Article

A Conversation with Dr. Richard Hagberg, the Silicon Valley "CEO Whisperer"

July 6, 2025

In this interview I speak to  Rich Hagberg, Ph.D ., often referred to as “Silicon Valley’s CEO Whisperer.” Richard is a trained psychologist who has spent the last 40 years of his career as an executive management coach for over 6,000 executives. Since 2009 he has worked with companies like Tinder, Twitter, Dropbox, MixPanel, Zendesk, Quora, Asana, Pinterest, Salesforce, Munchery, Reddit, Gusto, Cruise, Tinder, Optimizely, Instacart, Patreon, Nerdwallet, and Super Evil Megacorp (it’s a gaming company). He is the co-author of  Founders Keepers, Why Founders are Built to Fail & What it Takes to Succeed .


Q: What do you mean, when you say all founders are built to fail?


[Richard Hagberg]:  I think that by saying founders are built to get the rocket off the ground, what we’re really acknowledging is that many of them never get it into orbit. Fewer still get it to the moon, and almost none make it to Mars. The problem is execution. Founders are idea people — driven, persistent, individualistic loners and contrarians. It’s hard for them to adapt because they have strong views. It’s hard for them to work through others because they’re independent and used to getting their way. So they don’t delegate and they over-control. They see structure and systems as bureaucracy. They often lack self-awareness — of how they impact others, what they’re good at, and what they’re not. And a lot of them just can’t handle the stress. I mean, people ask me, “Should I do a startup?” And I say, “Well, how important is work-life balance to you?” And if they say anything other than “It’s not important,” I say, “You shouldn’t do it.” Because it’s a killing field. So basically, let me summarise that by saying: the skills that get them to one point won’t carry them the rest of the way. We talk about the ticking time bomb. The ticking time bomb is these very characteristics — when you’re trying to scale, and things are getting more complex, and you have to work through other people — they blow up.


Q: Why do we still believe in the genius jerk archetype?


[Richard Hagberg]:  I was just writing something on this earlier in the week. I was looking at examples like Steve Jobs — before he got fired, he was a genius jerk. He got fired, started NeXT Computer, and it didn’t take off. Then he got involved with Pixar, and apparently one of the Pixar co-founders helped him understand the importance of empathy. So when he came back to Apple, he was more willing to adapt, to work through others — with people like Jony Ive, Tim Cook, and others. He was never a choir boy or a saint. The same thing applied to Gates. In the early days of Microsoft, Gates was a terror. But after around 2000, he mellowed a lot. Even Bezos — I mean, around the time that book came out trashing Amazon’s culture, Covid was hitting, his people were under incredible stress, and he was getting all kinds of feedback. So there are these transformational moments that often change people. But look, there are a variety of reasons why founders get misled. Successful, abusive, aggressive people are highly visible — we think of Elon Musk as a good example — and we dramatize these figures. We looked at 122 founders and compared them from the perspective of multiple invested capital, and the most successful ones didn’t fall into that category. They weren’t choirboys, but they didn’t fall into the same patterns either.


Q: How can we encourage founders to be more self aware?


[Richard Hagberg]: … you’ve got to create a psychologically safe environment where people on your team feel able to give you feedback. If they feel intimidated, they’re not going to tell the emperor — or empress — that they have no clothes. So that’s the first thing. The second is, it’s helpful to get objective heat back. These people listen to data. When I came to Silicon Valley, 360s had just started, and I used to give talks about how important a tool it was — because the engineers I was coaching listened to data. Whether it’s 360 feedback, an objective engagement survey, or an employee survey, it helps them understand their impact and what’s really going on in the organisation. Having good coaches and mentors who will tell truth to power — that’s the business I’m in. I’m in the business of telling truth to power. And there are two things. One is that unless you learn and grow continuously, you’re probably going to end up as one of the 90% who don’t make it. The second is — and I mean, I’m a serial entrepreneur as well as a psychologist — thank God I learned to meditate when I was 19. That gives me a bit of distance from my behaviour. It lets me observe things with more clarity. And because startups are so stressful — such a killing field — it undermines decision quality and brings out bad behaviour. My Master’s thesis back in the ’70s was on meditation; my doctoral thesis was on stress and its impact on people. There’s been plenty of research since then that’s validated it, and I see it all the time. When these people are under stress, they make bad decisions. They get reactive. One of the key findings in our conclusions is that the unsuccessful founders were more reactive. They weren’t measured. They weren’t deliberate. They didn’t make decisions based on facts — their emotions carried them away.


I ’ve got to tell you a story. When I went back to graduate school, one of my mentors called me into his office and said, “Rich, there’s one little piece of advice I’d like to give you.” And I thought, oh boy, here it comes. Then he said, “Rich, sometimes you treat a wisp of intuition as though it were a four-lane highway.” It’s not that you shouldn’t trust intuition — it’s that you need to validate it. And to validate it, you have to run a decision-making process that’s grounded in facts, built around having multiple alternatives, and involves actively seeking those alternatives from other people. And then — because everyone is biased, and the research on cognitive bias is very compelling — you have to run a disciplined process to ensure the facts and alternatives actually surface.


Q: What about the effectiveness of the boards around these founders?


[Richard Hagberg]:  I’ve talked to board members at companies where the leader was pushed out for unethical behaviour or ended up indicted. It often comes down to the fact that they waited too long — guided by greed — to address dysfunctional behaviour that could sink the company later. That’s the first thing. The second is that many boards today, especially startup boards, are dominated by investors who don’t have operating experience. So they try to hold people accountable, but only for the numbers — not for their behaviour, and not for their actions as leaders. Another thing I see is that because the board is more challenging than supportive, it ends up encouraging founders to exaggerate, to bend the truth, and to feel unsafe being honest about the problems — which means the board can’t actually help. And a lot of investors aren’t able to help anyway — they can’t give the kind of strategic support that’s really needed. Founders want help with strategy, but they want that help from people who’ve been there and done it — people with real operating experience.


Q: What is the role of the coach, or mentor, in the founders’ journey?


[Richard Hagberg]:  In my mind, there’s a difference between being a coach and being a mentor. I’m a psychologist, but I’ve also been a founder, and I’ve been studying leadership since 1986. So at times, I’m using the psychologist’s lens to peel the onion — to understand what’s going on inside and where they’re blocked. At other times, it’s clear that a lot of them lack best-practice experience. They’ve never had a boss, they’ve never been a boss, and they don’t know how accountability works. They have no models, no frameworks. That’s where mentors can help — with frameworks. But if the mentor is only drawing on their own experience scaling their company, it might not translate. It could be a totally different kind of company with a completely different business model. Those mentors are great at offering advice on what worked for them — but they’re not always as helpful in answering questions like: what do we know about how to make good decisions, or how to build effective teams?


Q: How do founders avoid burnout?


[Richard Hagberg]:  I think you have to make your own physical and mental health a real priority if you’re going to make it through. When you take a step back and look at what we learned in the book, it’s essentially survival of the fittest. And fitness means not resorting to things like alcohol and drugs to cope with stress — which so many people do — and making sure you get enough exercise and enough sleep. People are proud of how many hours they work — it’s almost like a badge. And it’s crazy, because I can see how it undermines both their judgement and their health. I’ve probably been burnt out three times over the years and had to do a reset. And each time, I’ve had to ask: what am I doing that’s pushing me over the edge here? Where can I set boundaries? And if you’re too demanding — if you only focus on results, put constant pressure on people, and make it unsafe for them to push back — you’ll burn out your team. I have a client right now who’s been pushing hard to hit financial goals, and multiple members of the senior management team have thrown in the towel. They’ve said, “That’s it, I can’t deal with this, it’s destroying me.” What’s interesting — and this is something we haven’t talked about — is that the successful founders don’t necessarily have high emotional intelligence, but they have better emotional intelligence than the unsuccessful ones. And that allows them to read people, to check in on their wellbeing, to ask what’s getting in the way of performance. The unsuccessful ones have no empathy — they just drive people. They treat relationships as transactions. For them, it’s all about tasks, not about people. But it’s not a machine.


Q: Do you see a relationship between neurodiversity and the most successful founders you have worked with?


[Richard Hagberg]:  I’m not an expert on the spectrum — but I suspect that people who get caught up in their internal world of ideas, and aren’t aware of people, emotion, team dynamics, and all that, who are just purely idea people — it really gets in the way. That said, I know one very successful founder who’s clearly Asperger’s, and he’s made a real effort to learn how to be a leader. It doesn’t come naturally to him — it’s not instinctive — but he works at it. People often ask, in a whisper, “Do people really change?” And I say, look, people may not change their fundamental personality, but they can change their behaviour. That said, how much they can change is limited. And when people ask how much, I say, well, on a 10-point scale, if you really work at it, you can probably move about 3 points. So if a job requires you to be at an 8, and you’re a 4, it’s going to be tough. And that’s where execution becomes a problem for many founders. Because founders are creative, idea-driven people. The insights they get, their willingness to challenge tradition, and their awareness of the market — that’s what fuels them early on. They’re divergent thinkers. They generate possibilities. But at a certain stage — when the company enters the traction or fast-growth phase — you need to bring focus to the organisation. And they get distracted by shiny objects. Any new idea just sweeps them away.


Q: What is the relationship of wealth to the journey of your founders?


[Richard Hagberg]:  it’s something I tell my clients — especially when I’m assessing whether I’ll work with someone. I ask, “What’s your goal? What’s your vision?” And if they say, “I want to grow a million-dollar company,” or, “I want to do an IPO,” I say, “No, but what’s your vision?” I know a venture capitalist who says when someone gives that kind of answer, it’s an immediate knockout. My belief isn’t that greed doesn’t exist — it does — but when it’s the primary driver, and there’s no passion for doing something meaningful or making an impact, they’re much less likely to make it through the tough times. You need to be willing to hit the wall, and hit the wall, and hit the wall — again and again.


If you’re curing cancer, you’ll be willing to hang in there. Or if you believe you’re building a technology that could change the world — like AI — then you’re less likely to give up, and more likely to understand that people aren’t just cogs in the machine.


Q: What does legacy mean to you?


[Richard Hagberg]:  I’ll answer that by telling you a story. One of my clients worked for a big international pharmaceutical company. He wasn’t a founder. He wanted me to attend a meeting he was facilitating so I could observe him. I got to the meeting, and a guy sat next to me. The tables were arranged in a U, and he was sitting right beside me. I noticed he was staring at me. I turned and said hello, and he said, “You don’t remember me.” I said, “Help me out — remind me.”


He said, “Well, 10 years ago we worked together.” And all of a sudden, I realised who he was. He had grey hair now — I remembered him when he didn’t — and I said, “Oh yeah!” Then he said, “You changed my life.” I said, “I did?” And he said, “Yeah.” I asked, “What did I do? What did I say?”


He said it was just one thing. He wasn’t an assertive guy. He told me, “You said I didn’t have the right to always get what I want, but I did have the right to be heard.” And I was like, “Okay.”


I’ve heard stories like that a lot. Sometimes they don’t remember it the same way I do, but you never know what you might say or do that changes a single individual — and that person may go on to do something really significant.   When I was in college, I was an idealist. I was a protestor and all that. And now, my goal is to help people make change. I help my clients unpack the problems and challenges they’re facing — and hopefully, that makes a difference.

About the Author

Vikas Shah MBE DL is an entrepreneur, investor & philanthropist. He is CEO of Swiscot Group alongside being a venture-investor in a number of businesses internationally. He is a Non-Executive Board Member of the UK Government’s Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy and a Non-Executive Director of the Solicitors Regulation Authority. Vikas was awarded an MBE for Services to Business and the Economy in Her Majesty the Queen’s 2018 New Year’s Honours List and in 2021 became a Deputy Lieutenant of the Greater Manchester Lieutenancy. He is an Honorary Professor of Business at The Alliance Business School, University of Manchester and Visiting Professors at the MIT Sloan Lisbon MBA.

share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

Why composure beats charisma.
By Rich Hagberg October 28, 2025
The Charisma Illusion Charisma gets all the press. It fills conference rooms, wins funding rounds, and dominates the LinkedIn highlight reel. We treat it like the gold standard of leadership — as if volume equals vision. But charisma is a sugar high. It spikes energy, then crashes trust. Composure, on the other hand — quiet, grounded, centered composure — is the kind of influence that lasts. It doesn’t light up a room; it settles one. When things go sideways, it’s not the charismatic leader people look for. It’s the calm one. The Crisis Test Picture this. The product just failed. The client’s furious. Your team’s pacing like trapped cats. Two leaders walk in. One storms into action — loud, fast, “What the hell happened here?” The other walks in slowly, looks around, and says, “Okay, let’s breathe. What do we know so far?” The first one gets attention. The second one gets results. That’s emotional geometry — the calmest person in the room reshapes everyone else’s state. Why Calm Is the Real Power When you stay composed, you’re not just managing your emotions — you’re regulating the entire system. Here’s the neuroscience behind it: people mirror the nervous system of whoever has the most authority. If you’re grounded, they sync to your rhythm. If you’re frantic, they sync to that instead. You don’t need to lecture anyone on resilience. You just have to model it. It’s not charisma that makes people trust you; it’s the quiet sense that you’re not going to lose your mind when things get hard. Charisma’s Half-Life Charisma is a spark. It can ignite a team — but if there’s no composure beneath it, the whole thing burns out. You’ve seen this movie before: the leader who rallies everyone with a passionate all-hands speech, then disappears into reaction mode when things get messy. Charisma without composure is like caffeine without sleep. You’re awake, but you’re not steady. Composure doesn’t get the applause. It gets the loyalty. A Founder’s Story One founder I worked with — I’ll call him David — was known for being a “high-voltage” guy. He could pitch an investor, fire up a crowd, or talk anyone into anything. But his team? They were walking on eggshells. His energy filled every room, but it left no oxygen for anyone else. During one session, I asked, “When you raise your voice, what happens to theirs?” He went quiet. That was the moment he understood that his passion — the thing he was most proud of — had become the team’s anxiety. A year later, his team described him differently: “He’s still intense, but steady. We trust him more now.” He didn’t lose charisma; he layered it with composure. The Calm Before the Influence Here’s what composure actually looks like: You listen longer. Because real influence starts with attention, not argument. You breathe before reacting. That pause isn’t weakness; it’s power management. You let silence do the work. Charisma fills every space; composure creates space for others to step in. You own your tone. You realize your sighs, your speed, your face — they’re all communication tools whether you intend them or not. You choose steadiness over certainty. People don’t need you to know everything. They just need to know you’re okay not knowing. Funny But True A client once told me, “When I’m calm in a meeting, people assume I’m hiding something.” I said, “Good. Let them wonder.” That’s how unfamiliar calm has become. In some cultures, composure looks radical — even suspicious. But it’s exactly what people crave in a world that never shuts up. Why Charisma Is Easier (and More Addictive) Charisma gets feedback. You see the energy rise, you feel the applause. It’s visible. Composure feels invisible — until you lose it. No one thanks you for staying calm during a crisis. But they remember it when deciding whether to follow you into the next one. That’s why maturity in leadership means getting comfortable with the quiet wins — the meeting that didn’t spiral, the argument that didn’t happen, the team that stayed focused because you did. The Emotional Geometry in Practice Think of composure as geometry because emotions move through space. When you enter a room, you alter its emotional shape. If you radiate calm, people’s shoulders drop. Their thinking widens. They start contributing. If you radiate stress, the room contracts. People shrink. Ideas vanish. Influence isn’t what you say. It’s the energy field you create. Your Challenge This Week Before your next high-stakes meeting, pause outside the door. Take one deep breath and ask yourself: What energy does this room need from me right now? Then bring only that. Nothing more. You’ll be amazed how fast everything slows down when you do. Final Word Charisma captures attention. Composure builds trust. One is about how loudly you shine; the other is about how steadily you glow. The leader who can stay centered when everyone else is spinning doesn’t just have influence — they are the influence.  And that’s the kind of power that never burns out.
October 25, 2025
It usually starts with a familiar scene. A founder at a whiteboard, marker in hand, speaking with the conviction of someone who can see the future before anyone else does. The team leans in. The idea feels inevitable. Confidence fills the room. That’s the moment when narcissism looks like leadership. For a while, it is. Until it isn’t. The Hidden Engine Behind Ambition Every founder carries a trace of narcissism. You need it to survive the impossible odds of building something from nothing. It’s the oxygen of early-stage ambition — the irrational belief that you can win when every signal says you can’t. But narcissism isn’t a single trait. It’s a spectrum — and the version that fuels creativity early on often morphs into the one that burns teams, investors, and reputations later. The Six Faces of Narcissism Psychologist Dr. Ramani Durvasula , whose research has shaped much of the modern understanding of narcissism, describes six primary subtypes. Each of them can be adaptive when balanced, or toxic when unregulated: Grandiose: The charismatic visionary. Inspires others when confident; crushes dissent when insecure. Vulnerable: The emotionally fragile version. Craves validation but fears rejection. Communal: The “good person” narcissist. Needs to be admired for being generous or kind. Malignant: Controlling, paranoid, and willing to harm others to protect ego. Neglectful: Detached, disengaged, treats people as instruments. Self-Righteous: Morally superior, rigid, convinced they are the only adult in the room. Most founders show traces of at least two of these. And in moderation, these traits help. They create drive, resilience, and belief — qualities that investors often mistake for charisma. The problem isn’t narcissism itself. It’s when ego outpaces emotional regulation . The Data Behind the Mirror Across our database of 122 startup founders , each assessed on 46 Personality & Leadership Profile (PLP) scales and 46 360-degree leadership competencies , narcissism emerges as both a predictor of greatness and a predictor of collapse . The 10× founders — those whose companies returned exponential value — were not humble saints. They were what I call disciplined narcissists: confident, ambitious, assertive, and driven by achievement — but tempered by empathy, patience, and ethical grounding . They scored high on Achievement, Autonomy, and Risk-Taking , but also maintained elevated scores on Patience, Optimism, and Model of Values . They didn’t fight their ego. They harnessed it. By contrast, founders whose companies failed — the unsuccessful group — were equally brilliant but emotionally unregulated. They scored significantly higher on Aggression, Defensiveness, and Impulsivity , and significantly lower on Trust, Empathy, and Consideration — roughly one standard deviation lower (10 T-score points) than their successful peers. Their leadership wasn’t powered by vision anymore — it was powered by reactivity. And that’s the moment when the very engine that got them to the starting line begins to tear the vehicle apart. When Narcissism Works Healthy narcissism gives founders gravity. It creates the magnetic field that pulls investors, employees, and customers into orbit. These founders are confident but not careless; assertive but not controlling. They operate from belief, not from fear. They’re the ones who use narcissism to build something enduring — not to prove something fleeting. In our data, they excelled in 360 ratings on Creating Buy-In, Delegation & Empowerment, and Adaptability — all behaviors that require trust and composure. They convert ego into execution. Their signature behaviors: Grandiose energy channeled into purpose. Malignant competitiveness transmuted into persistence. Vulnerability transformed into openness and reflection. Self-Righteous conviction turned into moral consistency. They’re still narcissists — but their narcissism serves the mission, not their self-image. When Narcissism Fails Then there are the others — the unregulated narcissists. At first, they look similar: bold, persuasive, unstoppable. But over time, their self-belief becomes brittle. Their aggression rises as trust falls. Their perfectionism becomes paranoia. Their autonomy becomes isolation. These founders scored roughly a full standard deviation lower (10 T-score points) than successful ones on 360 measures like Openness to Input, Relationship Building, Coaching, and Emotional Control . They don’t fail because they’re arrogant. They fail because they can’t tolerate limitation. Feedback feels like rejection. Delegation feels like loss of control. And the more power they get, the less self-awareness they have. They move fast, but the faster they go, the lonelier it gets — until the organization collapses under the weight of their unmet emotional needs. The Two Versions of the Same Founder Ego Regulation • Successful Founders: Confidence moderated by reflection and humility • Unsuccessful Founders: Volatility disguised as confidence Control vs. Trust • Successful Founders: Delegates, empowers, shares power • Unsuccessful Founders: Micromanages, distrusts, isolates Aggression Pattern • Successful Founders: Channeled into performance • Unsuccessful Founders: Expressed as conflict and coercion Recognition Need • Successful Founders: Purpose-driven validation • Unsuccessful Founders: Insecure approval-seeking Ethical Compass • Successful Founders: Consistent moral modeling • Unsuccessful Founders: Expedience and rationalization So the dividing line isn’t how much narcissism a founder has — it’s whether it’s anchored by self-awareness . The successful ones use ego as a tool. The unsuccessful ones use it as armor. The Spectrum of Founder Narcissism Grandiose • Healthy Expression: Charisma, conviction, inspiration • Unhealthy Expression: Arrogance, dominance, fragility Vulnerable • Healthy Expression: Self-reflective, emotionally transparent • Unhealthy Expression: Defensive, insecure, blaming Communal • Healthy Expression: Empathy without ego • Unhealthy Expression: Performative caring Malignant • Healthy Expression: Fierce but principled • Unhealthy Expression: Punitive, controlling, distrustful Neglectful • Healthy Expression: Independent but connected • Unhealthy Expression: Detached, emotionally absent Self-Righteous • Healthy Expression: Grounded in values • Unhealthy Expression: Rigid, moralizing, unyielding Every founder oscillates along this continuum. The goal isn’t to eliminate ego but to integrate it — to move from self-importance to self-awareness. The Psychological Root The most successful founders in our research share a quiet humility beneath their confidence. They’ve learned to hold two truths simultaneously: “I am extraordinary.” “I am not the whole story.” That paradox — ego with empathy, conviction with curiosity — is the hallmark of psychological maturity. It’s what allows a founder to hold power without being consumed by it. Their unsuccessful counterparts can’t hold that tension. They oscillate between superiority and shame — between “I’m brilliant” and “No one appreciates me.” That oscillation is the engine of the vulnerable-malignant loop , the psychological pattern that wrecks both cultures and companies. Coaching the Narcissist You can’t coach ego out of a founder. But you can coach ego regulation . The process usually unfolds in five stages: Recognition: Data first, not judgment. Use 360 feedback as an emotional mirror. Narcissists can argue with people; they can’t argue with their own data. Differentiation: Separate ambition from insecurity. Help them see what’s driving their overcontrol. Containment: Teach behavioral discipline — pausing before reacting, curiosity before correction. Connection: Reinforce trust-based leadership behaviors — active listening, recognition, and collaborative decision-making. Integration: Replace ego-defense with ego-service — using their confidence to develop others rather than dominate them. The shift doesn’t happen overnight. But when it does, the founder becomes more than a leader — they become a force multiplier. The Paradox in Plain Language Our forty years of data say something simple but profound: Every founder who builds something meaningful begins with narcissism. But only those who grow beyond it sustain success. Ego, when integrated, becomes conviction. Ego, when unintegrated, becomes compulsion. One builds. The other burns. Or, as I often tell founders: Narcissism builds the rocket. Empathy keeps it from burning up on re-entry. That isn’t metaphor. That’s psychology — and physics. Because unchecked ego obeys the same law as gravity: It always pulls you back down.
Why thinking time is the most undervalued executive skill.
By Rich Hagberg October 21, 2025
The Badge of Busyness If there were an Olympic event for back-to-back meetings, most executives I know would medal. They wear it proudly — the calendar that looks like a Tetris board, the 11:30 p.m. emails, the constant refrain of “crazy week.” Busyness has become our favorite drug. It keeps us numb, important, and conveniently distracted from the one question we don’t want to face: What am I actually doing that matters? I’m not judging; I’ve lived this. Years ago, I was “that guy” — sprinting through 14-hour days while telling myself reflection was for monks or consultants between clients. Then one day, after a particularly pointless meeting, I realized something embarrassing: I couldn’t remember the last time I’d had a single original thought. Why Thinking Feels Unproductive Here’s the irony: most leaders know they need to think more. They just can’t stand how useless it feels. Sitting in silence doesn’t produce slides or metrics. There’s no dopamine hit, no “good meeting” to log. But thinking time is like compound interest. It looks small in the moment and enormous over time. When you actually stop, patterns appear. You notice which fires you keep putting out, which meetings could’ve been emails, and which goals you’re chasing that don’t even belong to you anymore. A Simple Truth Busyness is a form of self-defense. If you never stop moving, you never have to confront the uncomfortable truths that surface when you do. That’s why reflection feels awkward at first — it threatens your illusion of momentum. But momentum without direction is just noise. A Founder’s Story One founder I coached had the classic startup badge of honor: chaos. His day started at 5:30 a.m., ended around midnight, and he bragged about being “in the weeds” with every decision. I asked, “When do you think?” He said, “All the time.” I said, “No — I mean deliberately.” He stared at me like I’d asked if he did yoga with dolphins. We scheduled two hours of thinking time a week. The first few sessions drove him nuts. He kept checking email, pacing, making lists. Then, around week four, he sent a note: “I finally realized half my problems were the result of not thinking before saying yes.” That’s the power of reflection — it turns self-inflicted chaos into clarity. The Science Behind Stillness Here’s the biology of it: when you’re rushing, your brain lives in survival mode — flooded with cortisol, locked on what’s urgent. When you slow down, another network kicks in — the one responsible for creativity, empathy, and pattern recognition. That’s why your best ideas show up in the shower or on long drives. The brain finally has enough quiet to connect dots. You don’t need more input. You need more oxygen. Why Leaders Avoid It Two reasons. It’s vulnerable. Reflection forces you to notice things you’ve been ignoring — the conversation you keep postponing, the hire you know isn’t working, the ambition that’s turned into exhaustion. It’s inefficient… at first. There’s no immediate ROI. But over time, reflection prevents the expensive rework that comes from impulsive decisions. As one client told me, “I used to say I didn’t have time to think. Turns out, not thinking was costing me time.” How to Reclaim Thinking Time (Without Quitting Your Job) Schedule “white space” like a meeting. Literally block it on the calendar. Call it “Strategy,” “Clarity,” or even “Meeting with Myself” if you’re worried someone will book over it. Change environments. Go walk, drive, sit somewhere with natural light. Different settings unlock different neural pathways. Ask bigger questions. Instead of “What needs to get done?” ask “What actually matters now?” or “What am I pretending not to know?” Capture patterns, not notes. Don’t transcribe thoughts — notice themes. What keeps repeating? That’s your mind begging for attention. End reflection with one action. Otherwise, it turns into rumination. Decide one thing to start, stop, or say no to. The Humor in It I once told an overworked exec, “Block 90 minutes a week just to think.” He said, “What should I do during that time?” That’s the problem in one sentence. Thinking is doing — it’s just quieter. What Happens When You Build the Habit At first, reflection feels indulgent. Then it feels useful. Then it becomes addictive — in a good way. Your decisions get cleaner. Your conversations sharper. Your stress lower. You stop reacting and start designing. Because clarity saves more time than hustle ever will. Your Challenge This Week Find one 60-minute window. No phone, no laptop, no music, no distractions. Just a notebook and a question: “What’s one thing I keep doing that no longer deserves my energy?” Don’t overthink it — just listen for what surfaces. That hour will tell you more about your leadership than a dozen status meetings ever could. Final Word In a world obsessed with movement, stillness is rebellion. But it’s also intelligence. The best leaders aren’t the busiest. They’re the ones who’ve learned that reflection isn’t retreat — it’s refinement. The next breakthrough won’t come from another meeting. It’ll come from the silence you’ve been avoiding. 
ALL ARTICLES