Beyond the Resumé: Decoding the Biological Signals of Leadership Success and Burnout

This article explores my leadership story through the lens of neurobiology. At the time, I was a young leader in my 30s. I lacked the vocabulary to describe my own neurodiversity, but I was acutely aware of my "differentness." I was fortunate to navigate those internal challenges in a way that eventually empowered my amazing teams and fueled our collective success. I offer these insights to help you connect your own unique neurobiology to your work environment; we all possess a distinct neuro-signature, and the challenge lies in finding the balance allowing you and your teammates to get the most from our inherent gifts.

My journey of biological discovery unfolded during the 1990s and the pre-financial crisis 2000s, while I operated within the expansive framework of First Union and Wachovia—legacy institutions later acquired by Wells Fargo during the 2008 crisis.

Fifteen years ago, I could not have told this story, since humanity's neurobiological understanding was not developed enough. I appreciate the many cognitive scientists helping people better understand our neurodiversity. They are why I finally possess the language to tell this story.

About Jeff Hulett:  Jeff leads Personal Finance Reimagined, a decision-making and financial education platform. He teaches personal finance at James Madison University and provides personal finance seminars. Check out his book -- Making Choices, Making Money: Your Guide to Making Confident Financial Decisions.

Jeff is a career banker, data scientist, behavioral economist, and choice architect. Jeff has held banking and consulting leadership roles at Wells Fargo, Citibank, KPMG, and IBM.

The Intrapreneurial Vanguard

In the Wells Fargo legacy bank, we were an internal startup. We pitched and were awarded seed capital. We were distinctive because we operated independently from the main banking operations, offering unique advantages to the "mothership": 1) Research and Development, such as new technologies and advanced banking approaches, and 2) a diverse revenue stream outside the core business. This independence empowered us to pioneer an Information-Based Strategy (IBS), a behavioral economics-based scientific approach to lending years ahead of its time. We utilized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and A/B testing to interrogate market responses with clinical precision.

Our team stood among the early adopters of supervised machine learning, deploying predictive models to identify high-quality credit opportunities. This data-driven engine allowed us to test our way into massive lending markets, resulting in a business characterized by high credit quality and exceptional customer satisfaction. The IBS approach scaled the division rapidly into a powerhouse, fueling high employee satisfaction as we realized the success of our machine. My original role as a doer, one of the original architects of the highly analytical, systemic approach to banking, had been evolving. Over time, I had been picking up more responsibility for small teams. One day, I arrived at a crossroads in my journey. I was presented with the opportunity to lead this entire, rapidly growing organization. Because of my peers' encouragement, I agreed to take it on.

Before discussing my leadership approach, we will explore the science behind culture building. There are 2 important takeaways for the next section. 1) Accepting the fact: "We are ALL neurodiverse," and 2) Understanding your own neurodiversity in the context of the needs of a successful business.

The Science of the Social Spotlight

At the heart of every professional group and corporate mission statement lies Hebbian Learning. Neuroscientific research suggests cells that fire together, wire together (Shatz, 1992 and Hebb, 1949). When an employee observes a leader’s face and hears a shared goal, the employee's brain naturally seeks to wire the neurons associated with the leader to their existing neurons related to a sense of safety and purpose. A successful company culture builder is literally increasing the strength of the employees' neural pathways associated with the company. It also creates a common neural language across employees, aligning their neural tuning. This is the basis for how people learn culture. Yeah, culture is a little spooky.

However, this wiring efficiency varies across individuals, and this variation significantly impacts how people relate to culture building. Oxytocin, a neuropeptide acting as a social spotlight, mediates this process by enhancing the salience of social connection and social stimuli (Meyer-Lindenberg et al., 2011). For the brain to prioritize a tribal bond over a spreadsheet, oxytocin must bind to its OXTR gene-enabled neuron receptors found in the brain's social centers, like the Fusiform Face Area and the Amygdala.

In the company context, think of culture as a prefabricated set of social norms—a "behavioral operating system" all employees are expected to run. However, our neurodiversity means each employee’s hardware interacts with that system differently. For some, their OXTR gene variant fosters a profound sense of belonging; for others, the same cultural rituals feel like a distraction.

Before jumping into the variants, we must understand the foundational blueprint. Every neuron contains DNA, the genetic instructions guiding the neuron's behavior. Within this code are variations called Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs)—tiny, single-letter changes in the genetic sequence.

As neuroscientist Matthew Lieberman (2013) suggests, our brains are naturally "wired to connect," but the strength of that wiring is not uniform. It is our ubiquitous DNA acting as the architect, guiding the degree to which a neuron may receive oxytocin. Ultimately, this genetic code determines how each person uniquely filters and experiences company culture.

In the OXTR gene, the most prominent variation involves the nucleotides Guanine (G) and Adenine (A). Think of it as an "A and G lottery." While we are guaranteed to inherit one allele from each parent to form our genetic pair, there is no guarantee which one we receive. This random draw determines our biological predisposition toward company culture, fundamentally shaping our social cognition and emotional processing (Tost et al., 2010).

• G/G (The Homozygous Socialite): Having received a G allele from both mother and father, these individuals possess high receptor density. They remain biologically tuned to social cues, empowering them as natural culture-builders. G-allele carriers typically show increased amygdala volume and higher levels of empathy (Inoue et al., 2010).

• A/A (The Homozygous Individualist): Having received an A allele from both mother and father, these individuals possess lower receptor sensitivity. Their brains do not prioritize social data as high-value, encouraging an objective, system-oriented mindset. This means they are not nearly as sensitive to company culture. Studies link the A-allele to a reduced physiological response to social stress and a more independent cognitive style (Bakermans-Kranenburg and van Ijzendoorn, 2008).

Confessions of an A/A Leader: The Trust of Objectivity

I recognize my own profile as an A/A variant. Though I have never been formally tested for the OXTR gene, I possess a clear, strong A/A phenotype based on a lifelong lower sensitivity to social influence. During my teenage years, this presented challenges. Like other teenagers, I wanted to fit in, but I found social connections more difficult than others. I did not fit in with traditional high school social hierarchies; instead, I maintained a small group of friends and operated as a social chameleon. This adaptability allowed me to move between disparate social groups with ease, as I lacked the biological tether to any single tribe.

In my personal life, I am blessed to have found an amazing life partner. My A/A social blind spots are thoroughly compensated for by my wife’s G/G superpowers. We operate in a highly complementary fashion, ensuring our domestic executive team -- mom and dad -- possesses a full spectrum of social and analytical awareness. This personal synergy mirrored the professional success I found during the startup phase at the legacy banks.

While the social or tribal side may not have been a primary strength, my A/A profile provided a different, arguably more durable, foundation for leadership: radical fairness. Because my brain did not instinctively prioritize social data, I found it virtually impossible to comprehend favorites. In many organizations, leaders struggle to overcome In-group Bias—the biological urge to favor those within their immediate social circle (Yamasue et al., 2012). For me, the lack of an oxytocin boost meant I evaluated every team member through the same objective lens.

Employees recognized this absence of tribalism. They experienced a sense of security because I treated everyone fairly. This was not due to a conscious decision to avoid favoritism, but rather because my biological nature inherently made favoritism a blank. I did not have to try not to play favorites; I literally could not play favorites. This mindset enabled the construction of our IBS Decision Systems—mathematical frameworks ensuring structural soundness. My focus prioritized Glutamate-driven learning, the neural workhorse of logic, rather than Oxytocin-driven bonding.

Ultimately, like all businesses, my organization made challenging tradeoffs between four key stakeholders: 1) Equity owners (represented by our corporate capital providers), 2) Customers, 3) Employees, and 4) the Community where we worked and lived. My employees trusted me and my executive team to make these tradeoffs.

This absence of tribal bias found its way into our recruiting approach. We had a reputation for having very racially diverse teams. Which, in the Southeastern U.S., is still not always the norm. Our recruiting systems actively root out bias. It enabled us to see the true talent of prospective employees. Diversity was less of a moral cause than the outcome of a system intolerant of bias. Diversity makes good business sense.

The Synthetic Balance: Building the Complementary Team

I recognized I lacked the social stickiness to serve as the sole face of a large culture. We still needed a cohesive culture, even if that culture avoided the negative sides of tribalism. My solution involved surrounding myself with a neurodiverse executive team. I purposefully engaged G/G types to serve as biological translators. In effect, I synthetically created my executive team as a "balanced brain."

Role	Genotype	Primary Contribution
Architect	A/A	Orchestrating systems, managing risk, and providing unbiased fairness.
Translators	G/G	Filling gaps in the social fabric, building culture, and turning systems into an emotional mission.

This symbiosis created a Synthetic Heterozygote (A/G) team. The G/G teammates provided the oxytocin spotlight, bonding the group and maintaining our culture. All the while, I and other A/A types provided the glutamate structure for driving our IBS business model and enabling the fair-shake environment, ensuring the correct direction. As a point of emphasis, like any executive, I had a variety of roles. Plus, I did not always have a role choice, since the buck stopped with me. However, I did aim to enhance my role weight by focusing on my A/A type strengths and sought support from those with G/G type strengths. It takes a team going far beyond skills found on a resumé. The best team is like putting together a complete puzzle with difficult-to-see neurodiverse pieces. This approach aligns with the Personal Finance Reimagined (PFR) framework, which emphasizes structured decision-making as a lifelong tool for professional and personal success (Hulett, 2023).

The Biological Exit

Many successful founders struggle when they overstay their biological welcome. As my division went from "move fast and break stuff" start-up mode to a more mature banking operation, social maintenance consumed my calendar. In a mature organization, the work is predominantly preservation. For an A/A type, this shift often leads to cognitive fatigue. While a G/G leader receives a dopamine reward from a successful town hall, an A/A leader finds it draining. The 'should I stay or should I go' decision is about role energy weight. All leaders engage in certain roles which energize them and others they find exhausting. For me, it is about being net positive energy. My biological exit signal is when my net energy turns negative and has little likelihood of changing.

Part of my biological exit included the timing of the run-up to the massive financial crisis. Our bank, like others, operated under immense pressure to produce toxic mortgages. My division was also under pressure to generate these high-risk products. They were technically sellable, yet every ounce of my A/A brain knew they were detrimental to the long-term viability of the bank and the financial health of our customers.

I refused to produce these toxic mortgages. This refusal created an increasing misalignment with my G/G type oriented bosses, whose biological leanings often prioritized tribal consensus and maintaining corporate harmony over the cold, systemic risks I identified. Although hindsight is 20/20, I credit my "A/A spidy-sense" for the timing of my departure from Wachovia, just before the financial crisis intensified and led to Wachovia's collapse.

I exited because the company transitioned from a system design priority to a social preservation focus—one where the preservation included maintaining systems I found objectively and ethically unsound. My abilities were better suited for analyzing chaotic markets and building new machines through IBS and machine learning rather than navigating cultural rituals or participating in the production of toxic financial products.

The Founder-CEO Continuum: A Genetic Predisposition?

The OXTR gene and oxytocin sensitivity suggest some individuals are biologically prewired for a founder path, while others are naturally suited for the role of a large company CEO. While there is likely some truth to this genetic "sorting," the reality of high-level leadership is undoubtedly more complex.

Consider outliers like Jeff Bezos. He successfully navigated the journey from the founder of a "small" online bookstore decades ago to the CEO of the gargantuan, multi-faceted Amazon of today. He clearly made the leap from small to big company, a transition defeating many biological specialists. Perhaps Bezos is a Heterozygous A/G—receiving a high receptor capacity from one parent and a lower capacity from the other, effectively possessing a "bi-lingual" brain capable of both cold system design and massive cultural scaling. Or perhaps he simply discovered a cognitive strategy bridging the small to large company jump. It could have been due to the sheer force of will or the influence of external advisors.

It would be a fascinating scientific endeavor to compare OXTR genes across a group of CEOs and Founders. Testing this idea could provide a definitive roadmap for executive placement, helping us understand whether certain leaders are predisposed for the long haul or designed for the specific, high-intensity sprints of creation. As a "Focus Group of One," I can safely say my OXTR genetic predisposition is geared toward startups and entrepreneurship. But I also possess cognitive flexibility, enabling me to operate in both startup and large organization environments.

Conclusion: The Future of Neuro-Management

Luck often represents the alignment of a genotype with the current phase of the Business Life Cycle. The A/A variant serves as the Scout and the Architect, thriving in the isolation of the startup phase and providing the objective fairness required for scaling. The G/G variant serves as the Gardener, maintaining the forest once it grows. The most effective leaders will leverage their neurological strengths and openly recognize and balance their neurological weaknesses by collaborating with other leaders.

Understanding our neurobiology empowers us to build teams complementing genetic and behavioral gaps. Using tools like the Definitive Choice smartphone app helps leaders quantify these subjective trade-offs, ensuring they involve the rich judgment of their neurodiverse and talented teams.

Resources for the Curious

• Bakermans-Kranenburg, Marian, and van Ijzendoorn, Marinus. “Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) and Suicidality: A Meta-Analysis.” Psychiatric Genetics, 18(6), 2008, 271-277.

  • Explores the early links between OXTR variations and emotional regulation.

• Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. Wiley.

  • The foundational text describing how repetitive neural activity creates the structural 'wiring' of the brain, forming the basis for learning and habit.

• Hulett, Jeff. Making Choices, Making Money. 2023, 2025

  • Outlines the PFR framework for integrating decision science into wealth-building and career longevity.

• Inoue, Hiroki, et al. “A Common Variant of the Oxytocin Receptor Gene (OXTR) Impacts Human Social Cognition.” Genes, Brain and Behavior, 9(1), 2010, 109-118.

  • Demonstrates the link between the G-allele and increased empathy and amygdala volume.

• Lieberman, M. (2013). Social: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Connect. Crown.

  • Explores the biological necessity of social connection and how the brain processes social pain and pleasure.

• Meyer-Lindenberg, Andreas, et al. “Oxytocin and Vasopressin in the Human Brain: Social Neuropeptides for Translational Medicine.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 12(9), 2011, 524-538.

  • Details how oxytocin acts as a social spotlight to increase the salience of interpersonal cues.

• Shatz, Carla. “The Developing Brain.” Scientific American, 267(3), 1992, 60-67.

  • Explains the fundamental principles of Hebbian Learning and neural plasticity.

• Tost, Heike, et al. “A Common Allele in the Oxytocin Receptor Gene (OXTR) Impacts Limbic Circuitry.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 107(31), 2010, 13936-13941.

  • Provides empirical evidence of how A/A and G/G genotypes affect brain structure and emotional response.

• Yamasue, Hidenori, et al. “Genetic Variation in the Oxytocin Receptor (OXTR) and Human Social Cognition.” Genes, Brain and Behavior, 11(1), 2012, 2-15.

  • Provides evidence regarding how SNP variations influence social perception, bonding behaviors, and in-group biases.