Being "busy" doesn't necessarily mean winning. In an era where "the more you work hard, the more you lose," the reason why a lazy CEO is strong

Being "busy" doesn't necessarily mean winning. In an era where "the more you work hard, the more you lose," the reason why a lazy CEO is strong

Why the "Lazy CEO" Appears Strong in Today's Era

When people first hear the term "Lazy CEO," many might instinctively feel annoyed. Those who are constantly working on the ground, overwhelmed by meetings, responding to chats, and suddenly realizing the day is over, might find the term "lazy executive" jarring. However, the aim of this term is not to glorify laziness. Quite the opposite.Leaders who take on too much work and try to prove their worth through busyness often end up stalling the growth of their organization. This paradox is intentionally highlighted with strong language.


Jane Lu, the founder of the Australian fashion brand Showpo, is often cited as an embodiment of this concept. Showpo's official profile explains that her social media handle "The Lazy CEO" has been a form of self-expression for over a decade, and her philosophy is "work smart, not hard." Furthermore, her educational site introduces Jane Lu as the founder who built a global brand with over $100 million in annual sales. In other words, "Lazy" is not about not making an effort, but rather a stance of discerning where to apply effort, which has been branded.


In fact, following Jane Lu's communications reveals that she emphasizes "design" over "guts." In a podcast episode released in May 2025, she introduced nine habits to save time for those overwhelmed by overwork and pressure, discussing "not glorifying busyness," "not falling into reactive work," and **"how multitasking kills concentration."** In essence, the idea is that those who can decide what not to react to, rather than those who respond to everything immediately, are stronger in the long run.


The reason this concept is gaining support now is likely because many workers have already reached their limits. The WHO defines burnout as a syndrome resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed, characterized by energy depletion, increased mental distance from one's job, and reduced professional efficacy. Additionally, the WHO and ILO report that working long hours of 55 hours or more per week is associated with increased risks of heart disease and stroke. In other words, "work harder" is no longer just a matter of grit. Working long hours itself may erode not only results but also health and judgment.


Therefore, the real question of the "Lazy CEO" is not "how can I make things easier for myself?" but how can I create a system that operates without me? If a company requires the CEO's decision for every meeting, if hiring, sales, and final decisions all wait for the top, if the top has to step in every time a problem arises, it may seem like the executive is working hard, but in reality, the organization is not growing. The more the leader works hard, the less the team can operate independently. Thus, "being lazy" is not about the top slacking off, but about returning oneself to work that only the top can do.


 

On social media, there is no shortage of voices resonating with this idea. On a LinkedIn post where Jane Lu discussed using Notion, reactions included comments like "gathering information in one place helps escape confusion," "it creates the space necessary for growth," and "it helps organize both work and life." In another LinkedIn post, the assertion that "results do not correlate with time; leverage, systems, and luck determine outcomes" also garnered support. What is favored here is not "taking it easy" per se, but a structure that can reproduce results without exhaustion.


Furthermore, there are executive communities that positively embrace the term "Lazy CEO." For instance, on LinkedIn, a business coach shared insights from a survey of 49 CEOs, stating that "the biggest bottleneck was not the market but themselves" and that "growing companies create systems before increasing headcount." There, it was discussed that the condition for growth is for the CEO to become a "designer" rather than a "warrior," meaning creating systems that operate with consistent quality regardless of who does the work, rather than doing everything themselves.


However, the atmosphere on social media is not monolithic. There is clear opposition as well. In entrepreneurial communities on Reddit, opinions such as "a massive amount of hard work is necessary before one can work smart" and "success was not achieved by being lazy" stand out. In another LinkedIn post, a comment coldly retorted, "I've never met a successful 'lazy franchisee'." This is not merely a matter of ideology, but a caution against how the phrase "work smart" often obscures the diligent efforts and burdens at the ground level.


This backlash is understandable because the degree of freedom fundamentally differs between those who can design their work style and those bound by today's shifts or deadlines. Executives and knowledge workers can more easily compress time through systemization, delegation, AI utilization, and tool implementation. However, in fields like customer service, logistics, caregiving, manufacturing, and healthcare, where the presence of the body itself holds value, many jobs exist. Ignoring such realities and saying "just be smart" is reckless. The issue of hierarchical differences remains, as the "technology to make things easier" only applies to those who already have a certain degree of discretion and resources.


Nevertheless, if the "Lazy CEO" theory holds value, it is because it exposes the feeling within us that we need to look busy to feel secure. Quick responses, numerous meetings, being online late at night, working on weekends—such "visible efforts" are easily evaluated. However, that does not necessarily make a company stronger. Truly strong organizations allow decision-making to flow even in the absence of the top, without stifling the field, scattering information, or failing to share priorities. In such environments, those who identify bottlenecks and improve flow hold value more than those who are merely working hard.


Ultimately, a "Lazy CEO" is not someone who disrespects work. It's someone who does not worship busyness. They create an organization that operates without them becoming the hero, focusing their efforts on a few truly effective areas instead of trying to handle everything. This way of working may seem idealistic, but it is actually quite rigorous because it involves letting go of the feelings of "I can do it faster," "I want to be the hardworking self," and "I'm afraid to let go."


Perhaps "being lazy" is the most advanced form of self-control. The era when working too much could provide reassurance is coming to an end. What will be questioned from now on is not how long you worked, but how much of a system you left that allowed you to avoid unnecessary work.


 Only those who can do this will truly become "capable workers" in the coming era.


Source URL

Related Articles