The Leadership Risk No One Audits: Fixing the System Behind the Leader

Amidst expanding leadership frameworks, playbooks, and performance models, there is a greater organizational friction that often persists underneath strong quarterly results. Christopher Hossfeld, founder of Barrel Strength Leadership, argues that the deeper issue is not simply the presence of toxic leaders but the systems that allow ineffective leadership to take hold and remain undetected.

“Whenever I address a group, I always lead with one question: How many of you have ever worked for a toxic, absent, or politically appointed leader, and what did it do to you and your organization?” Hossfeld shares. “People can identify those leaders immediately, the narcissism, the loyalty over competence, the bullying, the chaos. Or the absent leader who avoids decisions and doesn’t show up when it matters.”

Acknowledging the pervasiveness of the problem, Hossfeld’s work addresses it by examining the very structural conditions behind problematic leadership. “I flip that question back to leaders,” he explains. “How would you identify those same behaviors in your own organization? Because if you can’t see it, you’ve already enabled it.”

Hossfeld’s perspective is grounded in more than two decades of military leadership, including leading infantry units and preparing teams for high-stakes operations. After nine months of planning, followed by six months of execution, he came across a single truth: preparation shapes outcomes, but execution can expose gaps. “You see what you trained well, and you see what you didn’t,” he says. “Crisis reveals both in real time.” A historical lens sharpens this argument. Hossfeld points to the first day of the Battle of Gettysburg, where a missed opportunity carried significant consequences. “You had a toxic subordinate threatening others, an absent leader stepping away at a critical moment, and another who acted independently for recognition,” he explains. “The opportunity existed, but alignment failed. I place that on the structure that put them there."

Hossfeld draws a direct parallel between those moments and modern business realities, where breakdowns in coordination can surface in missed market opportunities and hesitation at critical points can erode momentum that may be difficult to recover. He believes that misaligned leadership structures tend to produce equally fragmented execution, with strategy and execution pulling in different directions. The consequences, Hossfeld notes, emerge over time and create distance between the outcome and the leadership decisions that set it in motion. 

According to Hossfeld, organizations often rely heavily on KPIs, dashboards, and predictive tools to assess performance. But he argues that while instruments offer clarity on outcomes, they might provide limited visibility into the human conditions driving those results. He explains, “You’re measuring what happened. But how did it happen? Through people. If you don’t understand the human dynamics behind those metrics, you’re missing critical indicators.” 

In that context, he notes that performance metrics can project stability even as underlying strain builds within the organization. Strong output can exist alongside rising turnover, disengagement, or burnout, and teams can continue to meet targets despite weakening internal collaboration.“You may not see an immediate drop,” Hossfeld explains. “But if people are burning out or leadership is creating friction, the system will eventually break. The real question is whether you can identify those signals early enough to act.”

Effective leadership, he believes, requires a careful balance of analytical precision and human judgment, which Hossfeld refers to as the integration between science and art. Data informs decisions, while observation and trust can provide context. “Metrics and reports give you data points. The challenge then lies in pulling that together to understand your culture and your people. That’s where leadership actually happens,” he explains. 

He insists that leaders must build mechanisms that surface reality without distortion. By implementing ways to listen to honest feedback, build real relationships across teams, and stay connected with daily operations, Hossfeld suggests that leaders can get a more accurate and raw view of the workforce. “Do you have people who can tell you what’s really going on?” Hossfeld says. “Do you see your organization as it operates day to day, or only when it’s prepared for you? Because those are two very different pictures.”

Hossfeld also acknowledges how system gaps can shape leadership behavior itself. “I’ve been in positions where I leaned toward being overly controlling,” he says. “It came from a lack of confidence in whether I had prepared my team properly. So I overcompensated.”

Ultimately, he believes that intentional investment in leadership development, combined with thoughtful team design, can create conditions for effective performance. Hossfeld highlights that organizations that align authority with capability and provide clear frameworks can empower leaders to act decisively without constant oversight. 

“If you have the right people in the right roles, you reduce risk,” Hossfeld says. “You give them the authority and responsibility to act, and the organization becomes more adaptable.” His approach avoids rigid systems. Instead, it encourages leaders to examine their own systems with greater scrutiny. Questions around visibility, accountability, and cultural alignment become central to that process.

“I don’t want to give a checklist,” Hossfeld says. “I want leaders to think critically and creatively about their systems, because if you invest in the right people and structure, the outcomes take care of themselves.”