Wartime leadership is SO addictive. When the business is in crisis, your presence as a leader is legible; every decision runs through you, the organisation needs you in a way that is immediate and visible, your salary justifies itself daily. There is great comfort and clarity in that.
I've seen so many leaders stay in wartime mode long after the war is over. But organisations (and people) cannot sustain crisis mode indefinitely. The cost accumulates slowly and then all at once — in burnout, in a culture that never learns to operate without the leader at the centre of every fire, in growth that keeps getting deferred because the team is still in survival posture.
Do you think switching to peactime asks leaders to become less central?
If you have signals (assuming you know what they are) that you are in peactime, but choose to run wartime plays, isn't the most courageous thing to ask whether you're the right leader for what comes next?
Asking as I've seen both mistakes made. Staying too long in wartime and never making it to peacetime at all.
I'd love to know which mode you find hardest to leave
I think most startups live are in wartime for years and if you look at the biggest unicorns have spent the majority of their time in wartime. Perhaps not some of the new breed, but the big tech of the 2000s and 2010s took a long time to get that big and push that hard. So I think there is a high degree of tolerance for it at a cultural level for a long time.
What means for team members I think is a little bit cultural. The US has a much harder and longer working culture than Europe for example. Which may be why Europe has never produced a FAANG.
I’ve not studied burnout enough to know the ins and outs of it. Except to say I’ve seen people who struggle with very little and those who are fine with doing intensity day after day. Burnout too seems individual and cultural.
I think the wartime/peacetime framing is good to understand from an employee perspective because if it isn’t good for you, then it’s important not to join those companies.
I think ‘startups’ became buzzy and as a result people wanted the cool job, often without realising what was at stake. Peacetime big corporate businesses are probably often better for a lot of people than wartime startups or small businsesses are.
Really valuable perspective!
Wartime leadership is SO addictive. When the business is in crisis, your presence as a leader is legible; every decision runs through you, the organisation needs you in a way that is immediate and visible, your salary justifies itself daily. There is great comfort and clarity in that.
I've seen so many leaders stay in wartime mode long after the war is over. But organisations (and people) cannot sustain crisis mode indefinitely. The cost accumulates slowly and then all at once — in burnout, in a culture that never learns to operate without the leader at the centre of every fire, in growth that keeps getting deferred because the team is still in survival posture.
Do you think switching to peactime asks leaders to become less central?
If you have signals (assuming you know what they are) that you are in peactime, but choose to run wartime plays, isn't the most courageous thing to ask whether you're the right leader for what comes next?
Asking as I've seen both mistakes made. Staying too long in wartime and never making it to peacetime at all.
I'd love to know which mode you find hardest to leave
I think most startups live are in wartime for years and if you look at the biggest unicorns have spent the majority of their time in wartime. Perhaps not some of the new breed, but the big tech of the 2000s and 2010s took a long time to get that big and push that hard. So I think there is a high degree of tolerance for it at a cultural level for a long time.
What means for team members I think is a little bit cultural. The US has a much harder and longer working culture than Europe for example. Which may be why Europe has never produced a FAANG.
I’ve not studied burnout enough to know the ins and outs of it. Except to say I’ve seen people who struggle with very little and those who are fine with doing intensity day after day. Burnout too seems individual and cultural.
I think the wartime/peacetime framing is good to understand from an employee perspective because if it isn’t good for you, then it’s important not to join those companies.
I think ‘startups’ became buzzy and as a result people wanted the cool job, often without realising what was at stake. Peacetime big corporate businesses are probably often better for a lot of people than wartime startups or small businsesses are.