Five great reads for 7/3/2025
Frameworks for leaders navigating a world where the ground is always shifting.
The six crises every organization faces (Tim Casasola)
Does it ever feel like your organization solves one major problem only to create a new one? According to a classic 1972 model from USC professor Larry Greiner, this isn't a sign of failure but a predictable cycle of growth. The article revisits this framework, showing how companies evolve through distinct phases, each ending in a crisis that sparks the next stage of growth—from a "crisis of leadership" to a "crisis of red tape." The primary takeaway is that growth is not a linear path but a pendulum swing between centralization and decentralization; solving for a lack of direction requires structure, but that structure eventually stifles autonomy, requiring delegation. For leaders, understanding this model provides a powerful tool to anticipate the tensions on the horizon and proactively prepare the organization for the inevitable challenges ahead. (link)
Is this strategy any good? (Will Larson)
Judging a strategy's quality is notoriously difficult, and simply looking at the outcome isn't enough. This article argues against grading a strategy solely on its outputs (which ignores context and cost) or its inputs (which ignores whether it actually worked). A more effective rubric evaluates a strategy on three key questions: How quickly is it refined, how expensive is that refinement for the teams involved, and how well does the current version solve the initial diagnosis? This approach treats strategy as a living endeavor that must adapt. The other key insight is to view strategy in phases; a once-successful strategy may need to be abandoned when a new phase, defined by new information, renders the original diagnosis incomplete. This reframes ending a strategy not as a failure, but as a necessary and often savvy evolution. (link)
The Anti-Goal Setting Guide: Creating Objectives People Actually Care About (Allison McMillan)
If the phrase "goal setting" makes your team collectively groan, the problem isn't the goals—it's the lack of genuine connection to them. To move beyond objectives that just gather digital dust, leaders must focus on emotional investment. The article suggests three practical approaches: first, understand each person's individual relationship with goals by exploring their natural patterns of achievement. Second, frame the exercise as a narrative by asking, "What's the story you want to tell about yourself a year from now?" This taps into identity and is far more compelling than typical frameworks. Finally, ensure the goal is entirely within the person's control, reframing objectives that depend on external factors. When people start referencing their goals unprompted, you know the process has moved from obligation to opportunity. (link)
The Real Cost of Leadership Paralysis and How to Lead with Clarity Again (Rachael Lowell)
Leader burnout is often misdiagnosed as a personal failure to keep up, but it's more likely a symptom of trying to operate within a system not built for today's complexity. This article posits that leadership paralysis stems from navigating constant uncertainty and pivoting, a challenge that standard frameworks can't fix. The solution isn't just another model but a set of "survival strategies" that integrate humanity with performance. The proposed SHIFT framework outlines five core capacities for leaders to cultivate: Security (internal steadiness), Horizon (a future focus), Impact (cutting through the noise), Fluidity (moving with change), and Ties (leading through connection, not control). These aren't soft skills; they are essential tools for finding clarity and leading effectively when the ground beneath you feels chaotic. (link)
Feedback in the workplace (Tom Geraghty)
What if most of the feedback being delivered in your organization is doing more harm than good? New research suggests this is a widespread reality, with a stunning 80% of survey respondents stating that feedback has, at some point, undermined their confidence or motivation. While about two-thirds of people agree that feedback sometimes helps them learn, an equal number feel it is often irrelevant. This highlights a critical disconnect: the same feedback can simultaneously help and harm. The analysis further reveals that feedback has a polarizing effect on psychological safety, with 42% of people reporting it makes them feel less safe. The core takeaway is that feedback isn't fulfilling its potential. To fix this, those giving feedback must focus on delivering it constructively, empathetically, and clearly to drive performance while minimizing harm. (link)