Custodianship: A Leader's Final Frontier

For much of my career, I believed leadership was about making better decisions than everyone else. Experience has taught me that's only partly true.

Organisations rarely struggle because they lack intelligent people or capable leaders — most are full of both. They struggle because, over time, the quality of decisions begins to deteriorate: standards soften, assumptions start doing the work evidence used to do, and reviews turn into rituals rather than conversations. The processes stay on the calendar long after the judgement that once gave them meaning has quietly faded.

That deterioration rarely announces itself. It arrives gradually, disguised as perfectly reasonable compromises — a meeting postponed because everyone is busy, an exception allowed because it's only this once, a weak forecast accepted because challenging it feels uncomfortable, a long-serving executive protected because loyalty seems kinder than honesty. None of these looks significant in isolation. Together, they alter the character of an organisation. This is where I believe leadership and custodianship begin to diverge.

Leadership is usually measured by what a person achieves while they occupy the role: growth, profitability, market share, innovation, transformation. These matter, and every leader should be accountable for them. But custodianship asks a different question — whether the organisation will keep making good decisions after that leader is no longer there to insist on them. That distinction has become increasingly important to me.

Over the years I've had the privilege of working with organisations across financial services, insurance, manufacturing, retail and distribution, in markets stretching from Latin America and the Caribbean through Central and Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The industries, cultures and circumstances differed enormously, yet I kept encountering the same pattern. The companies that endured were rarely the ones with the most charismatic leaders — they were the ones where judgement had become institutional rather than personal. In those organisations, difficult conversations still happened when the CEO was travelling, forecasts got challenged because that had simply become normal practice, and customer commitments were questioned before they turned into operational failures. Managers felt responsible for outcomes, not just accountable for completing tasks. The organisation, in effect, had learned how to think.

I've also seen the opposite: businesses that looked exceptionally well led while the founder or CEO was present, then began to drift almost as soon as attention moved elsewhere — decisions slowed, escalations piled up, meetings produced activity but little progress. That's not really a failure of leadership so much as an unfinished one; the organisation had become dependent on one person's judgement instead of developing judgement of its own.

Founders are particularly exposed to this. They know the business better than anyone because they built it, and both customers and employees lean on that — they can see patterns others miss, rooted in decades of accumulated experience, so the organisation naturally gravitates toward them whenever uncertainty shows up. It feels like strength at first. Over time it becomes dependency, and the founder ends up serving as the operating system instead of building one.

I've come to believe one of leadership's real responsibilities is to make yourself progressively less central to how the organisation decides, without becoming less relevant to it — there's an important difference between the two. An indispensable leader might rescue today's business. A custodian is the one preparing tomorrow's organisation, and that takes a different way of looking at standards altogether.

Most organisations have values — they're on the walls, discussed at induction, revisited occasionally in strategy sessions. But culture is shaped far less by stated values than by tolerated behaviour. Every organisation teaches its people what actually matters through what it consistently allows: if poor preparation gets a pass because someone delivered good results in the past, the organisation learns preparation is optional; if weak evidence supports major decisions often enough, evidence gradually matters less than confidence; if uncomfortable truths keep disappearing from executive discussions, silence eventually becomes part of the culture. None of this requires bad intent — just repeated tolerance. That's why custodianship is fundamentally about standards, not the kind imposed through fear, but the kind reinforced through consistency.

Every leader leaves fingerprints on an organisation, and those fingerprints rarely show up in strategy documents. They show up in the questions that keep getting asked, the behaviours that keep getting challenged, the conversations that keep happening after the leader has left the room. In my experience, organisations drift not because leaders stop caring but because they stop inspecting — familiarity breeds confidence, confidence reduces vigilance, and reduced vigilance lets standards erode. By the time the financial numbers start reflecting the decline, the cultural slide has usually been underway for months, sometimes years.

Cadence is one of the most underrated disciplines in leadership. Regular reviews aren't there to fill the calendar — they exist to preserve awareness, to expose assumptions before they turn into losses, and to connect functions that naturally optimise for different things, so Sales, Finance, Supply Chain, Operations and HR are looking at the same reality instead of five different versions of it. Without that cadence, every department can perform well while the enterprise performs poorly — you end up with a collection of successful silos rather than one organisation. Keeping those connections alive is part of what custodianship requires.

It also reshapes how I think about succession. Most succession planning focuses on identifying capable people, which is necessary but rarely enough. What actually determines whether an organisation survives a leadership transition is whether judgement itself has become transferable — whether future leaders can tell evidence from optimism, know which standards are non-negotiable, understand why certain questions always get asked, and have genuinely inherited habits of thought rather than just a title and some authority. None of that transfers in a handover meeting; it's built over years, through participation, challenge, reflection and consequence.

That's probably why I've increasingly come to think about leadership through the lens of custodianship rather than authority. A custodian understands that nothing truly belongs to them — not the company, not the position, not even the success they happen to be overseeing at the time. The job is to strengthen what's been entrusted to you and pass it on in better condition than you found it, and that reframing changes decisions — hiring, governance, how you think about culture, and eventually the question you ask yourself.

“

Instead of "how successful was my leadership?", it becomes "what will still hold after I'm gone?"

That question has occupied much of my thinking over the past several years, and it eventually became the foundation of my forthcoming book, Not on My Watch. Although the book is written as a story, its real concern isn't turnaround strategy or operational excellence — it's the idea that organisations inherit the standards leaders choose to defend, the compromises they choose to reject, and the rhythms they choose to preserve. It follows the journey from leadership to custodianship, and the responsibility of building institutions capable of protecting themselves long after their founders and leaders have stepped aside.

Perhaps that's the real measure of leadership — not whether people remember who led the organisation, but whether it continues to deserve the trust placed in it long after that leader has become part of its history.