Five Approaches to Effective Decision Making

There are many approaches to making an effective decision

A man is sitting at a desk with a laptop and a computer.

Decision Making: A Critical Leadership Skill

Making effective decisions is crucial to a leader’s success. However, given the pressure to make decisions quickly, often without having all of the data necessary, it is easy to make the wrong choice. "On an important decision one rarely has 100% of the information needed for a good decision no matter how much one spends or how long one waits," said author and educator Robert K. Greenleaf. Although it is true that we don’t know what we don’t know, when you have a difficult decision to make, try to assess what information you lack, and how to obtain it.

It’s Too Easy to Make Bad Decisions A McKinsey study found that 72% of senior executives thought their companies frequently made more bad decisions than good decisions. This stunning finding should be a wake-up call to all executives to create and prioritize an effective decision-making process for your team or organization. Daniel Kahneman, who won the Nobel Prize for his research on decision-making, concluded that irrationality often trumps rationality in decision making. His research showed that 95% of all decisions are impaired by reasoning that engages in fallacies and systematic errors due to our use of mental shortcuts and rules of thumb that cloud our judgment.

Among the most effective antidotes to faulty decision making is to include the perspective of others who have different expertise, complementary functional or domain knowledge, or who can provide more objectivity or perspective on a leader’s decision. This includes not only your immediate team, but our network of colleagues, former mentors, and so on.

Do I Make The Decision Myself or Involve Other? Who you bring in to help you make a decision depends not only on who is available, but also on the nature of the problem you are trying to solve. They need to have deep knowledge or experience that will add critical facts and perspective to your analysis and help you identify alternatives, implications, risks, or other factors you might have overlooked.

Deciding Too Fast vs. Deciding Too Slow Of course, adding more people to the discussion is likely to slow things down. And there is no denying that including your team or other experts may add to the complexity of the decision or result in intense discussion and differences of opinion. But sometimes slowing down and being more thoughtful and deliberate is just what you need. “If there Is time to reflect, slowing down Is likely to be a good idea,” says Daniel Kahneman. Taking the time to gather evidence from as many relevant places as you can, brainstorming with knowledgeable people, and carefully weighing all the information rather than making a too-hasty decision could save you from making a huge error that could cost a lot of money, or even cost you your job or damage the organization’s chances of succeeding.

“There are times when delaying a decision has benefit. Often, allowing a set period of time to mull something over so your brain can work it through generates a thoughtful and effective decision.” - Nancy Morris, author of Procrastinate Now

So, what is a leader to do when there is pressure to make decisions quickly, but you know that your own biases and lack of complete information have the potential to lead to disastrous results? Is there a best way to make decisions?

This blog will take the position that there is no single best way to make decisions. Different circumstances and different types of decisions require different approaches.

In what follows, I will discuss five basic ways decisions can be made, what situations call for each approach, and the tradeoffs of different approaches. But first I will summarize the general benefits of including others in the decision-making process. Why Should I Involve My Team?

You must admit that making decisions by yourself is efficient and uncomplicated when you don’t have to consider others’ perspectives and concerns. When time is short, it is an attractive alternative. But solo decision making can easily lead to being heavily influenced by the leader’s biases, blind spots, reactivity, and focusing on too few options and too narrow a perspective.

By contrast, increasing the diversity of thoughts and opinions can generate more alternatives and innovative solutions. Bringing together the right group of people who have different skills, experience, viewpoints, functional perspectives and styles can create synergy that, in turn, can lead to dynamic discussions that yield new insights, more relevant facts and more objectivity.

Team Participation Is Empowering and Increases Buy-in Involving your team in decisions is not only good for you and for the success of the decision process, but also good for the team: it demonstrates that you value their viewpoints and makes them feel more engaged and likely to feel both appreciated and trusted. It suggests to them that you value their skills, knowledge and ideas. Both experience and research have shown that involvement in decision-making dramatically increases buy-in and ultimately elicits more support from team members when it comes to implementation. Participation in the process can increase their feeling of being invested in the decision and in their jobs and improves engagement and alignment. Gallup research also suggests that this can increase employee retention and reduce burn-out.

Team Participation Helps Grow Leaders Being engaged in a well-managed decision process can also help team members develop their judgment and their own leadership capability, by exposing them to the process of gathering facts and opinions, weighing alternatives, and the discipline of working in partnership with others to come up with the best solution for the problem at hand.

Team Participation Fosters Cohesiveness This experience of collaboration with the leader and other team members fosters team cohesiveness and increases a sense of shared identity because they are working to solve problems together rather than operating in and focusing on their functional silos. The feeling of accountability to the group grows as they take on greater responsibility for arriving at the decision.

Team Participation Shows A Willingness To Share Power But remember, when you decide to involve your team in making decisions, you are deciding to share power and the decision may not always be the one you had in mind at the beginning. It tests your willingness to let go of control and let others be leaders. Ultimately this can result in better quality decisions and greater engagement, but it will test your ego’s need to have the answer and be right all the time. It will challenge your willingness to trust others.

When should you involve your team in decisions?

1. When creating your strategy or long-term goals

2. When you realize that you have been too “top down” in your leadership style and need to be more open to input and do a better job of listening to feedback and ideas

3. When you have made some bad decisions in the past because you went off on the mountain and talked to God and came down with a solution that proved to be faulty

4. When you realize you have missed important information, leading to bad judgment

5. When trusting your gut rather than using a rational, systematic decision process led to bad results, hiring mistakes, confirmation bias, blindness to critical facts or alienation of team members

6. When you have received feedback that you are viewed as not trusting your team

7. When you need broad alignment and buy-in to ensure coordinated implementation

8. When the decision is consequential, difficult, complex or ambiguous and you could benefit from the collection of diverse viewpoints and facts

9. When you want to help team, members develop by exposing them to facts, ideas and decision disciplines

10. When you believe that the experience of collaboration and problem solving together and with the leader will foster team cohesiveness, encourage shared learning and increase a common sense of identity

Guidelines for Team Decision Making

• Be sure to involve the right people. The experience, skills and knowledge necessary to produce the best insights differs with each decision. The more diversity of perspective, the better. Including people based only on their seniority or their role can provide too narrow a perspective. Consider bringing in an expert regardless of their role or a person from outside who has domain knowledge relevant to the decision.

• Let the members of your team know which of these leadership styles you are going to use. If you are aiming for consensus, each person’s opinion and perspective is vital and must be brought out. If you are going to make the decision yourself based on some input from the team, it will be good for them to know this from the start.

• Consider setting up a meeting that is specifically designed to focus on this decision rather than trying to fit it into your usual staff meetings that often get hijacked by information exchange and reporting rather than high-level problem solving.

• Consider your time constraints and deadlines. Do you have time to involve others and gather additional viewpoints and alternatives? Do you have enough information, and the right information, to make a good quality decision?

• Be sure you carefully define the problem you are trying to solve rather than jumping too quickly into finding solutions. If you define the problem too narrowly, focus on a symptom rather than the broader root cause, or jump quickly to a single solution, the danger is that you will focus the team on the wrong thing and reach the wrong conclusion.

• Actively draw in ideas and viewpoints from all team members. Start with knowledgeable experienced team members and those with expertise in the problem area but consider also including opinions from the more junior before turning to your most senior people or expressing your own opinion. Patiently listen and be the last to weigh in.

• Try to create an environment where team members feel safe being open and honest and saying what they really think.

• Draw people out. Ask questions that surface alternative views, areas of concern, and problems that might prevent success. Invite team members to challenge each other’s opinions, including yours. Try to get the team to generate multiple possible solutions rather than locking in on one solution too soon. “That’s a good idea. What other angles can we come up with?”

• Take the time to look at the most important side effects that might negatively impact the outcome you are seeking. Ask everyone to consider: What could go wrong? It is important for a leader to discuss the proposal with people who are likely to disagree with it or uncover its drawbacks.

• Two common types of biases frequently have a negative effect on management decision, confirmation bias and over-confidence bias. Confirmation bias involves giving too much weight to information that supports your existing beliefs, conclusions or recent experience and discounts information that contradicts them. Overconfidence bias occurs when you overestimate your ability and fail to consider the risks that could lead to failure.

• It’s important to be aware and cautious about the potential problems and dangers, but equally important for you to dwell on the factors that could lead to succeeding in achieving your objective. And share that vision with your team.

• Play communication traffic cop. Ensure that people are listening, paying attention when others are speaking, are not interrupting, are being respectful of others’ views, and are building on each other’s ideas rather than trying to prove they are right.

• Don’t let certain team members dominate the discussion or dominate it yourself. Especially when your aim is consensus, it’s vital that everybody has a chance to state their views.

The following discussion considers various ways to make decisions, some involving other people and some not. There are many ways to get to the right answer.

5 Approaches To Making Leadership Decisions

1. The leader decides and informs the team Although in general it is always helpful to draw your team into the decision-making process, gathering their input and opinions, sometimes circumstances demand an immediate choice of direction: the decision is time-sensitive, and you need to take action now! You simply don’t have time to explore all the factors and ramifications with your team, so you need to decide and move forward on your own.

This unilateral approach to making a decision works best when the leader has sufficient information as well as some expertise in the relevant domain or domains. It can also be useful for low-impact decisions and simple, routine, administrative decisions which don’t require much input or deliberation. It’s relatively safe for you to use this mode when you know your team is likely to support and implement the decision despite having no input. Whenever possible, leaders should share their insights, analysis, and rationale for proposed changes with their team, even though their proposal might meet resistance and challenge from team members. Leaders do need to seek buy-in, but there are times when they need to take a direction even in the face of resistance. This partly depends upon the level of experience, domain expertise, and insight possessed by other team members.

Leaders frequently have insights and the ability to see around corners, making connections and spotting patterns sooner than the rest of the team. This is particularly true of visionary entrepreneurs. When the leader is working with a junior team and is many steps ahead of them, sometimes he or she doesn’t have time to bring the others along and must make a unilateral decision. The danger is that this can become a default pattern and may get in the way as the sophistication of the team increases and the complexity of decisions becomes greater and greater.

Elon Musk and Steve Jobs are exceptionally creative visionary leaders, who saw things other people missed. On the other hand, not everybody is Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. A lot of leaders justify autocratic leadership by citing Jobs and Musk and concluding that this is the way to be a leader. It’s one way – but unless you are so ridiculously brilliant that people are willing to put up with your arrogance, bossiness, intolerance, etc., it’s not a great way to lead, because you will have trouble retaining top people, you are likely to make biased decisions, and you will alienate people whose support you need. When the decision is yours alone, you run the risk of deciding without having all the important and relevant information and the benefit of your team’s experience. When there is no team interaction and team members are deprived of offering their input, they may resent the decision you’ve made and not support it. People on the team may feel disempowered and offended: “Why didn’t you ask for our input? Why were we excluded?” And because they didn’t have input in the decision, getting their buy-in may be problematic.

The one-person decision-making process is definitely efficient, and avoids time spent (or lost, depending on your perspective) to discussion and debate, but in doing that, it bypasses the group problem solving and brainstorming that can bring fresh and creative ideas to any situation.

And remember, when the decision is unilaterally yours, it is subject to your personal biases and blind spots. And when you are the sole decider, you are also solely accountable for the outcome!

2. The leader gathers input then decides Midway between the unilateral approach to decision making and the effort to broaden participation and generate consensus is the procedure where the leader consults with team members, solicits input of ideas and opinions, and then makes the final decision. This approach is effective when you are ultimately going to be the Decider. The whole team does not have to come to agreement on the best way to proceed, but you feel their input will be valuable and you want to hear their ideas. You realize that people from different backgrounds bring a variety of experience and understanding to bear on each situation, and you want to take advantage of what they know. As the leader, either speak with team members individually to gauge their position, or facilitate a group discussion of issues, pros and cons, possible outcomes from different courses of action, and so on. For this collaborative approach to work, team members need good communication skills, and must be open to lively discussion of ideas. It requires a leader able to facilitate a thorough exploration and discussion, and willing to absorb and process the information and then make decisions. Encourage team members not to just rubber-stamp your views, but to bring their own experience and perspective to the table. It can be helpful if someone is willing to be the “devil’s advocate” and question or even oppose your views for the sake of clarifying the issues.

But team members must be clear that although their input is solicited and viewed as valuable, in the end the leader is going to have the final say.

One advantage of this decision-making model is that even though you as the leader are ultimately responsible for whatever decision is made, the group input and involvement can take some of the pressure off your shoulders. That is good for you, and good for team members; if they feel they have some skin in the game they will be more energized and willing to work toward the desired outcome.

3. Consensus Consensus decision making is a method enabling a team or group to reach a decision by discussion and mutual agreement. Participants have a chance to contribute their ideas and opinions. Instead of the final decision being based on a vote, letting the majority get their way, the whole team commits to finding a solution that they can all support or at least live with. This approach encourages all team members to get involved and have some say in the decision.

It is an attempt to avoid having an individual team member or a minority feel like they have lost, that their concern or point of view is over-ridden or cancelled and that they cannot or will not support the final decision. To avoid this, the entire team as well as the leader must be willing to make a genuine effort to find solutions or alternatives that address the concerns and needs of all members. That means that you need to have input – and ultimately acceptance, support, and alignment – from all team members. The key is communication, an open flow of ideas and views among team members, including the leader.

There is a difference between consensus and a decision that is unanimous. In a unanimous decision, all the participants are in full agreement and accord. It’s 100 percent. If you have succeeded in creating a culture in which everyone feels that it’s safe to be fully honest, this kind of unanimity will be rare; there will almost always be some doubts, disagreements, and viewpoints that could not be reconciled. Consensus means that everyone has agreed to put their remaining differences aside, and a decision has been reached that everyone can and will support in order to move forward. Aiming for consensus can generate a thorough discussion of issues and produce innovative alternatives. Done well, it may involve long discussions and require surfacing and balancing diverse and sometimes opposing opinions and demands. Team members must have access to all relevant data. To reach consensus, the team needs to be able to work collaboratively and systematically together, and you need to be a skilled facilitator. Be careful to involve everyone, and don’t allow the loudest voices to control the discussion. The higher the level of involvement by team members, with everyone working together through all the discussion and deliberation and arriving at consensus, the more support you will ultimately have for implementation. Because of the broader base of individuals contributing to the discussion, the danger of narrow, silo-based focus of a small part of the team dominating the discussion and the outcome is reduced.

Consensus building is an effective, democratic way to create alignment and solidarity among team members, but it is not the right approach for every situation. It is probably not the way you want to proceed in emergencies or high-pressure, time-sensitive situations. Striving for consensus can take a lot of time and energy and will not be the most effective approach when you are facing a deadline, or a crisis and decisions need to be made in a hurry.

So, what should you do if there is a time crunch, you need to make a decision in the next 24 hours, and you don’t want to shut team members out of the decision-making process? In that case, decide which team members have the most expertise relevant to the problem, or who will be most involved in implementation of the decision, and talk to them. If you can’t get consensus of the whole team, at least get the solid support of this select group. If the consequences of making a bad decision are significant and you need to be sure that you have considered all the ramifications, consensus with careful consideration is probably the right approach. But if the cost of missing an opportunity is high, you may need to move faster, and consensus isn’t the right solution.

When you do need to act quickly, it is a good idea to designate an agreed-upon decision maker for every meeting. The approach is then called “consultative decision-making”. This could be you as the leader, or a trusted team member. You strive to gather the facts, generate discussion of ideas and alternatives and listen to concerns and opinions of team members who disagree with you and others. You want lively discussion of the issues and you want to hear the opinion of experts or those with domain knowledge. But the team doesn’t need to come to a consensus decision. Once the discussion of facts, viewpoints and alternatives is sufficient, the designated decision-maker steps in and makes the call. “Thanks for your input, I’ll let you know what I decide.”

“You want to make sure that everyone participates…. You want to get to the best idea. Your job as a CEO . . . is not to forge a consensus, but to run a process where the best idea emerges." – Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, quoting legendary Silicon Valley executive coach Bill Campbell.

4. Consensus with fallback If it seems likely that two factions in your organization will not be able to compromise and reach consensus and a clear path forward, then it’s a good idea to pre-set a course of action that you will take if the team cannot come to an agreement and you are required to step in and make the decision. Let everyone know that this is what will happen if they cannot reach accord.

Setting a time limit may be necessary. If the leader fails to set limits, the discussion may go on endlessly without coming to an acceptable conclusion. A time limit puts pressure on the team, which can be a good thing or not. On the plus side, pressure can catalyze the process by pushing people to make concessions and compromises, particularly on issues that are not of central importance to them. Find out what concerns are most important to each of the disagreeing parties, and their willingness to compromise on issues that are less important.

On the other hand, the team may feel rushed and that they don’t have enough time for proper consideration of the relevant factors. Conflicts may surface, and fundamental disagreements may not be worked through, with the result that alignment within the team, and of the team with the organization, may not be complete.

5. The leader delegates to the team or sub-group of the team Sometimes it may be that you and your immediate team are not the best people to solve the problem. It may be a specialized marketing or engineering question that requires expertise other than yours. Who on your team can you turn to, who can be trusted to dig deeply into the issue and come to an informed decision, or make a knowledgeable recommendation?

If, as is often the case with the founders of start-ups, you are accustomed to being on top of all decision making, don’t panic, use this as an opportunity to let go of some responsibilities and decisions, and delegate to others the power to choose a direction, or at least to analyze the data and bring their suggested solution to you.

The key is to remain calm under pressure, trust the team you have built, and use the data available to make the best possible decisions. – Brent Gleeson, former Navy Seal, founder of TakingPoint Leadership

There will come a time when letting go of the reins will be necessary – there is just too much going on in too many areas of your growing organization for you to keep up with it all. It will not be easy for you but doing so will ultimately set you free to use your time and talents for other matters and builds confidence and leadership ability in team members. You may even have to look outside your organization to consultants who specialize in dealing with the kind of situation you are facing.

The danger here is that delegating fails to make use of the talents and expertise of the entire team. It limits team interaction. When fewer people are involved, there is more chance for an individual’s personal biases to cloud their vision. And because not everyone is involved in the decision, it doesn’t build broad and strong commitment to implementation of whatever decision is made.

This issue is of special relevance to entrepreneurs, who frequently have to make decisions in areas where they would be better off delegating, but they have limited funds and thus limited personnel. So, they themselves become central and crucial for all decisions, even on minor issues that would be best pushed downward. For major matters, if you feel the need to reach out beyond your team, you can solicit advice and suggestions from former colleagues who may have dealt with similar dilemmas, or from teachers or mentors.

I was working 12 hours a day with 10 hours of work that easily could have been outsourced. I had never been in a situation where I didn’t want to do all the work myself. One day, I needed four things done by the end of the week and realized I didn’t have the time. That’s when I hired my first employee. . . I never looked back. I hired three more freelancers and ended up hiring one of them full-time within the first month. I now have five full-time employees. [Will Ellis, Founder of Privacy Australia.] When should you use these different leadership styles?

Each of these five styles or modes of leadership has its appropriate time and place. You are likely more comfortable with one or two of them, but to become the most effective leader you can be, it will be helpful to become familiar with all of them, and to be flexible and adaptable enough to shift from one to another as circumstances demand. This is sometimes referred to as “conditional leadership.” For example, a less-experienced team might need a strong guiding hand and a more authoritarian or leader-centric style, while a team of accomplished people can be trusted with a more democratic or even laissez-faire style where they are mostly on their own once tasks and roles are well understood.

Discover the transformative power of Dr. Rich Hagberg's leadership coaching, rooted in data-driven analysis. With decades of experience, Dr. Hagberg excels in enhancing self-awareness, balancing strengths and weaknesses, and fostering effective decision-making. His tailored approach helps founders build strong teams and navigate growth challenges seamlessly.

Ready to elevate your leadership skills and drive your startup to success?

Learn more about Dr. Rich Hagberg's coaching services or contact him today to start your journey.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Connection is How Leaders Earn the Truth

By Rich Hagberg • May 23, 2026

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.

The Founder Who Can’t Learn Becomes the Bottleneck

By Rich Hagberg • May 19, 2026

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.

Ego Is the Silent Killer of Leadership

By Rich Hagberg • May 9, 2026

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.

ALL ARTICLES

Article