April 2026 | Senior Leadership

Stop Running Your Company. Start Leading It.

At some point, working harder stops working. You are putting in the same hours, making the same calls, staying as close to the business as you always have. But the organization is not moving faster. Decisions are slower. Your team is waiting for direction instead of acting on it. The company you built, or took over, or grew into its current form has quietly outpaced the way you are leading it.

It’s not a crisis. It’s a transition point. And Nancy Rothbard has spent her career studying exactly what it takes to navigate it.

As deputy dean and professor of management at the Wharton School and co-academic director of the Owner/President/CEO Program (OPC), Rothbard works with founders, owners, presidents, and CEOs who are making the shift from running their organizations to leading them. She has identified five frameworks that distinguish the leaders who make that shift successfully.

1. In uncertain times, clarity beats certainty.

Rapid shifts in technology, workforce structure, supply chains, and policy have made it harder to rely on past experience as a guide to present decisions. But Rothbard argues that what leaders most often underestimate is what sustained uncertainty does to the people around them.

“Uncertainty doesn’t just change strategy,” she says. “It changes how people relate to leadership. Your team is not just looking for updates. They are looking for meaning. When the environment keeps shifting, people watch how you react to understand what reality is.”-->

That places a different kind of demand on the senior leader. The job is no longer primarily to have all the answers. It is to provide interpretation, helping the organization make sense of conditions that no one fully controls. The practical implication: communicate principles rather than reactions, so that the people around you can act with confidence even when you are not in the room.

“You can’t stabilize the environment,” Rothbard says. “But you can stabilize how decisions get made inside it. Your team does not need certainty about the future. They need certainty about how decisions will be made.”

2. The signals you aren’t monitoring are the ones that matter most.

Leaders tend to manage their official communications carefully. But it’s the unintentional signals, the ones sent through tone, visible reactions, and demeanor, that tend to have the largest impact. And they’re most often unmonitored.

Rothbard studies emotional contagion, the way emotions spread quickly through groups. The research is consistent: if you are feeling anxious, people around you will register it whether you verbalize it or not. And when a leader appears reactive or overwhelmed, that anxiety ripples outward, pulling the organization away from strategy and toward noise.

But the inverse is also true. Leaders who can regulate their own emotional responses create a stabilizing effect that extends well beyond their own composure. Rothbard calls it being the eye of the storm. “When leaders can remain calm and steady, that allows both them and others in the organization to stay focused on long-term strategy,” she says. “It helps people stay aligned to the goals and stay productive.”

3. Stepping back feels wrong. Do it anyway.

One of the most consistent patterns Rothbard sees in growing organizations is that the behaviors that generated early momentum eventually become the source of slowdown, and the leader is often the last to see it.

She has watched this play out firsthand. Growing up in a family business, she saw what happened after professional management was brought in to help distribute authority and support growth. Employees kept bypassing the management team and going directly to the family. And the family kept responding, rather than redirecting them back.

“It felt efficient in the short term,” Rothbard says. “In the moment, it seemed like the right thing to do. But it kept the organization from developing the leadership depth it needed to grow. It’s an instinct you have to fight against, because it seems wrong when you’re doing it. But it’s right for the long term.”

The problem isn’t intention. It’s structure. In organizations built around a strong central leader, decisions tend to bottleneck at the top not because the leader insists on it, but because that is how authority has become distributed over time. Shifting out of that pattern requires more than delegation. It requires teaching the organization how to reason, so that good decisions can happen at the right level without constant involvement from the top.

“What made you successful early on was your ability to stay involved,” Rothbard stresses. “Your attention created speed. So, when growth requires stepping back, it can feel like letting the company down. But stepping back is not disengaging. It’s changing your role.”

4. Good conflict is a leadership asset. Protect it.

As decision making becomes distributed across a leadership team, productive disagreement becomes essential to the process. Research consistently shows that teams produce higher-quality decisions than individuals working alone, in part because they are better at spotting problems early and evaluating trade-offs thoroughly.

But that only holds when disagreement is well-structured. Rothbard draws a critical distinction between two kinds of conflict. Task conflict, including disagreement about ideas, strategies, and the data shaping a decision, sharpens thinking and improves outcomes. Relationship conflict, driven by personal friction or ego, undermines trust and performance.

The two can look similar in the moment, and one can morph into the other quickly. The leader’s job is to keep task conflict alive while preventing that slide. “At scale, judgment becomes a team sport,” Rothbard explains. “Good disagreement becomes essential. Without structure, disagreement becomes personal. How you structure the conversation determines which kind of conflict you get.”

5. Treat succession as a leadership habit, not a future event.

Few topics make senior leaders more uncomfortable than succession. It raises questions about personal identity and relevance that most would rather avoid. But Rothbard argues that framing misunderstands the task. “Succession is less about stepping away and more about making sure the organization can continue. Developing the next generation of leadership is not a transition out of the role. It’s part of the role.”

Rothbard thinks about this concretely in her own work as deputy dean of the Wharton School, describing her approach as functioning like an internal executive search firm: constantly scanning for talent, identifying people early, placing them in roles that stretch their capabilities, and building non-linear paths aligned with what the organization will need as it grows.

“You want to do it in a way that’s orderly, not urgent,” she says. The leaders who scale successfully make this shift: from indispensable operator to thoughtful architect of talent and culture, someone whose primary job is developing and guiding others so that the organization’s strength extends beyond the leader’s own day-to-day presence.

That requires confronting an identity question most leadership development doesn’t prepare you for. When your sense of purpose is tied to what you personally accomplish, building an organization that doesn’t need you can feel like working toward your own irrelevance. Rothbard’s view is the opposite. It is the most consequential work a senior leader can do.

“There is a point where the question changes. It stops being ‘How do I solve this?’ and becomes ‘How should this organization solve problems going forward?’ When you start designing how the company works without you, you move from managing a business to shaping what it becomes.”

---

Share This

Subscribe to the Wharton@Work RSS Feed