Building on our study findings that CEOs who lead through influence were the most effective, we followed up by conducting interviews to learn about the development advice and training these leaders had received. We asked leaders to describe how they made the journey to becoming the highly effective leaders they were. What emerged is that a leader’s evolution generally proceeds in iterative cycles, with steps forward often followed by backsliding into old habits and then a renewed effort at change. It’s a process of trial and error, and often of fits and starts, as the daily grind of immediate demands diverts attention from one’s inner work. Those who continue to progress in the journey typically go through a three-phase cycle.

First, they are confronted with a necessity for change either because they took on a new challenge that reveals the shortfalls in their leadership or through feedback from their higher-up, colleagues, or mentor.

Alternating between internal and external demands is only one way CEOs must learn to divide their time and energy. They also have to focus on the urgent here and now and on longer-term plans. In addition, they must be in command of the “hard stuff” of numbers and devote considerable time to the “soft stuff” of people management. Also crucial is striking a balance between taking decisive charge by quickly making some moves and engaging in learning more about the company. All require both/and thinking rather than either/or thinking. As skilled as leaders may have become in this over the course of their careers, the challenges of the Launch stage greatly up the ante on getting the balance right. Carol Tomé pulled off this balancing act with aplomb.

Much less focus, however, has been put on the problem of more gradual deterioration, or stagnation, of performance. Our Life Cycle research reveals that this is a particularly common development beginning approximately after the first five years of a CEO’s tenure. Company performance was lower on many fronts in years six to ten for two out of three CEOs than in their first five years. The rate of revenue increase slowed in these later years. Both EBITDA and ROIC slackened relative to earlier years, companies often became less efficient, and growth in operating income stalled.

When CEOs depart during the Complacency Trap stage of the life cycle, generally from years six to ten, inefficiencies that have crept into the organization and problems that have been festering— such as an underperforming unit or product line— constitute much of the low-hanging fruit their successors immediately go after. This invites the question: If those problems are so apparent to new leaders and boards that appoint them, why haven’t they been more effectively addressed?

Advice on combating the status quo bias by methodically rethinking business assessments and gaining perspective from outside the firm is not new. But the problem is that far too few leaders develop a rigorous and continuous discipline of doing so. And if CEOs don’t impose that discipline on themselves, nobody else will.

The imperative to challenge yourself becomes more difficult to achieve the longer you have been doing the job successfully. Nigel Travis said, “Being a CEO for longer is tougher because you have to find ways to keep improving.” Some CEOs recalled feeling less engaged in this stage, with boredom creeping in. “When you get into years six to ten, the intellectual stimulus is less,” one shared. “You come in with lots of ideas,” another commented, “and then run out of them.” Someone else said, “Years six to ten is a period of time when the luster is off the rose and what was new and exciting is no longer new and exciting.