# Prioritizing Performance Over Harmony in Executive Leadership

**Podcast:** LEITWOLF Podcast - Leadership, Führung & Management
**Published:** 2026-05-14

## Transcript

Wenn Harmonie ist der Norm, dann kritische Probleme bleiben unspoken.
Leadership does nicht mean jeder fühlt sich comfortable all den Zeit.
Leadership means die richtige Sache wird getan.
Denn growth rarely begins in Harmonie und Konsensus, aber immer in Truth und Action.
Welcome to heute's Lightwolf Podcast.
I'm not talking about strategy today.
Not about market shares.
Not about growth.
I'm talking about a leadership failure that hides behind good intentions.
Harmony.
Because at the executive level, as well as on any other leadership level, but particularly on the executive level, when you're a part of a general management group or of a board, I keep seeing the same patterns over and over again.
Everyone's professional.
Everyone's respectful.
Meetings are smooth.
No friction.
And precisely because of that, nothing improves.
If you are in a C-suite role, you need to accept a hard truth.
Harmony is not a leadership objective.
Performance is.
And if you are in a leadership role, I think...
You have to accept an uncomfortable truth.
It's about getting the right thing done.
The companies that win, the leaders that are perceived as strong and effective leaders, they ensure that the right thing gets done.
And sometimes the right thing is something that deserves applause from everyone and everyone likes it.
However, at other times, the right thing doesn't get any applause.
Because it's tough, but it remains the right thing.
And if you are the leader, your role is to make sure that the right thing gets done.
Now, in doing so, and getting the right thing done, and striking a good balance also between an atmosphere in a room, in an open office, in a boardroom.
Und unsere desire zu gehen für consensus, manchmal hat es sich mit immer zu machen, dass die Sache wird getan.
Und ich sehe ein paar klassische Problemen, die in den Weg kommen.
Problem 1.
Konflikt avoidance ist mistaken für respect.
In vielen Teams, da ist ein Regelung von collaboration, die wir uns mit respect verletzten.
Und in fact, ich sehr gerne, Ich mache mir mein Bestes zu tun, idealerweise every time.
Ich kann manchmal machen unentendet mistakes in meinem eigenen Behaviour, weil ich bin human.
Aber das ist mein Intent.
Ich möchte in eine Respektvolle Mähne mit jemandem in dieser Leben.
Was eigentlich passiert, though, ist, wenn das die Norm ist, und wenn das ist missverstanden, dann niemand sagt, was sie wirklich denken.
Und bad decisions are not questioned anymore.
Because people misperceive respect as harmony, right?
Mediocre performance gets silently tolerated rather than addressed.
Problems are softened or completely ignored.
And that's not respectful.
I think it's the opposite.
It is disrespectful in the pursuit of harmony.
Und Sie als leader, especially in einem executive oder board role, sehen Sie das immediately.
Wenn in einem Meeting everyone agrees, silently, ohne Diskussion, ist nicht nur ein schlechtes Sign, sondern es ein riesiges Riesk.
At senior levels, die language ist polished.
Die tone ist controlled und perceived und intended zu sein, aber underneath das, Wenn Harmonie ist der norm, dann Kritikal issues bleiben unspoken.
Weak decisions go unchallenged.
Unterperformance ist toleriert at sehr high cost.
Risks unknown, but not confronted.
What looks like alignment ist oft silent disagreement.
Und das ist klar, wenn Ihr Executive Team agrees zu schnell, You might not have alignment.
You might have avoidance, right?
And that's not stability, that's exposure and can lead to collective underperformance.
Another problem I occasionally perceive, more so in upper management meetings, in executive team meetings, and just the other week, in the last two weeks, I had the pleasure together with my team to support.
Vielen Dank.
to take the front role and replaces accountability and it replaces the right thing.
Many leaders believe good leadership means simply taking everyone along.
And I think it's important that people want to follow you when you are the woman leading a C-suite, you are the CEO running a company.
Of course, you need people to come along.
You need people to follow you and to want to follow you.
There is no doubt about that.
So often discussions happen, votes happen, then more discussions until everyone's somewhat satisfied.
But the problem is, consensus is often the lowest common denominator that no one objects to, but not the best solution.
Symptoms you can then observe when you're in one of those meetings and in one of those roles are decisions take very long, often too long.
Responsibility gets diluted.
No one is really responsible.
Maybe many people are responsible, but in my conviction and experience, as soon as there is more than one person responsible or accountable, no one is accountable.
It's always the others when things go wrong.
No one truly stands behind results.
And in the end, everyone feels hurt, but the company doesn't move forward.
That's dilution, not leadership, right?
And a third...
Problem I've occasionally seen in the companies who we support, I've also occasionally seen when I was still a general manager, a CEO in the corporate world, is that performance conversations may get diluted.
This is the most sensitive point, I think.
Leaders avoid then clear statements because they don't want to demotivate others.
They fear conflict or want to maintain what they perceive as a good atmosphere.
So feedback gets watered down.
That was quite good.
Maybe we could improve a bit.
What the other person hears is, it's fine.
And that's exactly where stagnation begins.
That's where performance stalls and where mediocrity starts scaling.
Because performance is just watered down rather than named objectively.
So this is as far as describing the areas of problem that I've perceived in my career.
In drei drei Unternehmen, 15 Jahre in C-suite roles in Unternehmen, in Unternehmen, in Unternehmen, in Unternehmen, in Unternehmen, in Unternehmen, in Unternehmen und in Unternehmen.
Ich bin in den Bier-Industrie, responsibel für vier- und fünf-digit numbers von Menschen in mehr als 20 Ländern.
Ich habe gesehen ein paar davon, obwohl ich auch sagen kann, dass wir oftmals konfrontieren, wir haben das gemacht.
Wir haben das gemacht.
Because we wanted to perform.
And oftentimes we did.
So there are solutions.
And for this podcast today, I've brought three ideas for you that may help you when you have the perception that in the team you lead or in the team you just joined, that everyone's nice, but nothing improves.
And you feel that, oosh, maybe harmony kills leadership and results.
What can you do?
I have three ideas for you for you to consider.
Idea number one.
Institutionalize clarity.
I think this is one of the important points that we need to get clear and that we need to get clarity on.
Those three ideas that I'm sharing with you now are from my own experience.
Also as a founder of startups.
I founded two startups and I'm glad that both work.
Both are healthy.
14 years ago I started the first one and then 5 years ago the second one and things are going healthily.
So, these are solutions from my experience, from my practical experience.
No theory, no models.
I know the models, I know the theory.
But quick, direct and constructive, in practice, this means institutionalized clarity.
In a recent global management conference, where 500 global executives came together in Berlin, der der Senior Leader, der CEO von 100,000 Menschen Organisation für sechs sechs Jahre, er hat gesagt, in Zeiten of Uncertainty.
Ich bin quoting David Taylor.
David sagt, People may want certainty from you, but you cannot give them certainty.
You can give them clarity.
Unquote David Taylor, former CEO.
Das ist ein, was ich, als Senior Leader, kann man so machen, und nicht immer die harmonisch, ist, institutionalize clarity.
In practice, das heißt, criticism ist nicht als und subtel hints.
Es ist festgestellt, factually und specifically.
Die Target war X, die Result war Y.
Warum war es nicht erreicht?
Let's talk.
Issues sind nicht verzeichnet, aber sie sind named.
Unterperformance ist nicht buffert, aber es ist addressed.
Und trade-offs sind verzeichnet.
So that we are clear on what we are trading off.
When we say yes to one thing, what are we saying no to?
Because we can't say yes to both, right?
Let's make the trade-off implicit.
And most importantly, you lead by example.
Your people do not only read the messages you write.
They don't only hear the town hall meetings when you speak.
Most importantly, they see what you do.
No pressure.
Wir sind Menschen, wir können Fehler machen, aber Leute sehen, was wir tun.
Leute sehen, was wir tun.
So, use every opportunity to lead the way you want to lead and you want others to lead as well.
Be the role model.
If you as the leader communicate softly and with just soft indications, your team will do the same.
If, however, you provide clarity, uncertainty decreases.
Because your team doesn't follow your values.
Primarily, it follows your behavior.
And maybe in the second row also your values.
But they don't see your values.
What they do see every single day is your behavior.
And that's what they mimic.
That's what they follow.
So that's solution one for you.
Institutionalize clarity.
My second idea for you is separate harmony from decision making.
Separate the how of making decisions.
Von der WUT.
Der WUT.
Der WUT.
Der WUT.
I tried to use once in a while is, Ladies and gentlemen, dear team members, I clearly heard you all.
I perceived all your perspectives and arguments.
Now it's time to converge.
We can only execute one plan.
We want to execute the best plan.
And here is the decision.
Here is the key reason why I think this is the right decision.
And now, We move.
This behavior creates transparency, inclusion because all voices are heard, transparency and orientation on the direction we take, and learning because I provide the reason why I decide the way I decide.
Not easy, because I may be pissing off some in the team right now, because they want the opposite of what I decide.
But I can't always make everybody happy.
My role as a leader is to get the right thing done.
So, let me repeat.
One way is to say, look, I clearly heard you all.
I heard all your perspectives.
Now time to converge.
One decision, one plan, one team behind it.
Here is the decision.
Here is the one key reason why this is the right decision.
We move.
This creates clarity, learning and speed.
And speed creates advantage.
A third idea for you to consider.
Make performance measurable and visible.
Harmony often arises where performance is less clear.
Therefore, I recommend define clear expectations.
What do you expect from your partners?
What outcome in what quality by what day?
What behavior do you expect from each other?
Articulate it.
Don't assume you know it.
It only gets clear when you align it.
Make results transparent and address deviations directly.
And do it without drama.
Not, I feel this isn't going optimally and we all need to be worried.
No, we don't.
Instead, I suggest a formulation like, look, the target was this.
The achievement is that.
Let's clarify why.
What's the reason?
What can we do about it?
That's factual and that's effective.
Sure.
Harmony is important and is nice and is comfortable.
But let's have a quick survey.
I'm curious to learn from you.
If you could invest just 10 seconds, that's all it takes.
Question to you, is harmony in your team more important than clear decisions?
If you could please just take your smartphone now, get into the attachments and click on this four scale, your answer.
Is harmony more important in your team than clear decisions?
Thank you for quickly participating in this poll.
It will help you understand and get aware of how decisions are taken and what is important in your own team.
The uncomfortable truth.
If everything in your team is always harmonious, you should become suspicious.
Because real performance creates friction.
There are different opinions.
Sometimes opposing views, uncomfortable statements and decisions that some people sometimes may perceive as tough.
Now, please don't get me wrong.
This means in no way that your team should be toxic.
Never should people behave in a toxic manner.
Let me be crystal clear on this.
Toxicity in my teams.
ist absolut nicht acceptable.
Never.
Aber es kann also sein, dass es unbekommenen auf die Weise, auf die Weise zu performance, auf die Weise zu results.
In der Ende, was wichtig ist nicht wie die Gespräche all den Zeitpunkt.
Es macht aber auch noch mehr.
Aber was wichtig ist, dass die richtigen Dinge passieren nach dem Gespräch.
Dass die richtigen Dinge entschieden werden und geschlossen werden.
Leadership does not mean everyone feels comfortable all the time.
Leadership means the right thing gets done.
So, in summary, if you're realizing that your team may be too nice, then start with yourself.
Think about ways how you can provide more clarity, more courage, and less harmony as an end in itself.
Because growth...
Rarely begins in harmony and consensus, but always in truth and action.
I hope you enjoyed this podcast.
I hope you've taken some from it.
I'd be curious to get your feedback.
So if you can take a second, take your smartphone now, leave us a rating, click a star, send us a short message with your key takeaway, maybe with a question you might address with me and my team.
because we'd like to keep the ball rolling.
Leadership is lifelong learning.
It's never going to end.
And I hope you enjoyed this input today.
I very much look forward to you dialing in again and joining the Lightwolf community next time, maybe already next Monday.
Thank you.
Take care and see you next time.