Tipping Sacred Cows

Tipping Sacred Cows Plot Summary

Introduction

In workplaces around the world, certain virtues are celebrated so universally that questioning them seems almost heretical. Balance, collaboration, creativity, excellence, fairness, passion, and preparation—these values form the bedrock of corporate culture and leadership development. But what happens when these unquestioned virtues become sacred cows that actually undermine the very success they're meant to foster? This paradoxical framework challenges us to examine how our most cherished workplace values, when left unexamined, can produce unintended negative consequences. Leaders who blindly pursue balance may actually create bland compromises rather than bold decisions. Those who collaborate on everything by default might destroy individual accountability. Even passion, when obsessive rather than harmonious, can lead to burnout instead of sustainable performance. By tipping these sacred cows—not to slaughter them, but to examine them thoughtfully—we can distinguish between the conscious application of virtues and their unconscious, potentially harmful manifestations in our work lives.

Chapter 1: The Unintended Consequences of Unquestioned Virtue

When we speak of "sacred cows" in business, we're referring to ideas, customs, or institutions held beyond questioning or criticism—often unreasonably so. These are the values and virtues that have real merit but can become harmful when they transform from conscious choices into unexamined orthodoxies. The danger emerges not from the virtues themselves, but from the blind reverence with which we approach them. This blind reverence stems from multiple sources. First, successful leaders often attribute their success to virtues like excellence or passion, creating powerful narratives that become prescriptive for others. However, these success stories frequently overlook the nuanced way these leaders actually applied these virtues—knowing when to compromise on excellence for speed, or when to work alone instead of collaborating. Second, our neural circuitry predisposes us to certain behaviors; for example, our brain's reward system activates when we receive what we perceive as fair treatment, creating a biological incentive to prioritize fairness even when it might not serve our long-term interests. Organizational culture further reinforces these unquestioned virtues. A culture that celebrates excellence in everything might inadvertently inhibit exploration and prototyping. A collaboration-focused environment might make it nearly impossible for individuals to get meaningful work done alone. The social pressure to conform to these cultural norms creates a persistent undertow that pulls leaders toward conventional thinking and away from intentional, context-specific application of virtues. The real damage occurs when these unexamined virtues begin to operate on autopilot. Leaders make decisions based on what feels virtuous rather than what produces results. When excellence becomes a sacred cow, leaders might obsess over perfecting every detail of a plan instead of getting it into action. When balance becomes sacred, they might make bland compromises instead of bold choices. These virtues, applied unconsciously, create a hidden tax on performance—wasting energy, causing frustration, and ultimately undermining success. Perhaps most insidiously, these sacred cows can become shields for avoiding the discomfort of actually leading. The manager who insists on collaboration for every decision might actually be avoiding the responsibility of making tough calls. The leader who demands excellence in every aspect of a project might be delaying the uncomfortable moment of releasing something to the world. What makes these behaviors particularly difficult to identify is that they feel virtuous to the people engaged in them. They can sincerely believe they're doing the right thing while unconsciously serving their own comfort rather than their organization's needs. To break free from these unintended consequences, leaders must develop a heightened awareness of their own motivations and the real effects of their cherished virtues. This doesn't mean abandoning balance, collaboration, creativity, excellence, fairness, passion, or preparation—it means applying them purposefully rather than reflexively. By distinguishing between the conscious application of a virtue and its unconscious manifestation, leaders can preserve the benefits while avoiding the backfires.

Chapter 2: Balance: Moving from Bland to Bold Decision-Making

Balance is a virtue that nearly every modern leader strives to achieve, whether balancing work and personal life, short-term results with long-term strategy, or detailed execution with big-picture thinking. However, balance becomes a sacred cow when it transforms from making thoughtful trade-offs into creating bland compromises. This critical distinction separates what can be called "bland balance" from "bold balance." Bland balance occurs when leaders attempt to avoid difficult choices by splitting the difference or saying yes to everything. Consider the manager who tries to please both the finance department's need for cost control and the innovation team's request for increased funding by giving each half of what they want. Neither team gets enough resources to succeed fully, resulting in mediocre outcomes across the board. This approach feels virtuous because it appears fair and measured, but it produces lukewarm results—like serving tea at 80 degrees when half the room wants it hot and half wants it cold. No one is satisfied, and nothing exceptional emerges. Bold balance, by contrast, involves making a series of tough choices that, taken together, create a balanced leadership approach. Rather than trying to be both detail-oriented and visionary simultaneously, a boldly balanced leader might spend Monday and Tuesday deeply focused on operational details, then shift completely to strategic thinking on Wednesday and Thursday. Instead of half-committing to multiple priorities, bold balance means fully committing to different priorities at different times. Think of Bill Gates, who dedicated decades to building Microsoft before shifting his full attention to philanthropy. Each pursuit received his complete focus during its time. The psychological underpinnings of bland balance reveal why it's so common. Many leaders are what psychologist Barry Schwartz calls "maximizers"—people who strive to make the optimal decision in every situation. This leads to what researchers call "diversification bias," our tendency to seek more variety than actually makes us happy. In one study, children given the chance to select two candy bars at once almost always chose different types, while those selecting one candy bar at a time typically chose their favorite twice. The desire for variety often leads to suboptimal choices. Similarly, leaders diversify their focus across too many priorities, believing this creates balance when it actually creates diffusion. To practice bold balance, leaders must develop what University of California Berkeley professor Jennifer Chatman identifies as the essential traits of effective leadership: strong diagnostic capacity, a flexible behavioral repertoire, and an understanding of the leadership paradox. Diagnostic capacity allows leaders to recognize when a situation calls for focus versus flexibility. A flexible behavioral repertoire enables them to shift completely from one leadership approach to another as circumstances demand. Understanding the leadership paradox means recognizing that seemingly contradictory approaches can both be valid in different contexts. In practice, bold balance requires leaders to audit for unnecessary compromises, approach work in intense intervals rather than constant moderation, discard options that aren't serving them well, and develop comfort with paradox. Instead of dividing their energy equally across competing priorities each day, boldly balanced leaders might dedicate entire days or weeks to different priorities. They recognize that balance is achieved across time, not necessarily within each moment. By making this shift from bland to bold balance, leaders can make the difficult choices that create truly distinctive outcomes.

Chapter 3: Collaboration: The Hidden Costs of Working Together

Collaboration has become one of the most celebrated virtues in modern organizations, with open offices, collaborative software platforms, and constant meetings designed to ensure everyone works together. Yet when collaboration becomes automatic rather than intentional, it creates a dangerous sacred cow that undermines both individual and organizational performance. The key distinction here is between "automatic collaboration" that happens by default and "accountable collaboration" that occurs purposefully. Automatic collaboration manifests when leaders assume that involving more people always leads to better outcomes. Meetings proliferate, email threads expand to include dozens of recipients, and decisions require consensus from ever-larger groups. The underlying belief is that collective work consistently outperforms individual effort. This approach feels virtuous because it appears inclusive and democratic. Leaders who collaborate automatically can pride themselves on being team players who value everyone's input. Yet research by UC Berkeley professor Morten Hansen reveals a surprising truth: excessive collaboration actually reduces performance in many contexts. In his comprehensive research on collaboration, Hansen discovered that teams that spent more time seeking help from others were actually less likely to win client deals. The time and effort spent coordinating and communicating consumed resources that could have been dedicated to the primary task. Hansen calls this the "collaboration premium"—collaboration only makes sense when its benefits exceed its considerable costs. Automatic collaborators miss this calculation entirely, collaborating whether or not the situation warrants it. The costs of automatic collaboration extend beyond just wasted time. When everyone is collectively responsible for an outcome, personal accountability often evaporates. Decision quality suffers when groups seek consensus rather than the best solution. High performers become frustrated when repeatedly asked to compensate for lower-performing team members. And perhaps most insidiously, the constant pull of collaborative activities prevents people from doing the focused, individual work that many complex tasks require. As a result, real work increasingly happens after hours or during vacation days—the only times when people can escape the collaboration tax. Accountable collaboration offers a more effective alternative. In this approach, collaboration is the exception rather than the rule, deployed strategically when the benefits clearly outweigh the costs. Teams form with specific, time-bound purposes and disband once those purposes are achieved. Individual accountability remains clear even within collaborative efforts. Cambridge professor Mark de Rond's research on high-performing teams supports this view, showing that interpersonal harmony—often considered essential for collaboration—can actually hurt team performance. The most successful teams maintain individual accountability and even foster productive internal competition. To shift from automatic to accountable collaboration, leaders must first audit their current collaborative activities, eliminating those that exist from habit rather than necessity. They should make teams temporary by default, with clear missions and planned end dates. When collaboration is necessary, they must ensure individuals remain accountable for specific outcomes and are willing to let underperformers experience the consequences of their actions. Finally, leaders must create space for focused individual work by modeling the behavior of "hunkering down" and protecting time for deep thinking and execution.

Chapter 4: Creativity: Distinguishing Narcissism from Innovation

Creativity is perhaps the most seductive of all workplace virtues. Leaders prize their identity as creative thinkers, organizations celebrate innovation as a core value, and the ability to generate new ideas is considered essential for competitive advantage. However, creativity becomes a destructive sacred cow when it stems from narcissism rather than necessity. The crucial distinction is between "narcissistic creativity" that serves the creator's ego and "useful creativity" that solves real problems. Narcissistic creativity emerges when leaders pursue novelty for its own sake rather than in service of meaningful outcomes. This often manifests as a need to put a personal stamp on projects regardless of whether change is needed. Consider Sony's response to Apple's iPod: rather than adopting storage technology similar to Apple's, Sony's engineers created their own proprietary systems that were technically sophisticated but less user-friendly. This decision wasn't driven by customer needs but by the engineers' desire to create something that reflected their technical prowess. The result was a commercial failure despite being "creative." The psychological drivers of narcissistic creativity are powerful. Research by NYU cognitive scientist Scott Barry Kaufman shows that novel ideas trigger dopamine release in the brain, creating a biochemical reward for creativity regardless of its usefulness. This "diversification bias" makes us overestimate how much we'll value variety and novelty. Studies by Stanford and Cornell researchers reveal that narcissists are particularly skilled at convincing others their ideas are creative, even when objective assessments show them to be no better than average. Their charisma and confidence—not the quality of their ideas—drive perceptions of creativity. Useful creativity, by contrast, focuses on solving problems rather than showcasing brilliance. It often involves less invention and more adaptation—finding existing solutions that can be repurposed or combined in new ways. Harvard Business School professor Teresa Amabile defines creativity as "the production of novel and useful ideas in any domain," emphasizing that usefulness is as essential as novelty. Filmmaker Kirby Ferguson captures this principle in his series "Everything Is a Remix," showing how the most celebrated creative works, from Star Wars to iPhone, largely combine existing elements in new ways rather than creating something entirely original. Leaders can cultivate useful creativity by first understanding the source of their creative energy and rechanneling it toward practical purposes. Instead of asking "What can I create?" they should ask "What does the organization need?" They can practice repurposing on purpose—deliberately borrowing solutions from other contexts—and creating analogies that help people understand complex concepts in familiar terms. Rather than constantly generating new frameworks, they can "fill out the form" by applying proven structures to new situations. Perhaps most importantly, they can shift from creating ideas to curating them—becoming connoisseurs who recognize and develop the best ideas regardless of their source. The shift from narcissistic to useful creativity doesn't mean abandoning creative thinking—it means directing it toward meaningful outcomes rather than ego gratification. By channeling creative energy toward solving real problems rather than showcasing brilliance, leaders can avoid the trap of creativity for creativity's sake while still fostering genuine innovation.

Chapter 5: Excellence: Focusing on Outcomes Over Process

Excellence represents one of the most universally celebrated virtues in professional contexts. From Colin Powell's assertion that "excellence is not an exception, it is a prevailing attitude" to Vince Lombardi's declaration that "excellence and victory... is what life is all about," leaders are constantly encouraged to pursue the highest standards in everything they do. However, excellence becomes a harmful sacred cow when leaders focus obsessively on perfecting processes rather than achieving meaningful outcomes. The key distinction is between "process excellence" that can paralyze progress and "outcome excellence" that drives meaningful results. Process excellence manifests when leaders become fixated on perfecting every step of their work rather than focusing on its ultimate purpose. This often appears as an inability to move forward without complete information, excessive refinement of preliminary work, or an unwillingness to share anything that isn't fully polished. Consider an analyst who spent weeks perfecting a financial model but froze when a CEO asked broader strategic questions about a potential acquisition. The analyst's excellence in the process of modeling had become so all-consuming that it undermined the outcome of providing useful guidance. The psychological underpinnings of process excellence reveal why it's so common. Research on "stereotype threat" by Claude Steele shows that pressure to represent a group positively—whether it's being a good student, a competent professional, or a representative of a demographic group—creates anxiety that impairs performance. Leaders who feel they must embody excellence in every aspect of their work experience similar anxiety, ironically making excellence harder to achieve. Moreover, the education system reinforces this mindset by rewarding perfect test scores rather than creative problem-solving or productive failure. Outcome excellence offers a more effective alternative. Pixar Animation Studios exemplifies this approach. While Pixar is known for the extraordinary quality of its films, its creative process embraces messiness and imperfection. As co-founder Ed Catmull explains, animators share incomplete work daily, making it normal—even mandatory—to show rough drafts. This creates a culture where people can focus on improving the final product rather than protecting their egos or appearing perfect at every stage. By accepting the mess of progress, Pixar achieves excellence in outcomes. To shift from process to outcome excellence, leaders must first lower the stakes by separating their personal identity from their work. They should ask "dumb questions" that challenge established thinking and embrace what Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg calls the "hacker mentality"—a willingness to launch imperfect products and improve them based on real-world feedback. Leaders practicing outcome excellence accept that progress is inherently messy, start journeys with imperfect maps, and recognize that "OK" intermediate steps can lead to excellent final results. Perhaps most importantly, they create environments where playful experimentation is encouraged rather than punished. This shift doesn't mean abandoning high standards—quite the opposite. Outcome excellence maintains extraordinarily high standards for final results while accepting that the path to those results rarely follows a straight, perfectly executed line. By focusing excellence on ends rather than means, leaders create space for learning, adaptation, and ultimately superior outcomes.

Chapter 6: Fairness: The Perils of Misplaced Equity

Fairness stands as one of the most deeply ingrained virtues in human psychology. Neuroscience research shows that witnessing fair treatment activates our brain's reward circuitry, while experimental economics reveals that people will sacrifice personal gain to punish those who act unfairly. This innate desire for fairness serves vital social functions, but when misapplied in leadership contexts, it can become a destructive sacred cow. The crucial distinction is between "outcome fairness" that focuses on equal results and "process fairness" that ensures equitable opportunities. Outcome fairness manifests when leaders strive to ensure everyone receives identical treatment regardless of their contributions, needs, or circumstances. This often appears as giving everyone the same resources, rewards, or opportunities in the name of equity. Consider a hospital nurse manager who sent an average performer to a valuable training program because her star performer had attended the previous year, and sending the same person twice "wouldn't be fair." This decision, motivated by the desire for fair outcomes, ultimately backfired when the top performer left for another unit where her contributions would be better recognized. The psychological mechanisms behind outcome fairness reveal its powerful allure. Economists like Ernst Fehr have demonstrated through "third-party punishment games" that humans will voluntarily sacrifice their own resources just to punish others they perceive as taking unfair advantage, even when that punishment brings no personal benefit. Our brains are wired to enforce fairness, sometimes at our own expense. Moreover, we tend to project our own needs onto others—assuming that what would feel fair to us would feel fair to everyone else, regardless of their different preferences and motivations. Process fairness offers a more effective alternative. Rather than ensuring everyone receives identical outcomes, process fairness focuses on creating systems where everyone has an appropriate opportunity based on their contributions, capabilities, and circumstances. This approach recognizes that treating people differently isn't unfair when their situations differ. A sales organization that directs more leads to its highest-performing representatives isn't being unfair—it's maximizing results by acknowledging performance differences. Similarly, a university that invests disproportionately in its strongest programs may better serve its overall mission than one that distributes resources equally regardless of impact. To shift from outcome to process fairness, leaders must first develop "projection detection"—the ability to recognize when they're assuming others want what they would want. They need the courage to discriminate thoughtfully between different people's needs and contributions, explaining the reasoning behind differential treatment rather than hiding behind one-size-fits-all policies. They should watch a "bigger scoreboard" that focuses on competing with external rivals rather than ensuring internal equity. Perhaps most importantly, they need to resist the temptation to rationalize unethical decisions based on perceived unfair treatment they've received. This shift doesn't mean abandoning fairness—it means applying it more thoughtfully. Process fairness maintains a deep commitment to equitable treatment while recognizing that equity doesn't always mean sameness. By focusing fairness on processes rather than outcomes, leaders create environments where people are treated appropriately based on their unique circumstances, contributions, and potential.

Chapter 7: Passion: Finding Harmony Beyond Obsession

Few workplace virtues receive more universal praise than passion. From graduation speeches exhorting graduates to "follow your passion" to hiring managers seeking candidates who demonstrate enthusiasm for their work, passion is celebrated as an essential ingredient for success. However, passion becomes a destructive sacred cow when it transforms from a healthy driver into an unhealthy obsession. The critical distinction is between "obsessive passion" that consumes a person's identity and "harmonious passion" that enriches their life holistically. Obsessive passion emerges when people feel compelled to engage in an activity because their self-worth depends on it. This type of passion often stems from what psychologist Robert Vallerand calls "controlled internalization"—when external pressures or contingent self-esteem drive behavior rather than intrinsic enjoyment. Consider a business school student whose desperate need for job offers to validate his worth led to increasingly irrational behavior during a recruiting trip. His passion wasn't for the work itself but for the validation that success would provide. This obsessive form of passion correlates with higher rates of burnout, injury, and even unethical behavior as people feel they must succeed at any cost. The psychological mechanisms behind obsessive passion reveal its destructive nature. Research by Blanka Rip shows that dancers with obsessive passion suffer more chronic injuries than their harmoniously passionate peers because they're less likely to rest when injured or seek professional help. Studies of work-related karoshi (death from overwork) similarly reveal how obsessive passion can literally become fatal. Cognitive dissonance research by Leon Festinger demonstrates that when people's passionate beliefs are threatened by contradictory evidence, they often become more zealous in their advocacy rather than reconsidering their position—a pattern that explains why passionate leaders sometimes double down on failing strategies. Harmonious passion offers a healthier alternative. This type of passion stems from "autonomous internalization"—freely choosing to engage in an activity because it brings joy, aligns with personal values, and complements other aspects of life. Cellist Yo-Yo Ma exemplifies harmonious passion, pursuing diverse musical interests from classical to bluegrass while maintaining balance with his personal life. Tennis champion Serena Williams similarly balances her athletic career with fashion design and other interests. Research shows that harmoniously passionate people perform just as well as their obsessive counterparts but report higher life satisfaction and more sustainable careers. To cultivate harmonious passion, leaders must first identify their "shard of glass"—the hidden insecurity or need to prove something that might be driving obsessive behavior. They should practice "leading from behind" rather than feeling compelled to be the passionate center of attention. When confronted with evidence challenging their passionate beliefs, they should practice proving themselves wrong rather than doubling down. Building a support system of trusted colleagues who can provide perspective when passion becomes overwhelming helps maintain balance. Perhaps most importantly, leaders should look outside themselves, finding passion in solving problems for others rather than in personal validation. This shift doesn't mean becoming less committed or enthusiastic about work. Harmoniously passionate leaders often demonstrate even greater long-term commitment because their passion is sustainable. By ensuring passion exists in harmony with other aspects of identity and life, leaders create the conditions for both personal fulfillment and lasting professional impact.

Chapter 8: Preparation: Learning Onstage Instead of Backstage

Preparation stands as one of the most widely celebrated virtues in professional contexts. From the Boy Scout motto of "Be Prepared" to meticulous rehearsals before important presentations, thorough preparation is universally recognized as essential for success. However, preparation becomes a harmful sacred cow when it transforms from a means of readiness into an end in itself. The crucial distinction is between "backstage preparation" that separates learning from performance and "onstage preparation" that integrates learning into the work itself. Backstage preparation manifests when leaders treat preparation as something that happens entirely before the "real work" begins. This often appears as extensive research without action, polishing presentations to perfection before sharing them, or falling in love with plans that haven't been tested in reality. Consider an investment banking analyst who created an elaborate financial model for an acquisition target but couldn't respond to the CEO's strategic questions because he'd prepared answers to a different set of questions. His extensive backstage preparation had made him less responsive rather than more prepared. The psychological and cultural factors that reinforce backstage preparation are powerful. Educational systems condition us to prepare privately for tests rather than learn through performance. Anxiety about public failure drives many leaders to overprepare as a way to reduce discomfort. Cultural norms from pre-internet business cycles, when products had to be perfect before launch, still influence many organizations despite the rise of beta testing and iterative development. Research on jazz musicians' brains even shows that improvisation and prepared performance activate different neural pathways, suggesting that shifting between these modes requires a genuine cognitive transition. Onstage preparation offers a more effective alternative. This approach recognizes that real learning happens through action and interaction, not just private study. Improv comedy provides a powerful model for onstage preparation, with performers simultaneously executing and learning while staying fully present. Adam Carolla's career trajectory from carpenter to podcast record-holder demonstrates how learning by doing—being constantly "onstage"—can build skills more effectively than backstage study. Similarly, doctors who participate in interactive continuing medical education show significantly improved performance compared to those who merely attend lectures. To shift from backstage to onstage preparation, leaders must first troubleshoot their preparation style, identifying when they might be using preparation as an anxiety reducer rather than a performance enhancer. They should create opportunities for low-stakes practice through simulations like the "moot courts" attorneys use before important trials. Alberto Savoia's concept of "pretotyping"—testing ideas before building full prototypes—helps leaders get feedback earlier in the process. Olympic shot-putter Adam Nelson's practice of training with the same intensity as competition illustrates how preparation can simulate performance conditions. Perhaps most importantly, leaders should focus on communicating authentic human intent rather than perfecting mechanical details. This shift doesn't mean abandoning preparation—it means transforming how preparation happens. Onstage preparation maintains a commitment to readiness while recognizing that the most effective preparation often occurs through action rather than study. By integrating learning and performance, leaders create conditions for continuous growth and more responsive execution.

Summary

At the heart of leadership effectiveness lies a profound paradox: the very virtues we most revere can become the greatest barriers to our success. The transformative insight this framework offers is that values like balance, collaboration, creativity, excellence, fairness, passion and preparation must be applied purposefully, not reflexively. When leaders shift from bland to bold balance, from automatic to accountable collaboration, from narcissistic to useful creativity, from process to outcome excellence, from outcome to process fairness, from obsessive to harmonious passion, and from backstage to onstage preparation, they unlock their full potential. The implications extend far beyond individual leadership improvement. Organizations shaped by mindful application of these values create cultures where people can thrive authentically rather than merely conforming to unexamined orthodoxies. When leaders tip their sacred cows—not to abandon their values but to examine them thoughtfully—they create environments capable of adapting to changing conditions while maintaining ethical foundations. The most powerful leadership emerges not from blind devotion to virtues, but from the courage to question them, the wisdom to apply them contextually, and the discernment to recognize when they've transformed from assets into liabilities.

About Author

Loading...

Jake Breeden

Read more