What makes for a key seat? Any seat meeting any one of the following three conditions qualifies as key:

1. The person in that seat has the power to make significant people decisions.

1. Failure in the seat could expose the entire enterprise to significant risk or potential catastrophe.

1. Success in the seat would have a significantly outsized impact on the company’s success.

There’s no algorithm to apply, no flow chart to follow, no equation to run to get a perfect hit rate on the decision to develop or replace. The best executives care deeply about their people, and that’s why they often wait too long. But they also improve their judgment over time.

Which brings us to a crucial question: How do you know when you’ve crossed the demarcation line, when it’s time to make the shift from “develop” to “replace” for a key seat? I’ve come to believe the best approach is to ask considered questions and let those questions guide you to an answer. I’ve distilled years of reflection down to seven questions that I offer here to stimulate your thinking when you face the “develop or replace” conundrum. To be clear, these aren’t a prescription; you might come up with only one concern and decide to replace, or you might come up with six concerns and decide to develop.

• Are you beginning to lose other people by keeping this person in the seat?

The best people want to work with the best people, and if they sense chronic tolerance for mediocre performance in key seats, they might begin to vote with their feet. Worse, if you tolerate high-performing people who behave contrary to your stated core values, the true believers will begin to lose heart and become cynical, and some will leave. There’s no better way to destroy a great culture than to retain people in key seats who fail to perform or run roughshod over the company’s core values. roughshod over the company’s core values.

• Do you have a values problem, a will problem, or a skills problem?

If someone in a key seat behaves consistently or flagrantly contrary to the core values of the enterprise, the best leaders replace them. If someone passionately embraces the core values of the enterprise and also has the indomitable will to do whatever it takes to master his or her seat, you can be more patient before reaching a decision to replace them in that seat. The hardest call comes with the question of will. Does the person lack (or has the person lost) the will to develop to meet the demands of the seat? If not, can you ignite their will?...

• What’s the person’s relationship to the window and the mirror?

The right people in key seats display window-and-mirror maturity. When things go well, the right people point out the window, giving credit to factors other than themselves; they shine a light on other people who contributed to the success and take little credit themselves. And when things go awry, they don’t blame circumstances or other people for setbacks and failures; they point in the mirror and say, “I am responsible.” People who look in the mirror—who always ask, “What could I have done better? What did I miss?”—will grow. People who always point out the window to explain away problems or affix blame elsewhere will be stunted in their growth.

• Does the person see work as a job or a responsibility?

The right people in key seats understand that they don’t have “jobs”; they have responsibilities. They grasp the difference between their task list and their true responsibilities. A great doctor doesn’t merely have the “job” of performing procedures but embraces responsibility for the health of the patient… Every person in a key seat has a broader responsibility than a task list, and the right people never hide behind “I got the tasks done” as an excuse for failing to deliver on the broader responsibility.

• Has your confidence in the person gone up or down in the past year?

Just as a company’s stock price rises or falls as investors gain or lose confidence in the company’s growth and performance, confidence in a person also rises or falls based on his or her growth and performance. The critical variable is the trajectory of that confidence over time. When someone says, “Got it!” do you increasingly set your worries aside or do you increasingly feel the need to follow up?”

• Do you have a bus problem or a seat problem?

Sometimes you might have a right person on the bus but in the wrong seat. You might have put the person in a seat misaligned with his or her capabilities or temperament. Or perhaps—and this happens frequently in high-growth companies—the demands of a seat might have grown to outstrip the capabilities of the person in that seat.

• How would you feel if the person quit?

If secretly relieved, then you might have already concluded that he or she is a wrong person on the bus. If genuinely distraught, then you might well believe that he or she is still a right person on the bus.

Level 5 leaders who build the greatest and most durable companies think first about “who” and then about “what.” They first get the right people on the bus (and the wrong people off the bus) and then figure out where to drive the bus.

When you’re facing chaos, turbulence, disruption, and uncertainty, and you cannot possibly predict what’s coming around the corner, your best “strategy” is to have a busload of disciplined people who can adapt and perform brilliantly no matter what comes next. Our research supported what we came to call “Packard’s Law” (named in admiration after HP’s co-founder): No company can consistently grow faster than its ability to get enough of the right people and still become a great company. If a company consistently grows faster than its ability to get enough of the right people, it will not simply stagnate, it will fall. The number one metric to track isn’t revenue or profit or return on capital or cash flow; the number one metric is the percentage of key seats on the bus that are filled with right people for those seats. Everything depends on having the right people. (Directed reading: Good to Great, Chapter 3; BE 2.0, Chapter 2.)

Therefore, the first question you need to answer when choosing whether to lead with context or control is, “What is the level of talent density of my staff?” If your employees are struggling, you’ll need to monitor and check their work to ensure they are making the right decisions. If you’ve got a group of high performers, they’ll most likely crave freedom and thrive if you lead with context. But deciding whether to lead with context or control isn’t just about talent density. You also have to consider your industry, and what you are trying to achieve.

It happened in steps. Many of her first steps were not about what but about who. Suppose you’re tossed into a leadership role for which you feel unprepared, and in which you find yourself lost in the fog without a clearly articulated vision for what to do or where to take the company. What steps should you take? Graham did what many great leaders do; she practiced the “First Who” principle: First get the right people on the bus, then figure out where to drive the bus. If you don’t know what’s coming down the road, your best bet is to have people with you who can adapt to and perform brilliantly no matter what challenges and opportunities come along the way. Step by step, person by person, hire by hire, seat by seat, Graham gradually assembled a busload of the right people around her.