Definitely seems a bit backwards - sell your good investments (in many cases before realizing a possible change of control premium) and focus on your failed investments. Difficult market conditions always make everyone's head spin, there is not substitute for "hitting it out of the park".

I also think that the business week author may be a bit skewed by the fact that he is an angel (not sure how active he is in the companies he funds) - although he does admit that he doesn't follow his own advice. I would contend that playing an active role on the board, building a great company, actually positions most VCs to be a great addition to the board not someone over their head.

George, Well said. I think that's a great perspective! You are dead on "learn faster and execute better than their competitors" is simple yet truly the test. I also like you sudo reference check relative to what really happened. Great post. David Hornik from August Capital did a Venture Cast in mid-May (I think it was 32) and his take was very similar - a competent team is more important than a truly great idea or even market as very few startups end up doing exactly what they set out to do and must be truly 'agile'.

I still think about the experience at West Point often and in particular the session on In-Extremis leadership.

I agree on your take relative to Competence and it truly is what matters in the startup world and business in general. I would be interested in how you assess the three components you described of Competence (e.g. "knowing what it truly takes to execute the plan") - in your mind what does that mean? It seems that Competence encompasses many of the other skill sets that we often try and segment. Of course the easy answer to whether a Competence is the most important leadership quality is how well does an Incompetent leader perform, especially in difficult times.

Great post.