15 ms·

How Do You Measure Leadership?

376 points by craigcannon 10y ago

Macsenour 10y ago
Being a boss and being a leader are two very different things. That may seem obvious to those that understand it, those that don't will think I'm nuts. As a scrum master I have been a leader at every company where I have worked. I have never had anyone report to me in those same companies, aka not a boss.
- bbarn 10y ago
  I usually don't consider scrum masters leaders. Facilitators of process, and reporting are the two biggest things they are responsible for usually. No offense to your personal positions though, I know many places confuse the term with project manager too.
  - Macsenour 10y ago
    I wasn't a Project Manager at all. Scrum Masters need to enforce the team rules and do so without being a boss. If they aren't leaders, if they aren't coaches, you're not getting as much out of your Scrum Masters as you can.
zzalpha 10y ago
All the qualities they identify, here, are, in my mind, absolutely necessary (though not sufficient) for someone to be a good leader. But, despite the title of the article, none of them are objectively quantifiable.
- anbende 10y ago
  Agreed, constructs like integrity and commitment are notoriously abstract and hard to rigorously define, let alone quantify. If one truly wants to quantify leadership, one would need an operational definition that is concrete. "Leadership" is probably too nebulous a term, so we'd need to break it down. I'd suggest that one goes after the parts that are the most quantifiable: employee morale, productivity, confidence in said leader. Company culture might be quantifiable (does it have a clear one, is it intentional?)
ajmarsh 10y ago
By the output of the employees that are lead/managed?
sbierwagen 10y ago
It is based on observations I made when working closely with four leaders that I consider extraordinary: Ed Catmull (Pixar’s founder), Steve Jobs (Pixar’s CEO), John Lasseter (Pixar’s Chief Creative Officer), and Bob Iger (Disney’s CEO). All four of these guys were involved in wage-fixing, which cost their companies $415 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... So, "extraordinary" in the sense of being extraordinarily unprofitable.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- johnrob 10y ago
  The value of the labor managed by those leaders was over 100X greater than $415 million. Unprofitable is not the right term here (something ethical instead?).
  - jrowley 10y ago
    Exactly, Apple alone is one of the most profitable businesses of all time.
  - sbierwagen 10y ago
    That's irrelevant. The question is if the money those companies saved by illegally depressing wages was greater than the $415 million cost of the settlement, plus the bad press of the criminal investigation by the DOJ.
    - nl 10y ago
      No, it is completely relevant: ethics do have a place in leadership. I don't think it is as clear cut as this comment makes out. What they did was come to an illegal agreement not to poach employees from each other. There are multiple reasons why that could be good for a company, and I doubt 'reducing wages' is close to the top of that list. But ethics are important in leadership - I just think the case here isn't as simple as it is made out.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
losteverything 10y ago
Getting people to do things they don't want to do. I believe from Jack Welch
- 6stringmerc 10y ago
  That describes manipulation at the root; I think persuasiveness is an element of leadership but it has, uh, a moral compass maybe?
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    Parents get children to do things they don't want to do using lots of techniques which I would not call manipulation (autocratic leadership, for instance). Personal trainers similarly, also drill sergeants. Edit: clarity
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- whalesalad 10y ago
  This is manipulation. Leadership is inspiring people to believe what you believe so that they motivate themselves to fight alongside you.
  - Godel_unicode 10y ago
    They didn't want to do it, they were motivated by good leadership, now they do it. See how that's not different than what OP said?
    - r00fus 10y ago
      Because one is scalable (using motivation) and the other (directive) is not. You simply can't pretend that "getting someone to do what they don't want to do" is motivation unless there is some changing of heart/mind there - now that's the leadership part.
eruditely 10y ago
You should probably follow Nassim's idea of not trying to measure x (leadership) vs output of leadership f(x) and try to measure the exposure and how it impacts it. Since probably the most significant effort has been pulled into probability theory and trying to get a measure of x that's probably the place to look. And you would NOT try to measure it as a point estimate as many have reminded us, you would try to set bounds lower&upper.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
ThomPete 10y ago
You don't. You experience it.
6stringmerc 10y ago
Leadership can be measured by simply stripping away all external factors that could distort the ability to quantify the Individual Leadership Quotient. A few such elements would include, but are not limited to: A) Talent and Aptitude of Followers, B) Macro Economic Conditions, C) Luck, D) The Weather...basically I think the notion of Leadership is very elastic and, more often than not, highly circumstantial. What is good Leadership for a bunch of grunts storming a beach in combat isn't objectively comparable to good Leadership for a bunch of teenagers in a classroom environment. There are some "Characteristics" I think that can be described and discussed as a useful musing on the concept, but it has to be qualitative not quantitative from my perspective.
claar 10y ago
Also a great read along these lines is "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" by John Maxwell, which I'm close to finishing currently. Maxwell claims that leadership is influence, not authority. When I became a co-founder, I thought that made me a leader. But as PG's excellent post and Maxwell affirm, leadership is quite distinct from positional authority -- and is much more difficult to attain. Speaking directly to this post, I found that rating myself against Maxwell's "21 laws" was a sobering and likely accurate gauge of my leadership ability.
- jkaljundi 10y ago
  Years ago we had a board meeting, me being a youngish co-founder. We were talking about founder titles. I remember forever Esther Dyson as an investor and board member telling me then, that the titles do not mean much. You can be a great leader inside your company without any titles or official role - this is what you should aspire for. And you can be a CEO/CXO/VP without being a leader at all.
  - walterbell 10y ago
    Variation of the same sentiment: ask a difficult question and see who everyone in the room looks towards for an answer. That person is the leader.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    Higher title = ensure that people will listen to you for the first minute when you address the audience and/or ensure they'll come at all. Higher title = better pay It also has some drawbacks but that's a different topic.
    - ktRolster 10y ago
      If you have leadership skills, you can help lead your company, even from a low-end job title. However, it can take years to build up respect from management in that position. If you have a high title, you get a level of respect immediately (whether you deserve it or not). It goes a lot quicker.
prewett 10y ago
Leadership is people development. So, how many people have you developed? How many times have you reproduced yourself? If you want grow your company, you are going to have to reproduce yourself so that the new you is doing the old role so that you can step into the new one, or perhaps relieve yourself of excess roles. That role may or may not have the title you had when you were doing it, however. You might be titled "CEO" when you are leading a team of 5 people, but you will reproduce yourself as "Team Leader" as you start adding teams. Merely having clarity of thought and integrity does not make you a leader, it makes you a great team member. Merely having good people judgement makes you a good manager, not necessarily a good leader. Developing people makes you a good leader. It's hard to do that without the other three, though.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
It is always interesting when someone who believes themselves to be a great leader, discovers that they are not. And since many of the traits that make great leaders, self awareness, humility, honesty, Etc. are missing in these folks, the world around them sort of explodes when that realization hits. In my experience it is a time when they are most likely to embrace 'leadership through politics.' It is always a strong signal that it is time to distance oneself from the faux leader's area of influence.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Is humility necessary for one to be a great leader? Steve Jobs and General George Patton spring to mind. I agree that a plurality of those traits are commonly found, I've always wondered about causality and importance. Not disagreeing, genuinely curious about your opinion. Edit: clarity and expansion
  - ludicast 10y ago
    > Is humility necessary for one to be a great leader? Steve Jobs and General George Patton spring to mind. As does (starting tomorrow) the new leader of the free world.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - cowpig 10y ago
      I think parent post was referring to people who are generally considered to have been excellent leaders (and lack humility).
      - Godel_unicode 10y ago
        I was, although there was some selection bias in my choices; Hitler/Mussolini would certainly qualify for that category. Sidebar: I do find myself biased in judging someones merit as a leader based off of my opinion of their goals. Someone can certainly be a very good leader and lead towards something very bad.
arca_vorago 10y ago
“Leadership is intangible, hard to measure, and difficult to describe. It's quality would seem to stem from many factors. But certainly they must include a measure of inherent ability to control and direct, self-confidence based on expert knowledge, initiative, loyalty, pride and sense of responsibility. Inherent ability cannot be instilled, but that which is latent or dormant can be developed. Other ingredients can be acquired. They are not easily learned. But leaders can be and are made.” General C. B. Cates, 19th Commandant of the Marine Corps Ingrained to my brain from my Marine Corps days is the acronym JJDIDTIEBUCKLE as the list of leadership traits, and it has served me well since, although in the civilian world I have had to lower my expectations of others around me in having even a fraction of such traits. Relevant reading for those curious about how the Corps approaches leadership: http://www.tecom.marines.mil/Portals/120/Docs/Student%20Materials/CREST%20Manual/RP0103.pdf http://www.tecom.marines.mil/Portals/120/Docs/Student%20Mate...
edw519 10y ago
I've had 80 bosses. 77 of them sucked. I would march through hell to help the other 3 get something done. For me that pretty much sums it up. All the rest is fluff. FWIW, OP's 3 metrics: 1. Clarity of Thought and Communication 2. Judgment about People 3. Personal Integrity and Commitment Those should be necessary but not sufficient characteristics of every person in your organization. EDIT, response to walterbell & el_benharneen about what made the 3 different (in no particular order): - They always told the truth (to everybody). - They knew their stuff (tech, system, user domain). - They figured out the right thing to do. - They communicated often and flawlessly. - They did whatever it took to get the right thing done. - They smiled almost all the time. - They made each other person feel special. - They made work fun. - They were always teaching something. - They called bullshit instantly. - They protected their team. - They inspired us by showing how good things could be.
- walterbell 10y ago
  Anything in common among the three?
- hinkley 10y ago
  My three best managers all managed UP the org chart. The worst ones managed down. Then there were a few in the middle who gave us too much autonomy, deferring to our best judgement on everything, but not doing much firefighting on our behalf. The three worst ones were glorified secretaries. All they did was keep track of who made what decisions so they'd know who to throw under the bus. The sort of people who won't even break a tie on any important decision where the dev leads are deadlocked. Small, petty excuses for humans that I hope never to encounter again.
- el_benhameen 10y ago
  What separated the three from the 77?
- lbotos 10y ago
  Thank you for sharing this list. It's a great and clear checklist of what I also think makes a phenomenal leader.
pjmorris 10y ago
“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.” - Lao Tzu quote opening 'Becoming a Technical Leader' by Jerry Weinberg
- neltnerb 10y ago
  I think this quote has one particularly important implication (among many): A major mismatch between responsibility and authority is a huge morale killer. If you have to constantly ask for permission, you will feel much less personally invested in success because you don't feel like it was your doing.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
freddyc 10y ago
Over the years a test I've often used is asking "how does this person respond to being challenged/questioned?" A great leader tends to embrace the fact that someone is asking "why" and uses it as an opportunity to learn and potentially convert the questioning party (if they're questioning something in the first place, then you haven't nailed it 100%). A weak leader who doesn't have confidence in their abilities sees the challenge as a personal attack and reacts in a knee-jerk fashion (often, though not always, resulting in a termination). If you can't reconcile differing opinions and convert those with opposing views to you then you're doomed as a leader and odds are your company/team will experience high turnover. Obviously there's a whole range of other traits that make great leaders, but I've found people that fail this test are almost always terrible leaders who others don't want to work for.
- jotux 10y ago
  Remind me of this quote from Meditations: >If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.
  - jhanschoo 10y ago
    Since you're quoting from Meditations, I hope you will entertain me if I go on a tangent. I find Meditations too disorganized to learn from it, and contextualize what it says. Do you have any advice?
    - jotux 10y ago
      I think of Meditations like a daily journal or notebook. It's one of the few books I keep around my desk and occasionally just flip to a random page and read. Individual passages have a lot of meaning so often I'll isolate one and really think about it or talk to my wife about it for a while. In general, though, I agree it's not very organized or easy to read. If you're looking for a better entry into stoicism I'd suggest A Guide to a Good Life[1]. It's a structured overview of stoicism with straight forward advice on actually using stoic ideas in your own life. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195374614/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195...
Cyranix 10y ago
RE: "Clarity of Thought and Communication" — I have worked at a couple of places that put a lot of effort into internal communications, selling employees on upcoming product changes they'll be working on, but failed to acknowledge the existing significant problems that everyone saw and that were repeatedly punted on. Being able to give a slick pitch is not sufficient for this leadership criterion; the narrative must be "credible" (as mentioned rather briefly in the article). Is it just me, or do other people find themselves frustrated at internal messaging that is self-consistent but not grounded in reality?
- harryh 10y ago
  I would say that a leader who doesn't have a credible plan has failed to have clarity of thought because if they did they would have seen that the plan wasn't credible in the first place.
imh 10y ago
I'm sad not to see an emphasis on giving a shit about the lives of those people you're leading. Personal development, career development, family, fun, etc. These are all hugely important to people outside of whatever widgets they are contributing to. A good leader should care about helping the people they lead achieve their goals, and not just in the sense of finding people who are willing to pretend their goals align with the widgets.
- gbrits 10y ago
  It is a top 3. And a good one imo
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- tyingq 10y ago
  I think some of this might be on purpose. There used to be a fair amount of talk about loyalty both directions...employer to employee, and vice versa. Companies that would, for example, suffer what might be temporary bad times without laying anyone off. Or employees that might accept a pay cut to bridge a similar temporary situation. That seems to be largely gone now. There's no loyalty either direction. Companies layoff without remorse, and employees leave whenever they want as well. So, with that environment, company level discussion about family and fun just tend to ring hollow. The employer/employee relationship is transactional...we pay you to do what you do. I do think those things matter at a "direct supervisor" level...the person you work for should give a shit about you, know about your family, and so on. It just doesn't seems to scale up beyond that one direct relationship without seeming fake.
  - imh 10y ago
    I think that's an accurate take on how things currently are, but disagree that it doesn't scale up. The company I'm at now does a great job, and there are 5 tiers between me and the CEO. I think certain priorities scale pretty well.
    - 10y ago
ktRolster 10y ago
There's kind of a difference between a manager and a leader. Manager - Makes sure things get done. If someone quits, finds a replacement, etc. We should all be managers of ourselves. Leader - A person that employees are willing to follow. Makes the group into a team, working together. Actually cares about the members in his team, protects and defends them. Fights to get them raises, etc.
- qznc 10y ago
  I remember a nice analogy: The workers are cutting down trees. The managers make sure the saws are sharp and the workers do a good job. The leader climbs up a tree and shouts "We are cutting down the wrong forest!".
alfonsodev 10y ago
Two things: By the profesional/personal growth of each team member and by the harmony of the group.
curiouslurker 10y ago
Great read but did Steve Jobs really have personal integrity? He was famously double faced, manipulative and as petulant and petty as a child, often settling personal scores with business decisions.
- nostrademons 10y ago
  You bring up a good point that illustrates an important distinction. There are two aspects people look at when they evaluate a leader's integrity: 1. Are they true to their values? 2. Are their values my values? Steve Jobs was remarkably true to his core values, which consisted of building great products for the masses to use. His values did not include being kind to people, coddling peoples' feelings, telling the truth (except insofar as it helped great products get built & distributed), promoting social justice or equality, or many other things that people care about. If your primary mission in life is to build great products, Apple was an excellent place to be. If you cared about work/life balance, free exchange of information, building products for the underprivileged, or any number of other causes, Steve Jobs was probably not the right leader for you. Sometimes it's possible for a person to score really well on #1 but not make the cut on #2. Antonin Scalia, for example, is someone who IMHO had great personal integrity, and yet I still detest because that integrity stood for causes that I find reprehensible. Or for a more extreme example, Adolph Hitler - he totally believed in what he said and did, but what he said and did was atrocious.
- calinet6 10y ago
  No, because personal integrity is a fairly unimportant concept to leadership, besides being a made-up trait that has almost no meaning. Leadership is about the ability to understand and manipulate reality. To do that, you need to know about systems, psychology, variation, and knowledge. None of the rest matters. People didn't have to like Jobs, nor even look to him for integrity. Rather they trusted him because he was effective at moving a whole organizational system in one direction toward an incredible result. It's not integrity that matters—but reality. Are you bringing the company, through your model of reality, closer to a result? If not, your model is wrong, not your personality.
  - 10y ago
z3t4 10y ago
How many people that follow him/her literally
benkitzelman 10y ago
Look behind them and see who is following (following.... not just obeying)
batz 10y ago
It's simple to explain, but takes a lifetime to master. My version is: leadership is the ability to cultivate willingness in others. Leading is not a set of prescribed actions, but the effect of being followed willingly. 2500 years ago, Xenophon wrote in his treatise on horsemanship that, "nothing forced is beautiful." It is also the basic axiom of leadership. You can bribe, badger, threaten, shame and cajole, but the result will be temporary and inferior. Most of the time that's enough, hence "management," but leadership is an exceedingly rare and valuable skill.
swombat 10y ago
How do you measure a great car? There are three factors I've observed: great cars can accelerate, great cars are fun to drive, and great cars have steering wheels. Sorry, but leadership cannot be reduced to these three factors. There are many excellent leadership frameworks out there which provide great insight into how different leaders operate, and what the great ones have in common. Look up topics like Spiral Dynamics, the Action Logic leadership framework, Kegan & Lahey, and the Integral framework, and you'll have some good starting points on models of adult development that correlate to effective leadership.
- JesseAldridge 10y ago
  It's disappointing to see this comment downvoted. The blog post honestly feels kind of fluffy and is definitely far from scientific. A lot of smart people have spent a lot time thinking about this question. It seems foolish to not take the existing body of thought as a starting point.
  - calinet6 10y ago
    Complete fluff. Thank you both. Even the leaders in this specific post had a model and influence, Ed Catmull saying specifically, "As we struggled to get Pixar off the ground, Deming’s work was like a beacon that lit my way." Deming's model of management was based on systems theory and psychology, and was and remains sound. There's a reason for their success other than trite personality traits.
- majkinetor 10y ago
  The point is, if it can't accelerate, it probably isn't good :) Those 3 are mandatory things to have, not a precise metric.
laurex 10y ago
These all seem like good things in a leader, but it does miss a vital quality, which is being able to guide those around the leader to perform at an elevated level, usually because the leader has the ability to both convey the importance of the mission and to be a good "whisperer," i.e. someone who listens to their team, understands what makes them tick, and supports them in performing at their best.
ImTalking 10y ago
I think you can overcomplicate this question but a leader is someone that, over time, people follow. Why they follow is up to the individual. Gandhi was a leader, but then conversely, Hitler was also a leader. There is no morality in leadership, but I would say a common trait would be charisma.
mempko 10y ago
A leader is not a position, but a role anyone can play at any given time.
- qznc 10y ago
  Yes, a very important aspect. You even have to lead your manager/boss sometimes.
- treenyc 10y ago
  yup! Leadership, Leadership position and leadership authority are distinct! See scholars and practioners who have contributed to building a scientific foundation for leadership: 1). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406
Bahamut 10y ago
For leadership principles & qualities, I am biased towards the list that the Marine Corps has put out: http://www.tcsnc.org/cms/lib010/NC01910389/Centricity/Domain/592/Leadership%20Principles%20and%20Traits.pdf http://www.tcsnc.org/cms/lib010/NC01910389/Centricity/Domain... . The Marine Corps may not be a paragon in efficiency in some ways, but I have found that these qualities hold strikingly well for good leaders in the civilian world as well.
treenyc 10y ago
Hmm, do we distinguish leadership from management?
treenyc 10y ago
Before we can measure leadership. Maybe we ought to first figure out what we mean by leadership. Often there has being a mix up between leadership, management, and a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with leadership. If people are interested in how and leadership is effectively exercised and what it is. Take a look at this paper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406
remarkEon 10y ago
This is a hard question to answer, and my personal opinion is based on my experience in the Army over a while. The best leaders I encountered managed to somehow turn out the best in the people they led. That can manifest in a lot of ways. Improvements on subordinate performance, increases in technical proficiencies, a more disciplined approach to their work. Those are all good metrics, but the best leaders managed to get their subordinates to actually want to improve on their own, without sufficient goading from their leaders. Most of that, therefore, lands in the realm of understanding group dynamics, behavioral economics, and leadership psychology.
calinet6 10y ago
Having integrity, being able to judge people, and being a smart thinker? That's how you measure the leaders of an organization which was heavily influenced by the management principles of W. Edwards Deming? Have you even read Creativity Inc? Ed Catmull himself said, "As we struggled to get Pixar off the ground, Deming’s work was like a beacon that lit my way." Get a used copy of this book and read it cover to cover: https://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Getting/dp/0070580286 https://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Gettin... Chapter 2: The New Leadership Competencies: - Competency 1: The Ability to Think in Terms of Systems and Knowing How to Lead Systems - Competency 2: The Ability to Understand the Variability of Work in Planning and Problem Solving - Competency 3. Understanding How We Learn, Develop, and Improve; Leading True Learning and Improvement - Competency 4. Understanding People and Why They Behave as They Do Those sound a tad more concrete and believable, don't they? That's an understanding of reality that might help you be a better leader to an organization that actually works. Dismiss the surface-level personality games and get yourself into the scientific reality of organizations, and you have a hope of leading one well. There are no missing parts—the whole system is important. That's the leadership secret. My bet is that the leaders described in this post are better described by the above characteristics, and they more reliably predict leadership success, than any of their individual traits or abilities. Certainly Ed Catmull, who was himself a big believer in Deming's way of managing companies, fits that model, and Steve Jobs was heavily influenced by Deming and Juran in creating a system able to produce extraordinary quality. In fact, the whole Pixar team this post is about was more heavily influenced by Deming's concepts than any trite personality fluke, yet that influence is entirely ignored here. This is forgivable: it's attribution bias. We instinctually want to attribute to the greatness of the individual that which was actually more nuanced, the outside factor in this case being a great body of knowledge about management and leadership that led them to be extraordinary. Now you know. Read Peter Scholtes' Leader's Handbook, read Creativity Inc., and keep thinking about it. There's way more to it than just having integrity, being able to judge people, and being a smart thinker. If excelling at those were all it took, we'd be up to our necks in extraordinary leaders. Must be something else, then.
rebootthesystem 10y ago
Well, there are others factors at play today. Here are a couple of videos that discuss the general topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xYCy2eft8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xYCy2eft8 I have seen and continue to see some of the behaviors described in these two videos and it is deeply disturbing. Attempting to lead people with deep social challenges is an exercise in frustration and futility. Leadership, in this context, is a very different thing than in what I'll call more traditional settings. It almost has to be reduced to appeasement and coddling. Latte's and ice cream. We have a generation of adults who behave as petulant children half their age did in prior generations. Except they are in a 25 year old body. Some of these 25 year olds today would be slapped out of the building by 25 year olds a generation or two ago. They are weak, oversensitive, self-serving, entitled, delicate and disconnected from reality. This is how you end-up with some of the crazy stuff coming out of outfits like Facebook and Google. They are completely devoid of real world social and business skills yet interact and affect the personal and business lives of millions. One example that comes to mind are account suspensions and cancellations without even a shadow of customer care or service offered. If you can't swipe or click a problem away the option to actually engage with a real human being and exercise the ability to resolve problems simply isn't there. How do you lead these people? Well, first they have to grow up. I suspect that will happen once they get to 35 or 40 years of age and finally understand reality. What will the consequences of such dysfunction be a few decades from now? Not sure.
visarga 10y ago
Optimize for more than immediate profits. Don't consider themselves detached from common population, and act in the interest of the greater good. It's a case of game theory - we need to cooperate even at the cost of a personal loss for the greater good, otherwise we all lose.
- Nomentatus 10y ago
  You're quite sure it isn't a Prisoner's Dilemma, instead? Ever?
jonathanstrange 10y ago
What about this study mentioned in Kahneman's Thinking fast and thinking slow according to which there was only a very slight correlation between the success of a company and the qualifications of a CEO? Don't get me wrong, CEOs have my uttermost respect and I don't claim that it's an easy job. I just wanted to point out that there are reasons for believing (at least the possibility) that from the point of view of a realistic assessment the choice of a leader and his or her personality, qualifications and ambitions do not have much to do with the performance of a company and that the many apparent examples to the contrary are mostly based on selection bias and some biases towards oneself such as regarding one's own success more as an achievement rather than chance as those of others, estimating your own social status higher than those of others, believing your less biased than others, etc. Maybe the best qualification for leadership is being at the right place at the right time, and nobody else really wants to do it? If that sounds too negative, let me stress again that I think CEOs and people in certain kinds of leadership positions often (though not always) do some difficult work that I generally respect. I just don't buy the claim that the successful ones are little geniuses. A decent amount of intelligence (smartness), some generic business knowledge and being good with social relations seem to suffice.
unabst 10y ago
Two words that weren't repeated enough in this essay, especially one with a focus on trust. 1. EMPATHY Great leaders have empathy towards their customers, their employees, and above all, to their cause, which is what is contagious. This is an emotional connection that garners an emotional response. The person that initiates the connection is leading. The person responding is following. When this pattern repeats itself, it strengthens the form and function of the relationship. 2. RESPONSIBILITY Taking responsibility is not to be confused with taking blame, because they are opposites. Responsibility is taken before the mistake, and doesn't go away after the mistake. When the mistake happens, you apologize, then fix it, because you're still responsible. Blame is only taken after the mistake. It ends with an apology or a legal defense, possibly an acceptance of punishment, and afterwards we forget it all happened. One is progressive. The other is regressive. There was also one word that wasn't even mentioned. 3. PROMISES A leader makes promises, and delivers on them, until everyone succeeds. They make promises to clients, to customers, to partners, to investors, and to employees. You cannot be a liar and keep promises. You cannot be incompetent and keep promises. You cannot make excuses and keep promises. You have to be aware, proactive, and capable to even know which promises to make. And with every promise you keep, you've just given everyone another excuse to trust you, depend on you, and follow you. In a nutshell, if they can promise to be responsible for delivering on a cause they deeply believe in, they're a leader.
kogus 10y ago
Proof is in the pudding. Measure leaders by how many follow them, giving greater weight to leaders who are followed by other leaders.
known 10y ago
AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
perseusprime11 10y ago
Here's my short list: 1. Listen to your people and look after them. 2. Delegate work because your people can do it better than you. 3. Make sure your team is working on the right things
fuzzfactor 10y ago
Good article by someone who is obviously well-informed on concentrated startups, and whose efforts I can easily respect. I agree that these are some of the universal features that have always functioned best when combined they yield the trust that is so essential. Plus some of the best leaders will actually earn enough respect to exceed that which would be expected by their position alone, earning every bit of it, rather than imposing it from above (from a naturally lower ceiling). In most cultures, it does seem, that situations will always arise where better leadership is needed in ways that can not be measured. Sometimes only a type of natural leadership will do, the kind that can not be acquired. Interestingly, this can also be the kind that does not fade even during periods without a team to lead. And, some of the time when it really counts most, the need to recognize the optimum or required type of leadership will not be met without defying metrics completely. So I then ask the question "Why would I want to measure leadership?" qualitatively or quantitatively - in some way other than based on my own abilities and intuition developed over a long lifetime of influence by those who have gained the most respect for their superior leadership And I get the expert answer; "In a startup culture that is obsessed with management by metrics".
StreamBright 10y ago
This is insanely valuable post, helped me a lot with understanding leadership.
js8 10y ago
With a ruler.

376 points by craigcannon 10y ago

Being a boss and being a leader are two very different things. That may seem obvious to those that understand it, those that don't will think I'm nuts. As a scrum master I have been a leader at every company where I have worked. I have never had anyone report to me in those same companies, aka not a boss.

bbarn 10y ago
I usually don't consider scrum masters leaders. Facilitators of process, and reporting are the two biggest things they are responsible for usually. No offense to your personal positions though, I know many places confuse the term with project manager too.
- Macsenour 10y ago
  I wasn't a Project Manager at all. Scrum Masters need to enforce the team rules and do so without being a boss. If they aren't leaders, if they aren't coaches, you're not getting as much out of your Scrum Masters as you can.

zzalpha 10y ago

All the qualities they identify, here, are, in my mind, absolutely necessary (though not sufficient) for someone to be a good leader. But, despite the title of the article, none of them are objectively quantifiable.

anbende 10y ago
Agreed, constructs like integrity and commitment are notoriously abstract and hard to rigorously define, let alone quantify. If one truly wants to quantify leadership, one would need an operational definition that is concrete. "Leadership" is probably too nebulous a term, so we'd need to break it down. I'd suggest that one goes after the parts that are the most quantifiable: employee morale, productivity, confidence in said leader. Company culture might be quantifiable (does it have a clear one, is it intentional?)

ajmarsh 10y ago

By the output of the employees that are lead/managed?

sbierwagen 10y ago

It is based on observations I made when working closely with four leaders that I consider extraordinary: Ed Catmull (Pixar’s founder), Steve Jobs (Pixar’s CEO), John Lasseter (Pixar’s Chief Creative Officer), and Bob Iger (Disney’s CEO). All four of these guys were involved in wage-fixing, which cost their companies $415 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_Litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-Tech_Employee_Antitrust_L... So, "extraordinary" in the sense of being extraordinarily unprofitable.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
johnrob 10y ago
The value of the labor managed by those leaders was over 100X greater than $415 million. Unprofitable is not the right term here (something ethical instead?).
- jrowley 10y ago
  Exactly, Apple alone is one of the most profitable businesses of all time.
- sbierwagen 10y ago
  That's irrelevant. The question is if the money those companies saved by illegally depressing wages was greater than the $415 million cost of the settlement, plus the bad press of the criminal investigation by the DOJ.
  - nl 10y ago
    No, it is completely relevant: ethics do have a place in leadership. I don't think it is as clear cut as this comment makes out. What they did was come to an illegal agreement not to poach employees from each other. There are multiple reasons why that could be good for a company, and I doubt 'reducing wages' is close to the top of that list. But ethics are important in leadership - I just think the case here isn't as simple as it is made out.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

losteverything 10y ago

Getting people to do things they don't want to do. I believe from Jack Welch

6stringmerc 10y ago
That describes manipulation at the root; I think persuasiveness is an element of leadership but it has, uh, a moral compass maybe?
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  Parents get children to do things they don't want to do using lots of techniques which I would not call manipulation (autocratic leadership, for instance). Personal trainers similarly, also drill sergeants. Edit: clarity
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
whalesalad 10y ago
This is manipulation. Leadership is inspiring people to believe what you believe so that they motivate themselves to fight alongside you.
- Godel_unicode 10y ago
  They didn't want to do it, they were motivated by good leadership, now they do it. See how that's not different than what OP said?
  - r00fus 10y ago
    Because one is scalable (using motivation) and the other (directive) is not. You simply can't pretend that "getting someone to do what they don't want to do" is motivation unless there is some changing of heart/mind there - now that's the leadership part.

eruditely 10y ago

You should probably follow Nassim's idea of not trying to measure x (leadership) vs output of leadership f(x) and try to measure the exposure and how it impacts it. Since probably the most significant effort has been pulled into probability theory and trying to get a measure of x that's probably the place to look. And you would NOT try to measure it as a point estimate as many have reminded us, you would try to set bounds lower&upper.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

ThomPete 10y ago

You don't. You experience it.

6stringmerc 10y ago

Leadership can be measured by simply stripping away all external factors that could distort the ability to quantify the Individual Leadership Quotient. A few such elements would include, but are not limited to: A) Talent and Aptitude of Followers, B) Macro Economic Conditions, C) Luck, D) The Weather...basically I think the notion of Leadership is very elastic and, more often than not, highly circumstantial. What is good Leadership for a bunch of grunts storming a beach in combat isn't objectively comparable to good Leadership for a bunch of teenagers in a classroom environment. There are some "Characteristics" I think that can be described and discussed as a useful musing on the concept, but it has to be qualitative not quantitative from my perspective.

claar 10y ago

Also a great read along these lines is "The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" by John Maxwell, which I'm close to finishing currently. Maxwell claims that leadership is influence, not authority. When I became a co-founder, I thought that made me a leader. But as PG's excellent post and Maxwell affirm, leadership is quite distinct from positional authority -- and is much more difficult to attain. Speaking directly to this post, I found that rating myself against Maxwell's "21 laws" was a sobering and likely accurate gauge of my leadership ability.

jkaljundi 10y ago
Years ago we had a board meeting, me being a youngish co-founder. We were talking about founder titles. I remember forever Esther Dyson as an investor and board member telling me then, that the titles do not mean much. You can be a great leader inside your company without any titles or official role - this is what you should aspire for. And you can be a CEO/CXO/VP without being a leader at all.
- walterbell 10y ago
  Variation of the same sentiment: ask a difficult question and see who everyone in the room looks towards for an answer. That person is the leader.
- user5994461 10y ago
  Higher title = ensure that people will listen to you for the first minute when you address the audience and/or ensure they'll come at all. Higher title = better pay It also has some drawbacks but that's a different topic.
  - ktRolster 10y ago
    If you have leadership skills, you can help lead your company, even from a low-end job title. However, it can take years to build up respect from management in that position. If you have a high title, you get a level of respect immediately (whether you deserve it or not). It goes a lot quicker.

prewett 10y ago

Leadership is people development. So, how many people have you developed? How many times have you reproduced yourself? If you want grow your company, you are going to have to reproduce yourself so that the new you is doing the old role so that you can step into the new one, or perhaps relieve yourself of excess roles. That role may or may not have the title you had when you were doing it, however. You might be titled "CEO" when you are leading a team of 5 people, but you will reproduce yourself as "Team Leader" as you start adding teams. Merely having clarity of thought and integrity does not make you a leader, it makes you a great team member. Merely having good people judgement makes you a good manager, not necessarily a good leader. Developing people makes you a good leader. It's hard to do that without the other three, though.

ChuckMcM 10y ago

It is always interesting when someone who believes themselves to be a great leader, discovers that they are not. And since many of the traits that make great leaders, self awareness, humility, honesty, Etc. are missing in these folks, the world around them sort of explodes when that realization hits. In my experience it is a time when they are most likely to embrace 'leadership through politics.' It is always a strong signal that it is time to distance oneself from the faux leader's area of influence.

Godel_unicode 10y ago
Is humility necessary for one to be a great leader? Steve Jobs and General George Patton spring to mind. I agree that a plurality of those traits are commonly found, I've always wondered about causality and importance. Not disagreeing, genuinely curious about your opinion. Edit: clarity and expansion
- ludicast 10y ago
  > Is humility necessary for one to be a great leader? Steve Jobs and General George Patton spring to mind. As does (starting tomorrow) the new leader of the free world.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - cowpig 10y ago
    I think parent post was referring to people who are generally considered to have been excellent leaders (and lack humility).
    - Godel_unicode 10y ago
      I was, although there was some selection bias in my choices; Hitler/Mussolini would certainly qualify for that category. Sidebar: I do find myself biased in judging someones merit as a leader based off of my opinion of their goals. Someone can certainly be a very good leader and lead towards something very bad.

arca_vorago 10y ago

“Leadership is intangible, hard to measure, and difficult to describe. It's quality would seem to stem from many factors. But certainly they must include a measure of inherent ability to control and direct, self-confidence based on expert knowledge, initiative, loyalty, pride and sense of responsibility. Inherent ability cannot be instilled, but that which is latent or dormant can be developed. Other ingredients can be acquired. They are not easily learned. But leaders can be and are made.” General C. B. Cates, 19th Commandant of the Marine Corps Ingrained to my brain from my Marine Corps days is the acronym JJDIDTIEBUCKLE as the list of leadership traits, and it has served me well since, although in the civilian world I have had to lower my expectations of others around me in having even a fraction of such traits. Relevant reading for those curious about how the Corps approaches leadership: http://www.tecom.marines.mil/Portals/120/Docs/Student%20Materials/CREST%20Manual/RP0103.pdf http://www.tecom.marines.mil/Portals/120/Docs/Student%20Mate...

edw519 10y ago

I've had 80 bosses. 77 of them sucked. I would march through hell to help the other 3 get something done. For me that pretty much sums it up. All the rest is fluff. FWIW, OP's 3 metrics: 1. Clarity of Thought and Communication 2. Judgment about People 3. Personal Integrity and Commitment Those should be necessary but not sufficient characteristics of every person in your organization. EDIT, response to walterbell & el_benharneen about what made the 3 different (in no particular order): - They always told the truth (to everybody). - They knew their stuff (tech, system, user domain). - They figured out the right thing to do. - They communicated often and flawlessly. - They did whatever it took to get the right thing done. - They smiled almost all the time. - They made each other person feel special. - They made work fun. - They were always teaching something. - They called bullshit instantly. - They protected their team. - They inspired us by showing how good things could be.

walterbell 10y ago
Anything in common among the three?
hinkley 10y ago
My three best managers all managed UP the org chart. The worst ones managed down. Then there were a few in the middle who gave us too much autonomy, deferring to our best judgement on everything, but not doing much firefighting on our behalf. The three worst ones were glorified secretaries. All they did was keep track of who made what decisions so they'd know who to throw under the bus. The sort of people who won't even break a tie on any important decision where the dev leads are deadlocked. Small, petty excuses for humans that I hope never to encounter again.
el_benhameen 10y ago
What separated the three from the 77?
lbotos 10y ago
Thank you for sharing this list. It's a great and clear checklist of what I also think makes a phenomenal leader.

pjmorris 10y ago

“A leader is best when people barely know he exists, when his work is done, his aim fulfilled, they will say: we did it ourselves.” - Lao Tzu quote opening 'Becoming a Technical Leader' by Jerry Weinberg

neltnerb 10y ago
I think this quote has one particularly important implication (among many): A major mismatch between responsibility and authority is a huge morale killer. If you have to constantly ask for permission, you will feel much less personally invested in success because you don't feel like it was your doing.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

freddyc 10y ago

Over the years a test I've often used is asking "how does this person respond to being challenged/questioned?" A great leader tends to embrace the fact that someone is asking "why" and uses it as an opportunity to learn and potentially convert the questioning party (if they're questioning something in the first place, then you haven't nailed it 100%). A weak leader who doesn't have confidence in their abilities sees the challenge as a personal attack and reacts in a knee-jerk fashion (often, though not always, resulting in a termination). If you can't reconcile differing opinions and convert those with opposing views to you then you're doomed as a leader and odds are your company/team will experience high turnover. Obviously there's a whole range of other traits that make great leaders, but I've found people that fail this test are almost always terrible leaders who others don't want to work for.

jotux 10y ago
Remind me of this quote from Meditations: >If any man is able to convince me and show me that I do not think or act right, I will gladly change; for I seek the truth by which no man was ever injured. But he is injured who abides in his error and ignorance.
- jhanschoo 10y ago
  Since you're quoting from Meditations, I hope you will entertain me if I go on a tangent. I find Meditations too disorganized to learn from it, and contextualize what it says. Do you have any advice?
  - jotux 10y ago
    I think of Meditations like a daily journal or notebook. It's one of the few books I keep around my desk and occasionally just flip to a random page and read. Individual passages have a lot of meaning so often I'll isolate one and really think about it or talk to my wife about it for a while. In general, though, I agree it's not very organized or easy to read. If you're looking for a better entry into stoicism I'd suggest A Guide to a Good Life[1]. It's a structured overview of stoicism with straight forward advice on actually using stoic ideas in your own life. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195374614/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr= https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Good-Life-Ancient-Stoic/dp/0195...

Cyranix 10y ago

RE: "Clarity of Thought and Communication" — I have worked at a couple of places that put a lot of effort into internal communications, selling employees on upcoming product changes they'll be working on, but failed to acknowledge the existing significant problems that everyone saw and that were repeatedly punted on. Being able to give a slick pitch is not sufficient for this leadership criterion; the narrative must be "credible" (as mentioned rather briefly in the article). Is it just me, or do other people find themselves frustrated at internal messaging that is self-consistent but not grounded in reality?

harryh 10y ago
I would say that a leader who doesn't have a credible plan has failed to have clarity of thought because if they did they would have seen that the plan wasn't credible in the first place.

imh 10y ago

I'm sad not to see an emphasis on giving a shit about the lives of those people you're leading. Personal development, career development, family, fun, etc. These are all hugely important to people outside of whatever widgets they are contributing to. A good leader should care about helping the people they lead achieve their goals, and not just in the sense of finding people who are willing to pretend their goals align with the widgets.

gbrits 10y ago
It is a top 3. And a good one imo
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
tyingq 10y ago
I think some of this might be on purpose. There used to be a fair amount of talk about loyalty both directions...employer to employee, and vice versa. Companies that would, for example, suffer what might be temporary bad times without laying anyone off. Or employees that might accept a pay cut to bridge a similar temporary situation. That seems to be largely gone now. There's no loyalty either direction. Companies layoff without remorse, and employees leave whenever they want as well. So, with that environment, company level discussion about family and fun just tend to ring hollow. The employer/employee relationship is transactional...we pay you to do what you do. I do think those things matter at a "direct supervisor" level...the person you work for should give a shit about you, know about your family, and so on. It just doesn't seems to scale up beyond that one direct relationship without seeming fake.
- imh 10y ago
  I think that's an accurate take on how things currently are, but disagree that it doesn't scale up. The company I'm at now does a great job, and there are 5 tiers between me and the CEO. I think certain priorities scale pretty well.
  - 10y ago

ktRolster 10y ago

There's kind of a difference between a manager and a leader. Manager - Makes sure things get done. If someone quits, finds a replacement, etc. We should all be managers of ourselves. Leader - A person that employees are willing to follow. Makes the group into a team, working together. Actually cares about the members in his team, protects and defends them. Fights to get them raises, etc.

qznc 10y ago
I remember a nice analogy: The workers are cutting down trees. The managers make sure the saws are sharp and the workers do a good job. The leader climbs up a tree and shouts "We are cutting down the wrong forest!".

alfonsodev 10y ago

Two things: By the profesional/personal growth of each team member and by the harmony of the group.

curiouslurker 10y ago

Great read but did Steve Jobs really have personal integrity? He was famously double faced, manipulative and as petulant and petty as a child, often settling personal scores with business decisions.

nostrademons 10y ago
You bring up a good point that illustrates an important distinction. There are two aspects people look at when they evaluate a leader's integrity: 1. Are they true to their values? 2. Are their values my values? Steve Jobs was remarkably true to his core values, which consisted of building great products for the masses to use. His values did not include being kind to people, coddling peoples' feelings, telling the truth (except insofar as it helped great products get built & distributed), promoting social justice or equality, or many other things that people care about. If your primary mission in life is to build great products, Apple was an excellent place to be. If you cared about work/life balance, free exchange of information, building products for the underprivileged, or any number of other causes, Steve Jobs was probably not the right leader for you. Sometimes it's possible for a person to score really well on #1 but not make the cut on #2. Antonin Scalia, for example, is someone who IMHO had great personal integrity, and yet I still detest because that integrity stood for causes that I find reprehensible. Or for a more extreme example, Adolph Hitler - he totally believed in what he said and did, but what he said and did was atrocious.
calinet6 10y ago
No, because personal integrity is a fairly unimportant concept to leadership, besides being a made-up trait that has almost no meaning. Leadership is about the ability to understand and manipulate reality. To do that, you need to know about systems, psychology, variation, and knowledge. None of the rest matters. People didn't have to like Jobs, nor even look to him for integrity. Rather they trusted him because he was effective at moving a whole organizational system in one direction toward an incredible result. It's not integrity that matters—but reality. Are you bringing the company, through your model of reality, closer to a result? If not, your model is wrong, not your personality.
- 10y ago

z3t4 10y ago

How many people that follow him/her literally

benkitzelman 10y ago

Look behind them and see who is following (following.... not just obeying)

batz 10y ago

It's simple to explain, but takes a lifetime to master. My version is: leadership is the ability to cultivate willingness in others. Leading is not a set of prescribed actions, but the effect of being followed willingly. 2500 years ago, Xenophon wrote in his treatise on horsemanship that, "nothing forced is beautiful." It is also the basic axiom of leadership. You can bribe, badger, threaten, shame and cajole, but the result will be temporary and inferior. Most of the time that's enough, hence "management," but leadership is an exceedingly rare and valuable skill.

swombat 10y ago

How do you measure a great car? There are three factors I've observed: great cars can accelerate, great cars are fun to drive, and great cars have steering wheels. Sorry, but leadership cannot be reduced to these three factors. There are many excellent leadership frameworks out there which provide great insight into how different leaders operate, and what the great ones have in common. Look up topics like Spiral Dynamics, the Action Logic leadership framework, Kegan & Lahey, and the Integral framework, and you'll have some good starting points on models of adult development that correlate to effective leadership.

JesseAldridge 10y ago
It's disappointing to see this comment downvoted. The blog post honestly feels kind of fluffy and is definitely far from scientific. A lot of smart people have spent a lot time thinking about this question. It seems foolish to not take the existing body of thought as a starting point.
- calinet6 10y ago
  Complete fluff. Thank you both. Even the leaders in this specific post had a model and influence, Ed Catmull saying specifically, "As we struggled to get Pixar off the ground, Deming’s work was like a beacon that lit my way." Deming's model of management was based on systems theory and psychology, and was and remains sound. There's a reason for their success other than trite personality traits.
majkinetor 10y ago
The point is, if it can't accelerate, it probably isn't good :) Those 3 are mandatory things to have, not a precise metric.

laurex 10y ago

These all seem like good things in a leader, but it does miss a vital quality, which is being able to guide those around the leader to perform at an elevated level, usually because the leader has the ability to both convey the importance of the mission and to be a good "whisperer," i.e. someone who listens to their team, understands what makes them tick, and supports them in performing at their best.

ImTalking 10y ago

I think you can overcomplicate this question but a leader is someone that, over time, people follow. Why they follow is up to the individual. Gandhi was a leader, but then conversely, Hitler was also a leader. There is no morality in leadership, but I would say a common trait would be charisma.

mempko 10y ago

A leader is not a position, but a role anyone can play at any given time.

qznc 10y ago
Yes, a very important aspect. You even have to lead your manager/boss sometimes.
treenyc 10y ago
yup! Leadership, Leadership position and leadership authority are distinct! See scholars and practioners who have contributed to building a scientific foundation for leadership: 1). https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406

Bahamut 10y ago

For leadership principles & qualities, I am biased towards the list that the Marine Corps has put out: http://www.tcsnc.org/cms/lib010/NC01910389/Centricity/Domain/592/Leadership%20Principles%20and%20Traits.pdf http://www.tcsnc.org/cms/lib010/NC01910389/Centricity/Domain... . The Marine Corps may not be a paragon in efficiency in some ways, but I have found that these qualities hold strikingly well for good leaders in the civilian world as well.

treenyc 10y ago

Hmm, do we distinguish leadership from management?

treenyc 10y ago

Before we can measure leadership. Maybe we ought to first figure out what we mean by leadership. Often there has being a mix up between leadership, management, and a bunch of other stuff that has nothing to do with leadership. If people are interested in how and leadership is effectively exercised and what it is. Take a look at this paper: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406 https://ssrn.com/abstract=1392406

remarkEon 10y ago

This is a hard question to answer, and my personal opinion is based on my experience in the Army over a while. The best leaders I encountered managed to somehow turn out the best in the people they led. That can manifest in a lot of ways. Improvements on subordinate performance, increases in technical proficiencies, a more disciplined approach to their work. Those are all good metrics, but the best leaders managed to get their subordinates to actually want to improve on their own, without sufficient goading from their leaders. Most of that, therefore, lands in the realm of understanding group dynamics, behavioral economics, and leadership psychology.

calinet6 10y ago

Having integrity, being able to judge people, and being a smart thinker? That's how you measure the leaders of an organization which was heavily influenced by the management principles of W. Edwards Deming? Have you even read Creativity Inc? Ed Catmull himself said, "As we struggled to get Pixar off the ground, Deming’s work was like a beacon that lit my way." Get a used copy of this book and read it cover to cover: https://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Getting/dp/0070580286 https://www.amazon.com/Leaders-Handbook-Making-Things-Gettin... Chapter 2: The New Leadership Competencies: - Competency 1: The Ability to Think in Terms of Systems and Knowing How to Lead Systems - Competency 2: The Ability to Understand the Variability of Work in Planning and Problem Solving - Competency 3. Understanding How We Learn, Develop, and Improve; Leading True Learning and Improvement - Competency 4. Understanding People and Why They Behave as They Do Those sound a tad more concrete and believable, don't they? That's an understanding of reality that might help you be a better leader to an organization that actually works. Dismiss the surface-level personality games and get yourself into the scientific reality of organizations, and you have a hope of leading one well. There are no missing parts—the whole system is important. That's the leadership secret. My bet is that the leaders described in this post are better described by the above characteristics, and they more reliably predict leadership success, than any of their individual traits or abilities. Certainly Ed Catmull, who was himself a big believer in Deming's way of managing companies, fits that model, and Steve Jobs was heavily influenced by Deming and Juran in creating a system able to produce extraordinary quality. In fact, the whole Pixar team this post is about was more heavily influenced by Deming's concepts than any trite personality fluke, yet that influence is entirely ignored here. This is forgivable: it's attribution bias. We instinctually want to attribute to the greatness of the individual that which was actually more nuanced, the outside factor in this case being a great body of knowledge about management and leadership that led them to be extraordinary. Now you know. Read Peter Scholtes' Leader's Handbook, read Creativity Inc., and keep thinking about it. There's way more to it than just having integrity, being able to judge people, and being a smart thinker. If excelling at those were all it took, we'd be up to our necks in extraordinary leaders. Must be something else, then.

rebootthesystem 10y ago

Well, there are others factors at play today. Here are a couple of videos that discuss the general topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hER0Qp6QJNU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xYCy2eft8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0xYCy2eft8 I have seen and continue to see some of the behaviors described in these two videos and it is deeply disturbing. Attempting to lead people with deep social challenges is an exercise in frustration and futility. Leadership, in this context, is a very different thing than in what I'll call more traditional settings. It almost has to be reduced to appeasement and coddling. Latte's and ice cream. We have a generation of adults who behave as petulant children half their age did in prior generations. Except they are in a 25 year old body. Some of these 25 year olds today would be slapped out of the building by 25 year olds a generation or two ago. They are weak, oversensitive, self-serving, entitled, delicate and disconnected from reality. This is how you end-up with some of the crazy stuff coming out of outfits like Facebook and Google. They are completely devoid of real world social and business skills yet interact and affect the personal and business lives of millions. One example that comes to mind are account suspensions and cancellations without even a shadow of customer care or service offered. If you can't swipe or click a problem away the option to actually engage with a real human being and exercise the ability to resolve problems simply isn't there. How do you lead these people? Well, first they have to grow up. I suspect that will happen once they get to 35 or 40 years of age and finally understand reality. What will the consequences of such dysfunction be a few decades from now? Not sure.

visarga 10y ago

Optimize for more than immediate profits. Don't consider themselves detached from common population, and act in the interest of the greater good. It's a case of game theory - we need to cooperate even at the cost of a personal loss for the greater good, otherwise we all lose.

Nomentatus 10y ago
You're quite sure it isn't a Prisoner's Dilemma, instead? Ever?

jonathanstrange 10y ago

What about this study mentioned in Kahneman's Thinking fast and thinking slow according to which there was only a very slight correlation between the success of a company and the qualifications of a CEO? Don't get me wrong, CEOs have my uttermost respect and I don't claim that it's an easy job. I just wanted to point out that there are reasons for believing (at least the possibility) that from the point of view of a realistic assessment the choice of a leader and his or her personality, qualifications and ambitions do not have much to do with the performance of a company and that the many apparent examples to the contrary are mostly based on selection bias and some biases towards oneself such as regarding one's own success more as an achievement rather than chance as those of others, estimating your own social status higher than those of others, believing your less biased than others, etc. Maybe the best qualification for leadership is being at the right place at the right time, and nobody else really wants to do it? If that sounds too negative, let me stress again that I think CEOs and people in certain kinds of leadership positions often (though not always) do some difficult work that I generally respect. I just don't buy the claim that the successful ones are little geniuses. A decent amount of intelligence (smartness), some generic business knowledge and being good with social relations seem to suffice.

unabst 10y ago

Two words that weren't repeated enough in this essay, especially one with a focus on trust. 1. EMPATHY Great leaders have empathy towards their customers, their employees, and above all, to their cause, which is what is contagious. This is an emotional connection that garners an emotional response. The person that initiates the connection is leading. The person responding is following. When this pattern repeats itself, it strengthens the form and function of the relationship. 2. RESPONSIBILITY Taking responsibility is not to be confused with taking blame, because they are opposites. Responsibility is taken before the mistake, and doesn't go away after the mistake. When the mistake happens, you apologize, then fix it, because you're still responsible. Blame is only taken after the mistake. It ends with an apology or a legal defense, possibly an acceptance of punishment, and afterwards we forget it all happened. One is progressive. The other is regressive. There was also one word that wasn't even mentioned. 3. PROMISES A leader makes promises, and delivers on them, until everyone succeeds. They make promises to clients, to customers, to partners, to investors, and to employees. You cannot be a liar and keep promises. You cannot be incompetent and keep promises. You cannot make excuses and keep promises. You have to be aware, proactive, and capable to even know which promises to make. And with every promise you keep, you've just given everyone another excuse to trust you, depend on you, and follow you. In a nutshell, if they can promise to be responsible for delivering on a cause they deeply believe in, they're a leader.

kogus 10y ago

Proof is in the pudding. Measure leaders by how many follow them, giving greater weight to leaders who are followed by other leaders.

known 10y ago

AKA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

perseusprime11 10y ago

Here's my short list: 1. Listen to your people and look after them. 2. Delegate work because your people can do it better than you. 3. Make sure your team is working on the right things

fuzzfactor 10y ago

Good article by someone who is obviously well-informed on concentrated startups, and whose efforts I can easily respect. I agree that these are some of the universal features that have always functioned best when combined they yield the trust that is so essential. Plus some of the best leaders will actually earn enough respect to exceed that which would be expected by their position alone, earning every bit of it, rather than imposing it from above (from a naturally lower ceiling). In most cultures, it does seem, that situations will always arise where better leadership is needed in ways that can not be measured. Sometimes only a type of natural leadership will do, the kind that can not be acquired. Interestingly, this can also be the kind that does not fade even during periods without a team to lead. And, some of the time when it really counts most, the need to recognize the optimum or required type of leadership will not be met without defying metrics completely. So I then ask the question "Why would I want to measure leadership?" qualitatively or quantitatively - in some way other than based on my own abilities and intuition developed over a long lifetime of influence by those who have gained the most respect for their superior leadership And I get the expert answer; "In a startup culture that is obsessed with management by metrics".

StreamBright 10y ago

This is insanely valuable post, helped me a lot with understanding leadership.

js8 10y ago

With a ruler.