Sundar Pichai wants leaders to focus on others’ success

Success appears singular, concentrated in one office, one name.

Sundar Pichai’s words change that framing. “As a leader, it is important to not just see your own success, but focus on the success of others.” The perspective sounds simple, but its implications are not.

Redefining what leadership measures

In large organisations, leadership decisions travel far beyond quarterly reports. They shape hiring priorities, product roadmaps, workplace culture and the pace at which teams take risks. When a leader centres only personal performance or public perception, incentives narrow. Teams learn to optimise for approval upward, not growth outward.

Pichai’s formulation shifts the axis. If the measure of leadership includes how many others advance, build, and lead in turn, then authority becomes distributive. The question changes from “Did I win?” to “Did the system I oversee enable others to win?”

Innovation depends on shared success

In a company like Google, where thousands of engineers, researchers and managers work across products and regions, the difference matters. Innovation rarely comes from a single office. It depends on whether teams feel trusted to experiment, whether failures are absorbed without stigma, and whether credit flows across layers of hierarchy.

A focus on others’ success also changes how leaders respond to uncertainty. Technology firms operate in cycles of rapid change, regulatory pressure and public scrutiny. In such environments, it is tempting to centralise control. Yet centralisation can slow response and mute internal expertise. Leaders who invest in the growth of others create capacity that outlasts their own tenure.

The ethical dimension of shared growth

There is also an ethical dimension. When leadership is framed as personal triumph, organisations risk reinforcing competition that excludes those without early access to power. When it is framed as stewardship, the emphasis moves toward access, mentorship and institutional continuity. The leader’s legacy becomes less about a headline metric and more about the durability of teams.

This idea is not limited to technology companies. In public institutions, universities and startups, the same tension exists. Leaders who guard authority may secure short term stability. Leaders who develop others build depth. Over time, depth proves more resilient than visibility.

Pichai’s statement therefore functions as both management advice and critique. It questions a culture that celebrates singular vision while relying on collective labour. It suggests that leadership is less about standing ahead of others and more about ensuring others can move forward.

Personal wins may define a career moment. Enabling the success of others defines whether that moment compounds. In that distinction lies the difference between command and leadership.