Balancing Leadership Responsibilities

The candidate told me, "I don't do grunt work anymore." I hired him on the spot. Last month, I was interviewing for a senior leadership role. Mid-interview, I asked: "If we're in crisis and need someone to handle operational details—updating spreadsheets, coordinating logistics—would you step in?" He paused. "No. I don't do grunt work anymore. That's not what you're hiring me for." The junior recruiter looked horrified. I hired him two days later. The "Roll Up Your Sleeves" Myth We worship this idea: great leaders "roll up their sleeves" and do whatever needs doing. We call it humility. I call it a trap. Senior leaders who constantly "roll up their sleeves" are often avoiding the actual hard work of leadership. Tactical work feels productive. Strategic work? Uncomfortable. Ambiguous. So leaders default to execution mode. Three Leaders Who Failed This Way A VP of Product spent 60% of his time doing Director-level work. The CEO fired him: "We need a VP who thinks strategically, not an expensive project manager." A CFO personally reviewed every reconciliation. Never built a team that could operate without her. She burned out. The board brought in someone who built systems instead. A founder-CEO reviewed marketing copy, approved expenses, sat in standups. Created bottlenecks everywhere. Investors made his COO the CEO six months later. What It Actually Signals When senior leaders do tactical work constantly: → They don't trust their team → They haven't built capability → They're uncomfortable with strategic ambiguity → They're optimizing for feeling productive, not being effective What That Candidate Understood "You're not paying me to do coordinator work. You're paying me to build systems so you don't need me doing it." Highest leverage use of senior leadership: → Setting direction in ambiguity → Making decisions others can't make → Building capability so work gets done without you → Thinking three moves ahead The Real Humility Admitting: "I'm not the best person to do this, even though I could." Building a team so capable that diving in would slow them down. That's harder than rolling up your sleeves. The Shift A board member told me: "Every time you fix something yourself, you're teaching your team they don't have to." My "heroic" interventions prevented my team from developing problem-solving muscle. I was creating dependency, not capability. Now when something breaks: "Who should own fixing this?" Not "How do I fix this?" My team got stronger because I helped differently. That candidate? Six months in, his team operates with more autonomy than any other function. Because he built their capability instead of doing their work. 💡 The best leaders don't roll up their sleeves to do the work. They build the systems and people who do the work better than they ever could. Is "rolling up your sleeves" always good leadership, or does it hold teams back? #Leadership #Management #LeadershipDevelopment #CXO

New role. Same red flags. A culture of “keep them happy” isn’t kindness. It’s exposure. You were hired to deliver change. Upgrade performance. Stabilise dysfunction. Move the function forward. With fresh eyes, you see it immediately. Meetings full of talk, few facts. Decisions reopened after they were agreed. Self-assumed power overriding accountability structures. Repeatedly. You’re told: “Give people grace through change.” “Make them feel heard.” “Elevate morale.” It sounds reasonable. You expect them to change slowly. Strategy, KPIs, and process efficiency are quicker wins, while long-standing behaviours and alliances become a balancing act. You weren’t just hired to lead change and deliver. You were hired to do it while absorbing resistance. Short-term metrics are prioritised before raising behavioural standards. Fast transformation, with one hand tied behind your back. Your speed gets slowed. Your impact gets contained. And slowly, your expectations of yourself aren’t met, and self-doubt creeps in. “Am I overreacting?” “Am I the only one seeing this?” “Is this just how it’s done here?” Here’s the part no one says out loud: New leaders don’t fail because they lack skill. They fail when long-standing questionable behaviours are never reset to higher standards publicly. If you inherit dysfunction: - Clarify your support structure for behavioural dynamics. You need to feel safe and supported. - Push the people plan first, review performance history, reference checks, and actual role fit. - Push the behavioural reset kpis, from all senior players and all functions. If leading change feels slower and heavier than it needs to be, that’s your signal. Clarify what the organisation is willing to change, with a timeline. Behaviour is a language. Assess theirs. Use your emotions and self-talk as data for your next move. 📌 Save this if stepping into leadership feels heavier than expected. ♻️ Repost for the new Head who knows something isn’t adding up. ➕ Follow Helen Pleic for leadership that protects your standards and state.

Many senior leaders have a strong "do now" mentality. They want to "move fast", "take action", and "just try it". While this has proven successful in environments with high variability and low data (e.g. startups), it often backfires in situations that require complex decision-making or big organizational shifts. When "do now" is overly valued: 😓 Large reorgs turn messy and set the company back for quarters if not years. 😓 Teams experience constant churn and low ROI from launches, jumping from idea to idea too quickly. 😓 Underinvestment in first-order-negative-but-second-order-positive competitive differentiators, leading to a lack of long-term defensive moats. It turns out that many complex challenges that organizations and teams face today benefit from deep thinking first. To bring this balance into your organization, try the following: ✅ Work with leaders who prefer to "Think Deeply First", and be compassionate about their slower approach to decision-making. ✅ Invest time in debating alternatives, weighing various risks, or making sure everyone's opinions are heard. ✅ Open up your decision-making to a diverse team and take the time to truly hear feedback. Remember, when your "do now" clashes with another trusted leader's "think first", take a step back and consider whether a slower and more considered approach will have outsized benefit in the long term. ----- 👋 Hi! I'm Yue. I am a Chief Product and Technology Officer turned Executive Coach. I help women and minority aspiring executives break through to the C-suite. 🚀  🔔 Follow me for more content on coaching, leadership, and career growth.

"Work-life balance is a lie." TIAA CEO Thasunda Brown Duckett realized that as she found herself at NYC's dingy Port Authority, desperately trying to make the last bus home from work to New Jersey. She wasn't seeing her kids in the morning before her commute and was getting home too late to put them to bed. Her stay-at-home husband told her to quit. Instead, Thasunda changed her mindset. And it was her day-to-day work that inspired her. “Work life balance is a lie because I was trying to reconcile it and the math wasn't mapping. Instead, I shifted my perspective to live in my life like a diversified portfolio,” she explained to me in a recent conversation. “I only have 100% of me, not 110%. Tell yourself the truth. The truth is: I'm more than a CEO, I'm a philanthropist, I'm a mom, I'm a wife, I'm an auntie, I'm a sister, I'm a friend, and you allocate. By putting everything that matters to me in my portfolio, I give myself permission to recalibrate depending on market conditions, life conditions… If you live your life like a diversified portfolio, just like with your money, over time, you'll outperform.” In other words, sometimes you over-index on work — and that's fine! Sometimes you need to load up on auntie duties — all good! You just have to keep your portfolio in mind: You've got one basket you're shifting around and, if you do it right, the whole experience grows. Such cool advice. In this week's This is Quick edition of #ThisisWorking, Thasunda also shares how she keeps stressful moments from derailing her productivity and a key piece of advice about speaking up that she wishes she knew earlier in her career. Listen to the full episode here: 🎧 Apple: https://lnkd.in/dHNe-EuH 🎧 Spotify: https://lnkd.in/dMWHqU5z

I’m noticing a quiet trend. More military officers and government professionals are stepping away—not because they can’t do the job, but because they can… and no longer recognize the mission as morally aligned with the oath they took. These aren’t rage-quits. They’re measured departures. When leaders decide that staying would require complicity rather than service, leaving becomes an act of integrity, not abandonment. I understand that choice. I’ve seen the same dynamic play out beyond government—inside corporations, nonprofits, and yes, higher education. Organizations speak in values, mission statements, and strategic plans. But when those words become performative—when ethics are celebrated publicly but compromised quietly—professionals face a decision point: - Stay and normalize the misalignment - Or leave and preserve one’s principles Higher education is not immune to this tension. Universities champion equity, inquiry, and integrity while rewarding compliance over courage, optics over substance, and silence over accountability. When values are performed rather than practiced, even well-intended institutions can drift. Walking away in those moments isn’t a failure of commitment. It’s often evidence that commitment runs deeper than the role itself. Leadership isn’t just about who stays longest. Sometimes it’s about knowing when participation would cost you your integrity—and choosing principle over position. That decision is rarely loud. But it’s always consequential.

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect? David Dunning and Justin Kruger, shared this concept in a 1999 study titled "Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments." It’s a cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or expertise in a subject often overestimate their abilities, while those with greater competence tend to underestimate their expertise. In leadership, this phenomenon can manifest in interesting ways: 1️⃣ Overconfidence in early stages: New or inexperienced leaders might overestimate their skills, believing they have all the answers. While confidence is valuable, overconfidence can lead to poor decisions or resistance to feedback. 2️⃣ Self-doubt in experienced leaders: On the flip side, seasoned leaders—who are acutely aware of the complexities of leadership—may underestimate their own expertise, questioning their abilities more than they should. Why does this matter? Great leadership requires self-awareness. Leaders need to balance confidence with humility: For new leaders: Be open to feedback, recognize the value of diverse perspectives, and remain committed to learning. For experienced leaders: Remember that your expertise is built on years of hard work. Share your knowledge confidently, even if you feel there’s more to learn. Now, let’s address two practical questions: 1️⃣ How do you approach someone with overconfidence? Start with curiosity: Ask open-ended questions to understand their perspective and reasoning. This can help them reflect on their assumptions without feeling defensive. Offer constructive feedback: Share observations gently, using examples or data to highlight areas they may have overlooked. Focus on collaboration rather than criticism. Encourage learning: Suggest resources, mentors, or training that can expand their knowledge and deepen their skills. Helping them grow is more effective than confronting them directly. 2️⃣ How can you speak up more courageously when you have the knowledge and experience? Trust your expertise: Remind yourself of the work and effort that built your knowledge. Others may need your insights to make better decisions. Frame your input constructively: Instead of saying, "You're wrong," try "Here’s another perspective we might consider." This makes it easier for others to engage with your ideas. Practice small steps: Start speaking up in less intimidating scenarios to build confidence. Over time, this will make it easier to share your thoughts in high-stakes situations. The key takeaway? Leadership is a journey. Recognizing where you (and your team) might fall on the Dunning-Kruger curve—and addressing it proactively—can lead to better growth, collaboration, and decision-making. What do you think? Have you seen examples of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in leadership? Or do you have strategies to handle overconfidence or self-doubt? Let’s discuss in the comments! 👇

Work-life balance is the biggest lie we've told ourselves. Balance suggests equal weight at all times. But real life doesn't work like that. Sometimes work needs more. Deadlines, big projects, tight turnarounds. You sprint. You push. You deliver. Other times, life needs more. School holidays, burnout, family illness. You pause. You rest. You reset. Trying to keep both in perfect balance? That's pressure. And it's not sustainable. So stop chasing balance. Start managing your rhythm instead: 1. Know your season ↳ Are you in a sprint (high work focus) or recovery? ↳ Naming it removes guilt and helps set clear priorities 2. Plan your sprints ↳ Don’t wait for chaos, anticipate busy periods early ↳ Block time, set limits, and align with key people 3. Communicate expectations ↳ Let your team and family know what to expect ↳ Clear heads-up prevents tension and misalignment 4. Protect your recovery time ↳ Rest before your body forces you to shut down ↳ Schedule downtime like you would a deadline 5. Work with your energy, not just time ↳ Tackle complex tasks when your energy is highest ↳ Use low-energy windows for admin or rest 6. Zoom out, not in ↳ Stop chasing daily balance, it doesn’t exist ↳ Balance over weeks or months is more realistic 7. Treat rest as strategic, not a reward ↳ Recovery fuels your next sprint ↳ You don’t need to earn rest, you need to plan it Don’t force balance. Respond to what the moment asks from you. What season are you in right now? Let me know in the comments. ♻️ Repost to help others find their rhythm 👉 Follow Lauren Murrell for more like this

Most leadership advice assumes you're either disrupting hard while in sneakers or climbing old ladders ("get a sponsor!") in suits. But what about the rest of us in the middle? I see capable leaders worrying: "Am I playing it too safe? Or am I playing with fire?" I've worked across government, a late-stage start-up and now a global company. After years in vastly different environments, I'm now convinced we can find our own middle. We can push for real change in established systems without destroying stability. We can challenge senior leaders when they say no—and get them to an enthusiastic yes later. We can care deeply for our team while still delivering hard results that senior management urgently needs. Here's what’s under the hood: • Respect hierarchy—but don't let it silence us • Understand cultural context well enough to know when and how to push • Be persistent without steamrolling people • Build relationships that can handle disagreements This isn't about being "nice" or "safe” (a common accusation Asian female leaders deal with, while still getting things done). It's about being effective in real organizations where relationships matter and teams aren't all the same. Some of us refuse to accept broken systems but aren't trying to torch the place either. We want to build teams that actually get things done. If you're a leader navigating this balance, what are some of the trickiest tradeoffs you need to manage?

“A bad workman always blames his tools.” One of my teachers used to say this constantly to our class. Spilled paint? Blame the table. Bad grade? Blame the exam. He never let us get away with it. And honestly, it used to drive us a bit mad. But here’s what I realise now: He was teaching me accountability. Not the harsh kind. The kind that says: what’s in your control? That’s the question I bring to my team now. Not “why did you fail?” But “what was in your control, and what wasn’t?” It changes the conversation. Blame shrinks. Ownership grows. You can still talk with kindness. Holding people accountable can feel terrifying. Here's what I've noticed about doing it well: It’s not one big talk. It’s many small ones. Jonathan Raymond calls this the Accountability Dial. A series of conversations that gently ramp up: → The Mention:  “I noticed this... is everything okay?” → The Invitation:  “I’ve seen this a few times. What’s the pattern here?” → The Conversation:  “This is affecting the team. Let’s figure it out together.” Each one is a chance to stay connected, not prove a point. But before I hold anyone else accountable, I check myself first. Did I set clear expectations? Did I give them what they needed to succeed? Am I calm enough to listen? Only once I've answered these questions do I move forward. For me, accountability isn’t about catching people out. It’s about helping them see clearly. Our teacher knew that. He just didn’t call it leadership. ♻️ If this resonates, repost for your network. 📌 Follow Amy Gibson for more leadership insights.

Leaders who avoid hard feedback aren’t protecting their people, they are setting them up to fail. Feedback is one of the most powerful tools we have in leadership but it’s also one of the most misused. Because leaders confuse compassion with avoidance, softening the truth until it loses all usefulness, or withholding it altogether under the guise of kindness. Compassionate feedback is about caring enough to be honest, in a way that allows other people to hear it. At APS Intelligence, we use a framework for compassionate feedback, designed to ensure that even difficult messages are delivered with clarity and respect: 1. Frame the feedback - Start by recognising effort and value to create psychological safety and remind people their work is seen and appreciated. 2. Ask permission - Feedback lands better when people feel like they have agency. Asking “Can I talk to you about something I’ve noticed?” is, as Dr. Shelby Hill says, a gentle knock on the door of someone’s psyche instead of barging in. 3. Be precise and objective - Describe what you’ve observed, not your interpretation of it. Feedback should focus on behaviour, not character. 4. Explain the impact - Share how the behaviour affects others or the work. Clarity about consequences builds accountability without blame. 5. Stay curious and open - Avoid assumptions. Ask questions that invite dialogue and understanding, not defence. 6. Collaborate on next steps - Offer support, not ultimatums. Feedback should be a shared problem to solve instead of a burden to bear. 7. End with perspective - Reaffirm their strengths and remind them that one issue does not define their value. Compassionate feedback allows honesty and humanity to coexist. It ensures that when people walk away, they feel respected, even if the message was hard to hear. This is a framework we use often at APS Intelligence. You can book a tailored workshop for your people managers or leadership cohorts to explore this further.