Reflections from Elite Altitude
Editor’s Preface
Our astute readers — having absorbed Charlotte Kok’s Wicked Winning Ways thus far — may by now have reached certain conclusions regarding the philosophical foundations of her management style.
Some have ventured psychopathy extreme.
Others have suggested malignant narcissism opportunistic, which strikes us as unnecessarily generous candid.
Charlotte herself prefers to describe her approach as operating at Elite Altitude.
And who are we to argue?
Charlotte presents her case
I have been called everything under the sun from self-serving floozy, malignant narcissist, major liability, and liar, to Rose Hancock’s daughter. I wear these assessments as a badge of honour.
After all, when one operates at Elite Altitude, one serves oneself the organisation above everything and everyone else. One’s — my — selflessness is exemplary within Findex-Crowe. And everyone who knows me understands the extraordinary lengths I go to exact payback ensure the interests of my employer are protected.
Look at my accomplishments:
Litigation commenced Entire teams have been… refreshed.Redundant payments made to extraneous suppliers Budgets liberated from wasteful hands.Retribution dispensed Unhelpful voices removed from important conversations.
All in the service of organisational excellence.
On Younger Voices
Some individuals — often the younger ones — believe enthusiasm and modern tools somehow entitle them to challenge leadership.
One memorable junior colleague even had the temerity to question my grammar in a meeting.
Imagine.
Naturally, I corrected this misunderstanding immediately and at appropriate volume so that the wider team could learn from the exchange.
Leadership requires courage.
Particularly when one must gently guide ambitious but inexperienced staff away from the dangerous belief that competence alone qualifies them to speak.
From Elite Altitude, one sees clearly that not everyone is equipped for the climb.
Organisational Alignment
Some people misinterpret this clarity as harshness.
I prefer to describe it as alignment.
When individuals prove unable to align themselves with the strategic direction I have established for the organisation, they eventually make the sensible decision to pursue opportunities elsewhere.
Observers sometimes refer to this phenomenon as “attrition.”
I call it self-selection.
Naturally, periods of transformation can produce a certain… intensity… within the workplace.
This is simply the natural consequence of high standards.
Call Centre Care-Giving
Earlier in my career I worked in a call centre.
It was a formative experience.
I relished delivering large quantities of abuse care-giving to customers:
- There was the gentleman who
I had to verbally bitch-slap into submissioncalled regarding a billing discrepancy and left with a deeper appreciation of contractual fine print - Another caller required a
tirade of invectivesfifteen-minute explanation of why the problem he described was, in fact, a misunderstanding of his own making - And then there were the truly satisfying interactions — those in which a caller began the conversation with confidence and ended it with… humility
These exchanges taught me something invaluable about leadership: people rarely appreciate care-giving in the moment it is delivered.
But they remember it.
I have brought this same philosophy into my management style. A measured combination of undermining firm guidance, supercilious retaliation clarity, and the occasional public humiliation correction ensures that everyone understands precisely where he stands.
Mentoring is a Public Service
This is why I have always taken mentoring seriously.
Many organisations speak of mentoring as though it were a gentle exchange of encouragement and career advice.
I disagree.
Mentoring, in its most effective form, is not a private exchange of guidance, nor an investment in another’s development. It is a visible, carefully curated performance.
The employee in question will receive no direct tuition, feedback, or coaching of any kind. To do so would risk clarity. Instead, instruction is delivered around her — generously, repeatedly, and always within earshot of others. Her colleagues, therefore, benefit from a richness of guidance she herself is never afforded.
Corrections, when required, are best administered publicly. A passing remark is seized upon, examined, and gently — but audibly — dismantled. The reproach should be delivered with a degree of personal sorrow, as though the mentor is burdened not by irritation, but by disappointment. Even sorrow. This distinction is critical.
“Progress” is to be discussed frequently, and always in the employee’s absence. Such conversations allow for a more candid, unencumbered assessment of her trajectory, while also ensuring that expectations are clearly communicated to all relevant stakeholders — except, of course, the employee herself.
From time to time, it may be appropriate to reference prior guidance that was never, in fact, given. This reinforces both the mentor’s diligence and the employee’s apparent inability to absorb instruction.
In this way, mentoring fulfils its highest purpose: not the development of the individual, but the demonstration that personal initiative has consequences of leadership.
Psychological Safety
The same principle applies to psychological safety, a concept modern organisations discuss at great length.
I have always been a passionate advocate. In my team, everyone understands exactly where he stands:
Subservience is expected Expectations are clear.Scrutiny is constant Standards are visible.Reprisal is just around the corner Consequences are well understood.
True safety arises when people recognise the limits of their authority and remain comfortably within them.
Especially when I encourage them to reflect upon their position in the hierarchy.
Under my leadership, teams become highly efficient.
Conversations grow shorter.
Questions become rare.
Meetings proceed with remarkable discipline.
And while certain individuals eventually decide that such an environment does not suit them, those who remain demonstrate a level of organisational alignment that is deeply satisfying to observe.
This is what happens when leadership operates at Elite Altitude.
Elite Altitude
Operating at Elite Altitude is to operate where the oxygen is thin.
Naturally, not everyone is able to function effectively in such conditions. Some individuals experience dizziness. Others lose their sense of balance. A few discover, rather abruptly, that the climb was never meant for them.
Leadership requires the composure to continue upward regardless.
Editor’s Note
Readers may find Charlotte’s reflections illuminating.
Students of organisational behaviour have long been fascinated by leadership styles in which silence is interpreted as respect, departures as validation, and fear as efficiency.
Critics might characterise the same phenomenon as malignant narcissism otherwise.
Charlotte’s philosophy — which she describes as operating at Elite Altitude — appears to follow a particularly elegant internal logic. At such heights, disagreement is rarely encountered.
This is largely because it has already left the building.
It would be unfair to suggest that Charlotte’s leadership environment lacks psychological safety. On the contrary, her teams enjoy a remarkable degree of certainty.
Everyone knows precisely what will happen if they speak. Out.
Charlotte traces many of her leadership insights to what she describes as her formative period in Call Centre Care-Giving. For researchers interested in workplace culture, Charlotte represents a valuable case study. Not because her leadership philosophy is unique. But because she has succeeded in describing it.
At length.
And with complete conviction.
Leave a comment