Leaders who complain their team isn't as good as them are misplacing blame. They are the ones who hired and trained those individuals. The team's failure is ultimately the leader's failure in either talent selection, skill development, or both, demanding radical ownership.
When leaders are not fully present in meetings, their fragmented attention results in poor guidance. When the team inevitably fails to deliver on these unclear instructions, the leader often blames the team's competence instead of their own lack of focus.
Exceptional people in flawed systems will produce subpar results. Before focusing on individual performance, leaders must ensure the underlying systems are reliable and resilient. As shown by the Southwest Airlines software meltdown, blaming employees for systemic failures masks the root cause and prevents meaningful improvement.
Leaders often feel they must have all the answers, which stifles team contribution. A better approach is to hire domain experts smarter than you, actively listen to their ideas, and empower them. This creates a culture where everyone learns and the entire company's performance rises.
The belief that people fail due to lack of will leads to blame. Shifting to 'people do well if they can' reframes failure as a skill gap, not a will gap. This moves your role from enforcer to helper, focusing you on identifying and building missing skills.
While a single performance-based layoff can target underperformance, repeated rounds signal a systemic failure in leadership. It suggests managers are unable to hire, coach, or provide feedback effectively, making it a management problem rather than an individual employee issue.
Unlike a functional manager who can develop junior talent, a CEO lacks the domain expertise to coach their entire executive team (e.g., CFO, VP of HR). A CEO's time is better spent hiring world-class leaders who provide 'managerial leverage' by bringing new ideas and driving their function forward, rather than trying to fix people in roles they've never done.
Unlike a line manager who can train direct reports in a specific function, a CEO hires experts for roles they themselves cannot perform (e.g., CFO). A CEO's time spent trying to 'develop' an underperforming executive is a misallocation of their unique responsibilities, which are setting direction and making top-level decisions.
When evaluating talent, the biggest red flag is "hand-waving." If you ask a direct question about their area of responsibility and they can't give a crisp, clear explanation, they likely lack true understanding. Top performers know their craft and can explain the "why" behind their actions.
Before labeling a team as not resilient, leaders should first examine their own expectations. Often, what appears as a lack of resilience is a natural reaction to systemic issues like overwork, underpayment, and inadequate support, making it a leadership problem, not an employee one.
When making tough personnel decisions, leaders should frame the choice not as a personal or purely business matter, but as a responsibility to the rest of the organization. Tolerating poor performance at the top jeopardizes the careers and stability of every other employee, making swift action an act of collective protection.