Article
Developing Trust on Your Team
September 7, 2020
A Lack of Trust Can Destroy Your Team
What You Can Do To Develop an Atmosphere of Trust on Your Team
Trust is a central component of all healthy relationships. Teams are no exception. “There’s no team without trust,” said Paul Santagata, Head of Industry for Retail/Tech/Telecom at Google. “In Google’s fast-paced, highly demanding environment, our success hinges on the ability to take risks and be vulnerable in front of peers.” [“High-Performing Teams Need Psychological Safety. Here’s How to Create it” by Laura Delizonna, Harvard Business Review August 24, 2017]
The leader must facilitate trust and be a model of trust. This means creating a team environment characterized by open, candid relationships and a climate of psychological safety.
“As a company grows, communication becomes its biggest challenge. If the employees fundamentally trust the CEO, then communication will be vastly more efficient than if they don’t. . . A CEO’s ability to build this trust over time is often the difference between companies that execute well and companies that are chaotic.” – Ben Horowitz (quoted in https://www.zenefits.com/workest/ben-horowitz-culture-leadership-succeeding/)
It is a sad fact of my long experience working with entrepreneurs that many of them do not trust people easily, and this sets the tone for the way they manage their teams and how team members, in turn, manage their teams. When you don’t trust someone, if you feel they lack competence, skill, or experience or you question their good will and good intentions, you are more likely to try to control or micromanage them. This can severely damage a team’s effectiveness.
A lack of trust and a climate of fear on the team is the opposite of psychological safety. It is toxic and can result not merely in an uncomfortable workplace and a lack of openness, but also in finger-pointing and conflicts between team members, politics, false consensus leading to bad decisions, and ultimately in turnover. It will curtail collaboration, weaken problem solving, hamper individual and group performance and diminish results.
The more interdependent the team – the more team members are dependent on each other to get their work done – the more trust matters. This can be particularly relevant for startups where the number of people involved is small and collaboration is especially vital. For example, Engineers can’t build anything unless the Product team defines what customers want, what features they care about, and Product can’t really do that without coordination with the Marketing team. All these relationships rely on trust: that information is being openly shared, that people are telling the truth, giving honest feedback, working through differences and collaborating and working together to meet commitments.
When there is good will and psychological safety on a team, members will be willing to be vulnerable and openly discuss their problems, opinions, and concerns. In addition, trust also increases the commitment and loyalty between team members, which reduces unwanted turnover, and increases a sense of common identity.
How Trust Grows
Trust builds slowly, over time. It is built in very small moments but can be destroyed in an instant. If team members have shared important experiences and been successful working together, or have endured difficult times and made it through to the other side, trust will naturally increase.
Trust grows when there is openness, information sharing, honesty, and the ability to voice differences and work together through conflict. As Google’s Project Aristotle on effective teamwork has found, members must feel free enough to share their opinions without fear of recrimination or attack. As a New York Times article said, “ We must be able to talk about what is messy or sad, to have hard conversations with colleagues who are driving us crazy. We can’t be focused just on efficiency.”
Growth of trust also requires regular interaction between members, listening and respecting each other’s ideas. This too takes time, and it means that you, as the leader, need to look for opportunities to increase the level of interaction and collaboration between members of the team. If team members operate in silos or have more frequent communication with the leader than with each other, the team will be less effective.
This can be especially challenging with remote team members. Videoconferences between team members in another country or city, or just in another building or domain, have become commonplace and the leader must pay close attention to bringing team members together in person whenever possible. Where that is not an option, the leader needs to be very deliberate about insuring active participation from all team members rather than allowing in-person members to dominate the discussion.
Does Your Team Trust You?
Leaders are often unaware of how much – or how little – team members are on board with the leader’s strategy, goals, and plans. Even worse, they often assume they have the team’s trust, when that is not always the case. Here are some ways to tell if your team trusts you:
- Team members sometimes take a different view from yours, and express it freely.
- Team members keep you informed of their progress. They are comfortable coming to you for help or suggestions if they get stuck.
- Team members appear comfortable admitting mistakes, and are willing to discuss their problems rather than hiding or minimizing them, or concealing them in fancy PowerPoints.
- Team members approach you when they have a non-work problem, to request time off or support.
- Team members are not obviously defensive or over-critical about statements you make.
- Team meetings are relatively open and there is wide participation, with everyone making a contribution.
- Team members speak up – often privately – if they have a problem with one of your decisions or your behavior and are prepared to discuss their concerns.
- There does not appear to be excessive gossip in the team.
These are all signs that you have done a good job in creating an atmosphere of safety and trust.
What Happens When Trust Is Strong?
A recent meta-analysis of 112 research studies confirmed that trust between team members is highly correlated with the achievement of team goals. When trust is present, problem solving tends to be creative and productive. Discussions are livelier and out-of-the-box solutions get put on the table when fear of self-expression is absent. Members willingly take greater risks and say what is on their minds directly rather than behind others’ backs.
Trust has a similarly powerful impact on decision-making. The best decisions are made when the best thinking and all the facts are put on the table. When team members feel safe and expect that others will behave in a supportive and positive manner, they will be more willing to be vulnerable and open. They will work more collaboratively and stay more focused on team goals.
What Happens When Trust Is Weak?
When trust is not strong, people are unwilling to share their real opinions and concerns. In that case, you are not getting the best thinking out of them. Often this lack of trust is due to the leader, who may have created an intimidating environment or failed to police bad behavior among members, such as personal attacks. In that environment, people are unwilling to share intuitive insights or half-formed ideas.
Problem solving tends to degenerate and become ineffective. Interpersonal relationships among team members interfere with and distort perception of the problem. That’s because, in the absence of trust, people’s energy and creativity are more focused on self-protection than on finding creative solutions. They feel the need to protect themselves from attack, humiliation, or retribution, rather than apply their energy and attention to problem solving and may withhold half-formed ideas that may contain the seed of a solution.
In the absence of trust, team members are more suspicious of others’ motivations, and become defensive. Openness is reduced, and people don’t say what they really think. Team members lose sight of team goals and focus on personal self-interest.
How to Build Team Trust
- Be honest with team members. Don’t spin things. If you distort the truth or outright lie, team members won’t trust you. Tell them the truth rather than what you think they want to hear. A leader must establish and maintain high standards of personal integrity.
- Show team members that you care about them as people rather than merely as units of production. Organizations and teams are not machines. Results are important but excessive focus on hitting goals and deadlines or improving performance and quality can give the message that you only see team members as means to an end. Create opportunities to socialize with them in informal settings such as team dinners and avoid too much focus on business issues at that time.
- Be proactive in building relationships. Listen to individual team members and get to know them and their concerns. Check in with them regularly to find out how things are going in their world and how they are feeling about events, projects, problems etc. It is easy for a busy team leader to become isolated and insulated from the problems and concerns of employees. If you are too distant from team members and don’t invest in getting to know them and what is important to them, they will be less likely to trust you. Leaders who show interest in the needs and challenges of the employees they manage set a positive tone on the team. Employees who feel valued and supported are more likely to be motivated to get results.
- Occasionally survey the team to take its temperature, particularly around trust levels and morale. Then discuss any barriers to teamwork that are surfaced by the results.
- Don’t withhold information. Leaders often worry that openly sharing sensitive information about financial results, decisions, or developments could cause problems. Whenever possible, eliminate secrets. Provide team members with both information they need, and information they want. Many leaders justify withholding information by saying, “I provide information on a need-to-know basis.” This reflects a lack of trust and need for control. Obviously, not all information can be shared. But ask team members what information they are not getting that they want and need. When possible, let them know about plans, developments, opportunities, challenges, and priorities. Sharing information makes people feel more like partners, and in the absence of information, rumors and speculation about worst-case scenarios proliferate.
- Explain the rationale behind your decisions. Give team members the context they need to understand why you made a decision and use it as an opportunity to teach and explain your thought process and the factors that they need to consider in making similar decisions. This is an opportunity to develop new leaders. Don’t be too quick to take responsibility for “important” problems. Let other team members own the analysis, the plan, and as much of the action as possible. Learn to empower team members as they demonstrate competence and good judgment. This demonstrates trust.
- Don’t micromanage. It suggests that you don’t believe that people will get things done without close monitoring and control, and that you don’t trust their judgment or capabilities. If you want to develop the trust of others, you must demonstrate trust in them.
- Put the good of the team and the organization ahead of your own self-interest. Leaders who are fixated on their reputation, financial rewards, and personal recognition are quickly distrusted by their team.
- Keep your commitments to team members and the team as a whole. If you don’t follow through on your promises, they will question if you will really do what you say you will do. If you don’t meet your commitments, you will send a message that others don’t need to meet theirs. Lack of consistency and dependability will destroy trust.
- Avoid blaming team members for mistakes, particularly in front of others. Create a norm around learning from mistakes. Effective team leaders take a little more than their share of the blame and go out of their way to give others the credit for achievements.
- Be human. Be open about your own mistakes and weaknesses and you will create space for others to be open about their shortcomings and problems. Don’t communicate in a formal, overly business-like manner that hides your humanity and accessibility. Be genuine and real.
- Monitor your own behavior and pay attention to the impact of your words and actions. Leaders who fail to treat team members with respect, consideration and sensitivity can destroy trust quickly. Trust takes a long time to develop but can be broken quickly.
- Don’t play favorites. When you reward your friends and fail to confront their substandard performance, it undermines trust and increases politics. Treat all team members fairly and consistently.
- Walk your talk. Be vigilant that your behavior is consistent with your stated beliefs and values. When the leader doesn’t behave in accord with the organization’s values and the team’s rules of the road, trust and credibility will be destroyed.
share this
Related Articles
Related Articles
After many years of coaching leaders, I have learned something that should make every executive uncomfortable. People do not automatically tell leaders the truth. They tell leaders the version of the truth they think the leader can handle. If you are defensive, they edit. If you are impatient, they shorten. If you are dismissive, they soften. If you are punitive, they hide. If you are brilliant but emotionally clumsy, they may still respect you, but they will manage you. And once people start managing you, you are leading theater. The higher you go, the more people study you before they speak. They watch your face, listen to your tone, and adjust. They give you the headline without the emotional context. They bring you the problem after it has become unavoidable. They agree in the meeting and dissent in the hallway. That is how leaders lose contact with reality. Not all at once. Slowly. Politely. Professionally. With calendar invites. Connection Is Not About Being Liked Connection is not about becoming everyone's buddy. It is not about being endlessly available, emotionally gushy, conflict avoidant, or so supportive that no one knows whether you actually have standards. That is not leadership. That is codependence with a title. Connection is the ability to make another person feel seen, respected, and safe enough to tell you what is real. That is it. It does not require agreement, lowered standards, or meetings where everyone discusses feelings while the business quietly catches fire. People open up when they feel safe. People shut down when they feel judged, dismissed, humiliated, rushed, or corrected too quickly. Connection is not the opposite of performance. It is how you get access to the information that performance depends on. Every Organization Has a Truth Pipeline The question is whether reality moves through it cleanly or gets filtered on the way up. In a healthy culture, people tell the leader what they see early enough for it to matter. They raise concerns before the decision is locked. They disagree before the strategy fails. In an unhealthy culture, the truth gets laundered. Bad news becomes "some emerging concerns." Fear becomes "alignment issues." Resentment becomes "communication gaps." Lack of trust becomes "cross-functional friction." By the time the leader hears the truth, it has been professionally deodorized. Many leaders unknowingly create this problem. They say they want candor, but their behavior teaches caution. They interrupt, argue with feedback, explain too soon, punish bad news with irritation, and turn every concern into a debate. Then they wonder why people are not more transparent. Here is the simple answer: because transparency has not felt safe. Small Moments Decide Everything Connection is built in small moments, not grand declarations. At work, bids for connection sound ordinary: "Do you have a minute?" or "I may be wrong, but I see it differently." These are not just comments. They are tests. Every time someone reaches toward you, even slightly, your response teaches them what kind of relationship this is. You can turn toward, turn away, or turn against. Turning toward means you engage: "Tell me more," or "What are you seeing that I may be missing?" Turning away means you avoid the moment: "I'm busy," or "Let's not overthink this." Turning against means you respond with irritation, superiority, sarcasm, or contempt: "That makes no sense," or "We already covered this." Most leaders do not turn against people because they are trying to be cruel. They do it because they are busy, pressured, impatient, or convinced they already understand the issue. But the impact is the same. The person learns, "This is not safe." After enough experiences like that, people still communicate, attend meetings, and send updates. But the deeper truth goes underground. Listen for the Conversation Beneath the Conversation In every important conversation, there are usually two conversations happening. The first is the official conversation: the product launch, the missed deadline, the strategic decision. The second is the human conversation underneath it: Can I trust you? Is it safe to disagree? Do you actually want the truth? Disconnected leaders hear only the official conversation. Connected leaders listen for both. This does not mean they become therapists. It means they understand that people are not reasoning machines with job titles. They are status-sensitive, threat-sensitive, belonging-sensitive creatures trying to get work done while protecting themselves. If you ignore that layer, you misunderstand the meeting. The leader who misses the second conversation will often solve the wrong problem with great confidence. That is a specialty of very smart people. Make Contact Before You Make Your Point If you want people to tell you the truth, remember this rule: Make contact before you make your point. Before you explain, correct, defend, decide, or solve, show the person that you understand something about their experience. Not agree. Understand. You can say, "I can see why that would bother you," or "You are worried this decision will create confusion." Those statements do not require surrender. They require attention. Analytical leaders often resist this because they think understanding someone's emotion means endorsing their conclusion. It does not. You can understand someone and still disagree. You can validate the concern and still make a hard decision. But if you skip understanding, your eventual decision will feel imposed, even if it is correct. Connection first. Influence second. Reverse the order, and you may win the argument while losing access to the person. Stop Solving Too Soon Some leaders use problem-solving as a socially acceptable way to avoid contact. Someone says, "I'm overwhelmed." The leader says, "Let's reprioritize." That may be useful. But if you move there too quickly, the person may experience it as, "Please make your feelings operationally convenient." Solving too soon tells people, "Your emotional experience is a problem I want to make disappear." Listening first tells them, "Your experience matters to me." Before solving, ask one better question: "What are you worried I am not understanding?" Or the most important leadership question: "What am I missing?" That one shift creates space for truth. Contempt Kills Candor If there is one behavior that destroys connection fastest, it is contempt. Contempt says, "I am above you." It may be loud, but more often it is subtle: an eye roll, a sigh, a smirk, or a clipped tone. Contempt is especially dangerous in smart leaders because it can hide inside intelligence. The leader experiences himself as clear or efficient. The other person experiences being reduced. Once people feel contempt, they become careful, performative, and compliant instead of candid. If you want the truth, you have to become someone people can disagree with without feeling diminished. Repair Is How Trust Gets Rebuilt You will miss people. You will interrupt. You will get impatient. You will defend yourself. You will explain too soon. You will turn away when you should have turned toward. Welcome to the species. The goal is not perfection. The goal is repair. Repair is the moment when you notice a rupture and come back. "I came in too hard. Let me try that again." "I answered too quickly and missed what you were really saying." "I got defensive. Keep going." These sentences are not weakness. They are maintenance. People do not need you to be flawless. They need to know you can notice your impact and come back. The Real Payoff The payoff from connection is not that everyone likes you. This is leadership, not summer camp. The payoff is that people bring you more reality. They tell you what is happening sooner. They disagree before the mistake is baked in. They warn you when the culture is drifting. They admit confusion before execution fails. That is how connection improves results. It gives you better data. It lowers distortion. It deepens trust. It makes hard conversations possible. The deepest leadership question is not: "Did I make my point?" It is: "Did I earn the truth?" Because if people do not trust you with the truth, your intelligence will not save you. You will be making decisions from edited data and managing appearances. You will be leading the version of reality people think you can tolerate. And eventually, reality always wins. Connection is how leaders earn the truth. And the truth is what keeps leaders, companies, and relationships alive.
Founder who stops learning does not usually look stupid. They look confident. Busy. Decisive. Certain. And increasingly wrong. That is what makes the problem so dangerous. I coach founders, studying personality, and watching them either scale or stal. I have become convinced that learning agility is one of the most important predictors of whether a founder can grow with the company they created. Not IQ. Not raw drive. Not technical skill. Not even prior success. Those things matter. But they are not enough. Because the reflexes that win at 10 people often stop working at 100. The decision-making speed that saved the company early can become recklessness at scale. The founder’s vision that once pulled everyone forward can become rigidity when the market changes. The control that created quality in the beginning can become the bottleneck that prevents the organization from growing up. The founder who succeeded through instinct now needs to succeed through systems. The founder who succeeded through force now needs to succeed through people. The founder who succeeded by being at the center now needs to build an organization that can function without everything going through them. That is where many founders get into trouble. They do not fail because they are unintelligent. They fail because they keep applying yesterday’s playbook with today’s authority. And when the results deteriorate, they rationalize. The market is confused. The team is weak. The investors are impatient. The customer does not get it. Maybe. But sometimes the real problem is simpler and more uncomfortable: The founder stopped learning. What Learning Agility Really Means Learning agility is not just being open-minded in theory. Plenty of leaders describe themselves as open-minded right up until someone disagrees with them. Learning agility is the capacity to absorb experience, update your assumptions quickly, and change your behavior without losing your center or your conviction. It means reality can still teach you. That sounds simple. It is not. Founders are often rewarded early for conviction, speed, intensity, and control. Those are useful traits when a company is fragile and every decision feels existential. But over time, the company changes. The job changes. The market changes. The team changes. The founder has to change too. Learning agility has several parts: Mental agility. The ability to think through complex problems and resist the gravitational pull of the first plausible answer. People agility. The ability to understand different kinds of people, read dynamics in real time, and adapt your approach. Change agility. A positive orientation toward novelty, uncertainty, and disruption rather than a defensive one. Results agility. The ability to deliver outcomes in first-time conditions where the old formulas do not apply. Self-awareness. The ability to perceive accurately how you are actually doing, not how you hope you are doing. That last one matters most. Because you cannot learn from experience if you cannot tell the truth about your own impact. Busyness Is Not Learning One of the great founder traps is confusing busyness with learning. You can be in a thousand new situations and learn nothing from any of them. You can raise money, hire executives, launch products, fight fires, open markets, lose customers, change strategy, and still not extract the lesson. That is not learning. That is motion with a calendar invite. Learning requires reflection. Not endless self-analysis. Not navel-gazing. Not journaling until everyone around you loses hope. Just disciplined reflection. After important events, decisions, conflicts, or surprises, ask yourself: What was I trying to accomplish? What actually happened? What is the gap? What does the gap suggest about my model of how things work? What will I do differently next time? Done weekly for a year, that practice alone can change a leader. Experience does not automatically make you wiser. Reflected experience does. How the Ego Turns Experience Into Repetition Here is where the problem gets deeper. The ego blocks learning agility at every stage, and it does so in ways most founders do not see coming. Start with the obvious. If you are identified with being right, feedback becomes a threat instead of data. You defend instead of inquire. You cherry-pick evidence that supports your existing view and discount what does not. The moment someone challenges your approach, your instinct is not curiosity. It is protection. But there is a deeper layer. Learning agility requires you to update your mental models quickly. That means letting go of the identity you built around the old model. Early success creates a story. “I am the visionary who sees what others miss.” “I am the decisive founder who trusts my gut.” “I am the one who knows what great looks like.” “I am the person who moves faster than everyone else.” That story may have been useful. It may even have been true. Until it wasn’t. When the market shifts and your gut starts failing, you now have a psychological problem, not just a business problem. Updating your strategy may feel like updating your identity. So you double down. You blame the team. You blame the market. You blame timing. You blame execution. Anything is easier than admitting that the operating system that got you here is now becoming a liability. The Insulation Problem As founders gain authority, they often lose access to reality. Employees defer more. They challenge less. They soften the truth. They try to read what the founder wants to hear. They nod. And once everyone is nodding, the founder may already be in trouble. This is what I call the insulation problem. The founder receives a curated version of what is actually happening, filtered through people who fear the founder’s reaction or want the founder’s approval. Meanwhile, the ego is getting reinforced constantly. You are the founder. You raised the money. You set the vision. You are in charge. The cruel irony is that self-awareness can regress during the exact period when the company most needs the founder to grow. The company is scaling. The role is changing. The stakes are higher. But the feedback loop is weaker. That is a dangerous combination. The Founder Derailers I See Most Often The specific derailers are painfully predictable. Founders who cannot tolerate ambiguity rush to certainty and then grip it. Founders who anchor on past success treat it as a blueprint for the future. Founders who are so action-oriented that they never reflect keep applying the same playbook and wondering why results are deteriorating. Founders who are loners by nature solve problems alone instead of drawing on the collective intelligence of the team. Founders who are overconfident genuinely believe they have less to learn than everyone else. Founders who treat disagreement as disloyalty train the organization to stop telling the truth. All of these are ego in motion. Each one protects an identity at the expense of learning. And each one makes the founder less adaptive right when the company most needs adaptation. What Agile Leaders Do Differently The best leaders remain connected to reality. That is not glamorous, but it is everything. They build practices that keep them humble about their own limits and curious about what is actually happening. They reflect consistently. Not quarterly at some beautifully facilitated offsite. Weekly. After real decisions. After real mistakes. After real surprises. They surround themselves with people who will challenge them. Not professional contrarians. Not cynics. Not people who enjoy being difficult. People whose judgment they trust and who feel safe enough to disagree. They stay close to the ground. The higher you rise, the more filtered the information becomes. Great leaders stay connected to customers, frontline reality, and the unpolished version of what is happening. They study outside their domain. A finance executive who studies design. A CEO who studies anthropology. A founder who reads about ecology, military strategy, or psychology. Cross-domain learning interrupts the default thinking of your primary field. And most importantly, they develop the capacity to observe their own mind. That is where meditation becomes practical. Not meditation as spa music for stressed executives. Meditation as observation. You sit quietly and watch the mind defend itself. You notice the urge to be right. You notice the fear of irrelevance. You notice the attachment to the old model. You notice the impatience that wants to skip the lesson and get back to action. That awareness creates space. And space is where adaptability lives. The Founder’s Real Test The old playbook does not announce that it has expired. It simply starts producing worse results. That is why founders have to keep learning before the evidence becomes humiliating. The founder who keeps learning can scale with the company. The founder who stops learning slowly becomes the constraint. Not because they lack intelligence. Not because they lack courage. Not because they lack work ethic. But because they are still running yesterday’s operating system in a company that now requires something more. Learning agility is not a nice-to-have leadership trait. It is the founder’s survival skill. The company will keep changing. The market will keep changing. The team will keep changing. The real question is whether the founder can change without feeling personally diminished by the need to change. That is the mark of a leader who can scale. Not the leader who is always right. The leader who can be corrected by reality and still stay strong. That is learning agility. And for founders, it may be the difference between building a company that grows and becoming the reason it stops.
After almost 50 years of coaching leaders, it’s time for me to be very honest about what I’ve seen. The ego has destroyed more leaders than incompetence ever did. That may sound harsh, but I have watched it happen too many times. Smart people. Talented people. Visionary founders. Hard-driving executives. People with charisma, intelligence, courage, ambition, and often a real desire to build something meaningful. Then success arrives. And success is where the ego really gets dangerous. When leaders are struggling, reality still has a vote. Customers complain. Investors push. Employees leave. The market humbles them. But once leaders gain power, money, status, and a circle of people who need something from them, reality gets quieter. People start editing the truth. They laugh at jokes that are not funny. They soften bad news. They call emotional reactivity “passion.” hey call micromanagement “high standards.” hey call arrogance “confidence.” They call avoidance “strategic patience.” And before long, the leader is no longer leading a company. They are leading a carefully managed psychological ecosystem designed to protect their self-image. That is when things get expensive. Ego Is Not Just Arrogance Most people think ego means arrogance. That is too simple. Ego is the mental picture you carry of who you are. Your role. Your competence. Your status. Your worth. Your story about what makes you special. It is not useless. Early in life, ego helps organize identity. It helps us function, strive, compete, and build. But here is the problem. The ego starts as a tool and quietly becomes the boss. At first, you use it to orient yourself. Later, you defend it like your life depends on it. If you are identified with being the smartest person in the room, disagreement feels like an attack. If you are identified with being the founder, criticism of the company feels like criticism of you. If you are identified with being decisive, uncertainty feels humiliating. If you are identified with control, delegation feels like loss. If you need admiration, honest feedback feels unbearable. And if you are identified with being a great leader, congratulations. You have just made it harder to become one. The Ego Is Always Looking for a Deal The hidden bargain beneath ego-driven leadership usually sounds like this: Uf I succeed enough, I will finally feel secure. If I am admired enough, I will finally feel worthy. If I control enough, I will finally feel safe. If I win enough, I will finally be beyond doubt. The problem is that the bargain never fully pays off. Achievement does not end the hunger. Often it intensifies it. The leader gets the title, the funding, the exit, the recognition, the keynote invitation, the glowing article, the larger house, the more impressive friends. And somehow the inner machinery keeps running. More proof. More control. More admiration. More winning. More reassurance. This is why some extremely successful leaders remain strangely restless, defensive, brittle, and dissatisfied. They have achieved enough to impress the world, but not enough to quiet the self they are trying to protect. That is not a moral failure. It is a psychological trap. And leadership gives that trap a very large stage. How Ego Distorts Leadership Here is the brutal part. The ego does not just make leaders annoying. It distorts judgment. When the ego feels threatened, the leader stops seeing clearly. They stop listening when challenged. They become rigid instead of adaptive. They surround themselves with people who agree with them. They take credit and avoid blame. They micromanage because they cannot trust others. They confuse being questioned with being disrespected. They interpret disagreement as disloyalty. They protect the image instead of examining the truth. The more power they have, the worse it gets. Not because power makes everyone corrupt, but because power reduces corrective feedback. People defer more. They challenge less. They wait to see what the leader wants to hear. The leader slowly loses contact with reality. This is the great danger of executive success. The external world starts confirming the internal illusion. The Founder Version Is Especially Dangerous Founders are particularly vulnerable because the company often begins as an extension of their identity. That is not all bad. In the early stages, a founder’s obsession can be essential. The company may need the founder’s force, conviction, stamina, and refusal to accept conventional limits. But what gets a company born can also keep it from growing up. When the founder is fused with the company, every problem becomes personal. A product critique feels like an insult. A senior hire’s independence feels like a threat. A board challenge feels like betrayal. Delegation feels like irrelevance. Operational discipline feels like bureaucracy. The founder says, “No one cares as much as I do.” That may be true. But sometimes what they really mean is, “No one validates my identity the way this company does.” That is a harder sentence to say out loud at a board meeting. The Great Leadership Question After all these years, I have become less interested in the surface behavior and more interested in the motive underneath it. Not just, “Why do you micromanage?” But: What are you trying to protect? Not just, “Why do you dominate meetings?” But: What happens inside you when someone else has the better idea? Not just, “Why do you avoid conflict?” But: What does disapproval threaten in you? Not just, “Why do you need to win?” But: Who would you be if you did not? That is where the work starts to get real. Most leaders do not change because someone gives them a better technique. They change when they see the hidden bargain they have been making with themselves. Self-Awareness Is Not Self-Absorption Some leaders resist this work because they think inner development is soft, indulgent, or irrelevant to results. That is nonsense. Self-awareness is not sitting around admiring your emotional complexity. It is the discipline of seeing what is actually driving you before it drives the company off the road. A leader who cannot observe their own defensiveness will call it conviction. A leader who cannot observe their fear will call it urgency. A leader who cannot observe their need for admiration will call it culture building. A leader who cannot observe their control needs will call it accountability. Self-awareness is not ornamental. It is operational. It determines whether you can hear bad news, accept feedback, delegate authority, admit mistakes, make clean decisions, and separate the mission from your own self-image. What Actually Helps When ego is running the show, insight alone is not enough. You can understand your patterns intellectually and still be captured by them under pressure. I have seen brilliant leaders explain their own dysfunction with great sophistication and then repeat it 20 minutes later. So the work has to become practical. First, notice the pattern in real time. When you feel defensive, name it silently. I am defending. I am trying to win. I am afraid of looking incompetent. I am trying to control the room. That small act creates space. You are no longer completely fused with the reaction. Second, use feedback as inquiry, not verdict. When someone gives you hard feedback, do not rush to decide whether it is accurate. Ask: What part of me feels threatened by this? What self-image am I defending? What might I see if I were not protecting myself? That shifts feedback from judgment to information. Third, meditate. Not because you need to become serene, spiritual, or annoyingly calm in a linen shirt. Meditation trains the basic leadership muscle most leaders lack: the ability to observe the mind without immediately obeying it. You notice the tightening in your chest when someone questions you. You notice the urge to defend before the other person has finished the sentence. You notice the story your mind creates to protect your image. In that noticing, there is freedom. Fourth, practice non-doing. This is radical for founders and high achievers. Sit for 10 minutes. Do not optimize. Do not plan. Do not solve. Do not check your phone. Do not turn stillness into a productivity hack. Just sit there and watch how uncomfortable it is to not be becoming something. That discomfort is data. It shows you how addicted the ego is to motion, improvement, fixing, proving, and control. The Real Shift The goal is not to kill the ego. Good luck with that. Also, you need a functioning self to lead. The goal is to stop being unconsciously governed by it. You can still be ambitious. You can still be decisive. You can still be competitive. You can still build something enormous. But your ambition does not have to be compulsive. Your confidence does not have to be fragile. Your leadership does not have to be a 24-hour defense system for your identity. That is when ego becomes something you can use rather than something that uses you. And that is when leadership matures. The deepest leadership question is not: How do I become more powerful? It is: What is my power serving? Because if your power is serving your ego, the company will eventually pay the bill. And so will you.
