Why Leadership Defintition Comes Before Capability

A few years ago, I asked a senior leadership team a seemingly simple question: “What does it mean to be a leader here?”

The room went quiet. Eventually someone said, “Well . . .  it depends.” Another added, “We are all about our people. We value collaboration.” Someone else said, “It’s about getting results.”

All fine sentiments, but none of them described what leadership requires in that organization. And that is where most leadership development goes wrong.

Leadership development often starts in the wrong place.

Most organizations begin with skills. They define competencies, build training, or send leaders to programs.

Instead, they need to start by answering the question, “what does it mean to be a leader in this company?”

I do not mean coming up with a tagline or just parroting what [insert name of current leadership influencer] says. I am talking about defining very specifically what it means to lead here?

That requires spelling out the leadership philosophy for the organization.

A leadership definition is a point of view

A leadership definition is not a tagline or list of traits. It is a shared articulation of what leadership means here and the principles that guide how leaders think, decide, and act.

It is a clear point of view about leadership.

It makes explicit:

• What purpose leaders serve
• What leaders are accountable for
• What kind of judgment is expected
• How power is exercised

It answers the question, how does a leader in this organization behave?

Without that clarity, everything is up for interpretation. Competencies get defined through an individual lens. Feedback is subjective. Performance standards shift depending on who is in charge.

You don’t get individually bad leaders. You get inconsistency, and inconsistency erodes both trust and performance.

Netflix has a recognizable example of a leadership definition

At some point someone has probably shared the Netflix Culture Memo with you.

Back when Netflix first released it in 2009, it felt like everyone was forwarding it back and forth, I think because it felt unusual to see such a clear, transparent explanation of how an organization expects its leaders to show up.

It defines leadership behavior through autonomy and responsibility.

Leaders are expected to demonstrate judgment, candor, and courage. And they are expected to seek what is best for the company, even over personal or team interests.

One of their most well-known principles is context, not control. Leaders are expected to provide the necessary context so employees can make informed decisions, rather than relying on top-down direction.

To be clear, this is not just a cultural value. It is a part of a broader leadership philosophy.

At Netflix it means:

• You make hard calls
• You say the hard thing
• You prioritize the company over interpersonal politics
• You provide context so others can act with autonomy

You may agree with that philosophy or not, but, regardless, it is clear.

How a common leadership scenario plays out

Imagine a situation where a cross-functional team is debating whether to delay a product launch. The data is mixed. There is pressure from the market. There are real risks either way.

At Netflix

At Netflix, a leader in this scenario will likely:

• Share the full context openly—tradeoffs, risks, financial implications
• Invite candid debate
• Encourage dissenting views
• Make a decision based on what is best for the company, not what protects their reputation

The team expects this behavior because it aligns with the stated leadership philosophy. The decision might still be hard, but the process is not mysterious, it is anchored.

At a company without a leadership definition

What happens when the same situation unfolds at a company that does not have such a clearly declined leadership philosophy? The behavior will vary. We may see:

• One leader shares only limited context to avoid conflict
• Another share information transparently
• Another push aggressively to hit deadlines
• Another bring together cross-functional partners to gather perspectives
• Another escalate upward to avoid ownership

People are left to wonder who actually decides, whether it’s safe to disagree, or whether making the call that is best for the company could negatively impact their own team’s reputation or resources.

The leaders at Netflix aren’t smarter than the leaders in this organization. The difference is that the Netflix leaders have clarity around how they are expected to lead.

Without a leadership definition, leaders default to personal preference, past experience, or political calculus.

The definition shapes decisions under pressure

Leadership philosophy is even more important when tradeoffs emerge–speed vs. inclusion; results vs. development; short-term performance vs. long-term capability; team loyalty vs. enterprise good.

Skills don’t resolve those tensions; judgment developed inside a clearly articulated philosophy does.

Clarity comes before everything else

Leadership philosophy is foundational because before you can build leadership capability, you have to know what leadership requires here and what kind of leaders you are trying to develop.

Everything else–competencies, development programs, feedback processes–rest on that foundation.

If you cannot answer the question, “what does it mean to be a leader here?”, no amount of training will fill the gap created by inconsistent leadership behavior.