3 ms·

I think in times of distress/startup such charismatic leaders were often chosen to lead. Basically he WANTS to lead while others just lead because they rise up.

I think in times of distress/startup such charismatic leaders were often chosen to lead. Basically he WANTS to lead while others just lead because they rise up. He has stronger will than the others. Modern people are rarely trained for this kind of things, and leadership is probably not trained in classes, but born and through childhood experience.

dogman144 5y ago
Leadership is trained is classes, just not in a lot of forums. Usually can only find it in a focused, curriculum-style way out of the military or situations like the consultants bankers get assigned by their companies when they are about to hit Managing Director. The concept that leadership can only come from those born with it keeps many competent individuals out of those roles that (especially) tech needs in those roles. Take the inverse approach that is most common - bubbling up the most competent IC or founder (Zuckerberg for example) without any regard for leadership training is one of the biggest issues tech has an industry. You commonly end up technically sound but low-EQ, low-leadership individuals in long term EM tracks who will never leave because the comp is so good. And teams suffer for it. This impacts everyone though beyond tech. Whenever people "hate their manager," the manager's traits that are hated usually come from a visible lack of leadership capabilities and by extension focused education. However, how possible and pragmatic it is to train every middle manager in leadership without click-through HR slides is a different topic.
- drBonkers 5y ago
  If you wanted to learn to lead without the military or consultant banking, how would you?
  - dogman144 5y ago
    I'll start with a caveat that you have to be filter ex-mil people writing leadership books. There's a real issue of thinking a 1:1 copy of combat leadership into corporate/tech leadership will work, and a mountain of leadership books take that approach. That aside... Stanley McChrystal's Leaders: Myth and Reality is a great exception. It's by both someone who's done the real deal of leading, but also controls for the above. It covers a roster of leadership case studies that span personalties, time frames, and situations for the events one has to lead in, or the background of the leader. Examples are like Harriet Tubman/Civil War, Martin Luther/Protestant Reformation, MLk/Civil Rights, Einstein/science in the early 1900's, etc. It does a very good job of showing that leadership isn't so much a personality and getting a team to a target outcome, but about high EQ and understanding the times, levers/tools, and people involved to build community and drive outcomes. It sort of sounds like I'm saying "it's not A, it's more about.. A" with that sentence. What I mean it it's a skill that grows from understanding nuance and how to leverage it. Not just a personality and focus on outcomes. If you focus on the team and how to resource, empower, and guide it, the outcomes take care of themselves. Cool examples that stood out were Martin Luther and dealing with the follow-on peasant revolts that his movement started and that he didn't really support (iirc? been a bit of time since I read it), and Einstein and the role his extensive letter writing and his hub/spoke role in the scientific community as they contributed to the breakthroughs of the time from him and his peers. The other huge part is understanding EQ, and how to deploy it tactically (but not cynically). You can define a basic leader as anyone trying to aggregate the support and resources to get a certain outcome. This often involves external resources and people to do, even if you're a solo operator. In that sense, where the basic leader fails is letting pride and short term wants get in the way of building that required support that requires other people. It's learning to manage the impulse to be right/valued/seen in the short term with valuing/seeing the other in support of ~the midterm... if that sort of makes sense. Daniel Coleman: Emotional Intelligence is often recommended for this. I haven't read it yet, but plan to. For a one stop shop, anything about "servant leadership" is a good move to study. Is it discussing resourcing and coordinating for a team and serving as the umbrella from stupid stuff from higher levels of the org? Is it a focus on mentorship and "training one's replacement." Is it elevating consistent performers who support their team and themselves over rockstars that go it totally alone? All usually good signs of a good leadership study. There was a link floating around HN a few days ago about like 40 bullet points for new EMs that hit all this very well.

dogman144 5y ago

Leadership is trained is classes, just not in a lot of forums. Usually can only find it in a focused, curriculum-style way out of the military or situations like the consultants bankers get assigned by their companies when they are about to hit Managing Director. The concept that leadership can only come from those born with it keeps many competent individuals out of those roles that (especially) tech needs in those roles. Take the inverse approach that is most common - bubbling up the most competent IC or founder (Zuckerberg for example) without any regard for leadership training is one of the biggest issues tech has an industry. You commonly end up technically sound but low-EQ, low-leadership individuals in long term EM tracks who will never leave because the comp is so good. And teams suffer for it. This impacts everyone though beyond tech. Whenever people "hate their manager," the manager's traits that are hated usually come from a visible lack of leadership capabilities and by extension focused education. However, how possible and pragmatic it is to train every middle manager in leadership without click-through HR slides is a different topic.

drBonkers 5y ago
If you wanted to learn to lead without the military or consultant banking, how would you?
- dogman144 5y ago
  I'll start with a caveat that you have to be filter ex-mil people writing leadership books. There's a real issue of thinking a 1:1 copy of combat leadership into corporate/tech leadership will work, and a mountain of leadership books take that approach. That aside... Stanley McChrystal's Leaders: Myth and Reality is a great exception. It's by both someone who's done the real deal of leading, but also controls for the above. It covers a roster of leadership case studies that span personalties, time frames, and situations for the events one has to lead in, or the background of the leader. Examples are like Harriet Tubman/Civil War, Martin Luther/Protestant Reformation, MLk/Civil Rights, Einstein/science in the early 1900's, etc. It does a very good job of showing that leadership isn't so much a personality and getting a team to a target outcome, but about high EQ and understanding the times, levers/tools, and people involved to build community and drive outcomes. It sort of sounds like I'm saying "it's not A, it's more about.. A" with that sentence. What I mean it it's a skill that grows from understanding nuance and how to leverage it. Not just a personality and focus on outcomes. If you focus on the team and how to resource, empower, and guide it, the outcomes take care of themselves. Cool examples that stood out were Martin Luther and dealing with the follow-on peasant revolts that his movement started and that he didn't really support (iirc? been a bit of time since I read it), and Einstein and the role his extensive letter writing and his hub/spoke role in the scientific community as they contributed to the breakthroughs of the time from him and his peers. The other huge part is understanding EQ, and how to deploy it tactically (but not cynically). You can define a basic leader as anyone trying to aggregate the support and resources to get a certain outcome. This often involves external resources and people to do, even if you're a solo operator. In that sense, where the basic leader fails is letting pride and short term wants get in the way of building that required support that requires other people. It's learning to manage the impulse to be right/valued/seen in the short term with valuing/seeing the other in support of ~the midterm... if that sort of makes sense. Daniel Coleman: Emotional Intelligence is often recommended for this. I haven't read it yet, but plan to. For a one stop shop, anything about "servant leadership" is a good move to study. Is it discussing resourcing and coordinating for a team and serving as the umbrella from stupid stuff from higher levels of the org? Is it a focus on mentorship and "training one's replacement." Is it elevating consistent performers who support their team and themselves over rockstars that go it totally alone? All usually good signs of a good leadership study. There was a link floating around HN a few days ago about like 40 bullet points for new EMs that hit all this very well.