Have you ever thought, “Why doesn’t my team just do the thing that’s so obvious? It’s right there.” That thought is a clear signal of something I call The Silent Leadership Paradox. And it’s a pattern I see repeatedly with founders and CEOs – not just at mid-tier advisory firms, but among firms that perform at a the very highest level.
I recently coached the leader of a multi-billion-dollar firm. He’s an incredibly smart guy. Experienced. Proven. But he was feeling increasingly frustrated with his leadership team. Execution was moving slowly. Ownership lacked clarity. And momentum was falling well short of his expectations.
As we worked through this problem, a pattern quickly surfaced. Actions that seemed obvious to him did not seem so obvious to his team. They weren’t disengaged. They weren’t underperforming. They simply lacked direction and clarity – something he was not aware that he was withholding.
He knew what to do. He knew what came next. He knew what needed to happen, in what order, and who should own it. He assumed his team saw it the same way. But they did not. It’s this precise gap which created this firm’s Silent Leadership Paradox.
Expectations exist
Standards exist
Leaders simply fail to say them out loud
Silent standards always slow execution
It’s a pattern which tends to especially show up in founder-led companies. The reason? Because most founders we work with push hard. They perform at an exceedingly high level. They build strong relationships and advise clients well. In short, they run strong businesses. And as their companies grow, they eventually step into the C-suite to help lead their teams, not just their clients.
One strength shows up consistently. They spot potential in others before those people see it themselves. Robert Dilts writes about this in From Coach to Awakener. He argues that leaders awaken potential rather than control behavior. And many founders instinctively lead this way. That instinct is usually right, but the execution can quickly undermine it.
The leader already holds the answers. He or she sees the connections. They know which projects matter the most, the order in which they should receive attention, and the individuals best suited to own them. But instead of just conveying their vision directly:
They ask questions
They encourage
And then they wait for their teams to figure it out
Inside, however, they are silently thinking, “If you will just do this one thing, your contribution will be enormous.” Over time, this silence creates frustration on both sides. The leader believes their team isn’t stepping up. And the team feels like their leader has failed to clarify expectations.
Both perspectives make sense.
Patrick Lencioni has warned leaders about this dynamic for years. In his book The Advantage, he reminds us that clarity sits at the top of every leader’s responsibilities. Leaders don’t achieve leverage through harmony or empowerment theater. They earn it through clarity. When clarity disappears, teams slow down. Decisions stall. And accountability turns personal.
The leader believes he’s empowering people, while the team hesitantly guesses. Andy Grove stated it even more directly in High Output Management. Output doesn’t come from intent. Output comes from clear, well-defined objectives, ownership, and ongoing measurement and adjustment. Leaders create leverage when they define the objective and assign accountability.
Reframe your leadership
Your team does not need you to lower the bar – they need you to define the bar. Team members grow when they own real outcomes, are empowered to deliver results, and hold themselves accountable to a visible scorecard. Execution builds skills and confidence, not the other way around.
Jim Collins reinforces this in Good to Great. Great leaders place the right people in the right seats and give them a clear scorecard. But how do you go about overcoming the Silent Leadership Paradox without becoming overly controlling or turning into a micromanager? The following three steps will provide both a roadmap and guardrails:
Externalize your thinking – Pull the execution plan out of your head. Identify the five to eight outcomes that matter the most this quarter. Assign one owner to each outcome, and define ‘done’ in plain language. Because if you can’t define done, then certainly no one else can. You don’t need to document everything, but you do need to remove any ambiguity.
Turn roles into charters, not job descriptions – Define a clear scorecard for each team member, as well as a visible scoreboard for the organization. Review it weekly. Same day. Same time. Public scoreboards make accountability fair. Because as soon as ownership and accountability become clear, individuals stop guessing and start executing.
Match your leadership style to the task – Lead directly at the beginning. State exactly what you see and what you expect. Then, as competence and confidence grow, gradually shift into coaching. Kim Scott captures this balance well in Radical Candor. Care personally. Challenge directly. And remember that silence does not equal kindness.
Remember, you cannot unlock potential when people lack clarity about which responsibilities they own. And you cannot scale a company when execution depends on what only the founder sees. If someone randomly sits down with your leadership team and asks them what business responsibilities and outcomes they own this quarter, how the success of each will be measured, and what ‘done’ looks like – if the answer isn’t categorically a YES, then the issue with your firm isn’t effort or talent. The issue is clarity.
Advisor Questions From This Article
Identify one thing that seems most obvious to you, but maybe not so obvious to a team member or a larger group within your team. What can you share that will make your vision and insight more clear to them?
What would change over the next 90 days if you made expectations more explicit and required your team to claim more ownership?
How will your team more clearly communicate expected outcomes this quarter?
The Silent Leadership Paradox occurs when leaders hold clear expectations and standards internally but fail to communicate them explicitly to their team. The leader assumes the next steps are obvious, while the team lacks clarity about priorities, ownership, and what “done” looks like—slowing execution and creating frustration on both sides.
Founder-led firms often experience this paradox because founders see connections, priorities, and solutions before others do. As firms grow and founders move into executive leadership roles, they may rely on questions and encouragement instead of clearly stating expectations, unintentionally withholding the clarity their teams need to execute.
When standards are not stated out loud, execution slows, decisions stall, and accountability becomes personal rather than objective. Teams begin guessing instead of executing, and leaders feel frustrated that progress does not match their expectations.
Asking questions can support growth, but it does not replace clarity. Empowerment without clear objectives, ownership, and definitions of success forces teams to guess. True empowerment comes after leaders clearly define outcomes and accountability.
Clarity is a core leadership responsibility. Leaders create leverage by clearly defining objectives, assigning ownership, and establishing how success will be measured. Without clarity, even talented and engaged teams struggle to perform consistently.
Scorecards and public scoreboards make ownership and accountability fair and objective. When outcomes and measurements are visible, team members stop guessing, execution accelerates, and accountability becomes about results—not personalities.
Leaders should lead directly at the beginning by clearly stating expectations and outcomes. As confidence and competence increase, leadership can shift toward coaching. Silence, however, should never be mistaken for kindness or empowerment.
If team members cannot clearly articulate what outcomes they own this quarter, how success is measured, and what “done” looks like, the issue is not effort or talent—it is clarity. Firms cannot scale when execution depends solely on what the founder sees.