“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
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".
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.
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.
I see this pattern a lot: leadership advice in the form of general principles/first principles, but not a lot of advice on the nuts and bolts of how you accomplish those things. Human emotions, motivation, and communication are far fickler things than software, and it takes a lot of skill and work to create consistency and resilience from that mess.
For example: how do you tell someone that they're underperforming while still motivating them? There's a lot of partial advice out there like "frame it as a growth opportunity." But how? What words do you use? Half of the new managers will flinch before they give the feedback, and the other half will flub the delivery. It's a hard-earned, fundamental leadership skill.
MBA programs actually encode a lot of time-tested wisdom on leadership and management for the students who go looking for it. Huge emphasis on the caveat because not all MBA students are looking for that. They even do simulations to give you practice in a low-stakes setting. As a risky generalization based on my own observations, I think Silicon Valley has thrown the baby out with the bathwater with its historical hostility towards MBA's.
Speaking of which, I think executive coaching is worth its weight in gold for younger startup leadership.
A concrete example of motivation: when someone on my crew identifies and issue and dispalys just beyond a moderate amount of interest - boom - just just volunteered to drive that issue, direct resources and own the outcome. People grow fast with responsibleity and accountability. Sometimes it's a little messy. Play a long game.
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.
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.
They are definitely teachable. I had to learn them. I won't say I'm great at it, but there was a drastic difference between my effectiveness as a leader early on vs. later on.
Just like technical acumen, you have to start with building low level muscles, and then you build on top of that to develop increasingly complex, integrated skills.
Here's an example breakdown of how to build communication skills from a set of low level skills. I've seen adults (including engineers) improve dramatically with direction and practice:
1. Learning to tell when you are getting angry and building the habit of stepping away instead of escalating
2. Learning to tell when you are reacting in the moment vs. analyzing, and practicing the habit of moving to analysis during tense conversations
3. Learning to stop automatically attributing bad motives to things other people say that you dislike
4. Learning the formula for conflict handling: (1) acknowledging their point, (2) repeating it back with a charitable interpretation, then (3) responding with your point
5. Learning to make exploratory statements and ask questions to establish common understanding
6. Learning to identify and not make overconfident/dismissive/glib statements
In the spirit of the comment with the quote which includes this part: "teach them to long for the endless immensity of the sea", I think a lot of what you suggest can be learnt if one adopts a different mindset while communicating. I learnt a lot just by consciously practicing "what set of assumptions or circumstances would make this person's statements correct/valid" instead of "let me see how I can explain to this person that s/he is wrong". Even if the other person is holding on to a position which is objectively incorrect, it makes it much easier to see how s/he came to that position. Anyway, the gist of what I'm trying to say is that without a change in mindset, there is no motivation to function in a different manner. So, it might appear that some people will always work in a certain way but I think if they are motivated to change, then it's not really an extraordinary thing for them to undergo a notable transformation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Readit News
“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
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".
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.
Good leadership requires that you come to terms with shortcomings, both your own and those of other people.
Dead Comment
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
[2]http://www.communicationcache.com/uploads/1/0/8/8/10887248/t...
For example: how do you tell someone that they're underperforming while still motivating them? There's a lot of partial advice out there like "frame it as a growth opportunity." But how? What words do you use? Half of the new managers will flinch before they give the feedback, and the other half will flub the delivery. It's a hard-earned, fundamental leadership skill.
MBA programs actually encode a lot of time-tested wisdom on leadership and management for the students who go looking for it. Huge emphasis on the caveat because not all MBA students are looking for that. They even do simulations to give you practice in a low-stakes setting. As a risky generalization based on my own observations, I think Silicon Valley has thrown the baby out with the bathwater with its historical hostility towards MBA's.
Speaking of which, I think executive coaching is worth its weight in gold for younger startup leadership.
When you ask someone, "Describe the person you'd like to work for," I seriously doubt talented people say, "An MBA."
So surely you'd see why so many mediocre people wind up working for them.
Deleted Comment
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.
They are definitely teachable. I had to learn them. I won't say I'm great at it, but there was a drastic difference between my effectiveness as a leader early on vs. later on.
Just like technical acumen, you have to start with building low level muscles, and then you build on top of that to develop increasingly complex, integrated skills.
Here's an example breakdown of how to build communication skills from a set of low level skills. I've seen adults (including engineers) improve dramatically with direction and practice:
1. Learning to tell when you are getting angry and building the habit of stepping away instead of escalating
2. Learning to tell when you are reacting in the moment vs. analyzing, and practicing the habit of moving to analysis during tense conversations
3. Learning to stop automatically attributing bad motives to things other people say that you dislike
4. Learning the formula for conflict handling: (1) acknowledging their point, (2) repeating it back with a charitable interpretation, then (3) responding with your point
5. Learning to make exploratory statements and ask questions to establish common understanding
6. Learning to identify and not make overconfident/dismissive/glib statements
The PDF you linked looks incredibly dry; On the other hand the link in this post is very easy to digest and understand.
Dead Comment
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.
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.
Deleted Comment
> 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.
Deleted Comment