Vulnerable Leadership: The Skill Nobody Teaches Agency Leaders

Vulnerable leadership is the practice of leading without the performance of certainty, being honest about what you don’t know, what went wrong, and what you’re figuring out in real time. It is not weakness dressed up as a management trend. Done well, it is one of the most commercially effective things a leader can do.

Teams follow leaders who are honest about the difficulty of the work. They stop following leaders who pretend the difficulty doesn’t exist.

What Does Vulnerable Leadership Actually Mean?

The word “vulnerable” has been used so loosely in leadership writing that it has almost lost its meaning. Some interpret it as a licence to process emotions in public. Others treat it as a personality trait, something you either have or don’t. Neither is right.

Vulnerable leadership is a deliberate choice. It means being honest about the reality of a situation, even when that reality is uncomfortable. It means saying “I don’t know” when you don’t know. It means acknowledging when a decision you made didn’t work. It means letting your team see the difficulty of the problem you’re all trying to solve, rather than pretending the path is clearer than it is.

The commercial case for this is straightforward. When leaders perform certainty they don’t have, teams stop bringing problems forward. They assume the leader either already knows and doesn’t care, or doesn’t want to hear it. Both interpretations are damaging. Information stops flowing upward. Decisions get made on incomplete pictures. Problems compound quietly until they become crises.

Vulnerable leadership keeps information flowing. That alone makes it a business asset.

Why Most Agency Leaders Struggle With It

There is a particular version of leadership culture in agencies that rewards confidence, quick thinking, and the appearance of having a handle on everything. Clients want to believe their agency partner is in control. Senior leadership teams reward people who project certainty. The whole environment selects for a kind of performed composure.

I remember my first week at Cybercom. There was a brainstorm for Guinness, a serious client, a real brief. The founder had to step out for a meeting and handed me the whiteboard pen on the way out. I had been there less than a week. My internal reaction was not inspiring. But the room was looking at me, the brief was on the table, and the only useful thing I could do was be honest about where I was starting from and get to work. That moment taught me something I’ve carried for 20 years: the fastest way to lose a room is to fake authority you haven’t earned. The fastest way to earn it is to be straight about what you’re working with and show you can think.

Most agency leaders have been trained out of that kind of honesty. They’ve learned to project. They’ve learned that hesitation reads as weakness. And so they perform certainty, even when the situation doesn’t warrant it, even when the team would be better served by a different kind of leadership.

The cost of that performance accumulates slowly. You start making decisions in isolation because you can’t admit you need input. You stop hearing about problems early because your team assumes you either know already or don’t want to be bothered. You become less effective as a leader precisely because you’re working so hard to look like a good one.

The Difference Between Vulnerability and Anxiety

This is worth being clear about, because the distinction matters practically.

Vulnerable leadership is not the same as broadcasting your stress to your team. A leader who walks into a Monday morning meeting and tells their team how worried they are, how much pressure they’re under, how uncertain the next quarter looks, without any plan or direction attached to that honesty, is not being vulnerable. They are being anxious in public. That is not useful to anyone.

The distinction is whether the honesty serves the team or just relieves pressure for the leader. Vulnerable leadership says: “This is a hard problem, I don’t have a complete answer yet, here is what I do know, and here is how I want us to approach it together.” Anxiety in public says: “This is a hard problem and I need you to know how hard it is for me.”

The first version keeps the team oriented. The second version destabilises them.

Competence is the foundation that makes vulnerability useful. Without it, admitting uncertainty just creates a vacuum. With it, admitting uncertainty creates space for honest problem-solving. The two have to work together.

For those thinking about how this fits into a broader growth and leadership strategy, the Go-To-Market & Growth Strategy hub covers the commercial thinking that sits underneath decisions like these, from team structure to scaling without losing what makes a business work.

What It Looks Like in a Turnaround

The hardest test of vulnerable leadership is not when things are going well. It is when you are standing in front of a team, telling them the business is in trouble, and you need their help to fix it.

I’ve been in that position. Taking over a loss-making agency, looking at a P&L that needed a roughly £1.5 million swing to become viable, and knowing that the path to that number involved cutting staff, restructuring departments, repricing work, and rebuilding delivery margins from the ground up. The team could see something was wrong. The numbers didn’t lie and people who work in agencies are not naive about business performance.

The choice in that moment is not whether to be honest. The choice is whether to be honest in a way that is useful or in a way that just creates panic. I chose to be direct about the scale of the problem, clear about the decisions I was making and why, and honest about what I didn’t know yet. I didn’t have all the answers. I said so. What I did have was a clear view of the direction and a genuine belief that the business could be fixed. That combination, honesty about the difficulty and clarity about the direction, is what kept the team functional during a period that could easily have caused it to fall apart.

The people who stayed and helped turn that business around did so in part because they trusted the information they were getting. They knew they weren’t being managed. They knew the picture they were seeing was real. That trust was worth more than any amount of reassurance I could have manufactured.

BCG’s work on scaling agile organisations makes a related point: high-performing teams need psychological safety and honest information to function. You can’t build that environment while performing certainty you don’t have.

How Vulnerable Leadership Affects Team Performance

There is a direct line between how honest a leader is with their team and how well that team performs under pressure.

When leaders are honest about problems, teams bring solutions. When leaders pretend problems don’t exist, teams either disengage or work around the leader rather than with them. Neither is good for the business.

When I was growing an agency from around 20 people to over 100, the moments where I lost ground with the team were almost always moments where I was less than straight with them. Not dishonest, but incomplete. Managing the message too carefully. Telling them the positive version of a difficult situation rather than the full version. Every time I did that, I could feel the team’s trust in the information they were getting erode slightly. And once people stop trusting the information they receive, they start making decisions based on what they think is really happening rather than what they’re being told. That is a much harder environment to lead in.

The teams I’ve seen perform best are the ones where the leader has been consistently honest, even when the honesty was uncomfortable. They know where they stand. They know what the real targets are. They know when something isn’t working and why. That clarity is energising, not demoralising. Most people would rather work hard on a real problem than be managed through a sanitised version of one.

Tools like feedback loops are often discussed in the context of customer insight, but the principle applies internally too. Leaders who build honest feedback loops with their teams get better information, make better decisions, and build more resilient organisations.

The Moments That Define Your Leadership Reputation

Leadership reputations are not built in the smooth periods. They are built in the difficult ones. The moment a client brief goes badly wrong. The moment a major account is at risk. The moment the business misses a number it was confident of hitting. The moment a senior hire doesn’t work out.

How you behave in those moments is what your team remembers. Not the quarterly all-hands where everything was on track. Not the celebratory dinner after a good pitch. The difficult moments, and specifically whether you were honest in them, are what define how much your team trusts you.

I’ve judged the Effie Awards and spent time looking at what makes marketing work at a commercial level. One of the consistent patterns in effective marketing is the willingness to be honest about what the problem actually is, rather than the problem you’d prefer to have. The same is true of leadership. The leaders who are clear-eyed about the real situation, even when it’s uncomfortable, consistently outperform the ones who manage the narrative.

The narrative management approach feels safer in the moment. It delays discomfort. But it also delays the decisions that would address the actual problem, and it erodes the trust of the people who can see the gap between what they’re being told and what is actually happening.

Growth-focused organisations, the kind discussed in high-growth case studies and growth frameworks, share a common characteristic: they are honest about what is and isn’t working. That honesty starts at the leadership level.

Practical Ways to Lead More Honestly

This is not about personality change. It is about specific behaviours that can be adopted regardless of your natural communication style.

Say “I don’t know” when you don’t know. This sounds obvious. In practice, most leaders are trained to fill the space with something, even when they don’t have a good answer. Saying “I don’t know, but here’s how I’m going to find out” is more useful and more trust-building than a confident answer that turns out to be wrong.

Acknowledge when decisions don’t work. Not with self-flagellation, but plainly. “That didn’t work the way I expected. consider this I learned from it and consider this I’m doing differently.” Teams respect this. They have usually already noticed the decision didn’t work. What they’re watching for is whether you can see it too.

Share the real constraints. When you’re asking your team to do something difficult, tell them why. Not the sanitised version, the real one. Budget constraints, client pressure, competitive threat, whatever the actual driver is. People work harder and smarter when they understand the real context of what they’re being asked to do.

Ask for help explicitly. Not “does anyone have any thoughts” as a rhetorical question at the end of a presentation. Genuine requests for input on problems you are genuinely stuck on. This is one of the most powerful things a leader can do. It signals that the team’s thinking matters and it usually produces better answers than the leader would have reached alone.

Distinguish between what you know and what you’re assuming. In any complex situation, a leader is working with a mix of facts and assumptions. Being explicit about which is which, “I know this, I’m assuming that, I’m not sure about this third thing,” gives your team a much more useful picture than a confident narrative that blurs the two together.

When Vulnerable Leadership Gets Misread

There is a real risk that honest leadership gets misread by certain stakeholders, particularly clients and boards, as a lack of confidence. This is worth being clear-eyed about.

The answer is not to perform certainty to clients and be honest with your team. That creates two different operating realities and your team will notice the inconsistency. The answer is to be honest in a way that is also confident. You can say “we don’t have a complete answer yet” while also communicating clearly that you have a plan for getting one. You can acknowledge a problem while also making clear you have the capability and the intent to address it.

The combination of honesty and direction is what makes vulnerable leadership effective. Honesty without direction creates anxiety. Direction without honesty creates cynicism. The two together create the kind of trust that holds teams and client relationships together through difficult periods.

Go-to-market strategy and leadership are more connected than most frameworks suggest. The way a leadership team operates internally shapes how clearly an organisation can think about its market, its customers, and its growth trajectory. If you’re working through the commercial side of this, the Go-To-Market & Growth Strategy hub is worth spending time in.

The Long-Term Commercial Case

Vulnerable leadership is not just a better way to manage people. It is a better way to run a business.

Organisations where honest information flows freely make better decisions. They identify problems earlier. They course-correct faster. They retain the kind of senior talent that has options and chooses to stay because they trust the environment they’re working in. They build cultures where people bring their real thinking rather than the thinking they believe the leader wants to hear.

The alternative, a culture built on performed certainty and managed narratives, tends to look stable until it doesn’t. Problems compound quietly. The gap between the official story and the actual situation widens until something breaks it open. At that point, the trust deficit that has been building is very hard to repair quickly.

BCG’s research on go-to-market strategy consistently points to organisational alignment as a critical factor in commercial success. You cannot have genuine alignment without honest communication. And you cannot have honest communication without leaders who are willing to model it.

The leaders who build the most durable organisations are not the ones who always had the right answers. They are the ones who created environments where the right answers could surface, be heard, and be acted on. That requires a particular kind of honesty that most leadership cultures don’t reward, but that consistently produces better commercial outcomes than the alternative.

It is also, for what it’s worth, a considerably less exhausting way to lead. Performing certainty is hard work. Being straight with your team is not.

About the Author

Keith Lacy is a marketing strategist and former agency CEO with 20+ years of experience across agency leadership, performance marketing, and commercial strategy. He writes The Marketing Juice to cut through the noise and share what works.

Frequently Asked Questions