I’ve been thinking lately about how often we obsess over the specific pedigree of a leader. When a major organization or a team hits a rough patch, the first thing everyone does is demand a "specialist." We want the person who has done this exact thing a thousand times before, someone with the perfect resume to match the specific crisis at hand.
But honestly, I’m starting to doubt if that's even the right way to look at it. Sometimes, bringing in an outsider—someone who hasn't been steeped in the local traditions or the specific way things have "always been done"—is actually the smartest move. It’s like when a company brings in a fresh perspective from a completely different industry just to shake things up. It feels risky, and people definitely grumble about the lack of direct experience, but that's often exactly what's needed to break a cycle of stagnation.
I've seen it happen in smaller groups too, where a "mismatched" leader ends up being the glue that holds everything together because they aren't blinded by the old ways. Do you think we place too much weight on "proven experience" when what we really need is just a different way of thinking?
But honestly, I’m starting to doubt if that's even the right way to look at it. Sometimes, bringing in an outsider—someone who hasn't been steeped in the local traditions or the specific way things have "always been done"—is actually the smartest move. It’s like when a company brings in a fresh perspective from a completely different industry just to shake things up. It feels risky, and people definitely grumble about the lack of direct experience, but that's often exactly what's needed to break a cycle of stagnation.
I've seen it happen in smaller groups too, where a "mismatched" leader ends up being the glue that holds everything together because they aren't blinded by the old ways. Do you think we place too much weight on "proven experience" when what we really need is just a different way of thinking?