Reflections on Leadership Strengths, Signals and the SEACEN Leadership Competency Framework
“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more, and become more, you are a leader ” – John Quincy Adams
This quote aligns with Liz Wiseman’s views around Multiplier leaders.[1] Multiplier leaders are those who use their intelligence to amplify the smarts and capabilities of their teams. In doing so, these leaders are able to create synergy, increase engagement and achieve exponential results. One African proverb reminds us: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. “
Wiseman contrasts this with Diminishers, leaders who drain intelligence, energy and capability from the people around them. One of the most interesting insights from her research was that even highly capable, well-intentioned leaders can become accidental diminishers, inadvertently shutting down the thinking and ownership of others. These leaders do not lack commitment or competence; rather, their actions do not always land as intended.
This blog explores these diminishing signals through the lens of the SEACEN Leadership Competency Framework and offers reflection guideposts for central bank leaders seeking to increase their leadership impact. It also draws on Simon Sinek’s observation that capabilities are neither good nor bad- context matters.[2] Leadership assessments reinforce this insight: Strengths, when overplayed, can become derailers.
SEACEN Leadership Competencies and Their Unintended Behavioral Effects
| SLCF Competency | Diminishing Leadership Signal When a Strength Is Overplayed* | How this Feels to the Team | Unintended Consequences on Team Behavior |
|---|---|---|---|
| Strategic Orientation Act in Complexity | Strategist Thinking through complexity and arriving at conclusions without the involvement of the team. | “Our role is to follow. The thinking has already been done.” | Reduced engagement; teams execute but gradually lose confidence in shaping decisions |
| Innovativeness Advance in skillset | Idea Fountain Introducing a continuous stream of ideas, insights and possibilities. | “There are too many ideas; I’m not sure which one really matters.” | Confusion; diluted focus; stalled execution |
| Adaptability Shift in mindset | Pacesetter Setting a fast pace and high standards without checking for sustainability. | “Everything feels urgent, all the time.” | Burnout, disengagement, uneven performance across the team. |
| Talent Growth Develop in team | Rescuer Stepping in quickly to solve problems and remove obstacles instead of letting the team work through it. | “I don’t think they trust us to figure this out ourselves.” | Learned helplessness; reduced confidence and growth |
| Perfectionist Over-focusing on correcting and controlling outcomes. | “It feels like nothing I do is ever quite right.” | Risk-avoidance; reduced confidence and innovation; slower delivery | |
| Risk Orientation Navigate in uncertainty | Optimist Expressing confidence too early, unintentionally downplaying unresolved uncertainty and signaling that concerns no longer need to be raised. | “My concerns are not really taken seriously.” | Softened or delayed early warning signals; less escalation |
| Stakeholder Inclusiveness Connect in collaboration | Protector Personally, taking on difficult stakeholder interactions, shielding the team from conflict, scrutiny or external pressure. | “We’re excluded from the real conversations.” | Reduced confidence in engaging stakeholders; growth stalls |
*Diminishing leadership signals adapted from Liz Wiseman’s Multipliers (2010).
Strategic Orientation: When Clarity Replaces Collective Thinking
Strategic Orientation focuses on making sense of complexity, translating interconnected issues into coherent strategies and practical solutions, usually for the long haul. This strength becomes a diminishing behavior when the leader thinks “for people” instead of “with people”, sharing conclusions rather than inviting exploration. While the leader intends to provide clarity early, it leaves the team members feeling like soldiers who are “ordered” to execute without much latitude to maneuver, which typically results in having beautifully designed vision and mission posters at work that no one really connects to.
Providing teams with opportunities to be heard, to wrestle with complexity and to contribute meaningfully to thinking lead to better decisions, better engagement and better execution. A litmus test is to observe if strategy discussions become updates instead of debates and whether the drafts get cascaded down for “inputs” or “information”.
A core reflection question to ask is:
Do I allow enough space for collective thinking before setting direction?
Innovativeness: When Ideas Crowd Out Execution
While strategic orientation shapes where an organization is going, innovativeness influences what ideas gain traction along the way. Innovativeness refers to the leaders’ ability to spot opportunities and adopt new approaches, especially in response to disruption, technological change and evolving policy environments.
I once knew a leader whose team would quiver every time he got sent to a meeting, conference, or workshop because his people knew that when he came back, there would be a shiny new idea to execute- some of which were not even aligned to the context that they were experiencing. This left the team feeling overwhelmed and overextended.
When the leader’s constant flow of “new ideas” starts to flood the room, the team stalls execution and stops to contribute their own ideas because they feel there is no space – or no point.
When you are about to share a new idea, ask yourself:
Does this idea need action now, given what the team is already managing?
Adaptability: When Agility Feels Like Instability
Adaptability is all about agility, resilience and being open to learning in changing and uncertain environments. At its best, adaptability enables leaders to respond effectively without losing momentum or focus. However, when the leader sets a tempo too fast, moves quickly from idea to action, assumes others can and should keep up, agility begins to feel like instability to some team members.
When adaptability goes into overdrive, it can manifest as constantly shifting priorities, numerous unprogrammed activities, and frequent reshuffling of assignments without checking whether the pace is sustainable. For the team, this would feel like everything is urgent. As a result, reflection, questioning and learning get short-circuited, and people begin to wait for the dust to settle before acting. A subtle signal is when we find our team constantly seeking repeated confirmation before moving forward.
The key reflection question to ask is:
Have I allowed enough time for people to absorb and act before shifting again?
Talent Growth: When Helping and High Standards Limit Growth
Talent Growth stresses self and others’ development. When done well, it builds capability, confidence and a strong pipeline of central bank leaders. Leaders develop this competency by knowing their team’s strengths, skill sets and development needs through observation of behaviors. However, there are times when leaders, knowing very well the capabilities of their teams, step in too early and too often to help fix or solve their problems. While the motivation to help is rooted in care and support, constant rescuing prevents team members from gaining the competence and confidence to carry on and succeed.
Development often stems from exposure to unfamiliar situations and that opportunity to learn is lost when leaders step in too quickly. In my conversations with new people managers, some admit that they take on work their people were struggling with because it seemed faster or more efficient. Other examples include dealing with difficult situations on their behalf or solving problems for them. While teams may initially appreciate the help, over time, they will start to feel underestimated rather than supported. As a result, teams become dependent rather than capable. Growth happens when leaders stay present without taking over.
A related diminishing pattern emerges when leaders focus too heavily on correcting and controlling outcomes. In our pursuit of high standards and a desire to “get it right”, we may solely focus on the things to be improved without acknowledging what’s working well or in progress. This can unintentionally undermine our team’s confidence in what they do and can accomplish. Over time, team members may begin to second-guess themselves, avoid risks and defer decisions upward. When extreme perfectionism dominates, people stop taking risks to innovate and focus on what feels safe rather than growth.
A core question to ask here is:
Are my actions developing my team’s capability or gradually eroding their confidence and initiative?
Risk Orientation: When Confidence Quietly Silences Voice
Risk Orientation stresses navigating uncertainty, with central bank leaders expected to make swift and effective decisions by taking calculated risks based on the best available information and circumstances. In my past discussions with course participants, I noticed that for many central bank leaders, especially during periods of uncertainty, the most risk-informed course of action can feel like maintaining the status quo. This move is understandable as it draws on approaches and models that have worked well in the past.
The risk arises when overconfidence in past successes is expressed too early. This behavior can quietly signal that the situation is not that difficult and that the uncertainty has been settled, even when people are still working through it. While the intent was to reassure the team, this kind of optimism can feel emotionally tone-deaf, leaving the team with the sense that their concerns have not been fully considered. Over time, the team may hesitate to escalate issues, sugarcoat dissenting views or stop raising weak signals altogether- not because risks are absent, but because raising them no longer feels necessary or welcome.
A simple pause for reflection:
Am I acknowledging the uncertainty people feel or unintentionally quieting concerns that still need to be expressed?
Stakeholder Inclusiveness: When Protection Limits Exposure
Stakeholder Inclusiveness focuses on cultivating active partnerships, balancing stakeholder needs and building networks across boundaries. However, a leader can take on this competency to the extreme by becoming the sole intermediary and buffer with regard to stakeholder management. Examples include stepping in to handle sensitive stakeholder conversations, softening or withholding difficult messages, or limiting team exposure to conflict in the interest of efficiency or protection. While teams may initially appreciate being shielded, over time they can begin to feel isolated from the realities of stakeholder expectations and external pressure.
So, when you find yourself stepping in to manage complex stakeholder relationships and situations,
Ask yourself:
Am I enabling others to build stakeholder relationships or taking on the challenging situations and conversations on their behalf?
Leading with Intention and Judgment
Across all these competencies and behaviors, one theme emerges: the impact of our actions does not always align with our intentions. As outlined, some diminishing behaviors do not stem from poor intent but from care and a deep sense of responsibility. While Wiseman offers suggestions for each diminishing behavior, three elements are particularly relevant.
Trust is front and center. As leaders, we need to trust our team’s ability to think and thrive amid struggle, complexity, and uncertainty. Our actions should consistently convey this belief and confidence. Leaders build trust by knowing their people and acknowledging their strengths, clearing obstacles so they can perform at their best, creating a safe environment to voice ideas, hesitations, and concerns, and setting clear accountability.
Empathy relates to the leader’s discipline to reflect and infer on how his own actions are landing with the team. It often shows up in the willingness to slow down, pause, and understand what the team is experiencing and thinking before offering a view. Looking at situations from the perspective of our people, asking questions and listening closely can prevent well-intended actions from missing their mark.
Lastly, judgment. Judgment to recognize when to step in and when to step back. The reflection questions throughout this piece provide guidance in the discernment process and in making that call.
As we welcome the new year, we can be more intentional about our leadership. Rather than doing more for our teams, we can focus on creating space for our people to think, speak, learn and lead. Because the measure of leadership is not how indispensable we become but how capable our teams grow and thrive with us.
[1] Liz Wiseman is a leadership researcher, lecturer, and CEO of the Wiseman Group, a Silicon Valley–based leadership research and talent development firm. She is a New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestselling author, a Thinkers50 top leadership award recipient, and is widely recognized as one of the world’s leading management thinkers. https://thewisemangroup.com
[2] Simon Sinek is an author, speaker, and organizational consultant best known for his work on leadership and purpose, including the bestselling books Start With Why and Leaders Eat Last. He is the founder of The Optimism Company and is widely recognized for helping individuals and organizations inspire trust, collaboration, and long-term performance. https://simonsinek.com
Donna Lumbo is a Senior Analyst in the Leadership, Governance, and Human Capital Pillar at the SEACEN Centre.