8 ms·

Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders

149 points by camerony 8y ago

aytekin 8y ago
“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 8y ago
  but what happens if number #1 doesn't like the ship they built?
  - rorykoehler 8y ago
    Then they hired the wrong people.
    - MichaelMoser123 8y ago
      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.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - rorykoehler 8y ago
        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.
    - atoav 8y ago
      A good Casting is as important as a good script. Sometimes it is more important
  - fsloth 8y ago
    Then they iterate? Nowhere does this say that the CEO stays out of the way. CEO can act as the editor, co-designer, arbiter, curator and whatever. Like you hear how Steve Jobs operated. Mode two thinking does not mean you can't be critical. In fact, critique is critical for the best end result. It means you must understand how to skillfully switch between type 1 goal oriented and type 2 creative mode. That's the trick - you need BOTH. And utilizing mode 1 so that it does not kill mode 2 is really hard. You have to be compassionate, emphatic and work from the common understanding that everyone is striving towards the same goal. It's "Build this my grandest design to me now!" vs. "Ok, hotshot, show me what you can build and we can tweak that into the ultimate ship".
    - MichaelMoser123 8y ago
      Thanks, there must be several styles of switching between the modes/management styles that determine how one is interacting with his colleagues. What are your thoughts here?
      - fsloth 8y ago
        Mm, I'm really not an expert and don't have anything constructive to add except to simplify what I said: IMO the key thing is that the work is done in open mode, and the results are observed critically. This means that the constraints, implicit or explicit, should be as unlimiting as possible, because all constraints will limit the space of solutions that people can think of. This includes such limits as performance metrics and various financial incentives. Which means if you want creative output, you should generally fund peoples and projects, and not milestones. And then when they deliver something, gauge that critically, and if the thing they make sells well, give them a bonus so they will feel fairly treated. But don't incentivize the innovation process itself and don't hold the bonus up as a promised gift they will wait for. This is of course completely different way than you would incentivize sales people or people doing linear repetitive tasks where performance based incentives are shown to work pretty well. Dan Pink's TED lecture is pretty good. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en#t-906824 https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en...
  - olau 8y ago
    I find it funny that the others here assume the problem is with the builders and not with #1. Good leadership requires that you come to terms with shortcomings, both your own and those of other people.
    - matwood 8y ago
      More generally, most people always think it's someone else's fault. It's hard for people to look critically at themselves, but only once you learn that skill can really start to improve.
      - camerony 8y ago
        This is incredibly true. At Torch we are constantly building feedback loops into leadership process. It works because even hard feedback comes with genuine respect and care for the other person. Without care, it's like two Vulcan's giving each other feedback, and that starts to look more like criticism...which in fact is one of the most toxic qualities in a company culture.
  - 3pt14159 8y ago
    Out of the big five personality traits agreeableness is the the one most corollated with being a CEO. Negatively correlated, that is. There is a reason for this. Most people have really low standards. Most people are lazy. Inspiring them to build the ship fixes the second problem. Telling them that the ship's sails are junk and they should design better ones fixes the first.
  - matwood 8y ago
    The CEO still manages and communicates the vision on a regular basis. Autonomy is a sliding scale.
- berlinstartup 8y ago
  Great quote, but did Saint-Exupery know anything of actual ship-building?
AndrewKemendo 8y ago
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/the_bases_of_social_power_-_chapter_20_-_1959.pdf http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/t...
- jakegarelick 8y ago
  Interesting point. My impression is that YC/SV is a lot “sexier”, and that’s why people are drawn to Seibel rather than Greenleaf or French/Raven. The PDF you linked looks incredibly dry; On the other hand the link in this post is very easy to digest and understand.
- syndacks 8y ago
  While I agree with your general desire to teach/learn leadership, I don't think true Leadership can be codified as easily as other skills/qualities can. As Siebel says at the end of the interview, the single biggest trait he looks for in a good leader is communication. How do you teach good communication? Is the combination of empathy, wit, general+specific knowledge, active listening, etc etc something you can really teach someone so they communicate better? I'd argue these traits, if teachable at all, are developed at a young age. I've frankly never seen an adult evolve from a bad communicator to a good one. And that's just one quality of a good leader. Now try to codify, much less teach, something like charisma. Or likeability. These things, while nebulous, are definitely part of the leadership equation. This becomes even more complicated in a tech setting, where the 0s and 1s of computers clash fundamentally with the nuanced requisites of a good leader. They're not mutually exclusive, of course, but what we're talking about now is a true left brain/right brain individual with a healthy dose of X factor that makes him/her someone that developers, sales folk, and office managers alike trust and get behind. I wish I were wrong. I wish you could teach these things, but I really don't think you can. Otherwise we'd be living in a much different world.
mkagenius 8y ago
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.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- donkeyd 8y ago
  > 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.
dalbasal 8y ago
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 8y ago
This is an ad
afpx 8y ago
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.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

149 points by camerony 8y ago

“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 8y ago
but what happens if number #1 doesn't like the ship they built?
- rorykoehler 8y ago
  Then they hired the wrong people.
  - MichaelMoser123 8y ago
    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.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rorykoehler 8y ago
      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.
  - atoav 8y ago
    A good Casting is as important as a good script. Sometimes it is more important
- fsloth 8y ago
  Then they iterate? Nowhere does this say that the CEO stays out of the way. CEO can act as the editor, co-designer, arbiter, curator and whatever. Like you hear how Steve Jobs operated. Mode two thinking does not mean you can't be critical. In fact, critique is critical for the best end result. It means you must understand how to skillfully switch between type 1 goal oriented and type 2 creative mode. That's the trick - you need BOTH. And utilizing mode 1 so that it does not kill mode 2 is really hard. You have to be compassionate, emphatic and work from the common understanding that everyone is striving towards the same goal. It's "Build this my grandest design to me now!" vs. "Ok, hotshot, show me what you can build and we can tweak that into the ultimate ship".
  - MichaelMoser123 8y ago
    Thanks, there must be several styles of switching between the modes/management styles that determine how one is interacting with his colleagues. What are your thoughts here?
    - fsloth 8y ago
      Mm, I'm really not an expert and don't have anything constructive to add except to simplify what I said: IMO the key thing is that the work is done in open mode, and the results are observed critically. This means that the constraints, implicit or explicit, should be as unlimiting as possible, because all constraints will limit the space of solutions that people can think of. This includes such limits as performance metrics and various financial incentives. Which means if you want creative output, you should generally fund peoples and projects, and not milestones. And then when they deliver something, gauge that critically, and if the thing they make sells well, give them a bonus so they will feel fairly treated. But don't incentivize the innovation process itself and don't hold the bonus up as a promised gift they will wait for. This is of course completely different way than you would incentivize sales people or people doing linear repetitive tasks where performance based incentives are shown to work pretty well. Dan Pink's TED lecture is pretty good. https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en#t-906824 https://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation?language=en...
- olau 8y ago
  I find it funny that the others here assume the problem is with the builders and not with #1. Good leadership requires that you come to terms with shortcomings, both your own and those of other people.
  - matwood 8y ago
    More generally, most people always think it's someone else's fault. It's hard for people to look critically at themselves, but only once you learn that skill can really start to improve.
    - camerony 8y ago
      This is incredibly true. At Torch we are constantly building feedback loops into leadership process. It works because even hard feedback comes with genuine respect and care for the other person. Without care, it's like two Vulcan's giving each other feedback, and that starts to look more like criticism...which in fact is one of the most toxic qualities in a company culture.
- 3pt14159 8y ago
  Out of the big five personality traits agreeableness is the the one most corollated with being a CEO. Negatively correlated, that is. There is a reason for this. Most people have really low standards. Most people are lazy. Inspiring them to build the ship fixes the second problem. Telling them that the ship's sails are junk and they should design better ones fixes the first.
- matwood 8y ago
  The CEO still manages and communicates the vision on a regular basis. Autonomy is a sliding scale.
berlinstartup 8y ago
Great quote, but did Saint-Exupery know anything of actual ship-building?

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

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/the_bases_of_social_power_-_chapter_20_-_1959.pdf http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/t...

jakegarelick 8y ago
Interesting point. My impression is that YC/SV is a lot “sexier”, and that’s why people are drawn to Seibel rather than Greenleaf or French/Raven. The PDF you linked looks incredibly dry; On the other hand the link in this post is very easy to digest and understand.
syndacks 8y ago
While I agree with your general desire to teach/learn leadership, I don't think true Leadership can be codified as easily as other skills/qualities can. As Siebel says at the end of the interview, the single biggest trait he looks for in a good leader is communication. How do you teach good communication? Is the combination of empathy, wit, general+specific knowledge, active listening, etc etc something you can really teach someone so they communicate better? I'd argue these traits, if teachable at all, are developed at a young age. I've frankly never seen an adult evolve from a bad communicator to a good one. And that's just one quality of a good leader. Now try to codify, much less teach, something like charisma. Or likeability. These things, while nebulous, are definitely part of the leadership equation. This becomes even more complicated in a tech setting, where the 0s and 1s of computers clash fundamentally with the nuanced requisites of a good leader. They're not mutually exclusive, of course, but what we're talking about now is a true left brain/right brain individual with a healthy dose of X factor that makes him/her someone that developers, sales folk, and office managers alike trust and get behind. I wish I were wrong. I wish you could teach these things, but I really don't think you can. Otherwise we'd be living in a much different world.

mkagenius 8y ago

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.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
donkeyd 8y ago
> 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.

dalbasal 8y ago

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 8y ago

This is an ad

afpx 8y ago

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.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]