The Top Dog Trap: Why Trying to Be Tough Backfires
- Marion Heil
- 5. Dez.
- 7 Min. Lesezeit
Aktualisiert: vor 4 Tagen
Recently, I wrote about the critical traps new CEOs might face (Critical Traps for First-Time CEOs and Critical Traps Even Experienced CEOs Shouldn’t Fall Into). Many readers reached out with questions about specific challenges, so I thought I'd address them in a loose series of follow-up articles.
This is another one in the series, dealing with new CEOs trying to become top dog through sheer force and to establish authority through excessive toughness.
A few weeks ago, a CHRO told me about their recently promoted CEO. "He was collaborative and approachable as COO," she said. "Everyone respected him. He favored diversity and open discussions, getting along with everybody. Then he became CEO and transformed into someone we barely recognize. He's become harsh and distant. He cuts people off in meetings. He makes decisions without consultation to show decisiveness. He criticizes work he would previously have given constructive feedback on privately. We're losing good people because of it."
This pattern is more common than most people admit - and more damaging than most realize.
I have come across many CEOs who think the problem is they aren't being tough enough.
And I get it. You want to be taken seriously. You're conscious that some people might see you as too young, too inexperienced, too nice, or not tough enough for the top job. You are frustrated that your team isn't moving fast enough, that people aren't taking ownership. You've read about decisive leaders who transformed organizations through sheer force of will.
So you overcompensate. You become excessively hard. You make harsh decisions quickly to show strength. You're faster to criticize and slower to praise. You create distance to establish hierarchy. You shut down dissent to demonstrate authority. You desperately want to establish yourself as top dog.
Why Even Smart People Fall Into This Trap
The transition to CEO can feel vulnerable. You're no longer one of the team - you're the boss. Some of your former peers now report to you. You worry they won't respect your authority. You fear being seen as weak or indecisive.
So you lean hard into authority. You think: "I need to establish who's in charge. I need to show I'm not someone to be pushed around."
"I need to establish who's in charge. I need to show I'm not someone to be pushed around."
Sometimes it's panic. Things aren't working, pressure is mounting, and harsh behavior feels like the only way to regain control. You're not thinking strategically - you're reacting emotionally.
Sometimes it's impatience. You can see what needs to happen clearly. Why can't everyone else? Why are they moving so slowly? The gap between your vision and the organization's execution feels like a failure of will rather than a normal feature of change.
Sometimes it's compensation for insecurity. You're not sure you have the respect of your team, your board, your organization. Being tough feels like a way to establish authority you're not confident you possess naturally.
Sometimes it's modeling. Your own formative experiences with leadership involved people who were harsh, and you learned that's what strong leadership looks like. You might even respect them for it.
And sometimes - and this is harder to admit - it's ego. You like the feeling of power that comes from people being afraid of disappointing you. It confirms your importance, your authority, your position.
Whatever the source, the result is the same: you undermine your own effectiveness.
Why This Backfires
The instinct to lead through toughness is almost always wrong. Leading with excessive toughness doesn't earn respect - it creates fear and distance. And fear-based cultures don't produce great results.
The instinct to lead through toughness is almost always wrong.
The misunderstanding is about what creates high performance. Many new CEOs confuse compliance with commitment, fear with respect, and control with leadership. They see successful CEOs who are demanding and assume that demanding behavior made them successful. They miss the foundation beneath that behavior.
Many new CEOs confuse compliance with commitment, fear with respect, and control with leadership.
There's also a cultural piece. In some industries and regions, command-and-control leadership has been normal for decades. If you came up through that system, you might believe that's what effective leadership looks like. But what worked (or seemed to work) 20 years ago in stable manufacturing environments doesn't work in today's world where innovation and collaboration drive value.
The Damage It Causes
People stop bringing you problems. If you respond harshly when people share bad news or challenges, they'll stop sharing. You'll be the last to know when things goes wrong.
You get compliance, not commitment. You won't get your peoples' best thinking, their creativity, their willingness to go the extra mile. People will do what you tell them - the bare minimum to avoid criticism. They'll wait for instructions rather than taking initiative.
Creativity and innovation die. When people are afraid of being shut down or criticized, they stop taking risks. They stop proposing new ideas. They do exactly what they're told and nothing more.
You lose your best people. Talented people have options. They don't stay in cultures where their contributions aren't valued, where they're treated harshly or where mistakes are punished rather than learned from. You end up with people who either can't leave or have learned to keep their heads down. That's not high performance. That's fear.
You damage relationships you need. Your team, your board, your key stakeholders - you need these relationships to be strong. Excessive toughness creates walls instead of bridges.
Collaboration disappears. When people are afraid of looking weak or making mistakes, they don't share information, don't ask for help, don't challenge each other's thinking. Silos strengthen. Everyone focuses on protecting their own area rather than advancing the whole.
You become isolated. People avoid you. They don't share information freely, they stop being honest with you. They don't challenge your thinking. You end up in isolation of your own making.
It reveals insecurity, not strength. Experienced leaders can see through the tough exterior. They recognize it as overcompensation. You end up looking less confident, not more.
The Difference Between Tough and Harsh
Let me be clear: I'm not saying CEOs should be soft, cuddly, accommodating, or avoid difficult decisions. That's a different trap.
I'm not saying CEOs should be soft, accommodating, or avoid difficult decisions.
The best CEOs I know are incredibly demanding. They set high standards, expect exceptional performance, hold people accountable. They make difficult decisions about strategy, resources, and people. They're comfortable with conflict when it serves the organization.
But there's a fundamental difference between being demanding and being harsh. Between being firm and being cruel. Between authority and authoritarianism.
Demanding leaders have high expectations and provide the support people need to meet them. Harsh leaders have high expectations and blame people when they fall short.
Demanding leaders address underperformance directly, with specificity and respect. "This isn't working, and we need to fix it" is very different from "You failed." Harsh leaders criticize people, sometimes publicly, often without specifics.
Demanding leaders create psychological safety - people know they can raise concerns, admit mistakes, or propose unusual ideas without fear of humiliation. Harsh leaders create psychological danger - people calculate every word before speaking.
Demanding leaders care about people as individuals even as they hold them accountable as professionals. Harsh leaders see people as resources to deploy or obstacles to remove.
Real authority doesn't need to be demonstrated constantly.
Real authority doesn't need to be demonstrated constantly. Real confidence doesn't require putting others down. Real leadership creates an environment where people want to give their best, not where they're afraid to give less.
What to Do Instead
Recognize the difference between firmness and harshness. You can be clear and direct without being harsh. You can hold high standards without creating fear. You can make tough decisions without being cruel.
You can be clear and direct without being harsh. You can hold high standards without creating fear. You can make tough decisions without being cruel. You can be tough on issues without being tough on people.
Be tough on issues, not on people. When something goes wrong, address the problem directly. But treat people with respect. "This isn't working, and we need to fix it" is different from "You failed."
Build authority through competence and fairness, not fear. People respect leaders who:
Are competent
Make good decisions
Are consistent and fair
Support their people
Give credit where it's due
Take responsibility when things go wrong
Listen and consider input before deciding
None of this requires being harsh.
Ask yourself why you feel you need to be tough. Is it because the situation demands it, or because you're insecure about your authority? If it's the latter, work on your confidence instead of compensating with toughness.
Get feedback on how you're showing up. Ask trusted advisors or team members: "How am I coming across? Am I being too harsh?" You might be surprised by what you hear.
Care about people. This is the one that surprises people. You don't lose respect by caring about people. You gain it. People will work harder for leaders who they believe actually care about them as humans, not just as resources.
Remember who you were as a leader before. What made you successful enough to become CEO? Probably not harshness. Don't abandon the leadership qualities that got you here. If you were collaborative and approachable before, those qualities didn't suddenly become weaknesses just because your title changed.
Watch the leaders you respect. The best CEOs are firm, clear, and demanding - but they're not harsh. They create cultures of high performance and high support. Study how they do it.
The Long Game
The CEOs who build lasting, high-performing organizations are almost never the ones who led through fear. They're the ones who combine high expectations with genuine care, who are demanding but fair, who push people hard while supporting them fully.
Command-and-control can produce short-term results in crisis situations. But it's not sustainable. People burn out, disengage, or leave. Innovation slows. The organization becomes brittle - capable of executing known plays but unable to adapt.
Command-and-control can produce short-term results in crisis situations. But it's not sustainable.
The CEOs who try to be "top dog" usually end up lonely, isolated, and surrounded by people afraid to tell them the truth. That's not a recipe for sustained success.
Respect isn't commanded through harshness. It's earned through consistent, principled leadership that combines clarity, competence, and genuine care for the people doing the work.
If you're feeling the urge to get tougher, to crack down, to establish who's in charge - pause. That instinct is usually fear talking, not wisdom.
If you're feeling the urge to get tougher, to crack down, to establish who's in charge - pause. That instinct is usually fear talking, not wisdom. What your organization probably needs isn't a tougher leader. It needs a clearer, more consistent, more courageous one.
And that's a very different thing.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Marion Heil is the founder and managing director of Board+CEO Advisors. She is based in Vienna.
If you're struggling with how to balance high expectations with effective leadership, let's talk. This is one of the most common challenges new CEOs face, and an outside perspective can make all the difference.
