Lesson Learned: Provide unique perspective and challenge assumptions and thinking even if it runs counter to the the consensus of everyone else in the room.
This blog post is part of a series of leadership lessons that I have learned from 40 years in tech.
One of the main responsibilities of a founder or CEO is to provide a unique perspective from the top, offering a broad view that others may lack. While this post assumes that only the CEO can fulfill this role, other leaders can also implement it to some extent. The CEO must be the one person in the room who will ask difficult questions or present an alternative viewpoint, when no one else is willing or able, or when it contradicts the consensus. It is their duty to recognize when the rest of the group is on the road to Abilene, when group-think is leading to the wrong decision.
However, this does not imply that leaders should be contrarian solely for the sake of it. It must have a purpose and come from the leader’s convictions. I have witnessed many such influential decisions where the CEO zigged where the rest of the room wanted to zag. In these cases, everyone in the room appeared to agree on a certain point. Nevertheless, the CEO, after patiently listening and considering the conversation, offered a perspective that completely changed everyone’s stance. I have seen this with key leadership hires, strategic product decisions, pivotal technical choices, and RIF conversations. At times, the CEO possesses a different thought process, has access to distinct information, or maintains a broader and longer-term perspective. And quite often, only the CEO possesses the freedom, not to mention the responsibility, to undertake significant risks and avoid playing it safe.
Founders and CEOs also have the responsibility of providing irrational optimism to persevere through setbacks and exerting their willpower to overcome indecisiveness and doubt, especially when others are unwilling or unable to make bold moves. They establish a bold vision and relentlessly question every obstacle that obstructs the path to achieving it. The advantage of irrational optimism is that it maintains alignment and engagement while warding off self-doubt. Moreover, there are very few drawbacks to CEOs being irrationally optimistic. After all, if they happen to be wrong, what is the worst that can occur (Elizabeth Holmes, notwithstanding)?
