1. Not satisfied with my team
Across our dataset, 10% of successful leaders answer that they are mostly or entirely satisfied with their teams. In contrast, 88% of unsuccessful CEOs are satisfied or have no opinion.
Do these data make sense? We think so. The least successful leaders we see are most satisfied, particularly with their teams. "Being too satisfied" has root causes including needing to please, having low expectations for others, and having low urgency.
Great leaders know that great talent like being developed, challenged, and improved. They are easily pleased but rarely satisfied.
2. [81] I am not the one creating the urgency in any departments. Areas of the business arent dependent on me for creating urgency
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 lead guitarist instead of an orchestra conductor. S/he plays with flair and drive, but forgets that the main job is to ensure others play 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.
3. [84] You restrict your ideation. Instead, you mention the #1 priority in what feels like every conversation.
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.
4. [93] I make my feedback about me before I make it about you.
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 conversation 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.
5. [601] Followers: What matters more is how much they respect their followers vs being respected
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 to respect their teams.
You may think this answer is because less successful 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 -- your behavior sets a powerful tone. It creates a culture of mutual respect and appreciation. And in such an environment, respect for the leader naturally follows. And then several downstream virtuous cycles occur: first, the leader must build a team they admire, rather than 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 quickly dissipate. 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 become a world-class zen master in this, you take one 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, but also for 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 a great deal of potential and engagement within a team.
1. [75] My team knows the #1 overall corporate priority, the quantification of it, and the date we will hit it
2/3rds of the unsuccessful leaders in our survey do not answer "strong true" to this question whereas substantially all the successful (by results) leaders do.
Consistent with our survey data, having multiple #1 priorities is the most common malady of the companies we encounter in our turnarounds. In your business, can everyone tell you the #1 priority, the quantification of it, and the timeline for achieving it?
If not, you have work to do because, without total clarity on the top priority, (i) people work on what they think is important, rather than what is important, (ii) trade-offs and decisions are difficult without a clear north star, and (iii) motivation and engagement suffer because people don't understand how their work fits into the bigger picture.
2. [20] I don't answer questions with questions -- because my job is to tell people what to do and make sure they do it
You might think that no seasoned leader strongly agrees with this statement. If so, you're right: only 1% do. However, almost 1/3rd of epic value destroyers answer some degree of "true".
In doing so, they communicate that they have the answers and know best. And you will see it frequently in failed situations once you know to look for it.
The most successful leaders do the opposite: they refrain from giving people answers, decisions, or directions. They almost never tell people what they want them to do or why they should do it. Instead, they offer a view and ask others to get involved with a simple question: What do they want to do together? Essentially, they know exactly where they want the team and organization to go, but they get there by asking questions. They involve and collaborate at least as much as they sell and direct.
3. [36] Some people haven't proven themselves enough to deserve my goodwill and encouragement
Few leaders -- only 3% -- answer "strongly true". Yet 25% of the unsuccessful leaders answer some degree of "true".
The belief that people need to prove themselves to earn goodwill and encouragement is a misguided approach to leadership. It is a leader's job to extend goodwill and encouragement to their team members from the start, not to withhold it until some arbitrary threshold of worthiness has been met.
If you say to yourself you would never have such a thing in your org, look down the chain of command, particularly in areas not succeeding. You will likely find a leader with some degree of this approach.
4. [96] Complex problems generally require complex solutions
We have a variety of questions related to complexification.
Complexifiers at the CEO level happen in our data about 2% of the time, but 40% of the time in materially value-destroying leaders.
Simplification ability can be developed with practice. Finding simple solutions to complex problems is a hallmark of great leadership and innovation. It's not about dumbing things down or ignoring the real complexities. It's about having the insight and the courage to cut to the heart of the matter and to focus on what moves the needle.
5. [63] Comfort vs Discomfort: Peak performance happens when teams are:
3/4 of the unsuccessful leaders we encounter prioritize comfort for their team whereas 3/4 of the successful CEOs answer the opposite way.
There are good reasons to be wary of excessive discomfort: no one does their best in a state of fear and constant fight. However, overall, great leaders know that "a winning team is a happy team," and a happy team is not necessarily a winning team. Nothing great happens until people and teams are pushed out of their comfort zones. As Tony Robbins says, "All growth starts at the end of your comfort zone".
Great leaders have the same or higher expectations for others than they have for themselves because they admire their followers. Unsuccessful leaders tend to be content with average; they need to be liked and look to keep people in their comfort zones.
Emerging Standard: Individual Accountability
We started evaluating this item in 2022 and are still early in the data but are seeing a top identifier of unsuccessful leaders: holding groups accountable instead of individuals.
Leaders who otherwise profile well but have not succeeded seem to have the following in common:
- holding groups accountable instead of individuals
- believing results are better when multiple parties are responsible for the same goal (versus having multiple parties responsible for actions that lead to the outcome)
- seeing groups as better at making decisions than validating them.
What am I looking at? Top insights from profiling C-level TMT (tech media telecom) execs. Cohort 1 is CEOs who lost 95% of their market value. Cohort 2 is CEOs who 50x'd market cap (or more). We started the dataset in 1999 at Harvard Business School (i) identifying mid- and large-cap TMT failures since 1971 (measured by market cap destruction), (ii) identifying the subset of those that subsequently 10x'd or more market cap, and (iii) profiling the CEOs in each cohort (such that the variable was the CEO instead of the business). Most factors have a P-value score of .05 or less.
What is it used for? Primarily coaching. The guide started for our CEOs to do quarterly and has grown each year. Especially the best leaders want to get better, and find it a fascinating, practical, and rewarding exercise.
Who gets the most out of it? Leaders who lead leaders and younger people looking to do well in an entrepreneurial corporate environment.
What if I disagree with a section or principle? Even better! If you strongly disagree with something, you might have a much better standard, which we can test. Strong disagreement can also indicate needing to dive into an area more deeply.
I like this project! How can I help? If you have or know of CEOs who have 10x'd returns for investors, we need their results. Many newer questions do not have a sufficiently large success cohort to yield reliable P-values yet.