Yesterday I made a statement that the Role of CEO is Dead.

It may "sound" like a bold statement, but it really isn't.

I then made the statement that we need to create a new type of Leader which I called the Chief Regenerative Design Office, or CRDO.

This new role is based on my work around Designing a Regenerative Legacy.

A well-intentioned reader asked me a question about the article.

"What traits define the new CEO?"

It was an interesting question, but one which missed the point.

I don't think we should define a new CEO.

I have had a similar experience when people ask me about my "Leadership Development" Programs.

I only have one response to this.

I no longer do "Leadership Development".

I Refuse to.

This confuses people sometimes because they "assume" that because I Focus on "Legendary Leadership" I must have "Leadership Development" programs.

But it isn't True.

Just because someone Teaches about Leadership doesn't mean they do "Leadership Development".

Just because there is an Organization doesn't mean it must have a CEO.

See, most people get "used" to how certain things are.

These are how most people are thinking right now:

If I want to become a better Leader, I need Leadership Development.
If I want to Lead an Organization, I must become a CEO.

However, what I have found is that when these concepts, Leadership Development and CEO specifically, are completely Broken then it may be easier to completely abandon them than it would be to "Replace" them.

See, when I said, "The Role of CEO is Dead" the immediate response was "What does the "new" CEO look like?"

We have this innate desire to just "replace" what was before.

The same thing happens when I say that "Leadership Development completely fails 80% of the time, with "Limited Success" the rest of the time."

The innate response is "What does the "new" Leadership Development look like?"

The problem though is that if you try to fit something "new" into the "mold" of something that simply doesn't work or is broken, people will bring the "problems" into the "new" thing.

There are preconceptions of what that "old" thing is.

In doing this, you prevent anything "new" from actually occurring.

If you want to understand this better, let's look at Communication Technology.

When a new type of communication device is created, you don't ask, "What does the "new" Telegraph look like?"

A Smart Phone cannot fit into the mold of the "Telegraph".

If you try to fit a communication device into "what a Telegraph is", it would end up simply being a different type of "Telegraph".

Sometimes for Progress to be made, you must abandon what was before.

Stop trying to take the baggage of what "used" to exist, and start "Embracing" what the Future could be.

I don't do "Leadership Development" because it is a Telegraph.

The Reality is that the way it functions doesn't meet the demands of what the Business world needs, which is why it is a $350 Billion industry that COMPLETELY FAILS 80% of the Time!

Why would I "ask" people to waste 80% of their hard-earned dollars on something that doesn't work and is ineffective?

I wouldn't!

Leaders need a different type of system which is why I instead do "Legendary Leadership Cultivation".

Working with Leaders I have been able to help them reduce 80% of their Dis-Stress and help them pave a new Future for their Organizations with more access to Flow States.

Why would I revert to a Telegraph - Leadership Development?

In the same way, why would I tell people that the Position of a CEO is a good thing when AI can do everything a CEO does, but better?

This includes creating strategies that disrupt over 75% of CEOs' current plans!

I wouldn't!

It's a waste of Human Potential, and there are significantly better ways for a Leader to truly Impact their Organizations that have better Results.

That is why I am proposing something new, a CRDO.

Why would I revert to a Telegraph - CEO?

There's a point where you have to look at "what is" and ask if it is useful?

In the case of Leadership Development and CEOs, the statistics say they aren't useful for what the Future needs.

If it isn't useful, why would you frame the Future around something that is already deemed to be Broken?

Determine what you are - are you part of the Past? Do you want to use a Telegraph for Communication?

If not, then you need to figure out what you TRULY are.

Why I Say, "I No Longer Do Leadership Development" - Understanding What You Are Or Are Not

Understanding What You Are Or Are Not