Leaders (always?) stay too long

My entire framework states that everyone with a mandate in an organization should leave at some point.

It is a controversial take for a lot of people. Because most people believe that as long as they're doing a good job, there's no reason to leave.

I argue the opposite.

Doing a good job is not enough reason to stay

First of all. What entails as doing a good job? A surgeon keeping their patients alive, but leave extreme bad scarring all the time. Is that a good or bad job? Grey zone, I'd say.

In business, it is similar. And it is difficult to tell where a person is on the scale. Unless they're far off, doing a really bad job. Then it becomes painfully obvious to everyone involved. But everything that's not horrible can often be seen as good. Especially if the person has a track record that is GREAT.

Don't mistake track record for performance

The track record goes way back. Performance is here and now. And while I wholeheartedly believe that not everyone can be on top all the time, I also know there will always be a decline in performance for most people in most companies. Not because they're losing their edge. Because they've moved outside their sweet spot.

I see this in owner-led companies all the time. The founder/CEO who has done a great job building from 0. Who has built a team. Hopefully profitability. Growth. Then… it stalls. The company hits a glass ceiling. Not because the full potential has been met, but because the founders has surpassed their sweet spot.

A person who is great at building from 0 to 1 can be detrimental to a company trying to scale to 100. Because what made them great in the first place can be what now slows the entire organization down.

This can also be seen in other situations.

• The management that is great when the company is going through a crisis is rarely the one equipped to maintain and focus on incremental improvements.
• The board that helped the startup grow is suddenly micromanaging the scaleup, unable to keep their hands out of operations.
• The attorney on the board was a great asset during the M&A. Now the need for legal support can and should be covered by a law firm on an hourly basis.

So, why do leaders always stay too long?

I see a few patterns emerge.

1. They're blind to their own sweet spot
2. They've tied their worth to the role and fear being irrelevant
3. They're dependent on the pay check
4. They fear someone's going to step in and scrutinize their decisions
5. There aren't any natural successor and would rather stay than put the company at risk
6. Staying feels comfortable and leaving feels like a big leap into the unknown.

And the last one: no one is ready to challenge who the company needs in each position to thrive.

What can you do about it?

The organization:

1. Create a succession plan for key staff
2. Let the board lead the way. Create a system of annual evaluations of the board composition, company need, and alignment between the two.
3. Create a culture that actively help people find new positions (in or outside of the organization) when they're at the limit of their sweet spots.

The individual leader:

1. Clearly define what your sweet spot is and why
2. Continuously look at the company's current state and be brutally honest to yourself
3. Create separate income streams that make you less vulnerable to losing one

Why should you do anything about it?

You should do something about it because it is the best for everyone. The person can focus their time on situations where they can fully leverage themselves. They can maximize impact.

And the same goes for the organization. A room is left. And that can be filled with a person who's equipped and motivated to lead through the next phase.

Leaving isn't abandonment. It is the rarest form of discipline.