Business leaders also have starters, middle relievers, and closers

Even when we speak of business leaders in general, the phases in which they excel differ from person to person.

Some are good at starting a company from nothing.
Some are good at growing a business rapidly.
Some are good at building a stable organization.
Some are good at turning around a chaotic situation.
And some are good at finishing their role and handing it over to the next person.

In baseball terms, it might be like having starters, middle relievers, and closers.

A starter is required to have the ability to set the flow of the game and build it up over a long period.

A middle reliever needs the ability to adapt to changing situations, fix a flow that is starting to break down, and connect it to the next stage.

A closer is required to have the ability to take on the final phase and seal the game.

This is not a discussion about which role is superior.

What is important is that the situation the company is in matches the phase where that leader can demonstrate their strengths.

Leaders do not always understand their own type

However, there is one difficult problem here.

It is that the business leader themselves does not always understand which type they are.

Even if they think they are good at growing a company over the long term, they might actually be someone who performs best when organizing a chaotic situation.

Even if they think they are good at reform, the reforms they push forward with good intentions might actually disrupt the balance of the organization.

Conversely, there are people who, while not good at flashy reforms, excel at setting up systems, developing people, and stabilizing an organization.

People do not always accurately understand the reasons for their own success.

When results are achieved, they assume their own judgment and abilities were correct.

But in reality, it may just be that their strengths and the phase the company was in at that time happened to align well.

Just because someone is an excellent starter does not mean they can perform just as well as a closer.

Just because someone is good at changing the flow midway through does not mean they can build a game from start to finish.

Even so, once the title of "business leader" is attached, it can appear as though they are capable of performing equally well in every phase.

From an employee's perspective, this is even more true.

From the perspective of an employee, all managers look the same.

At the very least, you cannot tell what type a person is just by the title of "manager".

Whether they are suited for starting a company,
suited for growing it,
suited for stabilizing it,
or suited for turning it around.

You cannot easily distinguish them just by their words when they take office.

Moreover, if the person themselves is unaware, it becomes even harder for those around them to tell.

People try to solve problems using the methods they are best at.

Those who are good at creating new things will start new businesses.

Those who are good at organizing systems will create rules and structures.

Those who are good at causing change will make major shifts in organizations and strategies.

That in itself is not a bad thing.

However, the same method does not work for every situation.

Sometimes repeating your preferred method yields results, but other times you may continue to run an organization without realizing that your approach is no longer suitable.

That is precisely why I believe managers are required to understand not only what they are good at, but also in what situations their judgment becomes less effective.

What are they good at starting?
What are they good at organizing?
How far should they be the one pitching?
At what timing should they pass the ball to someone else?

The ability to leave the mound

Perhaps an excellent manager is not someone who can pitch the whole game alone in any situation.

They are someone who knows whether they are a starter, a middle reliever, or a closer.

And they are someone who can properly pass the ball to the next person when their role is finished.

This is something that applies not only to managers, but also to leaders who head teams.

Some people are good at launching projects, while others are better suited for stepping into the middle of chaos and setting things on the right track.

Conversely, there are also those who insist on continuing to pitch even after their role has ended.

A leader's capability is not determined solely by their pitching ability.

Do they know where they should be pitching? Do they avoid trying to stay on the mound after their role is finished? And, can they hand over the ball to the next person when it is necessary?

I believe that it is in this self-awareness that maturity as a manager is revealed.