Monday Myth: The Hands-On Executive

“Still very hands-on.”

When this appears prominently in a role description or is emphasised during an executive interview, consider it a warning label. At best, it signals confusion about the role. At worst, it advertises an organisation that has not decided whether it wants leadership or heroics.

In technology organisations, this is often delivered as a compliment. It signals competence, credibility, proximity to reality. The kind of leader engineers are supposed to respect.

At scale, however, this praise hides a structural problem.

The higher you go in an organisation, the more dangerous being hands-on becomes. What looks like commitment at lower levels turns into interference, distortion, and lost leverage at higher ones. The myth survives because it is powered by two forces that rarely get examined together: ego first, fear second.

Ego: The Acceptable Motivation

Most executives in tech earned their position through individual excellence. They were strong engineers, decisive problem solvers, people who could personally make things work when systems failed. That history matters, because leadership fundamentally threatens that identity.

Becoming a Director, VP, or CTO means your value no longer comes from what you personally produce. It comes from what happens when you are not there, when teams make decisions, take ownership, and move without waiting for you. A great leader is expandable: their impact grows precisely because autonomy does.

For many leaders, that shift is uncomfortable. Remaining hands-on becomes a way to preserve relevance. Writing code, fixing issues, jumping into execution feels like proof that they are still “real” engineers, still sharp, still necessary.

This behaviour is often framed as humility or craft pride. In practice, it is identity inertia. A refusal to fully cross the line from individual contributor to system designer.

The problem is not moral. It is structural.

Why Ego Becomes a Systemic Liability

At executive level, hands-on execution collapses layers.

Decisions that should travel through ownership structures now jump directly to the top. Engineers adapt their behaviour around the leader’s presence. Architecture starts reflecting personal preferences rather than shared principles. Staff and management roles hollow out because the most senior person in the room keeps stepping in.

The organisation quietly reorganises itself around one individual.

Ironically, the more competent the executive, the worse this effect becomes. Strong leaders do not just contribute code or decisions. They bend gravity. Others defer. Autonomy becomes conditional. Initiative slows, even as activity increases.

What looks like leadership by example becomes leadership by displacement.

Fear: The Motivation Nobody Admits

If ego is the visible driver, fear is the silent one.

Fear that quality will drop.
Fear that decisions will be wrong.
Fear that the system is not mature enough.
Fear that letting go will expose weaknesses.

When executives say “I will just do it quickly myself,” what they are often expressing is not arrogance but distrust. Not distrust in individuals, but distrust in the organisation they helped create.

A hands-on executive frequently signals a deeper truth: the system does not work without them.

That belief may be accurate. But if it is, execution is not the problem. Leadership is.

The Ego–Fear Loop

Ego and fear reinforce each other.

Ego whispers: “I am uniquely capable.”
Fear adds: “Others are not ready yet.”

Together, they justify permanent intervention. Delegation is postponed. Ownership remains blurry. The organisation never gets the chance to prove itself without its leader’s direct involvement.

The system stays dependent, and that dependency is then used as evidence that intervention is necessary.

This loop is comfortable for the executive and corrosive for the organisation.

Why This Gets Worse the Higher You Go

The higher your role, the broader your scope. With that scope comes leverage.

At Director level, hands-on work already starts to compete with higher-value activities. At VP and CTO level, it becomes actively irresponsible. Every hour spent executing replaces dozens of structural improvements that never happen: clearer ownership, better interfaces, more resilient decision systems.

At executive altitude, execution is the lowest-leverage activity available.

Yet this is precisely where the myth is most defended.

The Startup Excuse (And Why It Fails)

Early-stage companies are different. When the system does not exist yet, leaders must execute to survive. Roles are fluid by necessity.

The failure is not starting hands-on. It is refusing to stop.

What saves a company at ten people will break it at a hundred. What feels heroic at fifty becomes a bottleneck at five hundred.

Scaling requires leaders to let go before they feel ready.

What Leadership Actually Requires

Rejecting hands-on execution does not mean detachment.

Strong executives remain technically literate. They review decisions, challenge assumptions, and shape systems. They design constraints, clarify ownership, and build structures that absorb change without personal intervention.

Their hands are on the system, not on the keyboard.

The Real Test

The quality of an executive is not measured by how much they can personally do.

It is measured by what still works when they step back.

The higher you rise, the less your organisation should need your hands. If things only function when you touch them, leadership has already failed.