Article

The Leader’s Evolving Role in Working Through Others

August 13, 2020

There are no leaders without followers.  It's about leverage

The Leader’s Evolving Role in Working Through Others

The Leader’s Evolving Role in Working Through Others
 
In the beginning, during the organization’s early stage of growth, the leader may play many roles. It’s quite natural to wear many hats and attempt to take on a wide range of responsibilities, and for a while that may work. It may be both expedient and cost effective in the short run, but not in the long run! 

You can’t do everything. As the organization grows, you will come to the realization that you can’t be an expert in all the areas essential to the growth and effectiveness of the company. You can’t take charge of engineering, sales, finance, product, marketing, and so on. It’s neither effective, nor, as the organization grows, possible. Entrepreneurs must get beyond the belief that they can and should have their hand into every part of the company. You need to bring in people who have expertise in different domains and let them lead those teams and functions.   

Grow from working in the company to working on the company. In sports terms, players sometimes go from being a player, to a player-coach, and finally to being the coach. You may start out writing code, continue to lead product development, but also facilitate teamwork, build a company culture, begin to give people direction and devise and implement a strategic plan, negotiate additional funding with venture capitalists for the destiny of the organization: you are working ON the company rather than IN the company. 

This is a huge transition for most people, and it is not easy. Many young tech entrepreneurs, accustomed to working creatively on their own, have never had the experience of working on a successful team or working with an effective leader. Many derive their sense of self-worth from being a “doer” and accomplishing something tangible every day. This could make it difficult to let go of details and tasks that make you feel you have done something concrete and useful. This feeling can make you reluctant to let go and “just lead”. So, to shift from being the one who is focused on task accomplishment, who solves tangible problems and makes all the decisions to seeing yourself as the one who facilitates change and works primarily or even completely through others is a major step. As leader you must accept that you are no longer just a doer but instead, someone whose role is motivating, focusing and involving, getting input and buy-in and working indirectly to get things done.  

“Roberto needs to move from a position of chief doer to a position where he guides and facilitates teams and groups to proactively drive the business using team member’s own expertise and giving them a high degree of autonomy.”
In short, as the organization evolves, the leader’s role also needs to evolve. The leader continues to play an important role but his or her individual contribution is increasingly replaced by team building skills and facilitating the collective contributions of the team.

I remember well a coaching session with a very young, inexperienced CEO who started a company that had only 11 people when I began our engagement, but who saw his company growing dramatically. He opened our conversation by saying, “I’m depressed because I don’t know what I should be doing. I don’t feel I’m adding value anymore. I used to write code and get involved in managing projects but now my team has grown and I’m spending my time doing things that I don’t see as having tangible value.” I pointed out to him that his role was now to be the leader, the direction setter, the motivator, the communicator, the facilitator of teamwork and the builder of culture. I said, “It’s not the same mountain, but a different mountain to climb, and a whole new challenge in learning to play a new role.”  

His self-esteem had come from being a doer, and he had no concept of what it meant to be a leader and a CEO. It was a whole new ballgame now. But he learned well: The company, that he started with college roommates, now has 400 employees and is highly successful. They’ve had seven rounds of funding that brought in over 200 million dollars. (it’s now seven years later.)

Evolution of Your Role as Leader. In their book, Leading at the Speed of Growth, Katherine Catlin and Jana Matthews delineate four main stages in the growth of an organization: 
  • Startup
  • Initial Growth
  • Rapid Growth
  • Continuous Growth
At each stage, the role of the leader shifts. In the Startup phase, you are an active Doer and primary Decision Maker. But as the fledgling organization starts to take off in its Initial Growth phase, hires more people and expands, you need to cut back on some of your “doing” activities in order to become the chief Delegator as well as the Direction Setter. In the third stage, as the company scales due to Rapid Growth, your role must shift to being a Team Builder, Coach, Planner, and Communicator (both internally and to the public). Finally, in the phase of Continuous Growth, the leader becomes Change Catalyst, Strategic Innovator, Chief of Culture, and overall Organization Builder. 

These roles are qualitatively quite different. To maintain effective leadership as the organization progresses from one stage to the next, you’ll need to change with it, being willing to leave behind attitudes and behaviors that worked quite well at one stage but are no longer optimum as the organization scales. 

Become a facilitator of collaboration and success. Use your team for collaborative, synergistic problem-solving. Stop trying to control every decision. The leader sets the tone on an executive team. As the leader, you must help the team work together effectively, resolve conflicts, support one another, solve problems, and make decisions efficiently as a group. For this, team members need to trust each other and communicate openly. As the leader it’s your role to make this happen.
If the leader has surrounded him/herself with team members who have complementary skills, strengths, experience, and perspectives, great things can begin to happen. A key role of the leader is to guide, support, and facilitate effective team processes and interactions to get the most out of the synergy from the team. The leader needs to be sure the team is focused and aligned. 

Get everyone aligned around a common sense of purpose. It is also vital to foster a common sense of purpose and identity around the mission and create a safe, supportive, open environment where differences are resolved, and problems and decisions are worked through effectively. It’s the leader’s role to get everyone working together and not let competition, ego battles and silo mentality destroy teamwork and hamper the organization’s ability to grow and thrive. 

Challenge people to be and do their best. Along with fostering a supportive work environment, the leader needs to challenge individuals and teams to raise the bar, not to settle for mediocre or “okay” but to be the best they can be. He or she has to walk the line between being supportive and encouraging on one hand, and challenging people to be accountable for outcomes. Not everybody is going to produce top-quality results. Some people are lazy and want to just "get by," but as the leader that has to be unacceptable to you. Ultimately, you will be held accountable for what the team accomplishes or does not accomplish. So sometimes you may need to put on a taskmaster’s hat, express the expectation that your people will put forth their best effort, and be as demanding of results as the situation requires. The best leaders I have worked with over the years have been a blend or combination of demanding and supportive.   

Respond to the need of the time. The best leaders are also attuned to the ever-changing business climate, as well as the social, macro-economic, and political trends, any or all of which could influence the direction and success of the business. Different times and conditions call for different styles of leadership. 

For example, in recent years, Andreessen Horowitz co-founder and CEO Ben Horowitz drew a useful contrast between what he called a Wartime CEO and a Peacetime CEO. In Peacetime (by which he means when the company has a strong competitive edge and its market is growing) leadership can afford to deploy the company’s strengths to expand in creative directions. When Google found itself with a near-monopoly in the search market, they asked employees to spend 20% of their time on creative ideas to grow the company in new directions. Peacetime leadership can comfortably allocate time to nurturing team cohesion and individual creative expression. These are times when “delegation,” “don’t micromanage,” and so on can be emphasized by the leader. 

In Wartime, however, when the company is under pressure to become profitable, or it is facing severe competitive threat and its very survival may be at stake, the entire focus has to be on alignment behind the organization’s mission. Horowitz cites the example of Steve Jobs’ return to a struggling Apple, which was literally a few weeks away from bankruptcy. Jobs “needed everyone to move with precision and follow his exact plan; there was no room for individual creativity outside of the core mission.” Wartime conditions can come even to well-established, strong companies, but for startups and their leaders, it’s Wartime 24/7. 

However, Horowitz’s advice for the Wartime phase can be quite extreme. Clearly, leaders need to act decisively, and especially with start-ups, they often need to decide quickly and sometimes unilaterally, especially if there has not been enough opportunity to gather a team of seasoned professionals, as I will discuss in the next chapter. But Horowitz implies that you need to stay in Wartime mode until you do have a strong competitive edge. That gives permission, and even encourages leaders to behave in a controlling and autocratic way, exercising top-down leadership rather than seeking buy-in and consensus. 

This is problematic in the long run. As you begin to bring in more senior people, who expect and deserve to have a level of autonomy and a voice in decision making, if you stay in Wartime mode too long and are too controlling, you will fail to leverage the synergy of your team. You won’t be able to benefit from hearing voices and opinions that prevent you from falling into sunflower bias or confirmation bias. After all, the benefit of involving a group in decision making is to gather diverse and creative perspectives on how to deal with problems and questions. 

In situations that require fast, decisive action, it may occasionally be necessary for a leader to either make a decision without input or to seek input but not have the time to reach consensus when it comes to choosing a course of action. This would be a case of, “Thank you very much for your input, I’ll let you know what I decide.Be careful not to operate in Wartime mode as a default, but only when it is truly necessary. Be adaptable. Adjust the amount of participation you allow and input you ask for, based upon the maturity and expertise of the team around you.  

share this

Related Articles

Related Articles

Why smart leaders are the hardest to to work for.
By Rich Hagberg March 30, 2026
Some of the smartest leaders you will ever meet are also some of the hardest people to work with.  They are fast, perceptive, and unusually strong at solving hard problems. They see patterns others miss. They cut through ambiguity. They grasp systems, strategy, and complexity at a very high level. In many cases, those gifts are exactly why they became founders, technical leaders, or senior executives. And yet many of these same people leave a trail of strained relationships behind them. Their direct reports feel unseen or intimidated. Peers experience them as dismissive, impatient, or controlling. Their bosses admire their intellect but hesitate to trust them with broader leadership responsibility. At home, partners often feel emotionally alone. Over time, the leader becomes puzzled. They know they are smart, committed, and often right. So why do people keep pulling away, withholding the truth, or failing to fully follow them? The answer is that many high IQ leaders are working from an incomplete model of effectiveness. They assume that if they think clearly, argue logically, work hard, and produce results, the rest should take care of itself. That model can work for a long time in school, in technical roles, and in the early stages of a company. But eventually leadership becomes less about the quality of your own mind and more about your ability to work through the minds, emotions, motivations, and limitations of other people. That is where many smart leaders start to fail. The Core Problem Intelligence is not the problem. It is an asset. The problem is that intelligence often creates distortions. It can make a leader overestimate the power of logic, underestimate the importance of emotion, and develop habits that quietly damage trust. It can also create a subtle arrogance. Not always the loud kind, but the quieter assumption that if other people are slower, less rigorous, or more emotional, they must be the problem. Once a leader starts living inside that assumption, interpersonal trouble becomes almost inevitable. Five Common Patterns 1. Overreliance on reason Many bright leaders treat relationships as if they are mainly cognitive systems. If there is disagreement, they explain more. If someone is upset, they analyze the issue. If morale is low, they offer strategy. If a direct report feels discouraged, they give solutions. In their minds they are being helpful and efficient. But the other person often feels bypassed. Their emotional reality is treated as noise rather than information. Their need to be heard is mistaken for a need to be corrected. This is a major blind spot in analytical leaders. They often do not realize that understanding is not the same as persuasion, and problem solving is not the same as relationship building. A person can agree with your logic and still not trust you. They can accept your decision and still lose commitment because the relational cost was too high. 2. Impatience High horsepower people often process faster than the people around them. They see the answer early. They get bored by slower thinking, frustrated by repetition, and irritated when others need more context than they do. This can make them decisive and productive. It can also make them hard to work with. They interrupt. They jump ahead. They finish other people’s sentences. They push past concerns before others feel understood. They make those around them feel slow, clumsy, or not worth listening to. This teaches the organization something dangerous. It teaches people that the leader’s mind is the only one that really counts. The safest strategy becomes speaking briefly, deferring quickly, or waiting until the leader has already decided. Then the leader complains that the team is passive or not taking ownership. What they often do not see is that the culture has adapted to them. 3. Emotional underdevelopment hidden by cognitive strength Very bright people can use intellect as a defense against emotional discomfort. They can analyze instead of feel. They can explain instead of reflect. They can argue instead of absorb. They can move to abstraction when the deeper issue is shame, fear, insecurity, hurt, or loneliness. They are often unaware this is happening. They do not experience themselves as defended. They experience themselves as rational. But leadership requires emotional range. Not sentimentality. Not therapeutic language. Real range. The ability to notice your own reactions before they control your behavior. The ability to tolerate feeling wrong, uncertain, criticized, or less competent than you want to appear. The ability to stay present when another person is disappointed, anxious, or angry without immediately shutting it down, fixing it, or counterattacking. Leaders who cannot do this often become brittle. They look composed until challenged in just the wrong way. Then out comes defensiveness, coldness, contempt, withdrawal, or overcontrol. 4. Low interpersonal curiosity Smart leaders are often highly curious about ideas, products, markets, and strategy, but not necessarily about people. They know how to interrogate problems, but not always how to explore another person’s inner world. They ask what happened, but not what it felt like. They want the conclusion, not the hesitation. They want the output, not the psychology. People do not trust leaders simply because they are competent. They trust leaders who show that they are trying to understand them. Interpersonal curiosity communicates respect. A leader does not have to agree with someone to make that person feel seen. But when the leader skips that step, people feel reduced to functions rather than treated as human beings. 5. Weak awareness of impact Many smart leaders are genuinely surprised by how strongly people react to them. They tell themselves, “I was just being direct,” or “I was only asking a question.” In their own minds, intent carries most of the moral weight. If they did not mean harm, then the reaction seems excessive. But leadership does not work that way. Impact matters because power magnifies everything. A passing comment from a founder can ruin a weekend. A skeptical look from a senior executive can silence a room. A blunt critique can stick in someone’s head for months. High IQ leaders often underestimate this because they evaluate themselves from the inside while everyone else experiences them from the outside. That gap sits at the center of many 360 feedback problems. The Identity Trap There is another layer here. Some smart leaders have been rewarded for being exceptional for so long that they quietly build their identity around being the smartest person in the room. They may not say it out loud. They may even dislike arrogance in others. But inside, being quick, insightful, and right has become central to their sense of worth. Once that happens, other people’s competence can feel threatening. Feedback becomes harder to absorb. Collaboration becomes more performative than real. The leader listens selectively, especially when they believe the other person is less capable. They become invested in remaining the mental center of gravity. That is a dangerous place to lead from. It turns intelligence into status defense. It makes humility feel like loss. It makes genuine curiosity harder. And it makes the leader lonelier than they realize, because very few people feel close to someone who always has to occupy the top intellectual position. The Shift That Matters The good news is that these problems are workable. In fact, smart leaders often improve quickly once they see the pattern clearly. Their intelligence then becomes an ally rather than a shield. But improvement requires a shift in model. Leadership is not just about being right. It is about creating enough trust, clarity, and psychological safety that the best thinking of the group can emerge. Your job is not merely to contribute your intelligence. It is to increase the total intelligence of the system. That means treating emotions as information rather than interference. It means becoming curious about your own interpersonal signature. What happens to people in your presence when you are under pressure. Do they get more open or more cautious. More honest or more political. More energized or more tense. Those are not soft questions. They are the real scorecard of leadership impact. It also means slowing down your certainty just enough to make room for other minds. Ask one more question before concluding. Stay with the other person’s frame a little longer. Notice when you are moving to solution because you are uncomfortable with uncertainty or emotion. Let people finish. Reflect before rebutting. And it means understanding that warmth and strength are not opposites. Many analytical leaders fear that becoming more emotionally intelligent will make them softer or less respected. The opposite is usually true. Leaders become more effective when people experience them as both rigorous and fair, both clear and human, both demanding and safe enough to tell the truth to. Practical Experiments A few simple practices can help. In your next one on one, spend more time understanding than advising. In your next disagreement, summarize the other person’s view in a way they agree is accurate before stating your own. In your next leadership meeting, track how often you interrupt, redirect, or signal impatience. After a difficult conversation, ask yourself not only whether your point was valid, but what emotional residue you likely left behind. Ask two trusted people what it feels like to disagree with you, and listen without defending. Final Thought Human beings are not engineering problems. They are not solved by superior reasoning alone. They need respect, steadiness, dignity, trust, and emotional attunement. That is why so many smart leaders struggle. Not because they are too intelligent, but because they have leaned on the wrong part of themselves for too long. At a certain point in leadership, your mind stops being the main differentiator. Plenty of people are smart. What becomes rarer is the ability to combine intelligence with self awareness, candor with sensitivity, high standards with trust, and authority with emotional maturity. That is when a smart leader becomes someone people actually want to follow.
The Courage to Confront: How Real Leaders Balance Candor and Care
By Rich Hagberg December 16, 2025
(Part 2 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
Integrity as an Innovation Strategy: Why Moral Clarity Drives Creativity, Not Just Compliance
By Rich Hagberg December 9, 2025
(Part 1 of The Best Leaders Playbook — Building Trust Systems Series)
ALL ARTICLES