Substantially all successful leaders we profile answer that the departments below them do not rely on them for urgency whereas substantially all unsuccessful leaders answer to the contrary.  

 

When urgency in an organization is primarily driven by the CEO, teams and departments become accustomed to waiting for direction or motivation from above before action. Bottlenecks, delays, and reactivity result.   

 

The most common expression of this problem we see is "lead guitarist syndrome:"  especially with CEOs new to leading leaders, the CEO functions as a rock band lead guitarist instead of an orchestra conductor.  S/he plays with flair and drive but forgets that his main job is others playing with flair and drive.

​

When leaders express that everyone in the organization needs to uphold urgency down the chain of command,  people don't wait to be told what to do; they see what needs to be done and they act.  This concept is closely aligned with the Steve Jobs framework of "what's the point of hiring smart people if you tell them what to do", and the Zuckerberg framework of only hiring people you'd work for.

​

Insist on urgency at all levels of the organization while also understanding that urgency, for the most part, can not be taught.   Bad leaders ignore it.  Masters coach it.  Zen masters replace people without it.

Great communication and prioritization both involve refraining.  

 

One key area where great leaders refrain is ideation.   They know they have few bullets in their verbal gun.   So they choose them wisely.   Repetition for them is not just about ensuring the message is heard.  It is not even only about reinforcing values, expectations, and the collective vision.   It is a core tool to follow the Fred Smith maxim: "The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing."  

 

Even the best can benefit from planning communication beforehand to make sure that they communicate with concision and consistency.   When people start complaining about hearing the same message too many times it is starting to stick.

 

86% of successful leaders agree with this standard versus 17% of unsuccessful leaders.

Leaders bear the responsibility of pushing team members to grow and develop by working hard to overcome their weaknesses. But making flaws explicit, no matter how good a leader’s intentions might be, often produces resistance and rejection.

 

So great leaders start with themselves.  They:

- express the "story they are telling themselves", as Brene Brown puts it, pointing out their flaws and areas for development, and how they have battled these blemishes. 
- remember that what bothers them about others is often what bothers them about themselves.  
- understand that making shortcomings about their own needs and vulnerabilities deeply personalizes difficult discussions and enables a bilateral conversion rooted in compassion.

- start with the premise that "poor performance is a function of both of us".  

​

Substantially no successful leaders we have profiled disagree with this concept and 83% mostly or strongly agree.   In contrast, only 18% of the unsuccessful cohort strongly agree and 62% disagree or have no opinion.

The Hoffmann Program can be a fantastic resource to understand the incredible power of this concept.

As a leader, you want to be respected by your team, and you also want to show respect to your team. However, especially when it comes to leading leaders, what matters most is for a leader to respect their team.

 

Why do we posit this?   79% of our unsuccessful leader profiles answer that they would somewhat, mostly, or entirely prefer to be respected by their team.  90% of our successful leaders prefer respecting their teams.    

​

You may think this answer is because bad leaders need to be liked but it's deeper than that.   For starters, when you as a leader consistently demonstrate respect for your team - when you value their opinions, recognize their contributions, and treat them with dignity and care - it sets a powerful tone. It creates a culture of mutual respect and appreciation.  And in that kind of environment, the respect for the leader naturally follows.   And then several downstream virtuous cycles occur:  first, the leader must build a team they admire instead of one that is merely okay; second, given that they have to respect their team, they neither tolerate behavior below their standards nor let problems become gripes.   They are fans of their team and shortlist situations to the contrary as "up or out" 

​

In contrast, if a leader focuses primarily on being respected, asserting their authority, and demanding deference, team morale and engagement vaporize. People may comply out of obligation but won't be inspired to give their best.

​

The most admired leaders understand this. They know that their role is to serve and empower their team, not to be served by them. They prioritize showing respect over receiving it and, in doing so, often earn the deepest respect anyway.  

​

And then to be a world-class zen master in this, you go 1 step further: admire others in a way that's disconnected from their performance.   This routine is powerful because it sends a clear message that you value them as a person, not just for what they achieve, noticing and appreciating who they are, not just what they do. It's a way of seeing and valuing the whole person, and it can unlock so much potential and engagement on a team.