Getillustrations for Unsplash+
Lately I’ve been thinking about black box vs glass box CEOs. Not in a moral sense, in an operational one. Is one version better than the other? If so, should we be articulating that to our principal?
A black box CEO operates through decisive control. Inputs go in, decisions come out. They process privately, protect decision velocity and reveal only what’s necessary. The black box is about focus and containment as it keeps energy moving forward, even if others can’t see how.
A glass box CEO operates through visible reasoning. They slow to show the process, narrate trade-offs, and invite people to understand and shape the outcome. The glass box is about alignment and trust and it keeps people connected, even if progress feels slower.
Both approaches work. The question isn’t which is better (which is where I started), but when each serves the work best. Like most things in leadership, the answer isn’t absolute. Some moments call for black box clarity and others benefit from glass box transparency.
This is where the Chief of Staff comes in, to help your principal know which one the moment needs.
Your principal lives in a constant storm of opinions. Board members, customers, employees, peers, shareholders, everyone has something to say. The more noise there is, the easier it is for a leader to lose signal. Some retreat into silence for control. Others over-explain to stay understood. Both are natural. The work is knowing which box the moment needs and steering your principal into it.
Calibration
Determining the appropriate box for the moment requires pattern recognition work.
Invite the Black Box when:
Decisions need speed or singular focus
All inputs are in and the call depends on judgement not consensus
Your principal holds the clearest vantage point on the issue
Invention or deal-making needs privacy to breathe
Inclusion starts to blur accountability
Invite the Glass Box when:
Trust or alignment is thin
The team would benefit from seeing how the decision is made
Silence is breeding stories or speculation
Morale is shaky and context would steady it
Teaching “the why” helps leaders think independently
Different Boxes, Different Operators
I keep thinking about how great CEOs move between these modes. Each one uses transparency or control differently, depending on what they’re optimizing for. It’s not about imitation; it’s about recognizing which play fits your principal’s style and what they’re protecting.
Leader | When they invite the glass | When they close the box | What they’re protecting |
|---|---|---|---|
Elon Musk | Shares the big impossible vision to rally belief and momentum. | Goes dark when execution begins; noise kills velocity. | Momentum |
Jeff Bezos | Explains the “why” to align a system. | Shields early invention from consensus. | Strategy |
Warren Buffet | Admits mistakes early, teaches reasoning publicly. | Waits for clarity before speaking, timing protects trust. | Trust |
Frank Slootman | Shows standards once, for alignment and speed. | Blocks distraction to drive execution. | Velocity |
Across all of them, the pattern is clear: transparency earns belief, opacity preserves focus, and timing makes both work.
Balance the box
I’ve changed my own mind in writing this article. The best leaders don’t live in one box, they move between them. The best Chiefs know when to switch on the light, open the blinds or close the door.
Our job isn’t to force transparence or protect secrecy. It’s to tune the tint. We notice when the moment calls for clarity and when the work needs some quiet.
Leadership isn’t about being seen or unseen, it’s about being understood. And sometimes that depends on how much light you let through.
Affiliate Link Disclaimer: Some of the links in this email are affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you buy through them, at no extra cost to you. So far, my grand total is $0.53 (thank you to the kind soul who bought that book). I’ll try not to spend it all in one place.