It’s time to question one of the most persistent myths in executive leadership: that the best performing leaders are those who move the fastest. Speed, determination, and intensity have become synonymous with executive effectiveness in today’s business culture. An energetic senior leader, who constantly comes up with new ideas, immediately responds to emails, and changes course quickly when new data emerges, is often described as a determined or action-oriented person. But what if that same behavior is actually detracting from the organization?
Over the past two decades, I have coached and advised hundreds of senior leaders (CEOs, board chairs, operating partners and executives at technology, private equity, professional services and high-growth companies). What I’ve learned as a strategist, investor, and founder is that many of the behaviors we admire at the top are not actually signs of effectiveness. They are symptoms of over-functioning.
WHAT DRIVES HYPERACTIVE LEADERS
What is rarely discussed in leadership books is the emotional fuel behind this behavior. In my experience, hyperactive leaders often endure a lot of internal pressure. Many are people who have been the first in their family to stand out or who have spent years trying to prove themselves. They associate stillness with laziness and action with courage.
Today, this is particularly urgent for two reasons. First, organizations are entering an era of cognitive overload. Between Slack, dashboards, real-time metrics, and global decision cycles, leaders are drowning in information. Those who thrive in this environment are not those who do the most, but rather those who create mental space for others. Second, we are seeing an increase in rates of executive burnout. A recent Deloitte study found that nearly 70% of senior executives report feeling “seriously stressed” and “mentally fatigued.”
CHANNEL ENERGY TOWARDS CLARITY
One of the most powerful interventions I use is the concept of the “strategic pause mechanism.” It’s a simple but effective practice: Before launching any new initiative, leaders pause for a set period (often 48 to 72 hours) and reflect on three questions:
1. Is this idea aligned with our current strategic commitments?
2. What are the advantages and disadvantages in terms of capacity?
3. What would be the negative impact of not acting immediately?
This mechanism does not kill innovation: it prevents momentum from masquerading as strategy.
Another intervention is to move from traditional time blocking to what I call “cognitive state mapping.” Leaders identify when they are most focused, reflective, collaborative, or reactive, and align their highest-impact work accordingly. Instead of treating the calendar as a grid, we treat it as a mental preparation map.
Perhaps the most transformative change is reframing clarity as a performance metric. I have worked with several boards that have incorporated strategic clarity into executive evaluations. Instead of only measuring results or financial goals, they now ask: Does this leader reduce the noise? Does it align energy between functions? Does it clarify or confuse priorities? In one case, a portfolio company tied executive bonuses to a quarterly “execution clarity score,” measured by anonymous surveys across departments. The impact was immediate: Leaders began to think not just about what to do, but how their decisions influenced the attention of the entire organization.
In an era of information fatigue and performance theater, the leader who learns to slow down strategically (who masters the discipline of thoughtful execution) not only becomes effective, he also becomes indispensable.
