The leadership behaviours your operating model assumes: but your executives don’t actually have
The operating model looked airtight
Clear decision rights, clean governance, defined accountabilities, and logical sequencing.
But within days of launch, the cracks appeared.
A senior leader bypassed a decision “just this once.”
Another escalated something the team should have owned.
A third rewrote priorities based on a stakeholder conversation that happened outside the room.
None of it was dramatic. None of it malicious. But every behaviour quietly undermined the model the organisation believed it had adopted.
Operating models assume leadership behaviours that don’t exist yet. Until this behaviuors exist, the model is theoretical and not real - not matter how great the launch party was.
Operating models don’t fail because they’re wrong. They fail because leaders behave in ways the model can’t support
Every operating model assumes leaders will:
Make decisions at the right altitude,
Prioritise ruthlessly,
Hold consistent boundaries,
Reinforce governance,
Protect a sustainable and productive pace,
Align in the room,
Behave predictably,
Lead through ambiguity,
Manage their emotional load, and
Navigate politics without distorting delivery.
But most leaders - even highly capable ones - don’t consistently do these things.
Not because they don’t want to, but because they’re simply human.
Operating models are designed for ideal leadership behaviours.
Organisations operate with real, human leadership behaviours.
The gap between the two is where transformations stall.
The behaviours operating models assume - and the reality leaders live in
Here are the behaviours operating models quietly assume, contrasted with what actually happens inside real organisations.
Assumption: Leaders make decisions at the right altitude
In reality, leaders oscillate such that:
Some decide at too low a level,
Some decide at too high a level,
Some decide too early in the piece,
Some decide too late in the piece, and
Some don’t decide at all.
Decision altitude inconsistency is one of the biggest killers of operating model adoption.
Assumption: Leaders prioritise based on strategic value
In reality, leaders prioritise based on the emotional logic of:
Urgency,
Fear,
Stakeholder pressure,
Political exposure,
Reputation risk, and
Personal preference.
Operating models assume rational prioritisation. Humans prioritise using emotional inputs.
Assumption: Leaders reinforce governance
In reality, leaders bypass governance when under pressure.
A single “just this once” bypass collapses the model faster than any delivery issue possibly could.
People don’t follow frameworks, they follow behaviour.
Assumption: Leaders align in the room
In reality, leaders align through offline side conversations that happen outside the formal decision making processes:
To avoid conflict,
To protect relationships,
To reduce tension, and
To speed things up.
Offline alignment creates parallel governance, the silent killer of operating models.
Assumption: Leaders protect a sustainable and productive pace
In reality, leaders slow productivity to reduce risk. But ironically, slowing productivity increases risk through:
Increased rework,
Increased deviations from original intent,
Increased ambiguity,
Increased misalignment, and
Increased escalations.
The pace of productive change isn’t a threat. It’s a stabilising force.
Assumption: Leaders behave consistently
In reality, leaders are human and they behave according to the emotional load they are carrying:
Pressure changes behaviour,
Ambiguity changes behaviour,
Politics changes behaviour,
Fatigue changes behaviour, and
Fear changes behaviour.
Operating models assume consistency. Humans behave variably but with recognisable patterns.
Assumption: Leaders hold boundaries
In reality, leaders collapse boundaries when relationships are at stake.
This is one of the most common and least acknowledged failure modes.
Boundaries protect the model. Boundary collapse protects relationships.
Most leaders choose to protect their relationships than an operating model when they have to make the choice.
Why leaders don’t have the necessary behaviours yet
These behaviours aren’t natural. They’re learnt and most leaders were never taught:
How to lead through ambiguity,
How to make decisions at altitude,
How to navigate politics without distortion,
How to manage emotional load,
How to hold boundaries under pressure,
How to protect a sustainable and productive pace,
How to reinforce governance,
How to align in the room,
How to lead behavioural change, and
How to stabilise a transformation.
Operating models assume leadership maturity.
Organisations assume leaders already have this capability.
But capability gaps are normal, not a sign of incompetence - especially when strategies and their underlying operating models change.
The problem is that no one acknowledges it and provides the right support to move from the old model to the new model.
The emotional reality behind behavioural drift
Leaders don’t behave inconsistently because they’re careless.
They behave inconsistently because they’re carrying emotional loads they’re unable to handle on their own - nor should they be expected to.
They’re navigating:
Fear of misalignment,
Fear of failure,
Fear of political exposure,
Fear of reputational damage,
Fear of slowing delivery, and
Fear of being seen as the blocker.
These fears drive behaviours that feel safe, but destabilise the model.
Naming the emotional system is the first step to changing the behavioural system.
The leaders who make operating models real do one thing differently
They stop assuming the model will land on its own. They recognise that:
Operating models don’t change behaviour,
Leaders change behaviour,
Behaviour changes culture,
Culture changes delivery, and
Delivery changes outcomes.
They lead the human system, not just the operating model.
This is the difference between organisations that transform and organisations that drift.
If you’re seeing behavioural drift, you’re not alone
Most senior leaders feel the behavioural gap long before anyone names it:
They see the drift,
They sense the misalignment,
They feel the emotional load,
They carry the political complexity,
They try to stabilise the system, and
They try to hold the model together.
And they do it quietly because saying “I need help navigating this” feels risky.
But admitting they need help the most senior thing a leader can say.
You don’t have to navigate this alone
If you want a strategic partner who can help you build the leadership behaviours your operating model actually needs, reach out.
This is the work I do with senior product and transformation leaders who lead complex transformations.