Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders • Hacker News Board

Re: Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders

#41

Post by camerony » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 5:33 PM UTC

matwood wrote: post #39

olau wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders

#42

Post by munchbunny » Wed, Dec 12, 2018, 6:25 PM UTC

watwut wrote: post #31

munchbunny wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Talented people aren't going to decide on the basis of whether their manager-to-be has an MBA. Talented engineers will gravitate towards teams with likewise talented engineers and good leadership. I'm suggesting that, as a reliable way to raise the bar on leadership, engineers who want to manage might benefit a lot from going through MBA training.

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

would definitely benefit a lot from learning about psychology and leadership

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

the reason is that their management style tend to be demotivating and offputting

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

Re: Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders

#43

Post by berlinstartup » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 12:13 AM UTC

aytekin wrote: post #2

“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 t…

Great quote, but did Saint-Exupery know anything of actual ship-building?

Re: Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders

#44

Post by berlinstartup » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 12:14 AM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #3

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 at…

Yes, I had to roll my eyes when he started talking about the "Level 2" way and said "metrics" and "KPIs". Not exactly inspiring or new.

Re: Michael Seibel on Leadership Attributes in Successful Startup Leaders

#45

Post by watwut » Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 2:20 PM UTC

munchbunny wrote: post #42

watwut wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

would definitely benefit a lot from learning about psychology and leadership That's a significant chunk of the MBA curriculum. Of course you don't have to get it from there, but if you look at who teaches in business schools, quite a few of the professors specifically research those subjects. the reason is that their management style tend to be demotivating and offputting What about it is demotivating and offputting?…

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

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

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

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

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

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