Two Leaders, Radically Different Results

One of my privileges and teachers is that I get to interact with hundreds of leaders across various construction companies. The diversity is incredible.

Spend enough time around leaders under pressure and you start to see two distinct kinds. It’s not that leadership is binary. It’s a continuum and each side is quite different. Both leaders may carry the same title. Both may get results on paper. But the way they handle people, the way they conduct interviews, build teams, and sustain loyalty, sets them worlds apart.

These two types are often unaware of these strengths or weaknesses, and from the outside, they both seem impressively successful.

Type One: The Relational Investor

This leader seems to have room in their soul for other people. They bring curiosity into the room. They notice peculiarities and ask questions. They take the time to see not just what a person does but who that person is.

They are often humble, and humility sharpens their sight. Aware of their own shortcomings, they critique others with nuance and consideration. Instead of shaming weakness, they look for ways to strengthen it. That posture makes them better interviewers, better builders of trust, and more effective at developing long-term loyalty. Over time, their relational investments compound. Their teams grow strong roots. Their influence multiplies.

These leaders are kinda like people collectors, in the best sense of the term. People feel cherished.

When we talk about how important it is for leadership to stay close to their recruiting and hiring process, they resonate.

Type Two: The Transactional Grader

This leader has a different lens. People are sorted quickly into categories of usefulness. If someone rates low on the “what can you do for me” scale, the dismissal is swift. They lack relational imagination and are quick to move on.

Pride feeds the blindness. Oblivious to their own weak spots, they look down on the weaknesses of others. Their critique is often scathing rather than constructive. In interviews, this comes across as shallow and short-term. When problems arise, their first instinct is defense, not discovery. The result is low-calorie relationships, easy to burn through, hard to sustain.

When we talk about how important it is for these leaders to stay close to their recruiting and hiring process, they often sigh and talk about the myriad of other priorities competing for their attention.

Simply put, their people, team, is not their most important asset, until something breaks, then they make panicked and rushed decisions that stress the business more. It really is a vicious cycle.

What Their Companies Become

Leader’s habits shape the teams around them, and over time those teams take on the personality of the leader.

Companies shaped by relational investors become increasingly resilient. People stay longer because they feel seen. Middle managers mature because they are coached, not judged. Communication moves upward because team members trust that honesty is safe. Problems surface early, which keeps them small. Decision-making improves because leaders get real input instead of filtered updates. Recruiting becomes easier because the market knows the culture is healthy. These companies bend under stress but do not break.

Companies shaped by transactional graders become fragile. People hide issues because they expect blame, not support. Turnover creeps upward. Middle managers stop developing because vulnerability gets punished. Projects shift into constant reaction mode. Decision-making bottlenecks at the top because no one else feels trusted. Recruiting gets harder because the market has heard the stories. These companies look strong from the outside, but crack quickly when pressure spikes.

The Diverging Paths

Both types can hold authority. Both can get things done. Both make money and look successful. But the results (and culture) are radically different.

The humble relational investor builds resilient teams that can weather stress, because loyalty and trust have been banked over time. The proud transactional grader may generate output, but they rarely build people, and eventually, people move on.

Recruiting for transactional leaders is tough because recruiters are judged on the performance of the people we help a client hire, and a new hire’s performance is largely in the hands of their leadership, so that can be a no-win situation despite quality recruiting.

How do you lead?