
Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders - camerony
https://torch.io/ceo-interview-series-michael-seibel-on-leadership-attributes-in-successful-startup-leaders/
======
aytekin
“Level Two thinking is about creating an environment and empowering people
such that they do produce great outcomes without you having to tell them. If
they can get into a mental model of what’s good for the company, and if they
can be motivated and feel empowered, then they start doing great things. You
don’t have to direct them. ”

“If you want to build a ship, don't drum up people to collect wood and don't
assign them tasks and work, but rather teach them to long for the endless
immensity of the sea.“ - Antoine de Saint-Exupery

~~~
MichaelMoser123
but what happens if number #1 doesn't like the ship they built?

~~~
rorykoehler
Then they hired the wrong people.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
Or there might have been a failure to negotiate requirements and priorities,
or that different parties were pushing in different directions. Many choices
exist. The endless sea may not appear to be the same to everyone.

~~~
rorykoehler
For the first part of your comment to make sense you have to assume there is a
right answer and a correct solution both which don't make sense in the real
world as you eluded to.

------
AndrewKemendo
The topic of leadership seems to come up frequently in these circles and I
think it's great and important.

It does strike me as odd though that there is almost no recognition or
reference to the vast world of case study and literature about leadership, and
technical leadership to boot.

For example, Siebel talks about "Level 2" thinking as well as self awareness
as important attributes to being a good leader. These attributes can be found
discussed in great detail with well worn concepts like "Servant Leadership"[1]
and "Referent Power"[2].

Further, actively seeking high consequence/stress situations like Siebel
discusses is a well understood way of learning leadership.

So my question is, if it is important for tech CEOs or other tech people to
understand and embody these leadership principles, why not seek out the huge
amounts of training and learning on this - and to that end seeking out people
who have gone through a lot of it, rather than trying to start from first
principles?

Let me be clear too, I'm not suggesting you can learn this stuff from a book.
Far from it. What I am saying is that there are a lot of great people out
there with tested leadership experience, that are overlooked by the tech world
because it does not specifically select for it.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servant_leadership)

[2][http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/t...](http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/the_bases_of_social_power_-
_chapter_20_-_1959.pdf)

~~~
munchbunny
I see this pattern a lot: leadership advice in the form of general
principles/first principles, but not a lot of advice on the nuts and bolts of
how you accomplish those things. Human emotions, motivation, and communication
are far fickler things than software, and it takes a lot of skill and work to
create consistency and resilience from that mess.

For example: how do you tell someone that they're underperforming while still
motivating them? There's a lot of partial advice out there like "frame it as a
growth opportunity." But how? What words do you use? Half of the new managers
will flinch before they give the feedback, and the other half will flub the
delivery. It's a hard-earned, fundamental leadership skill.

MBA programs actually encode a lot of time-tested wisdom on leadership and
management _for the students who go looking for it_. Huge emphasis on the
caveat because not all MBA students are looking for that. They even do
simulations to give you practice in a low-stakes setting. As a risky
generalization based on my own observations, I think Silicon Valley has thrown
the baby out with the bathwater with its historical hostility towards MBA's.

Speaking of which, I think executive coaching is worth its weight in gold for
younger startup leadership.

~~~
doctorpangloss
> how do you tell someone that they're underperforming... MBA programs

When you ask someone, "Describe the person you'd like to work for," I
seriously doubt talented people say, "An MBA."

So surely you'd see why so many mediocre people wind up working for them.

~~~
munchbunny
Talented people aren't going to decide on the basis of whether their manager-
to-be has an MBA. Talented engineers will gravitate towards teams with
likewise talented engineers and good leadership.

I'm suggesting that, as a reliable way to raise the bar on leadership,
engineers who want to manage might benefit a lot from going through MBA
training.

~~~
watwut
Engineers who want to manage would definitely benefit a lot from learning
about psychology and leadership. MBA training however does produces great
leaders that attract skilled people. There is a reason MBAs are complained
about so often - the reason is that their management style tend to be
demotivating and offputting.

~~~
munchbunny
_would definitely benefit a lot from learning about psychology and leadership_

That's a significant chunk of the MBA curriculum. Of course you don't have to
get it from there, but if you look at who teaches in business schools, quite a
few of the professors specifically research those subjects.

 _the reason is that their management style tend to be demotivating and
offputting_

What about it is demotivating and offputting? The typical complaint I hear
isn't about their leadership skills, it's about a lack of technical expertise
or lack of appreciation for subject matter expertise. As an example, I've seen
some of Harvard Business School's materials, and their curriculum definitely
teaches to seek technical expertise.

~~~
watwut
> That's a significant chunk of the MBA curriculum. Of course you don't have
> to get it from there, but if you look at who teaches in business schools,
> quite a few of the professors specifically research those subjects.

I am mostly judging it from results of MBA managers. It seems that highly
motivated happy teams are rather exception then rule. This kind of
psychological knowledge seems to lead to manipulative behavior that most
eventually figure out in the span of months and consequently leads to lack of
trust, demotivation.

> The typical complaint I hear isn't about their leadership skills, it's about
> a lack of technical expertise or lack of appreciation for subject matter
> expertise. As an example, I've seen some of Harvard Business School's
> materials, and their curriculum definitely teaches to seek technical
> expertise.

As general as both complains are, they are closely related to leadership
skill, they are not independent of it. The "no appreciation for subject matter
expertise" is euphemism for "experts under their leadership are unable to use
their skill and knowledge and are treated without respect and without regard".
It means that project is running into the same problems again and the leader
does not care, because problems are not affecting him right now and experts
are effectively talking to a wall that smiles back.

Lack of technical expertise means that experts are forced to implement
decisions they know will lead to problems and then get resentfulness when
those problems happen and they are blamed for it. It means you work around the
manager and not with manager. It means that you have to keep secrets and
manage manager, because manager cant be trusted.

I don't know what exactly those schools teach, so I can not say what exactly
is wrong with it. But I had managers that I respect to this day, not all of
them were technical and they seemed to be able to work around lack of
technical knowledge better then mba I have seen. Mba are good at creating
illusion of well run project for upper management. That absolutely has value,
especially in corporation, but is not really leadership skill and is not same
as actually run the project well.

------
afpx
In the military, this is also called “Commander’s Intent”.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_(military)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intent_\(military\))

I have never been in the military, nor do I know much about it. And, tech
companies are very different from militaries. But, I sometimes come across
military leadership readings that help give me ideas, and “Intent” is
something that has stuck with me.

------
dalbasal
The problem with CEOs talking about inspiring people to get stuff done is...
they write their articles in an inspiring way, leaving out the inevitably
uninspiring parts of reality.

Visionary envisaging can easily become meaningless corporate speak, and L2,
with its tendency to abstract ways of talking about things.... it opens more
door for this... for example.

------
meesterdude
This is an ad

------
mkagenius
Looks like leadership characteristics are mostly "manufactured" kind. For
example, you manipulate (motivate) people into doing stuff you will benefit
the most in the long run. This might go against the values of some people.

~~~
donkeyd
> manipulate (motivate)

> go against the values of some people

This reads like you have experience with bad leaders.

When I try to motivate colleagues or team members, it's not at all
manipulation. It's helping them through issues that they're dealing with and
getting them happy about what they're doing. I'd rather do that than let them
be unhappy and unmotivated. When you manipulate, people will see through it,
when you motivate, people will appreciate it and work harder because they want
to. I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing.

