Q&A: Inside a High-Stakes Leadership Transformation

A conversation with Jimmy Leppert, Co-Founder and Managing Partner and Al Williams, Executive Advisor, Empactful Advisors

Large organizations rarely fail because of strategy alone. More often, they stall because leadership behavior, alignment, and execution discipline don’t match the ambition of the goals.

This conversation offers a rare, inside look at what happens when a senior executive decides not to “fix the organization,” but to first look in the mirror.

When Al Williams — then an executive at Chevron — set out to pursue a billion-dollar performance objective, he did not begin with a restructuring plan or a sweeping reorganization. Instead, he began with a question: How do I need to evolve as a leader to unlock the full potential of this organization?

That question sparked a partnership with Jimmy Leppert and Empactful Advisors that focused not on consultant-led change, but leader-led transformation. From day one of the partnership, the work moved beyond frameworks and workshops into something more fundamental: conditioning leadership behavior, clarifying decision rights, building cultural alignment, redefining peak performance, and activating ownership at every level of the organization.

The result was not just improved performance metrics — though those were significant. It was a shift in mindset. Leaders moved from maintenance to momentum. Skepticism turned into ownership. Micro-adjustments compounded into enterprise-wide acceleration. And when external pressures mounted — from regulatory hurdles to geo-political disruptions — the organization was prepared.

In the discussion that follows, Williams and Leppert reflect candidly on what made the partnership different, where resistance showed up, how breakthrough moments emerged, and what it truly takes to unlock bold performance in a high-pressure environment.

This is not a story about consultants delivering answers. It is a story about leaders choosing to lead differently — and the results that followed. Let’s dive in:

Q: What was the real challenge you were trying to solve when you first began working together?

Al Williams:  

Interestingly, it did not begin with a crisis. I was looking for a more effective way to drive change and equip my leaders to lead that change. We had a clear vision of where we needed to go, but I knew I needed to evolve how I showed up as a leader. After several decades in corporate America, I saw how traditional change efforts worked, especially when large consulting firms came in, repackaged employee ideas, and handed them back to leadership as if they were their own. I wanted a different approach — one that strengthened leadership capability, ownership, and accountability rather than outsourcing what leaders should be doing themselves.

Jimmy Leppert:  

What struck me in those early conversations was the mindset. Most leaders want to fix the organization. Very few start by asking, “What do I need to do differently?” That willingness to self‑reflect is rare. And it set the tone for everything that followed.

Q: What made this partnership different from traditional consulting?

Al Williams:  

Traditional consulting often focuses on achieving specific financial and operational quantifiable targets with little attention given to the leadership and organizational behaviors required to sustain performance improvements. This partnership was about strengthening leaders. We started at the top, with me and my leadership. The work was not about fixing the workforce — they were ready. It was about getting us as leaders to get out of our own way so the organization could realize its full potential.

Jimmy Leppert:  

Exactly. Our role was not to hand over a deck of answers. It was to help leaders make their own thinking visible, build alignment, and make micro adjustments that would have outsized impact. The goal was leader‑led change, not consultant‑led change.

Q: How did the leadership team respond at the beginning?

Al Williams:  

There was skepticism, as there always is when consultants show up. People assume job cuts or loss of control. But once they understood the focus was on leadership effectiveness and impact — not organizational blame — they leaned in. We spent time doing self‑reflection together. That was the turning point.

Jimmy Leppert:  

And the organization itself was ready. The frontline saw opportunities. They knew where problems were. The bottleneck was leadership behavior, not employee capability.

Q: You’ve mentioned “micro adjustments.” What does that look like in practice?

Jimmy Leppert:  

Leaders often think transformation requires massive overhauls. In reality, small shifts in how leaders communicate, align, and show up can activate an entire enterprise. When the senior team adjusts its behavior — even slightly — the organization responds at a scale most leaders underestimate.

Al Williams:  

I draw an analogy from my football background. You rarely win with 60‑yard plays. You win with consistent three to four‑yard gains. Micro adjustments are those short gains where progress is made and momentum is built..

Q: What were some breakthrough moments during the engagement?

Jimmy Leppert:  

One moment that stands out was when a senior leader who had been openly skeptical suddenly stepped forward to take ownership of a major strategic deliverable. The next morning, he presented a revised draft that earned a standing ovation. That shift — from resistance to ownership — changed the trajectory of the team.

Another breakthrough came from a rising leader who, once aligned and inspired by the new behaviors of the executive team, accelerated a capital projects plan by over 30%. What makes this a “redefining” peak performance moment is that the executive team thought that a 10% improvement would be the best possible outcome.   

Al Williams:  

For me, the breakthrough was watching my team evolve from managers to leaders. They began setting direction instead of simply maintaining compliance. And when they engaged the next level of leaders, the momentum multiplied. That’s when I knew the flywheel was beginning to make a difference..

Q: What about the frontline? How did empowerment show up there?

Al Williams:  

We focused on clarity of  decision rights and delegation of decisions — what is a “me” decision, a “we” decision, and an “us” decision. People were escalating decisions they should have been making themselves. Once we provided the decision rights clarity, people were empowered which drove accelerated decisions and execution to capture better outcomes.

A symbolic moment was changing the policy so every employee received a mobile device without supervisor approval. It wasn’t about technology. It was about removing a self-imposed barrier and instilling trust. It signaled that we believed in their judgment to use this work tool in a responsible way.

Q: What were some of the biggest challenges or low points?

Jimmy Leppert:  

One challenge was ensuring the work felt integrated into the flow of the business, not like another initiative layered on top. We had to ensure we integrated ongoing efforts and had the executive team pause a number of low priority efforts to avoid overwhelming people and instead help them see how this work aligned with existing goals.

Al Williams:  

For me, the biggest challenge was navigating all of the uncertainty and keeping my team safe at the same time as ensuring that critical functions were not interrupted. Often we were creating policies without any guidance, but doing so with the best information available to us at any given time. 

Q: You ultimately achieved the billion‑dollar performance goal. What made that possible?

Al Williams:  

Preparation, Partnership, and Trust. The time we spent on the front-end as a leadership to do some self-reflection, which led to us adjusting how we showed up was a game changer.  We were able to partner with the rest of the organization in pursuit of the goals with greater trust and commitment.

Jimmy Leppert:  

The team believed in the goal because they created it. Ownership is what made it real.

Q: What advice would you give leaders considering this kind of engagement?

Al Williams:  

Decide whether you want incremental change or bold change. If you want incremental improvement, this type of engagement is not right for you. If you are seeking to unlock your leaders and organizations’ full potential and cultivate an environment for sustained exponential performance improvement, Jimmy and his team are the type of partners leaders should have. 

Jimmy Leppert:  

The leaders who succeed are the ones who are willing to redefine peak performance — for themselves and their teams. They are open, self‑aware, and ready to lead differently.

Q: Final thoughts on why this partnership worked so well?

Al Williams:  

As Jimmy said, it does start with the leader who is willing to redefine peak performance for themselves and their teams. By me accepting and embracing my role to lead change through my leadership behaviors is what enabled our partnership to work and for the organization to realize its peak performance. 

Jimmy Leppert:  

The work was leader‑led. Our role was to support, challenge, and guide — not to take over. The leaders owned the change, and that made all the difference.