October 30, 2026

When the numbers are disappointing, the strategy isn’t working, or employees are anxious about what comes next, optimism can sound like exactly the wrong leadership prescription. After all, leaders need to deal in reality.

But Michelle Gielan, author of Resilient Optimism: The Science of Sustaining a Positive Mindset in Tough Times, argues that this is a false choice. Leaders can acknowledge a difficult reality while still believing their actions—and their team’s—can improve it.

That combination is what Gielan calls “resilient optimism”: a positive but realistic mindset that holds up when it’s tested.

At its core is a sense of agency. Optimists and pessimists can see the same problem, Gielan explains. The difference is whether they believe what they do next can make a difference. And for executives, that distinction isn’t limited to their own perspective. Their teams are taking cues from them, about what to worry about, what to celebrate, and whether a setback is something they can actually influence. 

Download the Masterclass Cheatsheet for more.

Gielan offers several ways to strengthen that mindset. When you’re stressed, for example, she recommends treating the feeling as a signal: What does the stress reveal that you care about, and what constructive action can you take in response? When competing demands become overwhelming, triage your work into what has the greatest impact, what still needs to be done, and what can be deleted, delegated, or delayed.

Leaders also shape how their teams process challenges. Gielan recommends opening meetings with positive, meaningful information before moving to the problem; calling attention to progress people may have overlooked; and asking questions that draw out employees who see constructive possibilities but might otherwise remain quiet. 

None of this requires pretending things are better than they are. In fact, resilient optimism begins with seeing the problem clearly. The leadership challenge is what happens next.

As Gielan puts it, the question to keep asking is: What is the next constructive, meaningful step?

How Leaders Counter Pessimism in Trying Times
by Michelle Gielan
Harvard Business Review, November–December 2026 (10-minute read)

What Leading with Optimism Really Looks Like
by Shawn Achor and Michelle Gielan
HBR.org, June 4, 2020 (8-minute read)

Research: When Leaders Express Positivity Early On, Employees Perform Better
by Jacob Levitt, Constantinos Coutifaris, and Paul Green
HBR.org, April 25, 2025 (7-minute read)

The Power of Small Wins
by Teresa M. Amabile and Steven J. Kramer
Harvard Business Review, May 2011 (21-minute read)

As a six-time CEO who has served on 23 corporate boards, I’ve watched the same story unfold in nearly every sector. An ambitious founder builds a business, reaches the point where they want to step back from daily operations, hires a CEO and moves into the chairman role, assuming the hardest work is behind them. Six months later, the relationship starts to fracture.

The founder feels the new leader is moving too slowly or making different choices, while the CEO feels micromanaged and stripped of authority. Once that trust breaks, the transition meant to unlock the company’s next chapter becomes a source of friction and lost momentum.

Having navigated this handoff from both sides of the table, I call this dynamic “the chairman’s gap”: the gray zone between providing governance and interfering. Staying on the right side of that line doesn’t happen by accident. It requires unlearning the operational habits that made you successful in the first place.

Unlearn the operator mindset

When founders ask me how to make the move from founder to chairman, they usually expect a tactical playbook on board meetings or governance structures. The mechanics matter, but I’ve found the real challenge is psychological.

As an operating CEO, your daily survival depends on answering “how.” You inspect details, solve bottlenecks and drive execution. As chairman, you have to give up ownership of the “how” and focus on the “what” and “why”: setting strategic direction, securing capital and holding your CEO accountable for results.

I put this into practice when I co-founded a luxury vehicle business. I knew from day one that I wouldn’t run daily operations, so I brought in an industry expert I had mentored for five years as president and CEO. Even with decades of executive experience, I still had to train myself to stay in my lane.

If you’re wondering whether to hire a CEO, the real question is whether you’re prepared to let someone else run the business differently than you would. If our CEO evaluates an opportunity differently than I would, my job isn’t to override that decision. It’s to support the culture of accountability we built together. Different isn’t wrong; it’s just different. When a chairman accepts that there are multiple routes to a goal, the partnership thrives.

Define what a chairman actually does

Adopting that mindset is essential, but making it work day to day requires clear structure. Most executive friction comes down to a simple oversight: Neither leader defined where their authority starts and stops on day one. Working well with the CEO you hired means setting explicit rules of engagement long before you hand over control.

Across my board experience, a chairman’s role falls into three areas:

• Capital and governance: securing financial backing, protecting resources and maintaining fiscal oversight through formal board channels.
• Advice and mentorship: serving as a trusted sounding board when the CEO wants perspective on high-stakes decisions.
• Foundational support: stepping in temporarily on administrative areas where the CEO needs help, such as reviewing insurance policies, setting up banking or building back-office systems.

Notice what’s missing: managing inventory, dictating daily workflows or going around the CEO to direct staff. With our CEO, I stay informed through a simple routine: a formal monthly financial review, dual authorization on major transactions and quick high-level updates. That gives me clarity without putting my hands back on the wheel.

Know the line between oversight and interference

Knowing the difference between constructive oversight and interference is a critical skill for any chairman. From the outside, asking questions in a meeting or reviewing performance metrics can look the same either way. From the inside, they reflect opposite approaches to leadership.

Oversight focuses on outcomes and alignment: Is the team hitting its targets, protecting its values and managing risk? Interference focuses on personal preference: Why was that email phrased that way? Why wasn’t the meeting run the way I used to run it?

When chairmen interfere, it usually comes from an emotional attachment to old routines. Early in my board career, whenever I spotted an inefficient process, my instinct was to jump in and fix it.

I quickly realized that doing so undermines the CEO’s confidence and destroys accountability. When you spot an issue as chairman, your job is to raise it with the CEO in an advisory conversation and leave the execution entirely in their hands.

Answer this question first

Mastering this discipline is what unlocks the real value of the chairman role. Giving your CEO room to execute frees you to focus on strategy and scale your impact without burning out on 80-hour workweeks.

But that success depends on one non-negotiable boundary. Before you sign a contract, post the job or even think about handing over control, ask yourself: Am I truly ready to let go, and will I trust the new CEO?

If the answer is yes, hand over the keys completely. Trust the leader you chose, hold them accountable for outcomes and give them room to drive. But if you hesitate, even for a moment, don’t hire a CEO. The biggest threat to a company’s next chapter isn’t a new executive making an operational mistake. It’s a chairman who refuses to get out of the driver’s seat.

As a six-time CEO who has served on 23 corporate boards, I’ve watched the same story unfold in nearly every sector. An ambitious founder builds a business, reaches the point where they want to step back from daily operations, hires a CEO and moves into the chairman role, assuming the hardest work is behind them. Six months later, the relationship starts to fracture.

The founder feels the new leader is moving too slowly or making different choices, while the CEO feels micromanaged and stripped of authority. Once that trust breaks, the transition meant to unlock the company’s next chapter becomes a source of friction and lost momentum.

Having navigated this handoff from both sides of the table, I call this dynamic “the chairman’s gap”: the gray zone between providing governance and interfering. Staying on the right side of that line doesn’t happen by accident. It requires unlearning the operational habits that made you successful in the first place.