Wim de Jong has spent the past decade quietly rewiring how a company is owned. He gave up a payroll of thirty to build with co-founders instead of employees, because ownership, he found, changes what responsibility means. What follows is a conversation about equality and accountability, about treating the organisation of the future as an ecosystem rather than a pyramid, and about a success that is measured less by what you collect than by what you get to choose.
What is the essence of leadership talent, and how do you recognise it instantly?
For me, the essence of leadership lies in holding a team together and truly being able to put yourself in the position of the people you work with. It means having an eye for who someone is and for the balance they need. It means involving people in the choices you make and in the horizon you are working towards together. Part of that is daring to be vulnerable, to stand as an equal, and to act from a clear ethical compass. But equality does not mean you can be vague. Quite the opposite. Good leadership asks you to say clearly what you expect from someone, ideally from day one. That gives both sides clarity, and it saves you from losing a lot of time before you discover whether a person, a role and an organisation actually fit.
'Freedom and accountability belong together.'
Which leadership challenge must leaders truly be prepared for in the coming years?
AI is going to change an enormous amount in the coming years, whether you like it or not. Things will get faster and cheaper, so as a leader you will have to look very critically at what you actually need in your organisation, and where you can still truly make the difference. You cannot think: this will blow over. We saw the same at the rise of the internet. Anyone who kept writing letters because that is how it had always been done eventually missed a fundamental shift. AI will be no different. At the same time the world keeps getting more transparent. Information is easier to reach, and performance and results are increasingly visible. So I think leadership itself has to become more transparent too. People understand perfectly well that someone who carries more responsibility is rewarded differently for it. But be open about it. Transparency will only become more important.
What should leaders stop doing, because it no longer works today?
Leaders have to stop thinking that because they are the leader, they are automatically better than the people around them. I think the opposite is true: strong leadership is gathering people around you who are better than you in certain areas, and daring to admit it. I do exactly that myself. I have people around me who can do things better than I can. That is not threatening; it is a big reason my company runs well. As a leader you do not have to play the boss or be the best at everything yourself. Give good people a stage, trust, the right resources and the room to do what they are good at. Then they succeed, and in the end the whole organisation is better for it.
Which leadership decision made you or your team visibly stronger?
One of my most important decisions I made about ten years ago. I was running a company of around thirty people, and from one day to the next I went from thirty employees to almost none. I decided that from then on I wanted to work as much as possible with co-founders and co-shareholders. In my top holding only a handful of people work as a result, and many of the people I build with are shareholders themselves. For me that has become an important key to success: maximum ownership. I would rather talk to someone who is also a legal co-owner than to someone who is purely an employee. Not because one person matters more than the other, but because ownership does something to responsibility. As an entrepreneur I do not want to be the only one who feels the pain when things go against us and the success when things go well. I want to share that. The next step, for me, is thinking in ecosystems. At YOUNG we are now developing a model where the people around the company can participate too: from employees and our network to stakeholders, fans and other investors. It emphatically does not mean everyone gets the same share or the same role. It is about the principle. If you build together and create value together, I find it powerful when there is also a way to earn together.
Which quality or style of leadership in others genuinely gives you energy?
I value leaders who dare to hold people clearly accountable for their contribution. In large organisations you sometimes see roles and management layers survive without it being clear what value someone actually adds. That is dangerous. Not only because of the cost, but because it can become part of the culture. So for me leadership means being very transparent about the reciprocity of a working relationship. An organisation offers someone salary, resources, trust and opportunities; in return there is a real contribution. That may sound obvious, but in practice that expectation is not always spoken. And to be clear, it is not about clocking hours or controlling people. I almost never look at hours; I look at performance and responsibility. Give people a lot of freedom, but then dare to hold them to what they do with it. Freedom and accountability belong together for me.
Which way of leading costs you energy, and why?
What costs me a lot of energy is leading people who mainly position themselves as advisers when I am not looking for advisers. Especially with innovation or disrupting markets, I want to work with people who first see the opportunity and then look at which problems we need to solve, rather than the other way round. If someone works from a completely different basic attitude, we end up not speaking the same language. That does not mean one is right and the other wrong. Characters differ. Some people are naturally entrepreneurial and comfortable with uncertainty; others are far more risk-averse. Both can be valuable, but not necessarily within the same team. In the past it cost me a lot of energy and stress to constantly convince people and carry them along in what I saw. I do not do that anymore. I do not want to convince anyone of my plans. I now work almost exclusively with people who have the same entrepreneurial DNA and see the possibilities themselves. As a result, leading currently costs me hardly any energy.
Which quality of leadership is structurally underestimated?
Approachability. People I work with tell me they appreciate that I position myself as one of the team. When I am at the office or in one of my companies, I do not feel more or less than the cleaner, the facilities worker, the bartender or someone from housekeeping. We have different roles and responsibilities, but as people we are equal. I think a strong hierarchy and a lack of approachability can be dangerous for an organisation's culture. That traditional image of the leader at a distance does not suit me, and I do not believe it brings out the best in people. It can isolate them and limit the freedom and enjoyment they get from their work. If you give people trust, freedom and enjoyment, and let them feel that they matter, you get an enormous amount back. So for me approachability is not a soft extra to leadership; it is an essential part of it.
Which insight about people do you wish you had understood ten years ago?
That you sometimes only really get to know someone's character when money, success or personal interest come into play. Unfortunately I have experienced several times that people with whom I had a good, fruitful, complementary partnership for years could change completely once the financial stakes grew or there was something to divide. That has been an important lesson. It has made me sharper and less naive, without wanting to lose my faith in people. I now look much sooner at someone's real motives. What is this person after? Where does the energy come from? Is it entrepreneurship, building something good together and sharing in the long-term success? Or is it mainly about personal gain and a quick win? In the end you can teach someone a great deal, but intrinsic motivation and character are much harder to change.
How do you view the future of leadership?
I think companies and organisations are going to change drastically. The traditional model of the director in a suit, with layers of management beneath and a clear hierarchy, will keep giving way to organisations that look far more at who actually adds value. Part of that, as far as I am concerned, is that people can share proportionally in the value they create, through participation schemes or shares. Ownership will become much more important. But it goes further than ownership alone. The organisation of the future is becoming an ecosystem. Not just a company with an owner, management and employees, but a network of people involved in different ways, contributing and adding value. Those can be employees and fellow entrepreneurs, but just as easily partners, customers, stakeholders, fans or investors. What matters to me is that interests can be much more connected. At the same time everything moves faster. Age, title and years of service say less and less about the contribution someone can make today. A good leader is not threatened by that, but makes use of it: bringing in the best people, giving them responsibility, and where possible daring to connect interests. For me that is the direction leadership is heading: less thinking in above and below, and more in building together, carrying responsibility together, and earning together.
What has become more important to you as you have grown more successful, and what has become less?
More important has become surrounding myself with people who share the same energy. I seek that out very deliberately, at home and abroad, and I increasingly find that connection abroad. Less important is the need to hold on to my old surroundings, my existing network, or the familiar. The world does not work that way anymore either. If you want, you can start a company somewhere else tomorrow, open an office, hire someone, begin again. As I have become more successful, adventure and quality of life have become more important. Of course return still matters. A business fundamentally only has a right to exist if it ultimately makes profit and return. But maximum return is not the same as maximum living. I sometimes see entrepreneurs still chasing the next deal or the bargain of the week late in life. That amazes me. I do not have that fear of missing out. I want to surround myself with people I feel good with, keep room for adventure, and step away ever more easily from people and situations that do not give me energy. Success, for me, is less and less about collecting more, and more and more about being able to choose consciously.
Bright Leadership, according to Wim.
For Wim de Jong, leadership is shifting from hierarchy to ownership. He builds with co-founders rather than employees, because ownership changes what responsibility means, and he wants the people who create value to be able to share in it. Build together, earn together. He treats the organisation of the future as an ecosystem, not a pyramid: a network in which employees, partners, customers and investors each contribute in their own way. He stays close to the ground, convinced that approachability and a clear, mutual bargain bring out the best in people. And success, for him, is measured less by what he accumulates than by what he can consciously choose, with his family as the meaning behind the drive.