WCM realized its intensely caring culture risked becoming too soft, potentially enabling underperformance. They consciously implemented a practice of 'truth-telling'—having direct, difficult conversations about performance—as a necessary counterbalance to maintain high standards and ensure accountability.

Making public mistakes feels like a reason to disappear, but it's an opportunity to model resilience. The goal isn't to avoid messing up, but to learn how to handle being wrong, listen without defensiveness, and let your actions rebuild trust.

By openly admitting your inconsistencies while still advocating for a principle, you remove the deceptive claim to unearned status that angers people. This vulnerability prevents a 'gotcha' moment and fosters a more honest conversation, building trust and allowing imperfect people to advocate for important causes.

Courage cannot be demanded or simply listed as a corporate value. A leader's key role is to be a 'context architect,' creating the organizational conditions for brave behavior. This includes allowing for failure, resourcing experimentation, and embodying courage personally, thereby enabling the entire organization to act bravely.

Jensen Huang rejects "praise publicly, criticize privately." He criticizes publicly so the entire organization can learn from one person's mistake, optimizing for company-wide learning over individual comfort and avoiding political infighting.

Stakeholders demand courageous leadership but foster a culture of intolerance. By failing to distinguish between major offenses and minor infractions and "canceling" leaders for mistakes, the public itself disincentivizes the very courage and authenticity it seeks, creating a paralyzing circular problem.

In a crisis, the public knows no one has all the answers. Attempting to project absolute certainty backfires. A more effective strategy is "confident humility": transparently sharing information gaps and explaining that plans will evolve as new data emerges, which builds credibility.

Many leaders enter QBRs seeking praise for their team's activities. The crucial mindset shift is from seeking validation to taking responsibility for the business's health. This means having the courage to present uncomfortable truths revealed by data, even if it challenges the status quo.

Leaders should categorize feedback into three groups. Give a megaphone to "advocates" who support the vision. Listen carefully to "critics" whose feedback can be constructive. But actively ignore "cynics" who are purely destructive and offer no value, as they can derail progress.