?
Engagement triumphs over education.
Performance triumphs over practicality.
And the car keeps sinking into the Channel. (Now an insurance write-off)
Conclusion
The chairman’s test revealed a fundamental truth about human behaviour:
Most people don’t open the attachment.
They just react to the headline.
And YouTube Excel culture—despite its sincerity and goodwill—often behaves the same way.
Which is why, in the end:
The future of enterprise Excel won’t be shaped by those who cheer the loudest.
It will be shaped by those who actually check whether the car can float
… and report back.
Add comment