Craig Leach, MBA

I help CEOs, CHROs, and private owners build senior leadership teams that actually stay and perform. With 30+ years of leading and hiring teams myself, I run executive searches where 96% of placements are still in the role at 12 months and 94% at 24 months.​Who I work with:CEOs, CHROs, and PE/owner‑operators who need C‑Suite, VP, and Director‑level leaders.Organizations in agribusiness, finance, food &amp; beverage, and pet that are navigating growth, transformation, or succession.Senior leaders who can’t afford a mis‑hire in a key role.The problems I solveCritical executive roles sitting open for months and dragging on performance.Costly mis‑hires that damage culture, credibility, and momentum.Leadership transitions where the wrong hire can set the business back years.How I workExecutive search with a defined, transparent process from intake through onboarding.Deep discovery around business model, culture, and success profile before we ever go to market.Direct outreach to targeted leaders, not just posting and praying.Structured interviews and rigorous vetting so you see a tight shortlist of high‑probability finalists.What you can expect96% of placements still in role at 12 months; 94% at 24 months.​Reduced “commercial downtime” from open leadership roles.Fewer mis‑hires, stronger succession benches, and better retention at the top of the house.Ways to work with meRetained executive search for C‑Suite, VP, and Director roles.Contingency search for key commercial, technical, and leadership contributors.Executive coaching for senior leaders and high‑potential successors.When to call meYou’re planning a leadership change in the next 6–24 months.You’ve outgrown your current leadership team and need a different caliber of talent.You want a search partner who understands P&amp;L, operations, and markets—not just résumés.Ready to talk about your senior leadership hiring roadmap?Book time with me here: https://calendly.com/6202205911/30min

President

Craig Leach

I met a Director-level leader 24 months ago.

No clear path to the C-suite. Just potential waiting to be unlocked.

Here's what the journey looked like:

• Month 3: Identified leadership gaps and blind spots
• Month 12: Placed in VP role, first C-suite step
• Month 24: Appointed CEO of a growing firm

Today, they're leading a full organization with confidence and clarity.

By next year, they'll be scaling a team and driving enterprise-level growth.

The reason it worked: mindset shifted before the title ever did.

To move from Director to CEO

To stop being overlooked for the top seat

To lead with authority, not just competence

Over 24 months, I helped them:

• Build a C-suite personal brand
• Master executive presence and influence
• Navigate high-stakes career decisions

They mastered the transition from functional expert to enterprise leader.

And recently, they sent me a message I won't forget.

My executive coaching and search process can help you:

• Identify your fastest path to the C-suite
• Close the gaps holding you back
• Land the role you've been building toward

The seat at the top doesn't find you. You build toward it.

DM me if you're ready to start.

Executive Search for C‑Suite & VPs | I Help CEOs & CHROs Build Senior Leadership Teams That Stay | 96% 12‑Month, 94% 24‑Month Retention | 2x Top Voice

The CEO who hired his replacement—and didn't know it.

I placed a VP of Operations for a mid-sized manufacturing company three years ago.

The CEO called me personally. "Craig, I need someone who can eventually run this place. Someone better than me at the stuff I'm not good at."

Rare self-awareness. I found him exactly that.

The VP came in and delivered. Streamlined operations. Built relationships with the board. Earned trust across every department.

By year two, something shifted.

The CEO started cc'ing me on emails. "Just checking in." Asking if I'd heard any "rumblings." Wanting to grab coffee more often.

He never said it directly. But I knew.

He was watching his replacement outgrow him in real time.

Here's what I've seen in 200+ placements:

The CEOs who struggle with this moment share a pattern:
• They hired for capability but expected a ceiling
• They wanted transformation but not succession
• They said "run this place" but meant "run it for me"

The CEOs who handle it well? They do something counterintuitive.

They accelerate the transition.

That manufacturing CEO? He called me six months ago. Not to complain. To tell me he'd recommended his VP to the board as his successor.

"I hired him to be better than me. Turns out he is."

He's now chairman. The former VP is CEO. Revenue is up 23%.

Most executives won't admit this:

The hardest part of hiring great talent isn't finding them.

It's being secure enough to let them surpass you.

Have you ever hired someone who outgrew you?

The question that predicts your next 5 years...

"Should I take the bigger title or the better boss?"

I hear this constantly. Executives sitting on two offers. One has the title. The other has the leader.

Here's what I tell them:

In 200+ placements, I've tracked what happens next. The pattern is brutal.

The executives who chase titles? They win on LinkedIn for six months. Then they spend the next four years recovering from a boss who didn't develop them, didn't protect them, and didn't care.

One VP I had previously placed chose the Chief title over the better leader.

Eighteen months later, he called me. His CEO took credit for every win. Threw him under the bus to the board. Blocked his access to key decisions.

He left with a damaged reputation and two years of his career he'll never get back.

The executives who choose the better boss? Different story.

They get:
• Air cover when things go wrong
• Access to rooms they wouldn't be in otherwise
• Honest feedback that actually makes them better
• A reference that opens doors for decades

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜 𝗔𝘀𝗸 𝗘𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝗘𝘅𝗲𝗰𝘂𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲:

"Will this person make you better or just make you busier?"

Titles are negotiable. You can earn them anywhere.

A great boss? That's rare. That's the accelerator.

The best executives I know didn't climb the fastest ladder. They climbed the right one.

Who's the boss that shaped your career most?

A CEO told me last week he's terrified of AI.

Not because it's moving too fast.

Because his leadership team refuses to touch it.

He's 58 years old. Built his company from scratch. Runs a $400M manufacturing business.

And he's learning AI faster than his 40-year-old executives.

He showed me his workflow. Uses Claude for strategic analysis. Built custom GPTs for competitive intelligence. Spends an hour every morning experimenting.

His C-suite? They've delegated AI to IT. Call it "a tech thing." Haven't opened ChatGPT since the hype died down.

Last month, he asked his CFO a simple question: "How could AI change our forecasting process?"

The CFO's answer: "I'll have someone look into it."

That's when he called me.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜'𝗺 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴:

The executives who dismiss AI aren't just behind on technology.

They're signaling something deeper: resistance to change, comfort with the status quo, unwillingness to feel like a beginner again.

That's a leadership problem, not a skills gap.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗛𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗤𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗜 𝗔𝘀𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗛𝗶𝗺:

"Do you want to coach them into the future, or recruit people who are already there?"

He sat with that for a long time.

Then he said: "I've given them two years. They've had every resource. Every opportunity. They just don't care."

Some gaps can be closed with training.

Some gaps reveal who's willing to evolve and who isn't.

200+ placements taught me this: The executives who thrive aren't the ones with the best credentials.

They're the ones who stay curious when it's uncomfortable.

When's the last time your leadership team learned something that made them feel like beginners?

Performance reviews are corporate theater.

I've coached executives through hundreds of them—on both sides of the table.

Here's what I've learned: The words don't mean what you think they mean.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗚𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲:

"You're doing great work."
→ Nothing's changing this cycle. No raise. No promotion. Same seat.

"There's room for growth."
→ You're not getting promoted. Maybe not this year. Maybe not ever here.

"Let's revisit this next quarter."
→ I'm hoping you forget. And if you don't, I'll push it again.

"We value your contributions."
→ You're not a priority, but we don't want you to leave yet.

"You're a key part of the team."
→ Key enough to keep. Not key enough to invest in.

"Keep doing what you're doing."
→ I have no feedback for you because I haven't been paying attention.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜 𝗦𝗲𝗲:

The executives who get blindsided by layoffs, passed over for promotions, or stuck in the same role for years?

They believed the words.

The ones who advance?

They read between the lines. They ask the uncomfortable follow-up: "What would need to change for me to be promoted in the next 12 months?"

If your manager can't answer that clearly, you have your answer.

Performance reviews don't tell you where you stand.

They tell you what the company wants you to believe.

What's the most misleading feedback you've ever received?

The questions that save CEOs from $500K mistakes

After 200+ placements, I've watched executives make the same costly errors.

Not because they lacked intelligence. Because they asked the wrong questions.

The CEOs who avoid expensive mistakes share a pattern. They slow down when everyone else speeds up.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗙𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗦𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸:

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗶𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"What will this person need to succeed that we're not currently providing?"

Most CEOs ask if the candidate can do the job. The best ones ask if they can support them once they're in it.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"Who will I lose that I can't afford to lose?"

Reorgs look clean on paper. The collateral damage shows up six months later.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗲𝘀:
"What am I not seeing because I want this to work?"

The deals that blow up always had warning signs. Someone just chose not to look.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"Am I handing off responsibility or just accountability?"

One creates leaders. The other creates scapegoats.

𝗕𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝗲𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴:
"What question am I hoping no one asks?"

That's the one you need to answer first.

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗜 𝗦𝗲𝗲:

The $500K mistakes rarely come from bad decisions.

They come from good decisions made without the right questions.

The executives who avoid them aren't smarter. They're more willing to slow down when the pressure says speed up.

What question do you wish you'd asked before a costly mistake?

You promoted your best software engineer. Now execution is slowing - and it doesn't make sense.

Meetings are quieter. Decisions bottleneck. Strong engineers hesitate instead of leading.

This is one of the most expensive failure modes in engineering orgs - not because people are incapable, but because technical excellence doesn't train human systems.

The cost: Decision velocity drops. Retention risk rises. Your leadership pipeline stalls.

I've seen this pattern from every angle - as an engineer, a leader, and an exec scaling teams under pressure for 25 years.

What makes my approach different is my background in anthropology and psychology. I don't just see the technical systems. I see the human ones - and I know how to bridge them.

One recent example: I helped a board that was ready to fire their entire engineering team. Same people. Redesigned system. They went from annual releases to shipping every two weeks - and had zero turnover in the following year.

The team wasn't the problem. The system was.

I help CTOs, VPs of Engineering, and CEOs turn strong engineers into trusted leaders - before you lose momentum, morale, or talent.

What changes:

↳ Meetings become productive, not painful 
↳ Delegation actually happens 
↳ Decision velocity increases 
↳ Retention risk drops 
↳ Leadership pipeline stabilizes

This isn't generic leadership training. It's systems-level coaching for engineers - grounded in how teams actually work and how leadership signals shape outcomes.

If you're watching this pattern emerge, let's talk.

👉 coded2lead.com

Robert Harris

The board’s first question caught everyone off guard:
"How many developers do we need to fire?"

Deadlines were slipping by months.
Bugs were outpacing features.
Product and Engineering were barely speaking.

From their perspective, it looked obvious:
People problem.

After 25 years inside engineering orgs, I’ve learned to pause when the entire system looks stuck.

Because most of the time...

It’s not the talent.

It’s the environment they’re operating in.

Six months later, that same "underperforming" team was shipping every two weeks.

No one fired.
No one quit.

The people didn’t change.

The system did.

Robert N. Harris

I turn your promoted engineers into force‑multiplying leaders | Founder, coded2lead | Book intro: coded2lead.com

"Robert jumps on a lot of grenades for us."
A developer told me that years ago.
It wasn’t a compliment.

But it opened my eyes -
and I started seeing this pattern everywhere.

Many engineering leaders accidentally train three specific dysfunction patterns - not through neglect, but through good intentions.

I broke down all three in this week’s Human Systems for Engineering Leaders.

The 3 Paradoxes of Helping No engineering leader sets out to harm their team. But intention and impact don't always travel together. And in my experie

Open article: The 3 Paradoxes of Helping by Robert N. Harris • 4 min read

"I'm going for a mental health maintenance walk."

I've said that to my team countless times -
because leaders normalize whatever they model repeatedly.

Last Monday everything broke at once, and I needed to take my own medicine.

Claude stopped Clauding.  
My computer stopped computing.  
My icemaker stopped making ice.  

It reminded me that entropy isn't just a good idea - IT'S THE LAW.

The old version of me would have powered through.
But powering through is how you train heroics.
And heroics are how you accidentally build burnout culture.

So I went for a walk.

Because the system is always learning -
even if you think nobody is watching.

If I don't step away when I'm overloaded,  
I teach them not to.

Culture isn't what you say it is.  
It's what you model under pressure.

Your software engineering team looks strong on paper.
But execution is slipping.

The team is talented.  
The roadmap is clear.  
The tooling is modern.

And yet...

• decisions keep stalling  
• the same bugs keep resurfacing  
• meetings get strangely quiet when it matters most

That pattern is a clue.

Leaders often jump to:  
"We hired wrong."

But when I see this pattern across an entire team, 
I start looking somewhere else.

Persistent hesitation in smart teams is rarely random.

It’s usually a human system signal.

I help CTOs & VPs turn promoted engineers into trusted leaders before execution stalls | Founder, coded2lead | Book intro: coded2lead.com

Your engineering team knows you're responsive.
You're helpful. You care.
And somehow... that's the problem.

Because your software team keeps coming back to you.

Every decision. Every blocker. Every judgment call.

Here's what that pattern is actually telling you:

- They've learned decisions belong to you
- They've learned "check with me first" is the real rule
- They've learned their judgment isn't trusted - even if you've never said that

You didn't create this on purpose.

You created it by being the most capable person in the room - consistently, visibly.

And now you're the constraining resource.

Because of that, your reach never exceeds your grasp.

Your team’s ceiling becomes your capacity.

And no amount of hiring fixes it - because every new engineer just gets absorbed into the same pattern.

The fix isn't delegation.

It's a different kind of trust.

One that looks less like "let me know if you need help"... and more like "you decide - I'll back you either way."

The most expensive question I ever asked my engineering team was:
"Any blockers?"


"Nope."  
"Good here."  
"All good."

Twelve seconds.  
Clean standup.  
Everyone aligned.

Or so I thought.

What I eventually realized was that I had built a perfectly calibrated silence machine.

The team wasn't agreeing with me.

They were doing the math.

Raising a blocker meant owning the problem in front of everyone.  
Admitting uncertainty meant looking like you didn’t have the answer.  
Questioning the plan meant becoming the person who slows things down.

So the calculation quietly ran in the background:

Is this worth it?

And most of the time the answer was no.

Silence in engineering meetings often isn’t alignment.

It’s risk management.

Once I started hearing silence that way, it changed the question I asked in the room.

Instead of  
"Does everyone agree?"

I started asking:

"What might we be missing here?"

You’d be amazed how often that changed the signal.

Have you ever discovered that a quiet meeting wasn't actually agreement?

If your software engineering org suddenly feels harder to move...
this pattern shows up a lot.

Leaders keep applying technical fixes...
to what are fundamentally human system problems.

And the system responds exactly as designed.

So they add process.  
They add tooling.  
They add more visibility layers.

And still:

• decisions bottleneck  
• teams hesitate  
• the same delivery patterns repeat

Underneath every tech stack is a human operating system.

And that layer quietly shapes everything that runs on top.

When a strong engineering team suddenly starts playing it safe,  
most leaders misread the signal.

When the whole team shifts behavior at once,  
assume adaptation before incompetence.

Human systems respond quickly to their environment.

Watch what the system is actually reinforcing.

If the system quietly rewards:

• keeping your head down  
• shipping fast over shipping right  
• protecting yourself over owning outcomes

the culture will converge in that direction.

The behaviors that frustrate leaders most often aren’t personality flaws.

They’re survival strategies that made sense in context.

I found burnout culture asleep on my office couch one Monday morning.

Our lead engineer had been there all weekend.

Finishing a feature I needed shipped.

I thought I knew what burnout culture looked like.
I thought I'd recognize it if I was creating one.
But there it was - impossible to ignore. 
And snoring. 

I didn't ask him to sleep at the office.
But I had built a system where it felt necessary.

That's what hit me standing in the doorway.
It wasn't his dedication that put him there.
It was mine.

My pace. 
My urgency. 
My silence about what was actually sustainable.

I had never said "work weekends."
But the system I built said it clearly.
And he heard it.

I wasn't a bad leader. 
I cared deeply about that team.

But caring isn't a culture.
It's just an intention.

Culture is what happens when no one is watching.
And when no one was watching - my team was sleeping in my office.

That was the hidden curriculum I'd been teaching.

Not the values on the team wiki. 
Not what I said in one-on-ones.

What the system had learned from watching me.

That's what nobody tells you when you hand someone a team.

The culture you build isn't the one you intend.

It's the one your behavior teaches.

Your best engineer is stuck again.
And they're waiting for you.


You have the answer in your head.

So you give it to them.

Problem solved. Back to work.

Except... you just taught them something you didn't mean to teach.

Not the solution - the lesson underneath it:

When you're stuck, wait for your leader.

That's the hidden curriculum you've been teaching your software team.

Not what you said. 
What the system learned from watching you say it.

You didn't build a team in that moment. 
You built a helper.

And every time you do it - with the best intentions - the system gets better at producing people who wait.

The question worth sitting with:

When someone on your team comes to you stuck... 
do you give them the answer?

Or do you give them the context to find it themselves?

taplio

The Battle

Craig Leach

Robert Harris

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreCraig Leach's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRobert Harris's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Craig Leach

Robert Harris

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Craig Leach's LinkedIn Performance

Performance ScoreRobert Harris's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreCraig Leach's LinkedIn Performance