If the greatest rewards are given for behavior contrary to that which the new course of action requires, then everyone will conclude that this contrary behavior is what the people at the top really want and are going to reward.

Not everyone can do what Vail did and build the execution of his decisions into the decision itself. But everyone can think what action commitments a specific decision requires, what work assignments follow from it, and what people are available to carry it out.

Researchers Tsedal Neeley and Sebastian Reiche tracked 115 senior leaders in a global technology consulting company who were responsible for selling and implementing projects in countries where they had limited prior experience. Tsedal and Sebastian found that leaders who were rated as top performers and got more promotions practiced “downward deference.” They reduced “social distance” and gained employees’ trust by taking time to learn about their lives and working “side by side”—rather than lording over them. Such leaders yielded to subordinates’ technical and cultural expertise by deferring to their judgment and delegating authority.

After Lindy’s team analyzed more than a hundred hours of observations and sixty interviews from ten start-ups, they found the best CEOs shifted between accentuating and flattening the hierarchy—and the worst ones treated the hierarchy as static. When one CEO was asked if her team was flat or hierarchical, she explained, “You have to have both. If you don’t have that flat piece where you’re taking everyone’s input, you’re dropping expertise on the table, and if you don’t have a hierarchical piece, then you’re just heading in all different directions.” The best leaders “activated” their authority to squelch destructive conflict, when discussion and debate became repetitive, and time pressure necessitated immediate decisions. These flexible leaders “flattened” the hierarchy when creativity, problem-solving, and buy-in were top priorities. Another lesson from Lindy’s research is that to avoid confusion and missteps, leaders and teams ought make explicit when to activate or flatten the hierarchy. Navy SEALs take off their stripes. In one start-up Lindy’s team studied, when the CEO wanted everyone to speak, he passed around a football, and “whoever has the ball has the right to speak and everyone needs to listen to them.

As the damage caused by excessive speed ripples throughout an organization, it can turn into a vicious downward spiral that, once it gains momentum, is hard for leaders to reverse. As harried leaders make bad decisions and errors that create more pressing problems that are left unsolved, and one overwhelmed member after another burns out, turns selfish and nasty, makes more flawed decisions, and becomes less creative, everyone tangled up with the organization suffers.

If the greatest rewards are given for behavior contrary to that which the new course of action requires, then everyone will conclude that this contrary behavior is what the people at the top really want and are going to reward.

Not everyone can do what Vail did and build the execution of his decisions into the decision itself. But everyone can think what action commitments a specific decision requires, what work assignments follow from it, and what people are available to carry it out.