That strategy execution is one of the greatest organizational challenges is nothing new. The causes of derailed strategies have been well chronicled — from not actually being strategies, to organization dysfunction and misalignment, to excessive internal focus.
But there’s (at least) one more stone to turn over in the hunt for answers, and it’s within the leader themselves.
The effects of a leader’s personality on an organization’s culture have been long understood. But we believe that some personality flaws have a disproportionately negative impact on the quality and execution of strategic choices — in particular, where to focus, how to compete, and what to build (and discard).
We find that just when leaders need to bring their “A game,” they get in their own way. It might be excitement or fear that reduces their ability to self-regulate their reactions. Instead of thinking clearly, they default to habits influenced by deeper and well-reinforced “personality flaws” — or in some cases, leadership pathologies. These are far more than just annoyances, as they cast a large shadow across their organizations, contributing to failures in the design and execution of strategy.
Based on our combined 60 years of experience, we’ve identified four personality flaws of leaders and their specific impacts on strategy. For each type, we set out mitigating actions leaders can take.
The Overconfident, Chronically Certain Leader
An overconfident, chronically certain leader has a tendency to overpromise and develop unrealistic strategies. This creates unnecessary anxiety for the people charged with their execution. These leaders also suffer from myopia and over-determinism, oblivious to the impact of longer-term trends, complex dynamics, and disruption from new entrants. By the time they realize what’s happening, it’s often too late to respond.
One of David’s clients, John, was the CEO of a midsize organization. He made bold, provocative statements about the future and didn’t listen to alternative views. Rather than motivating his team, he was close to alienating them. David suggested a first move that would enhance his awareness of his context without requiring him to make a dramatic change: Appoint a seasoned industry advisor he respected to mentor him. This created a safe space for John to reflect on the validity of the assumptions he had baked into his plans.
If you lean toward excessive confidence in your views, here are some ways to mitigate chronic certainty:
- Orchestrate debate and dissent. Explicitly ask for different views at the beginning of sessions and say that it’s okay to disagree. Going one step farther, deploy separate teams — composed of people with different backgrounds, expertise, and styles — to “pitch” ideas against each other.
- Assemble people with the courage to challenge you. Guard against the temptation of working with “yes” people. Find people who are confident in their abilities and comfortable in their skin and encourage them to speak out when they disagree with you. Reassure them that their views will be heard and respected.
- Immerse yourself in external developments. Invest the time to identify weak signals, particularly about consumer behavior and technology innovation; observe competitor moves; and talk to key stakeholders to fully understand their interests.
- Invite outside voices. Retain advisors and former executives who have the experience and detachment to call out limiting or false assumptions and challenge unwise moves.
