Beyond Buffett: The People Who Help Organisations Adapt and Thrive

Warren Buffett once said that when hiring people, we should look for integrity, intelligence and energy.

His triad raised an important question. It is simple and practical, but intelligence and energy become risky if they are not grounded in integrity.

The more I work with organisational culture, leadership and change, the more I think this heuristic answers only part of the question. It is may be a good hiring filter, but it is not necessarily a complete cultural compass. It helps us ask whether someone can be trusted with responsibility.

So I started to ask a different question. If Buffett’s triad helps us think about who is safe and capable enough to hire, what qualities should we look for in people who help build cultures that stay adaptive, responsible and human when reality changes fast?

Evaluating Buffett’s Triad

Buffett’s triad consists of three elements:

• Integrity - the foundation of trust. It tells us whether a person can be relied on with responsibility, influence, or access to important decisions.
• Intelligence - the ability to understand problems, recognise patterns, and solve complex issues.
• Energy - the drive to act, follow through, and take initiative.

At first glance, this looks like a simple list of desirable traits. A good person should be honest, smart and active. Its real value, however, comes from the relationship between the three qualities.

In my interpretation, integrity is the controlling element. Intelligence and energy are amplifiers. If integrity is present, intelligence and energy can create value, because the person has both the ability to understand reality and the drive to act on it responsibly. If integrity is missing, the same intelligence and energy can become dangerous, because the person still has the ability to understand the system and the drive to influence it, but without the ethical foundation that guides how that influence is used.

This is the core of Buffett’s warning. Do not hire a smart and energetic person who lacks integrity, because intelligence and energy do not make such a person safer. They make them more dangerous. They may be capable enough to understand the organisation, persuasive enough to influence others, and active enough to move quickly, but without integrity their capability and drive can damage trust, decisions and culture.

At the same time, Buffett’s triad does not suggest that integrity alone is enough. A person may be honest and well-intentioned, but if they lack the ability to understand reality and the energy to act, their contribution will be limited. They may talk about the right things, but not learn fast enough, decide well enough or move things forward. Integrity makes intelligence and energy safe, but intelligence and energy make integrity useful in practice.

This is why Buffett’s triad works so well as a hiring filter. It asks a practical question: can this person be trusted with responsibility, and do they have enough capability and drive to do something useful with it?

Where Buffett’s Triad Starts to Be Limited

Buffett’s triad works well as a hiring filter. It helps us avoid one of the most dangerous mistakes in recruitment and leadership: trusting a person who is intelligent and energetic, but not grounded in integrity.

But if we move from hiring to organisational culture, two parts of the triad need to be questioned more carefully: intelligence and energy.

The first limitation is intelligence. Intelligence matters, of course. Organisations need people who can understand problems, recognise patterns, make decisions and solve complex issues. But intelligence does not automatically mean learning agility. A person can be intelligent and still be closed, defensive, arrogant or attached to outdated assumptions. In practice, they may recognise complexity, analyse problems and explain constraints, but not necessarily keep exploring whether new circumstances require new responses.

For culture, this matters. An adaptive organisation does not only need people who know things. It needs people who keep testing whether what they know still fits reality. In a changing environment, the risk is not only that people are not intelligent enough. The risk is that intelligent people stop being curious.

The second limitation is energy. Energy also matters. Organisations need people who act, follow through and make things happen. But energy does not automatically mean useful movement. A person can be energetic and still create noise, busyness or motion without progress. They can move fast and still move the organisation in the wrong direction.

For culture, this also matters. An adaptive organisation does not only need people who move. It needs people who can act when action is difficult, uncertain or uncomfortable. The problem is not energy itself. The problem is energy that creates activity without responsibility.

This is where my alternative begins.

The Alternative: A Culturally Focused Triad

I want to move the question forward. Buffett’s triad helps us think about who should be trusted with responsibility. My question is different: what kind of person helps build a culture that keeps an organisation adaptive, responsible, and human-centric when reality changes fast?

My proposal is this:

• Integrity - ethical consistency between values, words and actions, guided by responsibility and empathy. It is not only about doing what we said we would do. It is about whether what we do is trustworthy, responsible and human in its consequences.
• Curiosity - the willingness to keep exploring, ask better questions, look for evidence and test assumptions when reality challenges our thinking. It includes humility, because without humility we may ask questions without being ready to change our mind.
• Courage - the willingness to act responsibly when action is needed, especially when it is uncomfortable, uncertain or requires challenging the status quo. It includes ownership, because courage without ownership can become commentary rather than contribution.

As you can see, I am looking for different qualities. Intelligence tells me whether someone can understand. Curiosity tells me whether they will keep testing whether their understanding still fits reality. Energy tells me whether someone can move quickly. Courage tells me whether they are willing to act responsibly when it is difficult, uncertain, or uncomfortable.

The value of this triad becomes clearer when one element is missing. Each absence creates a different cultural problem.

Integrity without curiosity and courage creates an honest but static person. Such a person may have good intentions but may not explore or act when the situation requires movement. A person may genuinely want to do the right thing and act consistently with their values, but still struggle to find solutions that fit a changing reality. Without exploration and focused action, integrity may remain a moral position rather than something that changes decisions, behaviours or outcomes.

Curiosity without integrity and courage becomes clever but hollow. Such a person may ask good questions, explore ideas and understand complexity, but without responsibility their curiosity lacks ethical direction. Without courage, it may also never become action. The result is often intellectual movement without practical contribution.

Courage without integrity and curiosity is dangerous. Such a person may be bold, active and willing to challenge the status quo, but without ethical grounding they may create harm, and without curiosity they may act on incomplete understanding. They may move fast, but in the wrong direction. This is not responsible action; it is risk disguised as courage.

Integrity and curiosity without courage create thoughtful inaction. A person may understand what is right and what needs to change, but still avoid the difficult conversation, uncomfortable decision, or first practical step. This is common in organisations: people see the problem, discuss it intelligently, agree that something should happen, and then return to the same behaviours. Without courage, values and learning do not shape culture.

Integrity and courage without curiosity create rigid action. A person may be values-driven and willing to act, but if they are not open to learning, they may impose the wrong answer with confidence. They may believe they are doing the right thing, but fail to understand context, evidence or the perspective of others. They may believe they are doing the right thing, while failing to understand the context, evidence or people affected by the decision. This can make action look principled, while in practice it becomes narrow and ineffective.

Curiosity and courage without integrity may be the most dangerous combination. A person may understand the system, see opportunities and be willing to act, but without responsibility and empathy they may use those qualities for themselves rather than for the organisation, its purpose or people. They have insight and movement, but no ethical foundation. This is why integrity must remain the foundation of the triad.

When all three elements work together, the person contributes to culture in a very practical way. They bring ethical grounding, openness to reality and ownership of action into everyday behaviour. They are more likely to say what they mean, question what no longer fits, and act before problems become crises.

This matters because culture is shaped, inter alia, by repeated behaviours. If people with integrity, curiosity, and courage are selected, developed, supported and rewarded, they make it more normal to speak honestly, test assumptions, and take responsible action. That is how a culture becomes more adaptive without becoming chaotic, and more ambitious without losing trust or humanity.

The Triads: A Comparison

The difference between the two triads becomes clearer in direct comparison.

Final Thought

Buffett’s triad raised an important question. It helped me see that the real question is not only who can be trusted with responsibility, but what kind of people help responsibility become a living part of responsive and adaptable culture. My answer is integrity, curiosity and courage: people grounded enough to be trusted, open enough to keep testing reality, and brave enough to act when responsibility requires it.