Level Up Leadership

I hated today's most important book for leaders. I was forced to read The Goal, by Eli Golderatt, and I hated it. I think it may be the most valuable possible book for leaders right now. The Goal is about optimizing factory throughput. My boss, coming from running an aircraft lighting plant, wanted me to read it. As a software engineer, I thought reading about factory operations was a complete waste of time. I was wrong. I was wrong then, and more wrong today, because AI is a nearly perfect example of the problem the book addresses. The book teaches a simple idea - the "theory of constraints" - that an assembly line can only produce at the speed of its slowest step. The idea here is simple. Henry Ford famously made the Model T, his early best seller, only in black. Why? Black paint dried the fastest. By using only black, he could paint more cars more quickly. Perhaps Ford could have sped up engine or chassis assembly. But if the bottleneck was at the paint booth, all that would do is lengthen the line waiting to be painted. AI makes certain tasks much faster. But companies have not yet converted AI investment into actual business results. This book explains why. AI allows fewer engineers to crank out more code. It also accelerates some parts of testing, marketing copy generation, product prototyping, and many other things. If AI writes software much faster, but all the other parts of your company remain the same, the bottlenecks elsewhere will still hold things up. To get more results, you have to redesign the whole process, always focusing on the bottleneck steps. The CEOs counting token use are missing this point. Getting their teams to use AI does matter. But for the next few years the challenge for leaders is also going to be finding the bottlenecks where either AI does not apply at all or no one has figured out how to use it, and focusing there. Faster coding won't magically create better software products. They also need both architecture and UX design. But beyond that, they then also need sales, marketing, support, documentation, and possibly all kinds of messy physical systems where AI is currently no help at all. Take Amazon as an example. AI doesn't create more trucks or delivery drivers. It might make their routes slightly more efficient, but that isn't a big change. So all the AI in the world on the website, helping people shop and buy is good, but it won't matter unless some leader figures out trucks and warehouses to support the new scale. Even if AI helps the leader come up with the plan, you have to buy the trucks and hire the drivers. For big leaders over the next 2 to 3 years the lessons of "The Goal" can help you solve the real problem - not "AI adoption" but "more actual market results because of AI." Where do you see fast AI prototypes hitting a wall of other necessary steps, slowing the features back down to "regular" speed?

When I got promoted from IC to manager, my VP gave me a feedback tip I never forgot: When you have both good and bad news to deliver... Start with the bad news. Why? Because people remember how conversations end more than how they begin, particularly when emotions are involved. And when you lead with the bad news, you create more airtime to work the problem together rather than glossing over it. I’ve seen weak managers do the opposite — they save the bad news for the last 5 minutes, then rush off to their “next important meeting.” The result is confusion, unanswered questions, lost trust, and a sense of "sweeping it under the rug." Don't be the weak manager. Deliver the hard part first and ensure it's ended with clarity and direction.

We all need someone to call us on our BS excuses. I recently did this for a client. The keys to doing it well are: 1) It has to be done from a true heart to help, not to criticize. I once heard this as "brutally honest people are usually more in it for the brutality than the honesty." I would go further and say, you need to be helpful as well as honest. 2) You need to have built a relationship of trust and helpfulness *before* you can really be direct. 3) Sometimes some "brutality" is necessary in order to be truly heard. Many (most?) people tend to shake off gentle messages. 4) We need this because life is hard and all of us get tired (lazy). The human animal is designed to conserve energy and look for shortcuts. It's a survival strategy. But sometimes it leads us to make excuses and perform poorly in a way that hurts us. At those points, we benefit from someone who calls us on it. Bonus tip: if you are going to call people out, you need to do your best at being good at taking it also. No one (including me) loves being called out. But I can take it from people who truly have my best interests at heart; who have proven it. Have at least one person in your life who will tell you truths you do not want to hear. Be this person for a few key others. Today is as good as any day to tell someone the truth they need to hear.

90% of people who reach out to senior leaders say: "Can I get your advice? Can we have a coffee chat?" Result: Ignored. 9% say: "I have a newsletter/podcast. You'd be a great guest. I can reach X people." Result: Maybe. 1% say: "I know this is a problem you want to solve. I've already solved it. Here you go." Result: You're now a collaborator. Jason P. Yoong broke this down during our conversation and backed it up with a real example. Alan O'Beirne built "Ethan Evans GPT" - an AI tool trained on all of Ethan Evans content - without being asked. Just built it and sent it over. That person went from stranger → collaborator → partner. The lesson: Don't ask for someone's time. Solve their problem first. The relationship follows. Listen to the whole pod: YT: https://lnkd.in/gv3_zZYC Spotify: https://lnkd.in/gnuTJfty

AI is turning the measure of leadership success upside down. Success is now having fewer people on your team. "What is wrong with John, he has 120 people?" This is not universal and it may not stick. But I was shocked by what a leader told me about recent performance calibration meetings. In the past, even though there are problems with this view, it has been common to both say and believe "John has 120 reports; Fred has 50. John must be better and more important than Fred." People have thought this because size is easy to see. When an org chart has more boxes under one person than another, it is easy to count and easy to believe that each box represents more value. And as a very rough proxy, this is even true - if the type of work is the same, then more people means more work getting done and thus more value. This leader told me that in recent performance reviews they are starting to see this flipped over. "Why does John still need so many people? Are they not using AI?" There are lots of problems with counting people as a proxy for leadership value. That isn't the point here. Instead, the important point is the complete reversal of the old norm, at least by some companies - a change to assuming that really good leaders can get enormous amounts done with small teams. I think that it is possible to do a lot more with fewer people in a few narrow domains - certain types of pure software being the best example. But I think this belief that all teams can shrink is also misguided. What do you think? Is having the smallest team rather than the largest now a new measure of leadership ability? On Sunday I will post about the book I think is most important for leaders right now. It isn't a leadership book, it's a process book about redesigning workflows. If you don't follow me, do so in order to catch that post. (This isn't some traffic strategy - there just isn't enough room here to fully explain why the book matters).

A retired exec told me: "Early in your career you learn, then you earn, and at the end of your career, you pay it forward." You do not need the "official" management title to share advice. If you have deep experience (battle scars included) or develop expertise in something, share your work and POV. It may not resonate with everyone. And that's OK. You do not need to resonate with millions of people. The internet is both a big and small place. Part of building and shipping in public is figuring out who resonates with your domain. The scariest part is hitting "publish". But after you do it. It feels great. And if you make a mistake (which you will). Own it. Improve from it. And move on. Life is full of questions. And the best way to get answers is through taking action. So the next time you feel hesitant to hit "publish"... Do it. (FYI. Private DMs like the screenshot get me jazzed, thank you!)

Your boss has a terrible idea. They are all excited about it and are about to kick off a workstream for it. You see some major flaws. 9 out of 10 people will fumble this situation in one of two ways. The first way is that they will say nothing. Afraid to confront their boss, many people will say nothing and let the bad idea proceed and gain traction while the flaws remain. The project then struggles, meaning you and your career struggle and slow down with it. The second way people fumble this situation is by calling out their boss directly, saying, “Here’s why the idea won’t work…” This kind of outright challenge forces their boss into a defensive position. They push their project through in order to not appear weak, so you end up working on the bad project anyway AND you have just made an enemy out of your boss. Not good. So, how should you go about raising your concerns in this situation? You need to challenge the idea, but you also need to be respectful and effective in your communication. I got a question on exactly how to do this in a coaching session, and I want to share my answer with you all. The question was, “When you’re challenging senior leaders (SVP and VP) or surfacing an uncomfortable truth, how do you balance that impact with respect?” You can read my answer in this week’s newsletter: https://buff.ly/Us5Wnls I go over how (and when) to challenge your leaders in a way that moves the best ideas forward and builds your reputation rather than destroying it. Readers - Let me know in the comments how you handle these situations.

A career mistake high performers make is confusing being “right” with being effective, especially when challenging executives. I’ve seen talented managers trigger defensiveness in execs, publicly corner leaders with data, and thus unintentionally damage trust. Not because their point was wrong. Because their communication delivery was. In our latest executive coaching breakdown, we unpack: 1/ How to challenge executives without triggering defensiveness 2/ Why timing and framing matter more than most people realize 3/ Specific phrases you can use Worth reading if you work with senior leaders: https://lnkd.in/gCGXC_pT

New podcast, with Nikhil Kapahi. I had one of my open and candid talks with Nikhil, but focused on "The Inner Scorecard" - what choices I made in my career and why. If you are struggling to navigate blending a demanding career with a personal life, you can learn from both my successes and failures.