The search for excellence occupies a central place in the discourse of contemporary leadership. Being excellent stopped being a differentiator and became a silent requirement. However, behind this apparently virtuous ideal, there may be a less evident psychic movement. In many cases, excellence is not just a strategic objective, but a symptom.
From the perspective of psychoanalysis, perfectionism can be understood as an attempt to respond to an internal demand that is never satisfied. The leader does not just seek to do things well. It seeks to eliminate any possibility of failure. This logic, although it produces results in the short term, tends to generate a high cost, both for the leader himself and for his team.
When excellence becomes an imperative, the error stops being part of the process and starts to be experienced as a threat. A tense relationship with work then emerges, marked by excessive self-demand and difficulty delegating. The leader assumes responsibilities that could be shared, not by strategy, but out of distrust.
This movement directly impacts organizational dynamics. Teams led by excessively perfectionist profiles tend to operate with less autonomy. Creativity is replaced by caution, and innovation loses space to repeat patterns considered safe. The environment, even though productive, becomes emotionally restricted.
From a strategic point of view, there is a relevant consequence. Excessive rigor compromises agility. In complex contexts, where speed of response is decisive, waiting for the ideal scenario can mean missing opportunities. The excellence, when rigid, stops being an advantage and becomes a limitation.
There is also an important subjective dimension. The leader who is guided by an unattainable ideal lives in a permanent feeling of insufficiency. Even with good results, There is always the perception that something could have been better. This ongoing state of tension does not support healthy leadership in the long term.
Reconfiguring the relationship with excellence does not mean giving up quality. It means recognizing that error is part of the construction process. It also means understanding that leadership is not about guaranteeing perfection, but create conditions for the best possible to happen within reality.
By moving excellence from the field of obligation to the field of construction, the leader expands his capacity for action. The team gains space to experiment, the environment becomes more alive and the strategy more adaptable.
At the end, true excellence is not in the absence of failures, but in the way you deal with them. It is at this point that leadership stops getting sick and becomes, in fact, to evolve.
Originally published on Class Magazine, June of 2026.