-
3 minutes, 33 seconds
When a leader fails, our first instinct is often to defend them—especially if we like them. But here's the hard truth: liking a leader doesn't mean they're doing their job. The real question isn't whether they're nice, hardworking, or sincere. It's whether they delivered the results they were paid to achieve.
This lesson came into sharp focus during the recent FIFA World Cup, when Germany's coach, Julian Nagelsmann, was let go after a disappointing performance. Fans and experts argued it was unfair. They pointed to missed penalties, bad luck, and systemic problems. But the German soccer federation asked a different question: Did Nagelsmann build a team that could win when it mattered? The answer was no.
A national coach doesn't kick balls or save shots. Their entire job is to create a team that outperforms rivals. The same is true for any leader:
Leaders are paid to build the conditions for success: clear goals, the right people in the right roles, open communication, and a culture of accountability. If those conditions don't exist, the leader hasn't done their job—no matter how much we like them.
After Nagelsmann's exit, many argued the failure was systemic. Germany had struggled at three consecutive World Cups. The talent pipeline was weak. The federation was political. All of that is true. But it misses the point.
Accountability isn't about blame. It's about ownership. Leaders are responsible for turning circumstances into results. If the system is broken, it's the leader's job to fix it. When a US Navy captain is relieved after a collision, no one thinks they personally crashed the ship. But they own the outcome. The same logic applies to any leader.
Most leaders know they should hold people accountable—but they don't. Research shows that 46% of upper-level managers are rated as deficient at holding people accountable. The most neglected behavior? Staying firm when someone doesn't deliver.
Why does this happen? It's not laziness or low standards. It's leniency bias—the tendency to go easy on people we like. We protect relationships. We feel sympathy. We dread hard conversations. We tell ourselves, “They've invested too much to change course now.”
But the cost of avoiding accountability is huge. When you keep an underperforming leader because you like them, you send a message to everyone else: results don't really matter.
Before you decide whether a leader stays or goes, ask these five questions:
The fifth question is where you catch your own bias. If the answer changes because of your personal feelings, you're not being objective.
None of this means Nagelsmann is a bad person. He may be decent, hardworking, and talented. But being a good person doesn't make you a good leader. The leader's job is to build a team that performs when it matters. If they can't do that, then what are they there for?
Respect and replacement are not opposites. You can treat someone humanely while still holding them accountable. Organizations that can't manage this balance often choose warmth over standards—and then wonder why results fall short.
Don't defend the leader you like. Ask what they were paid to do. The answer will tell you everything you need to know.
Comment