Larry Page demands commitment.The media is now full of news of Jonathan Rosenberg and other key people leaving for family or other reasons, but this is not the point.
I consider it to be interesting and relevant here that Schmidt was a archetypal manager, while Page maybe the archetypal leader (vision driven).
Vision matters; more so than operations: operations must be adjusted to vision and not the other way around.
The role of leaders representing a vision is two-fold: to start (as Page indeed did) and to stop: stop initiatives or course of action that lead away from the vision.
Now google must be realigned and this demands leadership.
Demanding commitment is the best start for Page in his new role.
Honor, loyalty and superiority are terms that everybody tries to somehow mold to the conditions of business.
The business definition of leadership now serves inferior goals, honor is smiled at condescendingly, loyalty ultimately means keep showing up and making compromises for money (profit, quarterly goals, etc.), and superiority is completely quantified.
One can’t see efforts that attempt to transform business to the reality of honor, loyalty and superiority: this would be actual leadership.
Instead: businesses are struggling to live up to even lower level terms like commitment and honesty.
Commitment and honesty have a common denominator.
It is interesting to observe how inventive people get when it comes to avoiding commitment on the lower level of the organic (as opposed to the artificial) hierarchy. The most wide-spread lies in the corporate world are actually connected to the question of commitment.