— Buckle up, buttercup, it’s going to be a wild ride!
D. Kevin Berchelmann
The business landscape isn’t just changing, it’s doing Warp 10 while too many leaders are still metaphorically screwing around with their flip phones.
You can almost hear them mumbling, “Why fix it if it ain’t broken?”
Spoiler alert: it’s broken.
Leaders crushing it going forward aren’t necessarily those with the longest resumes. They’re the ones willing to question everything they know, tear up the damned playbook, and refine skills that actually matter in today’s crazy world.
Frankly, if you aren’t careful, your decades of experience might be your biggest liability.
The future of leadership isn’t about authority, it’s about adaptability, empathy, and take a deep breath — a dose of humility.
The limitations of experience
To be sure, experience is valuable, but it’s not a static asset; it needs to be constantly updated and refined. The adage, “20 years of experience, or 1 year of experience 20 times over?” holds incredibly true today.
Experience alone just isn’t enough.
Yesterday’s solutions don’t fix today’s problems: Remember when “digital transformation” meant getting everyone to use email? Now we’re talking about AI making decisions that used to require your “years of experience.”
The game has changed, and the same goes for leadership. What worked in the past may not be the best approach in a world where AI is driving decision-making, and automation is quite literally changing the game.
Technical knowledge has an expiration date: And for many leaders, that date has passed. When was the last time you actually understood the technology your team is using? You don’t need to be a coding whiz, but if your tech strategy is consistently “I’ll have someone explain it to me,” you’re already behind.
Technical knowledge is like milk in your fridge – it has a shelf life. If you don’t keep updating those skills, you’ll be left with a bunch of outdated BS that’s as useful as the old “You’ve got mail” AOL notification.
You can’t delegate understanding: As a leader, you can’t just delegate the task of understanding new technologies to your team. You need to be in the trenches, doing some learning alongside them.
If you don’t understand the fundamentals of today’s environment, you’re just flying blind while pretending to be a pilot. You need to have a grasp on some of the nitty-gritty details, the challenges, the opportunities, even if it means getting your hands dirty.
The new leadership toolkit
So, what does it take to be a leader in this brave new, sometimes-whacky world? It’s not about having the right answers, it’s about asking the right questions, embracing the unknown (trust me, there’s plenty to go around), and building no-kidding, lasting connections with your team.
Learn leadership: In today’s crazy world of constant change, leadership isn’t a title; it’s a craft. Genuine, impactful leadership takes more than gut instinct or osmosis; it demands ongoing growth, self-awareness, and real skills to influence and inspire amidst chaos. Superficial charm just won’t cut it anymore, assuming it ever did.
As technology evolves and challenges mount, leaders who don’t adapt risk irrelevance. Whether it’s building trust, making hard decisions, or mastering those fun-filled “difficult discussions,” leadership skills aren’t optional; they’re your survival kit for now and later.
Don’t just lead. Lead better.
Tech up or shut up: To successfully lead today, you simply must have a basic understanding of the technologies that are driving both your people and your industry.
Admitting you don’t know everything doesn’t make you weak, it makes you human. It shows your team that you’re open to learning and growing, and it creates a culture of psychological safety where people feel comfortable taking risks and asking questions.
Ask stupid questions: Try something new, challenge your assumptions, and be willing to fail. Don’t be afraid to ask questions that might seem silly. Remember, though some people may stretch this to its limit, there are no stupid questions.
For my clients, you’ve likely heard me describe my role as the guy “asking stupid questions that you have to answer.”
And frankly, if you’re unsure about something, chances are others on the team are too.
Resourcefulness is the new superpower
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the days of unchecked and ridiculously abundant resources are long gone. Budgets are tighter, timelines are shorter, and teams are burning out faster than ever.
Sharpen your prioritization skills: If everything’s high priority, it’s all routine. Learn to separate the “must-haves” from the “meh-we’ll-live-withouts.” You’ll actually accomplish more than you would with the so-stupid-it’s-funny “They’re all Priority One” approach.
Become a process ninja: Streamline workflows so your team stops wasting two hours a day lost in pointless meetings. Spoiler: You could probably delete half your standing meetings right now and the sky wouldn’t fall. I get coaching clients to do it all the time.
Take a gander at your current workflows, asking yourself: Are there any bottlenecks? Can we automate anything (without causing automatic crap)? Can we simplify things without sacrificing quality?
Be flexible: Things won’t always go as planned. Sometimes the well dries up, deadlines get tighter, or unexpected “stuff” pops up.
Stay flexible and adjust plans on the fly when necessary.
Credibility is earned, not given
Just because your title says Director, VP, President, even Grand Poobah, doesn’t mean people will blindly follow you. In fact, they’re probably side-eyeing you, waiting to see if your actions match your words.
Earn trust, don’t demand it: Leaders must be transparent, empathetic, and communicate readily to build trust with their teams and other stakeholders. It’s like building any relationship – you need to put in the work and be genuine.
Be visible (not in a creepy way): Don’t just hide in your office, emerging only for performance reviews. Leaders need to be visible and present. Show up to team meetings, ask questions, and show a genuine interest in the work and well-being of your employees.
Craft your leadership image (a cape isn’t necessary): This doesn’t mean faking it or trying to be someone you’re not. It’s about presenting your best, most authentic self. Think about your strengths, what makes you unique, and how you can leverage those qualities to inspire and influence others.
Transparency is king: Be open and honest with your team, even when the news isn’t great. Sharing information builds trust. You’ll need that.
Leadership is a muscle, not a trophy or static state. I live it daily in my world, and can say without question that you never stop learning. The more you work on it, the stronger you’ll get.
Leading today for tomorrow isn’t going to magically “click” one morning as soon as you’ve skimmed a couple of LinkedIn posts. Even if those LinkedIn posts are mine (here’s my profile!). It’s not about power from a pedestal; it’s about being a part of the conversation.
It’s about learning alongside your team, managing resources effectively, building trust, and focusing on the people side of leadership.
Leadership is a conversation, not a monologue.
The leaders who will thrive in 2025 and beyond are those who are willing to question their experience, build new skills, and lead with a people-centered approach.
Or, you know, be a dinosaur. The choice is yours.
And remember that grace and accountability can coexist.
Bob’s a client, the chief executive of a fairly large company in the Northeast. His name is not really Bob, but he really is a client, and a recent experience prompted me
to share this (with Bob’s permission).
At the beginning of my coaching engagement with Bob, I
conducted a 360-degree survey so we could get an idea of how others see him in his day to day activities and interactions. If you haven’t had a 360 survey—a real one—done for you, you should. It’s almost always eye-opening. And sometimes a bit scary.
But no one dies in the process, so you’ve got that going for you…
Anyway, while doing the 360 survey on Bob, I was privileged to meet and speak with many of the direct reports on his leadership team. Without getting into details that would make Bob (if he’s reading this) squeamish, the results were insightful and indicated he’s clearly respected. Mostly good things, and nothing really out of the ordinary.
Until I spoke with Jim (again, not his real name). Jim offered that Bob was direct, decisive, and had a low tolerance for incompetence. No real shocker, given Bob’s role. Then, he gave the “pièce de résistance” (that’s a copy-paste, I had no idea how to write that).
“Bob fires assholes,” he said.
So, that had me putting my pen down. “Do tell,” I replied.
It seems that even more than incompetence, Bob has a crushingly low tolerance for anyone, particularly in any sort of leadership role, “being an asshole.” The culture of this organization doesn’t support that kind of behavior, and given their size, the ripple effect of a single jerkazoid in the mix causes all sorts of problems. Problems that can easily, and more effectively, be avoided by just firing “the asshole.”
Admit it – you’ve read this with a slight grin and a knowing nod of the head. You know the assholes in your world, the people causing problems, discomfort and stress for others, and you know the ones that should be whacked.
So whack ‘em.
Performance challenges we can deal with. We coach, mentor, advise, bring resources to bear to help someone well-intentioned up their performance game. That’s as it should be, so don’t stop that.
But behavior issues, particularly in leadership, should be dealt with sharply, definitively and immediately. The impact is just too big on the organization. You know that already, so suck it up and do what needs to be done.
Educating executives, managers, supervisors and other leaders remains a major concern for companies eager to keep their organizations afloat or even thriving in a challenging economic environment. Frankly, the limiting factor for most organizations continues to be leadership.
Leader development is not a new concept. It continues, however, to be practiced in ways that – at best – do little to develop successful leaders and – at worst – damage functional relationships by allowing learning to exist in silos and independent “vacuums.”
The problem is not content. Adequate topical content is a dime-a-dozen and represents time-tested applications and concepts that have not changed much in a couple of millennia. Any of several firms create and publish reasonably valid content.
The principal challenge around effective development is relevancy. The content mentioned above is generic and must be made relevant for a specific functional or hierarchical group, within a specific organization. Then, when properly facilitated, we can at least hope to successfully develop a group of leaders.
The biggest issue, though, in effectively developing a group, team, gaggle, or flock of leaders is making sure they all learn the same things, the same way, and in the same context. Further, they should be able to test relevant applications and concepts together, for best learning and application.
Enter Team-Based Leader Development.
Now, I’m not speaking of team-building, per se, nor am I talking about campfires, challenge/ropes courses, falling-backward trust exercises, or other hardly-effective methods of development.
Those have value in team-bonding, but not real team development. And no, bonding and development are not the same things… in fact, it’s not actually a team just because you call it a team. See our article on The First rule of the Leadership Team.
I’m simply talking about developing a team or group of leaders at the same time, together. At our firm, we see more and more organizations wanting – needing – content specific for their groups; you just can’t get there when sending people out to some public session or seminar trying to be all things to all people.
You need your leaders developed together, learning applications and concepts relevant to your organization. By using team-based leader development, all leaders of a particular level or function learn these things at the same time, in the same room, using each other as learning tools.
The advantages of this approach should be obvious, and include demonstrated successes in:
Improving communication flow within the team and out to the organization. This can occur naturally, and in a less stressful, facilitated environment. Conversations like this…
…benefit the organization, by providing calm discussions among leaders of similar hierarchical or functional levels, about just about anything important occurring in the organization today, and
…benefit the specific leaders involved, as they not only are discussing new learnings and applications, but they now have the opportunity to discuss things not normally discussed.
For example, without a safer venue, how many mid or senior-level managers would ask a peer “Hey, John, what’s the best way for me to resolve a conflict in my department?” Or “Say, Susan, I’m having some issues in driving empowerment to my hourly employees – any suggestions?”
I’m guessing those conversations/questions, in the midst of our brutally hectic workdays, would be damned rare.
Fostering mutual accountability for behaviors and results. One of the biggest advantages in having all these leaders in one location discussing the same things is that accountabilities can become institutionalized. It’s one thing to make a casual mention in the hallway; another thing altogether to commit to a group today, then speak with them a month or so later about your progress.
Also, this close-in work environment creates team ground rules that foster cohesion; if we agree in a group that behind-the-back caucusing is not something we’ll do, then having those back-stabbing conversations later just doesn’t feel right. Further, open communications in a facilitated setting inevitably translate to more open conversations in the open workplace.
Faster assimilation, shared accountabilities, and increased understanding. This is the financial “why?” answered. Homogeneous participants learn faster, and the learning is more relevant. Therefore, an organization’s return on those development dollars is quicker, and the skills are more appropriate for the organization’s needs.
Understanding is accelerated; participants can discuss/explain with each other on various points and concepts, making sure that the meaning is the same for all, and that more realize how they can actually be used for leader success.
Participants in team-based development are able to identify their primary strengths quicker, and better understand how building on those contributes to higher levels of personal satisfaction and team success.
In short, all win. And the organization is better for it, all the time.
I was recently involved (as a participant) in a strategic planning event; the facilitator, Alan Pue, was discussing many of the ways that planning — and its subsequent implementation — can go wrong.
In part of that commentary, he mentioned as an example a firm’s inability to adapt to a necessary change in the market, and how that inability adversely affected their performance. Alan wasn’t sympathetic to their plight, nor even empathetic. In fact, he made it clear that the problem was their own doing, and the resultant pain was of their own creation. They did it to themselves, have no one else to blame, and these lessons — though valuable — can be painful.
I agree.
When we act so dumb in business that we can’t get out of our own way, the resultant pain is our own doing. Sort of like touching a hot stove, we hopefully learn that we shouldn’t do that again.
What’s the optimum number of direct reports? How many people should a single manager have working for them? What we are referring to, of course, is “Span of Control,” and though there can be unique situations in some organizations, there are also decent historical guidelines.
Span of control isn’t simply dependent on individuals; it’s a basic limitation of all managers as it describes only their direct reports. Though any manager can control any number of people if there are enough levels in between, not so when it comes to direct reports.
Research (mostly military-based) has shown that a leader can directly control about three to six persons effectively. Additionally, the “relationships” among those supervised are as important as their actual number.
Managing four people who interact constantly might be harder than supervising five or six who work largely independently.
Generally, an executive (someone managing managers) should supervise a maximum of four or five people.
In real practice, you don’t have to be an expert to know if you’re in trouble with span of control. If you have more than half a dozen people reporting to you, it’s probably too many.
Even six could be too many if those six have consistent dealings with each other. The reason of course, is that in addition to managing relationships with each subordinate, managers have to get involved to an extent in their relationships with each other.
In simple terms, going from four to five direct reports, each with four direct reports of their own, potentially doubles your effective workload while increasing your output (productivity) capacity by only 20 percent.
If the people you supervise don’t interact, you can handle more of them.
Remember, too, that I’m discussing managerial span of control — managers managing managers. The numbers can increase significantly when managing individual contributors, particularly if highly skilled.
I didn’t disappear, just fell victim to the “wait until the end of the year to do that” disease.
I did, and it hurt. Traveled 6 out of the last 8 weeks out of the year… and remember, I’m one of those that doesn’t even like to travel. Simply brutal.
Further, with the growth of my business, I’ve been in something of a “hiring” mode, and that’s equally difficult to do — personally — while traveling.
Speaking of hiring… now that the new year is upon us, it’s a great time to do some cleaning up. And I mean the really difficult stuff. Have that performance conversation with the under-performing employee; hire that new sales or marketing pro; stop doing those things that don’t create enterprise value, and focus on those things that do.
I’ll be back soon with something to write home to mom about — thanks for tuning in.
