The point isn't that people in power will suddenly volunteer to be "checked." It's that CBC allows leaders to "put their money where their mouth is". Leaders who claim to want ownership cultures, meritocracy, and outcomes over optics (i.e., performance without the theater) cannot continue to hide behind vague goals once commitments are documented, falsifiable, and visible.

That's the incentive: CBC makes actual objective performance evaluation possible (i.e., performance evaluation for people and projects). And if a leader resists that? That's telling. It signals something about their leadership and the actual culture they're fostering. CBC is for leaders who claim to want meritocracy and are willing to prove it.

History gives us examples. Andy Grove at Intel famously institutionalized "constructive confrontation" and rigorous OKRs, explicitly binding executives, including himself, to objective measures of performance. It wasn't a loss of power; it was the foundation of Intel's execution culture and competitive edge.

CBC is cut from the same cloth. It doesn't magically enforce itself; it makes accountability legible, so leaders either live their stated values or reveal that they don't.

> CBC is cut from the same cloth. It doesn't magically enforce itself;

True, it doesn't, then what enforces it?

> Andy Grove & Intel's execution culture

Great example, and what happened next with his culture, him personally and why?

> it makes accountability legible, so leaders either live their stated values or reveal that they don't.

It could make a lot of good things happen... if it was somehow enforced, if it was implemented properly and supplied with adequate resources. None of these issues have been resolved, the rest is a pie in the sky.

Can you recommend any good resources on Andy Grove besides “Only the Paranoid Survive”? That’s the only one I’m familiar with.