Transitioning to Manager required more than learning new skills. It demanded intentionally defining what kind of leader I wanted to become. The shift from Senior Consultant to people manager creates space to architect your leadership philosophy rather than default to inherited patterns or reactive management styles.
I approached this transition deliberately: rather than simply absorbing what I observed around me, I wanted to codify the principles that would guide my decision-making, shape my interactions, and define my leadership identity. This was about building a system.
Intentional Leadership Design
Strong leaders don’t emerge accidentally. They result from deliberate choices about what to prioritize, how to communicate, where to invest time, and which principles to uphold consistently. As a consultant now responsible for developing talent and delivering client outcomes through others, I needed a framework that would scale. One that works during high-pressure client engagements, complex stakeholder dynamics, and the daily decisions that accumulate into reputation.
Through curated reading and synthesis, I identified five foundational articles that crystallized my thinking on different dimensions of leadership effectiveness. These pieces illuminate the strategic choices available to any manager building their leadership approach.
Five Articles That Define My Leadership Framework
- Moving from Orchestration-Heavy to Leadership-Heavy Roles by Will Larson
Strategic Principle: The most effective managers own the complete problem-solving cycle, from identifying which problems to solve through executing solutions and maintaining alignment.
Larson distinguishes between orchestration (executing predetermined plans) and leadership (defining both problems and solutions). Leadership-heavy managers run a four-step core loop: identify problems the team should address, decide on destinations that solve those problems, explain the path forward to stakeholders, and communicate evidence of progress.
My Application: In consulting, this means shaping engagement strategy rather than just delivering against predefined scope. I mine my teams for bottom-up insights, frame problems independently before partners ask, and maintain ownership over the strategic narrative with clients. This principle informs how I approach every engagement. I don’t wait for direction; I proactively define where we need to go.
- Making Progress on Controversial Problems by Ami Vora
Strategic Principle: Controversial decisions require process architecture, not persuasion. Structure enables progress when stakeholder opinions diverge.
Vora’s methodology centers on understanding problem-solving phases, using documentation to establish shared context, over-communicating process, and writing opinionated recommendations with explicit tradeoffs. The framework separates information gathering from solution selection, preventing premature conclusions while maintaining momentum.
My Application: Client engagements constantly surface high-stakes disagreements where parties optimize for competing goals. I don’t seek consensus. I architect decision processes: systematically gather context, document accepted facts separately from assumptions, propose clear recommendations with transparent tradeoffs, and recognize that controversial problems don’t have universally popular solutions. My role is delivering clarity and informed decisions, not comfortable agreement.
- Two Must-Dos for Executives to Truly Prioritize by Yue Zhao
Strategic Principle: Effective leaders architect time allocation that reflects priorities through systematic calendar design and weekly thematic structure.
Zhao presents two practices: creating P0/P1/P2 prioritization frameworks where you explicitly define time allocation percentages, then ruthlessly adjusting calendar reality to match, and implementing themed weekly patterns that minimize context switching and enable natural stakeholder conversation flow.
My Application: I structure my week intentionally: executive and client syncs early week to gather context, cross-functional meetings mid-week when I have latest information, decision-making meetings timed to allow follow-up before week-end, one-on-ones when urgent matters are resolved, organizational work when I can think strategically. This creates operating cadence that makes me more effective in every conversation because I consistently have the right context at the right time.
- Inner Sense of Captaincy by Farnam Street (David Whyte)
Strategic Principle: Leaders take ownership over outcomes independent of formal authority, focusing on preventing problems rather than solving them reactively.
The concept emphasizes proactive responsibility: identifying potential issues before escalation, acting without explicit permission when outcomes matter, and recognizing that sustainable excellence comes from prevention rather than visible problem-solving. Organizations reward firefighters, but preventing fires requires fewer resources and generates better outcomes.
My Application: I own engagement success regardless of partner oversight. This means anticipating scope creep before it materializes, identifying misaligned expectations early in projects, proactively addressing team capacity constraints, and building client relationships resilient to inevitable challenges. I don’t wait for partners to spot issues. My job is ensuring they never become critical. This shifts my focus from responding when things go wrong to building systems that prevent problems from emerging.
- The LNO Framework by Shreyas Doshi
Strategic Principle: All work isn’t equal. Strategic differentiation comes from identifying Leverage tasks (10x impact), executing Neutral tasks efficiently (1x impact), and minimizing energy on Overhead (necessary but low-impact).
The framework transforms task prioritization: Leverage activities deserve maximum time investment and your best thinking. Neutral tasks should be executed well but not perfectly. Good is sufficient. Overhead tasks should be completed with minimum time and energy, actively pursuing delegation or “good enough” standards.
My Application: Consulting generates endless task streams. Without clear categorization, everything feels equally important and burnout follows. I explicitly identify Leverage work like shaping client strategy, developing team capabilities, building key relationships, and making critical engagement decisions—I protect time for these ruthlessly. Neutral tasks like standard deliverables get executed well but not obsessed over. Overhead like administrative requirements gets minimal attention or delegation. This permission to strategically underinvest in certain areas enables sustained high performance on what actually matters.
My Tier One Leadership Codex
These readings informed a personal framework I call the “Tier One Codex.” Five traits that define the leader I’m building toward. This is a practical checklist I reference before important meetings, when making team decisions, and when evaluating my own performance.
The target state: “Calm, powerful, precise. Selective in action, strategic in thought, and composed in execution.”
The Five Core Traits
1. Strategic Execution
Thinks in frameworks and trade-offs; seeks maximum leverage in every action
Operates via mental models (80/20, MECE, decision trees). Anticipates second and third-order effects. Makes fast, logical decisions under pressure. Connects all actions to measurable outcomes. Asks “what’s the minimum input that produces maximum output?” before starting work.
2. Executive Presence
Commands attention through composure, precision, and intentional communication
Speaks with brevity. Writes tight emails and slide copy. Uses voice, tone, and body language deliberately. Reads rooms and adjusts signal accordingly. Presents with calculated intentionality in appearance and environment. Maintains high polish standards for all client-facing materials. Cultivates relationships with elite mentors and influential networks.
3. Power Navigation
Understands stakeholder dynamics and calibrates messaging to organizational reality
Tracks hierarchy, perception, and influence channels actively. Recognizes when decisions are political versus analytical. Maintains boundaries around time and availability. Converts criticism into directional fuel. Comfortable with financial models and quantitative rigor as decision tools. Translates qualitative insights into quantifiable impact.
4. Outcome Obsession
Ruthlessly prioritizes high-leverage activities and eliminates performative work
Follows tight weekly structure with deep work blocks and reset periods. Ensures no loose ends on commitments. Measures success by results delivered, not hours logged. Chooses growth opportunities over comfortable assignments. Operates with calm ambition, never visible hustle. Protects bandwidth as a strategic asset.
5. Clarity Under Pressure
Filters noise fast and makes composed, confident moves in complexity
Maintains emotional steadiness during stress and politics. Uses silence, eye contact, and stillness as power tools. Moves with calm sharpness without fidgeting or rushing. Demonstrates composure that creates confidence in others. Stays solution-oriented when others escalate or panic.
Putting the System Into Practice
This framework is my decision-making infrastructure. Before client meetings, I review which traits need emphasis. When evaluating team dynamics, I assess which principles I’m embodying versus neglecting. When making trade-offs about time allocation, I reference the LNO framework explicitly.
The synthesis of these five articles with the Tier One Codex creates a comprehensive operating system:
- Strategic thinking anchored in leadership-heavy ownership
- Collaborative problem-solving through structured process
- Time management based on explicit prioritization
- Proactive responsibility through captaincy mindset
- Focus enabled by Leverage/Neutral/Overhead categorization
Building this leadership operating system early in my management tenure establishes the foundation for how I’ll scale, not just as a manager but as the senior leader I’m working toward becoming.
Leadership operating systems should evolve with experience. If you’ve built similar frameworks for your own management philosophy, I’d welcome the conversation.