# Leading Sapiens > Master the Art, Science, and Practice of Leadership. Public Ghost content for AI and LLM tooling. This file includes a bounded export of public pages first, then recent public posts. Append `.md` to any post or page URL to get the content in Markdown (for example, `/example-post.md`). ## Pages ### About URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/about/ Last updated: 2025-09-16T23:08:41.000Z Hi, this is Sheril Mathews and welcome to Leading Sapiens! LS is a coaching, consulting, and training practice, focused on leadership development. It is primarily oriented towards practicing managers, leaders, and executives. If you are an aspiring leader, you will find value here as well. This site is where I capture and share seminal ideas and frameworks in short-form posts and long-form articles. My sole aim is to make you a more effective manager and leader, both at work and in life. --- **The primary questions that I tackle are,** - How can managers and leaders become more effective? - How do you develop the managerial mind? - What is the being of the effective executive? - What differentiates those who thrive vs those who struggle? LS came out of my own experiences, observations, and rich interactions over a 20 year corporate career that included various leadership and management positions . Often it was by title, at other times it is what the situation required. --- --- Most of the widely disseminated information out there is just plain fluff or borderline useless, disconnected from the reality of what practicing managers and leaders face on a daily basis. LS tries to cut through the fluff and uncover **actionable, proven frameworks that are further upstream**. The content is geared towards thinking, conscientious managers, who are in it for the long game and who know that short-term techniques only do so much. You know from hard-earned experience that there are no free lunches. As Peter Block puts it, **there is no cheap grace**. You understand the conditions of the game and know that trying to wish it away is a losing proposition. What you can do instead is make yourself a better player through your own development. ## Approach & Philosophy For an in-depth look into my approach and overall philosophy check out my program [The Savvy Sensemaker](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/): [The Savvy Sensemaker™ - A Leadership Coaching Program for Mid-career ProfessionalsIf you’re on this page, you’re likely considering leadership coaching. Below, I’ll address some key challenges mid-career professionals face, why conventional approaches often miss the mark, and how my leadership coaching program — the savvy sensemaker — creates the leverage you’re looking for. If any of this resonates, set up a strategy![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-86.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Savvy-Sensemaker---Leadership-Coaching-Program-1-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/) My approach is multi-disciplinary and there is no one school of thought that I exclusively adhere to. I **avoid focussing on tactics and techniques** and prefer working with overarching frameworks that underlie systems. This helps sustain gains in the long-run. In my articles and practice, the intent is not to give you the answers but **to develop your complexity and capacity**. This can get you to a different vantage point that may provide you different approaches and different answers to whatever challenges you might be facing. And in the process we access higher levels of performance for both you and your team. I don’t promise overnight results. Both human beings and organizations consisting of them, operate in **biological time not machine time**. Our systems are designed to protect ourselves even when it comes at the expense of our future growth. Change is possible but it takes time, effort, and dedicated attention. ### Increasing your Capacity for Action Organizations, especially large ones, can be mind numbingly frustrating. But more often this frustration comes from our inability or perceived inability to take constructive action that yields tangible results.My end goal is to increase your capacity for action even in the face of increasing complexity and ambiguity. ### Leveraging Paradox, not Fighting it Management and leadership are [inherently paradoxical](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). Leaders who understand and embrace paradox have a leg up. Those who don’t and expect things to be somehow different, are akin to playing football but not wanting to get tackled. It's simply the conditions of the game. Paradox also means that by definition it cannot be problem-solved away. Conditions exist simultaneously and they have to be worked with. Planes don’t problem solve away air resistance, they work with it. Trying to eliminate something that cannot be eliminated is not a winning strategy. ### Understanding the Game We are led to believe that there is a formula out there and if we can only learn to apply that, things will be just fine. And if it did not work for us, then it's our fault. Reality is much more complex. The trick is to understand the complexities and realities of our unique situations, what might be called *conditions* of the game, and to master the underlying mechanics, rather than treat them as obstacles in our way. ### Somebody Should have Told Us There are numerous seminal frameworks what I call “somebody should have told us”. They get lost either with time or in the deafening noise of sub-standard stuff that keeps coming out. And the pace is only increasing. Access to information is not the problem any more. **Knowing who and what to pay attention to**, and to actually do it over sustained periods of time is the new challenge of our times. --- --- ### Contact Me Did one of the articles resonate with you? Wondering what might be the best approach to a vexing challenge you are facing? My offerings vary between coaching, consulting, and training based on your needs. You can set up a 30 minute, no obligation strategy session where we can discuss potential options. [Schedule a call](https://calendly.com/sheril-leadingsapiens/30min?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Alternatively, you can email me directly at [sheril@leadingsapiens.com](mailto:sheril@leadingsapiens.com). For terms and privacy: In the meantime, subscribe to the*Leading Sapiens Weekly* newsletter to get curated, actionable ideas and insights. ### Newsletter URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/newsletter/ Last updated: 2025-03-26T14:26:28.000Z ## The Leading Sapiens Weekly ### Get curated, actionable ideas on careers, work, and organizations. Brain food for your leadership. I publish a weekly newsletter to help you navigate the often confusing terrain of work, careers, and organizations. It's designed to cut through the typical BS you come across online. Every week, you get one highly curated email with timeless ideas, important frameworks, and actionable takeaways. --- > Development is always self-development. Nothing could be more absurd than for the enterprise to assume responsibility for the development of a person. **The responsibility rests with individuals**, their abilities, their efforts. > > – Peter Drucker Development is an inside job — we cannot rely on our organizations or even executive programs for sustained growth and peak performance over the long-term. --- ## Take charge of your leadership development As busy leaders and managers, we often do not pay attention to or are unaware of the **rich corpus of available knowledge that already exists**. Leadership and management is complex enough. We should not have to reinvent the wheel when there are existing frameworks that can be immensely helpful. At the same time we have to be wary of **oversimplified formulaic abstractions** far removed from reality. The newsletter aims to counter these patterns by increasing awareness of **proven frameworks**, and comes complete with references and links so you can do a deep dive. > You wasted $150,000 on an education you could've got for buck fifty in late charges at the public library. > > – Will Hunting (played by Matt Damon) in Good Will Hunting My practice requires me to mine the **rich body of work available** not just in business books and management journals but also in the annals of philosophy and ancient wisdom traditions. I am obsessed with **unearthing frameworks that have gotten lost with time,** or just do not get enough airtime due to the latest trend and fad. The newsletter leverages this work and captures seminal ideas and key frameworks in bite sized form. --- ### Contact Me URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/contact/ Last updated: 2024-09-26T23:46:13.000Z Did one of the articles resonate with you? Wondering what might be the best approach to a vexing challenge you are facing? My offerings vary between coaching, consulting, and training based on your needs. You can set up a 20 minute, no obligation strategy session where we can discuss potential options. [Schedule a call](https://calendly.com/sheril-leadingsapiens/30min?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Alternatively, you can email me directly at [sheril@leadingsapiens.com](mailto:sheril@leadingsapiens.com). In the meantime, subscribe to the **Leading Sapiens Weekly newsletter** to get highly curated, actionable ideas and insights. ### How I Work URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/how-i-work/ Last updated: 2025-09-08T21:47:37.000Z My focus is on increasing your capacity vertically, rather than trying to improve your competency, capability, or horizontal capacity. These gains tend to be more impactful, resilient, and sustainable over the long term. They leave you self-correcting and self-generating, instead of being dependent on other professionals including myself. **I work in three distinct modalities of coaching, consulting and training.** Based on size and complexity of the scope it can include only one or all three modalities. Each package is custom, and tailored to your particular situation and needs. The only non-tailored, standard options are the group-coaching cohorts I run. --- ## Modality 1 - Coaching Coaching takes the form of one on one engagements with high potentials, senior managers, leaders, and execs. In addition to corporate clients, I work individually with ambitious high performers who are wanting to take a leap into leadership and management or are looking for the X factor in their careers. More details: [The Savvy Sensemaker™ - A Leadership Coaching Program for Mid-career ProfessionalsIf you’re on this page, you’re likely considering leadership coaching. Below, I’ll address some key challenges mid-career professionals face, why conventional approaches often miss the mark, and how my leadership coaching program — the savvy sensemaker — creates the leverage you’re looking for. If any of this resonates, set up a strategy![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-78.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Savvy-Sensemaker---Leadership-Coaching-Program-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/) ## Modality 2- Advising This typically starts with senior leaders in larger setups which then gets cascaded throughout the organization. Program designs vary with complexity and scope. ## Modality 3- Training This can be in the form of speaking engagements, workshops, training programs, or facilitation. I also run two group coaching cohorts during the year. One is a leadership training program for technical folks looking to transition into management. Another is for seasoned managers looking to level up their game, or reinvigorate their jaded approach. --- ## Schedule a call Did one of the articles resonate with you? Wondering what might be the best approach to a vexing challenge you are facing? My offerings vary between coaching, advising, and training based onyour needs. You can set up a 30 minute, no obligation strategy session where we can discuss potential options. [Schedule a call](https://calendly.com/sheril-leadingsapiens/30min?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Alternatively, you can email me directly — [sheril@leadingsapiens.com](mailto:sheril@leadingsapiens.com). In the meantime, subscribe to **my newsletter** to get highly curated, actionable ideas and insights. ### Privacy & Terms URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/privacy-terms/ Last updated: 2024-10-25T18:35:27.000Z ## The short version Before you take a deep dive into the legalese here’s the long and short of it: - This site is a one person operation so you don’t have an entire trope of people looking at “your data”. - The only data this site collects is your email address, only if you decide to subscribe to the newsletter. You can unsubscribe at any time. - There are no ads on this site. Neither does it have all the technology that comes with them. So be rest assured. - The site does use google analytics to help me understand user experience. Any data used is anonymized. - The site participates in the Amazon affiliates program. All articles on the site use clear references to books, articles, and journal papers that were used for citation. The intent is to help you with further research if you are interested. Links that reference books go to Amazon and these are affiliate links. All this means is that I might make a penny or two when you buy a book at no extra cost to you. Maintaining a site like this goes into the thousands per year and this helps offset some of the costs. Albeit minimally. The stuff stated below is typical of almost all websites. There is nothing specific to this site. So here we go. ## Privacy Policy/Terms This Privacy Policy describes how your personal information is collected, used, and shared when you visit or make a purchase from leadingsapiens.com (the “Site”) and related online services. **Personal Information we collect** When you visit the Site, we automatically collect certain information about your device, including information about your web browser, IP address, time zone, and some of the cookies that are installed on your device. Additionally, as you browse the Site, we collect information about the individual web pages that you view, what websites or search terms referred you to the Site, and information about how you interact with the Site. We refer to this automatically-collected information as “Device Information.” We collect Device Information using the following technologies: **“Cookies”** are data files that are placed on your device or computer and often include an anonymous unique identifier. For more information about cookies, and how to disable cookies, visit [http://www.allaboutcookies.org](http://www.allaboutcookies.org/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) **“Log files”** track actions occurring on the Site, and collect data including your IP address, browser type, Internet service provider, referring/exit pages, and date/time stamps. **“Web beacons,” “tags,” and “pixels”** are electronic files used to record information about how you browse the Site. When you make a purchase or attempt to make a purchase through the Site, we collect certain information from you, including your name, billing address, shipping address, payment information (including credit card numbers), email address, and phone number. We refer to this information as “Order Information.” Additionally, when you sign up for our email newsletters, we collect your email address. We refer to this information as “Subscriber Information.” When we talk about “Personal Information” in this Privacy Policy, we are talking about Device Information, Subscriber Information and Order Information. **How do we use your personal information?** We use your Personal Information to: - to perform statistical, demographic and marketing analyses of our users and for other internal business purposes to improve our Services; - to provide you with information, products, or services that you have requested; - to comply with regulatory and legal obligations. We use the Order Information that we collect generally to fulfill any orders placed through the Site (including processing your payment information, arranging for shipping, and providing you with invoices and/or order confirmations). Additionally, we use this Order Information to: - Communicate with you; - Screen our orders for potential risk or fraud; and - When in line with the preferences you have shared with us, provide you with information or advertising relating to our products or services. We use the Device Information that we collect to help us screen for potential risk and fraud (in particular, your IP address), and more generally to improve and optimize our Site (for example, by generating analytics about how our customers browse and interact with the Site, and to assess the success of our marketing and advertising campaigns). **Sharing your personal information** We do not sell, trade, or rent your information to others. We use Google Analytics to help us understand how our customers use the Site–you can read more about how Google uses your Personal Information here: [https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout](https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout?ref=leadingsapiens.com) You can also opt-out of Google Analytics here: [https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout](https://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout?ref=leadingsapiens.com) **Do not track** Please note that we do not alter our Site’s data collection and use practices when we see a Do Not Track signal from your browser. **Your rights** If you are a European resident, you have the right to access personal information we hold about you and to ask that your personal information be corrected, updated, or deleted. If you would like to exercise this right, please contact us through the contact information below. Additionally, if you are a European resident we note that we are processing your information in order to fulfill contracts we might have with you (for example if you make an order through the Site), or otherwise to pursue our legitimate business interests listed above. Additionally, please note that your information will be transferred outside of Europe, including to Canada and the United States. **Data retention** When you place an order through the Site, we will maintain your Order Information for our records unless and until you ask us to delete this information. **Changes** We may update this privacy policy from time to time in order to reflect, for example, changes to our practices or for other operational, legal or regulatory reasons. **Contact Us** For more information about privacy practices, if you have questions, or if you would like to make a complaint, please contact me by e-mail sheril@leadingsapiens.com or at the following address: **113 Cherry St #92768, Seattle, WA, 98104-2205** ### Articles URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tags/ Last updated: 2024-09-26T23:47:13.000Z _No content available._ ### Archive URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/archive/ Last updated: 2022-12-06T00:25:08.000Z _No content available._ ### Authors URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authors/ Last updated: 2024-10-25T18:34:05.000Z _No content available._ ### The Savvy Sensemaker™ - A Leadership Coaching Program for Mid-career Professionals URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/ Last updated: 2026-04-30T16:20:53.000Z *If you're on this page, you're likely considering leadership coaching. Below, I'll address some key challenges mid-career professionals face, why conventional approaches often miss the mark, and how *my leadership coaching program — the savvy sensemaker* — can help.* *If any of this resonates, set up a strategy call with me so we can dive into further details.* [**Schedule a free strategy call →**](https://calendly.com/sheril-leadingsapiens/coffee-chat-with-sheril?ref=leadingsapiens.com) --- ## **A common problem** *"I've an MBA from a top school, I'm crushing my KPIs, and yet I keep slamming into an invisible wall every time I try to reach the next level."* These were the words of frustration and bewilderment, from one of my clients, a manager at a Fortune 500 company. It's a challenge I've encountered numerous times in my 22+ years as both manager and leadership coach in corporate America. Most high performers run into this wall at some stage in their career. Where they end up — stuck in a role vs moving up or laterally— depends on whether they correctly diagnose the actual problem and how they address it. When ambitious professionals want to level up, they usually do one of two things: - deepen their functional expertise in strategy, finance, product etc, - or dabble in surface-level soft skills One path goes deeper into your craft. The other teaches to play nicer. On paper, these credentials — like the expensive MBA or the soft skills course — make sense. But in practice, the results often fall short. The invisible barrier stubbornly persists, holding back even the best. The truth is that, **while traditional development tools have their place, they fail to address the core issues that keep people stuck.** What are they missing? ## **Why traditional solutions fall short** A primary reason traditional development methods are ineffective is because they operate directly at the level of actions to change performance. Mostly tactical, they try to change your behavior directly. ![Why traditional approaches to career progression are ineffective](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/The-problem-with-traditional-approaches.png) While useful, this ends up being a band-aid approach. To get different results, you have to **change the focus from downstream behaviors to upstream strategy** that addresses how you think, interpret, and react. When you *see* things differently, what you *do* changes naturally. This notion is well understood and researched in systems thinking. Setbacks like a bad performance appraisal or being passed over for promotions are “events” in the systems triangle. That’s what’s visible. What we fail to examine is what ultimately led to it. The behavioral and functional fixes mentioned earlier tend to focus on the level of “patterns”. But there are deeper levels that produce those patterns and events, and that’s where we have the most leverage and control. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/2-2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/4.png) This is why leadership coaching is fundamentally different. It’s an iterative process that operates at a different level altogether. The gains are made by working directly with your particular situation instead of some random cookie-cutter formula that’s removed from your context. Most importantly, it works at increasing “capacity” which happens at the deeper levels of structures, models, and stance. ![How leadership coaching works at another level upstream](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Upstream-capacity-vs-downstream-fixes.png) By changing where to focus, your repertoire of actions and behaviors increases and creates more control and leverage. ### Foundational, not cosmetic I often use the example of a house. Tactics and skills are like furniture and decor. **Packaging and presentation while important, are not foundational.** They’re visible and improve the look and feel but don't address structural issues. In contrast, leadership coaching focuses on renovating the underlying structure, rewiring the electrical system, and strengthening the foundation. It's a deeper process that creates a stable base for sustained growth and adaptation. At the highest levels, performance isn't just about tactics. What's required is upgrading the thinking that produces performance in the first place. Not only do you have to *act* strategically, but also *see* differently. By going upstream, you learn to play with, not fight against, the forces that are ever present in both your leadership and organization. What does “going upstream” entail? ## **The three pillars of effective leadership (& successful careers)** Multiple evidence based research studies, and my own observation, show a repeating pattern. Regardless of title and role, effective leadership requires **mastery of three core fundamentals: skill, savvy, and sensemaking.** 1. Functional competence (***skill***) is mastery of craft. It's your ability to deliver and execute in your domain. Think finance, strategy, engineering, management etc. 2. Organizational ***savvy*** is your ability to navigate the messy world of work. It’s about reading power dynamics, managing perception, and influencing across both formal and informal structures. 3. Leadership ***sensemaking*** is your ability to make sense of complexity. How do you operate in messy, high-stakes situations? Can you guide teams toward aligned, confident action? Do you maintain poise under pressure? ![The 3 Pillars of Effective Leadership (and successful careers)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/3-Pillars-of-Effective-Leadership.png) Effective leaders — those who succeed in the reality of corporate setups — have a good balance of all three. Functional skill earns you a seat at the table. Savvy helps you navigate the dynamics once you're there. Sensemaking is what makes you effective in complexity. Given your performance and where you are in your career, you very likely already have the functional piece down. **Traditional approaches fail because they focus too much on building your functional and technical craft (aka skill) and not enough on either organizational savvy or leadership sensemaking.** ![Sensemaking and Savvy are much harder to develop than just Skill](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Skill--Savvy--Sensemaking.png) ## **The challenge of increasing role complexity** "*I know I'm good at what I do. But lately, it's like I'm playing a game where the rules have changed, and no one gave me the playbook.*" I've heard this consistently through the years. The "game" indeed changes as you rise through the hierarchy: - Technical competence alone is no longer sufficient. - Your thinking has to adapt and evolve to match the complexity of your role. For starters, **technical/functional competence is table stakes**. It’s necessary, but no longer sufficient. The skills that catapult you to success in early career become less relevant as you climb the ladder. Most successful folks at mid career are already good at functional competence. It’s the other two critical elements — organizational savvy or leadership sensemaking — that’s often missing. Additionally, when managing managers or entire divisions, i**t’s like going from Newtonian mechanics to Quantum physics.** The context becomes increasingly complex, and patterns harder to discern. Decisions carry more weight, even as the path forward becomes murkier. At higher levels people don't fail due to gross incompetence. They falter because the role demands a different way of thinking and operating they were never taught to develop. The role evolved, but thinking did not. They are “paid to think” but not necessarily trained and continue to operate by the rules of their IC roles. It’s like trying to run complex programs on an outdated operating system. Without recognizing this gap – between the demands of the role and how they operate – they remain stuck. **To make things worse, these gaps get misdiagnosed as behavioral issues.** *"Be more assertive." "You need more executive presence." "Think more strategically."* This kind of feedback sounds like guidance, but only end up obscuring the real problem. No amount of downstream and superficial behavioral tweaking — like charisma or polish — can resolve this gap. ## **How I Help: The *Savvy Sensemaker™* Approach** In my coaching engagements, I start with a deep dive that gets to the crux of what’s holding you back. Based on what we find, the process will have a tilt to either organizational savvy or sensemaking. In general, the earlier you are in your career the more you need to focus on building your organizational savvy. Middle managers and those in later careers often have to focus more on their leadership sensemaking. ### **Organizational Savvy: From Smart to Wise** In organizational savvy the goal is to move you into the “wise” zone: ![Leadership Coaching builds your organizational savvy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/What-Coaching-is-About---Organizational-Savvy.png) You learn to: - Skillfully navigate power dynamics instead of cynically dismissing it as "dirty politics". - Build influence across hierarchies. - Manage stakeholders both authentically and strategically. - Read the unspoken rules in your organization. ### **Leadership Sensemaking: From Doer to Sensemaker** When focusing on leadership sensemaking, the goal is to transform you from being just another high-performing “doer” into an impactful “sensemaker”. ![Coaching builds your leadership sensemaking](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Leadership-Sensemaking---The-Journey.png) Consider where are you're operating: - **Doer** → executing tasks. - **Improver** → optimizing performance. - **Framer** → shaping how others see the problem. - **Architect** → designing upstream conditions. - **Sensemaker** → interpreting, orienting, and aligning in complexity. Many managers are stuck at the doer/improver stages. That’s why they keep hitting the invisible wall. In contrast, the more you operate as an architect and sensemaker, the better your performance as a leader, and the more you stand out. You develop: - Upstream thinking that reshapes how problems are framed. - Judgment that others trust. - Presence that shows clarity under pressure. Combining sensemaking with savvy is how you break through that invisible barrier. In short, become **a *savvy sensemaker™*** . While not a silver bullet, leadership coaching is an underutilized superpower that can unlock the next level. Over 22+ years in corporate leadership and coaching, I’ve developed an entire suite of tools and frameworks to help people build their savvy and sensemaking. The **Savvy Sensemaker™ leadership coaching program brings this entire toolkit together into one structured engagement.** ## **Who this is for** ![Best time to get leadership coaching](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Leadership-Coaching---Best-Fit.png) My leadership coaching is a good fit if you: - Are a mid-career manager, director, or senior IC in a mid-size to large organization. - Have mastered your functional role but feel stuck hitting an invisible ceiling. - Tired of vague feedback like "be more strategic" without knowing what that actually means. - Suspect the real problem isn’t your performance. - Want practical, evidence-based tools instead of fluff or one person’s opinion. This is not for you if you: - Want surface-level tips and expect overnight transformation. - Are looking for a magic formula rather than do the uncomfortable work of real change. - Not willing to play the long game. ## Investment and format One-on-one leadership coaching is a structured partnership designed to help you see differently and act with more leverage. **Investment:** - $500/month (typical engagement lasts 6 months to several years) - $5,000/year (when you pay upfront for a 12-month engagement ) Note: these prices are only for my public programs. Corporate programs are priced differently based on package and engagement length. **How it works:** - **Format/Delivery:** Bi-weekly 60–90 minute coaching calls via Zoom. - **Length of engagement:** I recommend at least 6 months. Change takes time, and compound effects matter more than quick fixes. - **Entry:** We begin with a diagnostic conversation to clarify where you are and what to focus on. From there, we decide whether you need a tilt more toward **sensemaking** or **organizational savvy**. Many leaders need both, but one usually takes priority. - **Between sessions:** You’ll get observation exercises, reflection prompts, and reading assignments in between scheduled calls. ### **Start With A Strategy Call** Bring a current challenge: a stakeholder conflict, a promotion you're preparing for, or a role that's unclear. In 30-45 minutes, we'll reframe your challenge. You'll leave with more clarity, whether we work together or not. [**Schedule a free strategy call →**](https://calendly.com/sheril-leadingsapiens/coffee-chat-with-sheril?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ## What others have said ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.23.41---AM-1.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.23.53---AM.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.24.08---AM.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.24.21---AM.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.24.32---AM.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.24.42---AM.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.24.58---AM.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Screenshot-2025-08-28-at-11.25.11---AM.png) ## **Frequently Asked Questions** ## FAQS #### ****Is this therapy?** No. Therapy looks backward to heal. Coaching looks forward to build capacity. More on differences in this piece on[ leadership coaching.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/#3-how-leadership-coaching-is-different) #### ****Is this training or consulting?** Training transfers content. Consulting gives answers. Coaching works differently — it changes how you interpret, so you operate effectively in your own context. #### ****How soon will I see results?** Small changes often appear within the first few sessions. The deeper ones — judgment, clarity under pressure — take multiple cycles of reflection and practice. That’s why the work happens over months, instead of weeks. #### ****What if I already have strong functional skills?** That’s assumed as a given. I don’t coach the basics of your craft. Instead we focus on what’s needed to leverage what you already know: sensemaking and savvy. #### ****Will this make me dependent on a coach?** No. The goal is to build your own capacity to self-correct. #### ****Can my company sponsor this?** Yes. Most organizations fund coaching as part of leadership development, high-potential programs, or succession planning. Many clients expense coaching engagements as part of their professional development budget. ## **B**reak through the invisible ceiling Bring a current challenge: a stakeholder conflict, a promotion you're preparing for, or a role that's unclear. In 30-45 minutes, we'll reframe your challenge. You'll leave with more clarity, whether we work together or not. [**Schedule a free strategy call →**](https://calendly.com/sheril-leadingsapiens/coffee-chat-with-sheril?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Leadership Coaching – A Guide URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/ Last updated: 2026-02-20T19:04:58.000Z *There's a plethora of coaching options in the marketplace along with a range of methodologies and outcomes. This piece cuts through the noise to examine what leadership coaching actually is, when it works best, and how it creates lasting impact.* *Throughout I’ve linked to other articles that go deeper into specific aspects of leadership coaching.* --- ## **(1) What Is Leadership Coaching?** Because coaching draws from a range of disciplines it can be hard to pinpoint and define it well. The following description from Robert Hicks captures many of the nuances: > Coaching is: > > - **a Methodology**: Coaching utilizes a person-centered, non-directive, inquiry-based methodology to assist clients in transformative learning and to construct solutions as a path to goal attainment. Through incisive questioning, the coach guides the client in critical reflection, self-discovery, self-directed learning, and problem-solving. This methodology imitates the Socratic method as it is a form of inquiry and discussion between the coach and the client. It is based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. It is not assumed that the coach has, or needs, expert knowledge about the subject matter for which the client is being coached. > - **a relationship**: Coaching is a collaborative and egalitarian relationship between the coach and the coachee. Unlike an authoritative relationship, for example, teacher-student, the coach and the client are considered equal but have different roles. The client brings the agenda and has domain-specific expertise, while the coach brings know-how in the coaching process and relates to the client in the spirit of partnership. It is a powerful alliance – a professional collaboration – in which the client holds the ultimate responsibility for and ownership of the desired outcomes. > - **a purpose**: Coaching deals with a wide range of conventional, non-clinical issues. Its purpose is not to promote emotional healing or relief from psycho- logical pain, such as that accompanying clinically significant mental health problems. Instead, its purpose is transformative learning to enhance the client’s life experience as well as personal and professional goal attainment. The coach is trained in and devoted to guiding others to optimize their potential, performance, and happiness. > - **a philosophy**: Coaching is a philosophy of empowerment. It is a philosophy built on the premise that clients bring a foundation of life experiences and knowledge they can draw upon to solve their problems, make decisions, and reach their goals and objectives. With help from their coach, clients use their resourcefulness, skills, and confidence to find solutions to problems and pathways to goals. It is believed that answers come from within the client. Therefore, clients are encouraged and expected to take charge of their lives and be responsible for their choices. > - **a process**: Coaching is a process of supporting and challenging clients so that they are encouraged to learn, discover, understand, and solve problems independently of the coach. The process is heuristic and favors experiential learning whereby the client engages in critical reflection, evaluates possible answers or solutions, and then experiments to gauge the efficacy of those solutions. Some experiments might be purely exploratory, with actions taken only to see what follows. Others might be performed to initiate change, and others to test hypotheses. It is a process in which a coach and client work together utilizing the mediums of inquiry, deliberation, and dialogue. He adds: > In the parable about the blind men and the elephant, each part of the elephant does not, by itself, provide a complete picture of the elephant; it is the same with each facet of coaching. Separately, they do not define coaching entirely or distinguish it from other helping conversations, but collectively, they answer the question, “What is coaching?” > > — Robert Hicks in [The Process of Highly Effective Coaching](https://amzn.to/3VwIZj1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Leadership coaching in particular is often mistaken for advice-giving, mentoring, or training. In reality, it’s none of those. At its core, it's a deliberate, structured process designed to expand your capacity as a leader. Instead of handing you answers, it sharpens the way you see problems, frame choices, and mobilize others. Where training builds *skills* and mentoring shares *experience*, coaching works at the level of **judgment, perspective, and meaning-making**. You’re building a stronger operating system rather than adding more apps. You already know how to “do” your job. The missing piece is the ability to interpret complexity, make better calls under pressure, and translate your impact across different arenas and constituencies. Leadership coaching isn’t about fixing deficiencies either. It equips you for the demands of modern leadership which requires you to go beyond [technical expertise](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) and functional competence. Today’s leaders operate inside shifting contexts, [paradoxes that can’t be solved](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/), and[ contradictions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/) that don’t resolve neatly. Coaching is the space where you learn to skillfully navigate these forces instead of being blindsided by them. Related: [Conceptual vs experiential learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/conceptual-vs-experiential-learning/) [Expert Power — How Knowledge Becomes InfluenceExpert power, one of six key types of power, allows leaders to shape decisions and influence outcomes through specialized knowledge. This makes expert power as influential as formal authority. It’s a subtle but potent way to increase your power, regardless of your position on the org chart. In this article,![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-76.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Expert-Power.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) ### **The Spectrum of Leadership Coaching** When people say “coaching,” they often mean very different things. The spectrum runs from surface-level skill tuning to deeper developmental shifts. What changes isn’t just the method, but the unit of development itself. At the most basic level, coaching is about **skills** and is behavioral. You learn a new technique — how to run effective meetings, [how to frame feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/), or how to prioritize efficiently. The impact is immediate but narrow. It helps correct a visible weakness or sharpen a specific competency. It’s bounded, concrete, and measurable. **Performance coaching** moves up a level. Now the work is less about discrete skills and more about sustaining execution under pressure. Here coaching is not about “what to do” but helping you do what you already know more consistently. The aim is fewer dips, less reactivity, and more reliable performance. Here the unit of development is execution. At the highest level, coaching becomes **developmental**. The unit of progress here is your **sensemaking capacity**: [how you frame problems](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/), interpret signals, and exercise judgment in unfamiliar territory. The focus is not on fixing a problem but on building who you are as a leader. Developmental coaching stretches your interpretive range. Unlike skill tweaks or performance upgrades, it works on the foundation, is further upstream, and changes how you think, not just what you do. Most leaders initially come in seeking skills or performance. What sustains growth however, is developmental work. It’s the difference between tightening the bolts on the same machine versus redesigning the operating system that drives it. The three levels form a continuum: **Skills → Performance → Developmental**. The orientation moves from *what you do* → *how you do it* → *how you make sense of it all.* A coaching engagement may touch all three, but the weight shifts depending on the leader’s context. #### Related - [The Johari Window and Feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) - [Self Efficacy and Confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) - [Self Disclosure and Effective Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-75.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) ## **(2) Why Leadership Coaching Matters Today** In the last 50 years, the context for leadership has shifted. The old playbook — technical expertise, clear hierarchies, predictable problems — no longer fits the reality most leaders face. Modern organizations today are flatter, more interdependent, and constantly in flux. The result is that **leaders aren’t just solving problems; they’re navigating messes.** Leadership coaching helps leaders break out of the [tyranny of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/): the endless drive to consume more tactics and strategies—without realizing the real challenge is [**context**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). The bottleneck isn’t knowledge but making sense of the situation in front of you, aka leadership sensemaking. Coaching isn’t a nice-to-have support system. It’s one of the few spaces where you can slow down, reframe, and work on the muscles that leadership actually demands. This includes judgment, [framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/), [communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/), [courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/), and [power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/), amongst several others. Without this, you risk mistaking busyness for progress. Or doubling down on what made you successful in the past, even while the game itself has changed. Most leadership advice still treats the role as one-dimensional. But once you’ve moved past early management, it’s no longer enough to simply know your craft or deliver results within your lane. Leadership stretches across **three interlocking dimensions, each with its own demands.** Think of it as operating on three levels simultaneously of skill, savvy, and sensemaking: 1. **Functional expertise** — delivering results through your technical skills. 2. **Organizational savvy** — navigating politics, perception, and influence. 3. **Leadership sensemaking** — making sense of unclear situations and guiding others when the path forward isn't obvious. These layers rarely develop at the same pace. Most leaders excel in functional competence while lagging in the other two. The result is unfortunately predictable: [leadership derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/), or [frustration](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/) when old approaches stop working. Instead of treating leadership as a checklist of skills, coaching recognizes it as an evolving capacity to balance and integrate these competing demands. #### Related - [Two Contexts of Modern Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/three-pillars-and-two-contexts-of-modern-leadership/) - [Surviving institutional stupidity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/) - [Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-77.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) ## (3) How Leadership Coaching is Different One of the reasons leadership coaching gets misunderstood is that it resembles other forms of professional support. On the surface, it may look like consulting, mentoring, training, or even therapy. But the purpose, stance, and methods are very different. **Consulting** gives you answers. You pay for expertise to be delivered, often in the form of recommendations or frameworks. A consultant is accountable for the *content*. A coach, by contrast, is accountable for the *process* that helps you generate your own insights and action. **Mentoring** is wisdom passed down. A mentor shares their own career playbook and lessons learned. Valuable, yes—but limited by the mentor’s path, a sample size of one. Instead of handing you a script, leadership coaching sharpens your judgment so you can write your own. **Training** builds skills. Think of it as horizontal development: adding more tools to your kit. Coaching is vertical development: upgrading the lens through which you choose which tools matter, and how to use them. **Therapy** helps you process the past and heal. Coaching looks forward. It’s less about resolving trauma and more about expanding capacity to navigate complexity, uncertainty, and pressure. A useful way to see this is as a continuum from content-driven (consulting, training) to context-driven (coaching). The closer you get to coaching, the more the emphasis shifts from answers to awareness, from transferring knowledge to transforming how you make sense of challenges. ![Leadership coaching compared to other options.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Leadership-Coaching-compared-to-others.png) ### **Coaching Builds Leadership Capacity, Not Just Competence** When people talk about leadership development, they often mean competence — building specific skills like delegation, [communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/), or decision-making. *Competence* is important, but also limited because it lives at the technical level: learn a tool, apply it, repeat. *Capability* goes a step further. It’s being able to execute well under real conditions. A capable leader can manage complexity, juggle competing demands, and still deliver results. Most organizations stop here. Coaching goes much farther. It’s about *capacity* — the ability to grow the container itself. Instead of just pouring in more tools or sharpening existing abilities, capacity asks: how much weight can you hold? How wide is the lens through which you see the problem? How many perspectives can you keep in play before defaulting to old habits? This matters because leadership is not defined by static skills, but by the ability to expand into ever-wider demands. Coaching helps you develop the inner structure — judgment, sensemaking, systemic awareness — that makes you capable of handling situations you’ve never seen before. Skills might solve today’s challenges but its capacity that equips you for tomorrow’s unknowns. Related: [Ladder of Inference in Decision Making](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) ### **Training Leaders vs. Building Leadership Capacity** Most organizations still default to training when they talk about leadership development. Training is about the *transfer* of information: teaching models or prescribed behaviors hoping you'll apply them as situations arise. It works well for technical skills, where the path from knowledge to execution is clear. Coaching works differently. Instead of focusing on *what* to do, it develops your capacity to navigate complexity. Where training equips you to apply solutions, coaching prepares you to frame problems in the first place. This difference is crucial. Modern leadership demands more than functional competence. You need to work across [systems](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/) and mobilize others when the way forward isn’t obvious. Training rarely addresses these adaptive challenges. Coaching helps leaders grow the capacity to meet them. #### Related - [Leadership Capacities based on Systems Thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/) - [Blindspots of leadership training programs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/kellerman-on-the-problem-with-the-leadership-industry/) ### **Coaching helps build practical judgment** Too often, coaching is reduced to a repair function that leaders seek when there’s a visible problem to solve. But the real value is not in patching holes; it’s in sharpening judgment. Leadership isn’t a sequence of problems with correct answers. It’s a steady stream of ambiguous situations where context shifts faster than the playbook. Good coaching develops your ability to size up these situations, notice what matters, and act responsively. That’s practical judgment: the ability to choose well under uncertainty. A coach helps you slow down, examine assumptions, and weigh alternatives you might otherwise miss. This is why coaching belongs less to the world of technical “fixes” and more to the realm of cultivating discernment and judgment. Instead of operating on recycled advice, you draw from a deeper well of perspective you built. ### **Leadership is learnable, not teachable** Leadership isn’t something that can be handed over in a neat package. You can sit through programs, read case studies, and memorize frameworks. They’ll give you concepts and language but what they can’t give you is judgment. Skills can be taught; but not sensemaking. Judgment is built the hard way through experience that’s been worked over, not just lived through. You learn it by doing, reflecting, reframing, and trying again. That cycle is what turns raw events into leadership capacity. Only practice shows you what fits *here, now*, with *these people*. Coaching accelerates that process by helping you see patterns, recover quicker, and translate experience into more calibrated responses. #### Related - [Why leadership can't be taught](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/) - [Why professionals struggle with learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/) - [Paradox of real learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) ### **Return on Experience** Years in a role don’t automatically translate into growth. Most folks repeat the same year twenty times. Only a select few compress twenty years of growth into a decade. The difference lies in how experience is metabolized. **Experience as raw material.** What matters isn’t the volume of situations you’ve faced but the way you process them. Left unexamined, experience calcifies into habit. Examined with discipline however, it becomes judgment. Coaching accelerates this conversion by turning raw encounters into refined capacity. **Beyond repetition.** High performers often assume sheer exposure will keep them growing. But exposure without reflection produces diminishing returns. Coaching inserts the missing loop using structured reflection, reframing, and testing new mental models. That’s how leaders avoid plateauing despite years of “experience.” ROI here doesn’t mean squeezing more productivity out of the same hours. It means converting the inevitable costs of leadership—failures, frictions, missteps—into dividends of wisdom. Coaching ensures your toughest stretches compound rather than deplete. ![ROI of Leadership Coaching](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/02/ROI-of-Leadership-Coaching.png) ## (4) When Leadership Coaching Has the Most Impact ### **Role Transitions and Scope Expansion** Leaders usually don't seek coaching when things are smooth. They seek it when the ground shifts—when the game changes and the rules they've relied on no longer apply. **Role transitions.** Moving from [individual contributor to manager](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/), or from manager into more senior roles, is less about climbing a ladder and more about switching games entirely. The unit of work changes. You move from delivering tasks to influencing outcomes, from providing answers to framing questions. What made you reliable in the last role makes you rigid in the next. The challenge is not effort, but perspective. **New mandates.** A turnaround, a reorg, or a high-visibility project comes with both the written and unwritten challenges. The explicit expectations are difficult enough. The implicit ones — speed, politics, optics — are where leaders stumble. What's really at stake is your ability to read the situation correctly. Misinterpret or mis-frame the mandate, and even good execution looks like failure. **Scope expansion.** The further you rise, the more your effectiveness depends on others. Paradoxically, you also directly control much less. The boundaries widen, interdependencies multiply, and leverage shifts from effort to influence. Those who continue to rely on technical horsepower eventually find themselves overextended. What's required is organizational savvy — understanding how [different types of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/) and perception shape outcomes — and sensemaking: the ability to frame choices in ambiguity. **What really changes.** The language of the work moves from tasks and timelines to narratives and trade-offs. The unit of impact shifts from your individual contribution to how the system as a whole moves. And the judgment calls stop being clear-cut and start being paradoxical—you are now holding contradictions rather than resolving them. **Diagnostic signals.** You hear feedback like "be more strategic" or "you need more executive presence" without specifics. Your core strengths — expertise, urgency, detail — have become a liability. You're doing more but with reduced to no real impact. At these thresholds, the issue is rarely competence. It's a lot about framing and sensemaking. Coaching slows the rush to solutions and works first on the underlying lens: What game are you in now? What counts as winning? Only then does the work move to practices—reflection cadences, decision hygiene, and influence strategies—that allow you to operate at the new altitude. #### Related - [Managerial Roles - Mintzberg](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/) - [Impression management](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/) - [Please exceed your authority ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/exceed-your-authority/) ### **The High-Performer Paradox** High-potential leaders are often promoted because of exceptional performance. But what earned the label "Hi-Po" can become the very thing that limits them once the scope widens. **Over-reliance on competence.** Many Hi-Pos rise by outworking and out-solving. They know the details, anticipate problems, and deliver reliably. But leadership is less about having the right answers and more about cultivating the right questions. When technical competence is overused, it creates bottlenecks: everything flows through you. **The hidden trap.** High performers are accustomed to linear effort: input equals output. Leadership breaks that equation. More effort doesn't guarantee more impact. Sometimes it even backfires—micromanagement, over-control, or taking on too much dilutes both your effectiveness and your team's. **Adaptive demands.** What distinguishes leadership is not speed or efficiency but adaptability. The real challenges are ambiguous, political, and paradoxical. Hi-Pos hit ceilings not because of lack of ability, but because they keep applying technical solutions to adaptive problems. **Identity strain.** For many Hi-Pos, leadership advancement feels like a loss. You move further from the craft that defined your identity. The source of past success—the ability to "do"—is now precisely what you must give up. This identity gap creates resistance, even self-sabotage. Coaching interrupts the automatic loop of "do more, try harder." It builds the reflective space to reframe effort, identity, and value by shifting the focus from proving competence to building capacity. #### Related - [Creative vs Controlling Leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/) - [Leadership as a decision](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/) - [Drivers of human performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) - [Developing your leadership identity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/) ### **Adaptive vs. Technical Challenges** Not all problems in leadership are created equal. Some are technical: the problem is clear, the solution is known, and the task is execution. Others are adaptive: the problem is murky, the solution is undefined, and progress requires shifts in beliefs, habits, and priorities. This distinction is one of the most important and most overlooked lenses for leaders. Technical fixes are seductive because they feel concrete. You can hire an expert, buy software, or tweak a process. [Adaptive challenges](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/), by contrast, ask you to change how you see, how you decide, and often how you lead yourself. Leaders derail when they treat adaptive challenges as technical ones. They double down on expertise, demand playbooks, and search for best practices—when what's really needed is new capacity to hold tension, tolerate ambiguity, and orchestrate learning. Coaching is uniquely suited here. Unlike training, which delivers more tools, coaching develops your ability to diagnose what kind of problem you're really facing. It helps you avoid the trap of working harder on the wrong category of challenge. If you find yourself repeating the cycle of "we fixed it, but nothing really changed," you're likely bumping up against adaptive terrain. The leverage isn't in smarter answers but in better framing of the problem itself. ### **Derailment Prevention and Performance Spirals** Every leader eventually runs into ceilings. Not ceilings of intelligence or effort, but of perspective. What worked before stops working—not because you've lost ability, but because the game has changed. **From strengths to overdrive.** The very traits that fuel early success—decisiveness, persistence, mastery of detail—can, at scale, tip into rigidity, impatience, or micromanagement. When strengths are unexamined, they morph into derailers. **Blind spots widen with scope.** As responsibility grows, so does exposure to complexity and ambiguity. But leaders often double down on familiar habits rather than expand their range. This creates a widening gap between what the role demands and how they show up. **The slow unravel.** Derailment rarely happens in a dramatic fall. More often it's a gradual erosion: relationships fray, [trust](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) thins out, and teams disengage. The leader may still appear "successful" on paper while the organization quietly adapts around their limitations. **Performance spirals are real.** Once you start slipping, the system reinforces the slide. Stress leads to rushed judgment. Rushed judgment creates errors. Errors trigger more scrutiny, which fuels more stress. Before long, a capable leader looks like they're "not ready for the role." **The hidden trap.** What makes these spirals dangerous is that they masquerade as temporary dips. Leaders tell themselves: *I just need to push through this quarter.* Except pushing through often accelerates the downward loop—fatigue, tunnel vision, and reactive decisions stack up until the narrative about you changes. Coaching surfaces these patterns early, before they calcify into derailers. It creates the space to notice overextensions, question assumptions, and experiment with new frames. Coaching doesn't prevent ceilings—it helps you recognize when you've hit one, and equips you to break through without burning out. #### Related - [Leadership derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/) - [Leadership shadows](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/) - [Maintaining naiveté in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) ### **Cognitive Overload and Competing Demands** Modern leadership isn't about managing time. Rather, it's managing attention under assault. Information flows faster than you can process. Everyone wants a piece of you. And each comes with a different level of urgency and "what matters." **The bandwidth trap.** Many leaders treat capacity like a brute-force problem: work longer, push harder, sleep less. That's simply not sustainable. Overload doesn't just drain energy; it narrows vision. Under pressure, you default to the familiar, even when the situation demands the opposite. **The illusion of juggling.** The higher you go, the more contradictory the pulls. Short-term delivery vs. long-term positioning. Driving execution vs. cultivating culture. Saying yes to one means saying no—sometimes invisibly—to another. What looks like "balancing" is often just constant trade-offs, made without reflection. Coaching forces the pause. It's not about adding more tools to an already overflowing plate. It's about sharpening discernment—knowing which demands deserve attention, which can be reframed, and which should be dropped entirely. Leaders rarely fail because they didn't try hard enough. More often, they fail because they misallocated their focus. #### Related - [Cognitive Distortions in Leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) - [Cognitive flexibility: Rewiring How Leaders Respond](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/) - [Negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) ## **(5) How Leadership Coaching Works** The mechanics of leadership coaching are deceptively simple. On the surface, it is a series of structured conversations. But underneath, it's a cyclical process designed to shift how you see, think, and act. It begins with **scoping**. Together, we identify the thresholds you're standing on — maybe it's a role transition, a widening span of control, or a recurring blind spot. Instead of "fixing problems", it's mapping out and identifying where your current ways of operating aren't working. From there, coaching moves into **cycles** of [practice and reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). Each conversation is a process of surfacing assumptions, testing interpretations, and experimenting with new approaches in the real world between sessions. The real work happens in the messy middle of your daily leadership, and the coaching cycle creates a rhythm for extracting lessons from it. The third step is **integration**. Insights only matter if they change how you operate. Coaching helps translate reflection into real-world behavior, decisions, and conversations. This is where knowledge changes into embodied capacity. Over time, these loops build momentum. Scoping sharpens focus, cycles generate learning, and integration cements capacity. What looks like a series of conversations is in fact **learning architecture**: a structured yet adaptive process for building the kind of judgment and presence that can't be picked up in a classroom. ### **Container and Catalyst** The **container** matters because leadership roles rarely offer a protected place to think out loud, test half-formed ideas, or surface doubts without consequence. Inside a coaching engagement, you get that boundary: structured enough to focus, but loose enough to explore. It absorbs the noise of daily demands so you can hear yourself more clearly. But the container on its own is insufficient. Coaching is also a **catalyst**; it doesn't just help your thinking, it accelerates it. The simple act of having someone track your patterns, reflect them back, and press into the unasked question compounds learning in ways solo reflection can't. It sharpens judgment, speeds frame shifts, and forces attention to what normally stays at the margins. The interplay is what makes it powerful. Too much container without catalyst becomes therapy, safe but static. Too much catalyst without container becomes advice, fast but shallow. #### Related - [A subtractive approach to mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) - [Building a box of limitations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-building-the-box-of-limitations/) - [Locus of control in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) ### **Reflection as Method** At its core, coaching is a structured process of reflection that's both disciplined and deliberately tied to action. Kolb's learning cycle of going from experience → reflection → conceptualization → experimentation is illustrative here. Leaders often live in the first and last stages, piling up experiences and then rushing into the next action. Coaching forces attention to the neglected middle, where raw experience is digested into usable insight. **Without this, you don't grow, just repeat.** And then there's deliberate practice, borrowed from sports and performance domains. Reflection turns everyday leadership moments into practice fields. The difference is in the feedback loop. Instead of vague lessons, you're breaking down moves, testing alternatives, and embedding improvements consciously. Done right, reflection in coaching is how leaders metabolize the chaos of their roles into learning. #### Related - [Design Principles for Practicing Leadership Reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) - [Applying deliberate practice to leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/) ### **Double-Loop Learning and Premise Transformation** Most leaders operate in what Chris Argyris called **single-loop learning**: you try something, it doesn't work, so you adjust your tactics. Coaching works in the deeper lane of [**double-loop learning**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/). Here, the questions shift from *"Did I do it right?"* to *"Am I even solving the right problem?"* and *"What assumptions underlie how I'm seeing the problem?"* This is where [**premise transformation**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/) comes in. Every leader carries hidden premises about authority, risk, time, or even what "good leadership" looks like. Most of these aren't chosen but instead inherited, absorbed, or silently assumed. Coaching surfaces them, stress-tests them, and if needed dismantles them. Imagine leaders who believe "decisiveness means never changing your mind." In a single-loop frame, they just try to make quicker decisions. In double-loop coaching, the premise itself is challenged: what if revisiting a decision is not weakness but higher-order adaptability? This opens an entirely different repertoire of responses. Once leaders start revisiting their premises, they often realize that some of the hardest problems they face aren't technical missteps but frames that no longer fit. ### **Building Frame Capacity and Judgment** At its core, leadership coaching is about expanding the way you *see*. Most leaders fail not because they lack intelligence or technical competence, but when their framing of situations is too narrow. They over-rely on one habitual lens, misread context, or mistake technical puzzles for adaptive problems. Coaching helps to stretch this interpretive range. Think of this as building **frame capacity**. Can you shift between strategic, [political](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/), relational, and systemic perspectives? Can you recognize when the problem is one of execution versus one of meaning? Those who can hold multiple frames in tension, and know when to privilege one over another, consistently make better calls under pressure. From that expanded framing grows something harder to pin down but more valuable: **judgment**. Unlike competence, judgment can't be taught through a workshop or checklist. It's cultivated in the messy back-and-forth of experience, reflection, and feedback. Coaching accelerates that process. In conversation, your assumptions get tested and blind spots become visible. You start making sense of complexity instead trying to eliminate it. Coaching is one of the few spaces where you can rehearse judgment without the steep costs of failure. #### Related - [Circle of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) - [The Mundanity of Excellence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) ## **(6) Different Approaches in Leadership Coaching** Not all coaching looks or feels the same. Three broad traditions tend to show up in leadership coaching: - **Psychological.** This is where coaching borrows from counseling and psychology. It focuses on self-awareness, emotional regulation, and the hidden assumptions that drive behavior. For example, unpacking [self-doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/), identity, or the [implicit leadership theories](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) that shape how others see you. - **Behavioral.** Rooted in performance and habit science, this approach emphasizes observable action. It's about practice, feedback, and iteration. Think deliberate practice, [goal-setting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/), and shifting daily routines so that leadership behaviors become repeatable. - **Systemic.** Here the focus is less on the individual in isolation and more on the leader in context. How do power, structure, culture, and relationships shape what's possible? A systemic approach works on frames, organizational dynamics, and the leader's influence within the larger system. In practice, good coaching blends these. A purely psychological focus risks becoming therapy-lite. A purely behavioral focus risks being too narrow, addressing symptoms but not causes. And a purely systemic view can neglect the inner shifts required to act differently. The leverage comes from working with all three perspectives. ### **My Coaching Focus** Every coach emphasizes different leverage points depending on their training, philosophy, and experience. Some lean heavily on assessments. Others focus on goal-setting mechanics. My approach is not about fixing performance gaps in functional skills. If you've made it this far in your career, you already know your craft. Where leaders stall is not in *doing* the work but in *making sense* of the work. This means framing problems, navigating power, influencing without authority, and holding paradoxes. That's why my coaching centers on two pillars: - **Organizational Savvy** – how you position yourself, work with power, and navigate inside complex structures. This is the political and relational terrain where careers are made or quietly capped. - **Leadership Sensemaking** – how you interpret complexity, reframe problems, and develop judgment under uncertainty. It's the meta-skill that gives leverage across situations and scales with you as your scope grows. These are not "nice to have" extras. They are the multipliers that determine whether your functional expertise translates into real authority and impact. I don't focus on teaching functional competence — you already have that. Instead, my work targets the higher-order skills that let you extend your reach, sharpen your judgment, and adapt under pressure. These are **meta-skills** that act as durable capabilities you can take into every role, transition, and arena. #### Related - [When performance and perception collide](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/) ## **(7) Outcomes and Impact of Leadership Coaching** When you enter coaching, you should expect clarity, not magic. Coaching is neither a quick fix nor an endless excavation of your psyche. The outcomes follow a layered pattern: **Early on, expect clarity.** Most leaders experience coaching first as a release valve. The noise quiets, priorities sharpen, and blind spots start to reveal themselves. It’s less about learning something new than about noticing what you’ve been missing. **In the medium term, expect re-framing.** Coaching shifts the way you narrate your role — from executing tasks to shaping context, from proving competence to exercising judgment. You begin to see where your performance plateaus were actually limits of perspective. **In the long run, expect self-sufficiency.** The real outcome isn’t dependency on a coach but the ability to coach yourself and self-correct: recognizing your own distortions, catching unhelpful patterns, and generating better frames for complex problems. Coaching done well makes itself redundant over time. The process is conversational but not casual. Expect a mix of [inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) and challenge. Some sessions will feel catalytic, others more like incremental tuning. Both matter. The small recalibrations accumulate into [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) that build momentum. What you should not expect: - A ready-made toolkit of answers. - Transformation overnight. - Someone else carrying the burden of your decisions. Good coaching helps you wrestle with the right problems, not escape them. It sharpens the edge of your own judgment, rather than dulling it with borrowed wisdom. ### **Organizational Outcomes** Coaching is often framed as a private, one-to-one intervention. But its real test is in how individual shifts in leaders reverberate through the organization. A coached leader doesn’t just think differently; they set different conditions for others. And those conditions, over time, shape culture and strategy execution. At the organizational level, leadership coaching operates on three planes: 1. **Alignment with strategy.** Coaching helps leaders link their personal development directly to the strategy their organization is trying to execute. This prevents the common disconnect where leaders grow in ways that are interesting but not necessarily useful to the business. For instance, a leader navigating a digital transformation needs more than generic “[confidence building](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/).” They need to practice reframing complex tradeoffs, interpreting cross-functional dynamics, and aligning teams around ambiguous goals. Coaching builds that connective tissue. 2. **Cultural Ripple Effects.** Leaders set the tone. When they model reflection, curiosity, and adaptive learning, others follow. A coached leader creates a subtle but powerful ripple: meetings run differently, conflict is handled with more nuance, conversations open up. These may seem small, but over time they accumulate into a culture that is either brittle and defensive, or open and resilient. Coaching accelerates the latter. 3. **Systemic Resilience.** Coaching is not just about better decisions today; it’s about building organizational capacity to handle tomorrow’s complexity. Leaders who expand their ability to see problems through multiple lenses make it easier for their organizations to avoid tunnel vision and over-reliance on single solutions. This translates into more robust execution and greater adaptability when conditions shift. ### **Evidence and Research on Coaching Impact** Leadership coaching has grown into a multi-billion-dollar industry. But what does the research actually say? The strongest body of evidence points to **behavioral transfer and performance outcomes**. Meta-analyses and longitudinal studies consistently show that coaching improves goal attainment, enhances leadership ability, and strengthens emotional intelligence. Unlike many forms of leadership training — where knowledge fades once the workshop ends — coaching’s one-to-one structure creates accountability for real-world application. Leaders don’t just learn frameworks; they test them in live contexts, then return to reflect and recalibrate. Another theme is **retention of high potentials**. Organizations that invest in coaching signal to their most capable leaders that they matter, which reduces attrition. Coaching also addresses the “Hi-Po paradox”: high performers are often at greatest risk of derailment when promoted. Research shows that timely coaching support reduces failure rates in critical transitions. There’s also growing evidence that coaching supports **systemic outcomes**: improved team performance and a healthier work environment. This happens through the ripple effects of coached leaders modeling better conversations and steadier judgment under pressure. But coaching is not a cure-all for broken systems, poor strategy, or toxic cultures. Its effects are strongest when combined with organizational support and aligned with strategic priorities. ### **ROI of Coaching** When organizations ask about coaching, the default question is: *What’s the ROI?* Did it save money, improve retention, boost revenue? Those are fair questions. But they’re also incomplete. Leadership coaching operates in a domain where the most valuable returns aren’t purely financial. Think in terms of **ROI vs ROE — Return on Investment vs Return on Experience.** **ROI (Return on Investment)** is the traditional, quantifiable lens. Metrics include promotion rates, improved performance scores, reduced turnover, or shortened time-to-productivity after role transitions. Studies and case reports show coaching pays back multiple times over in these terms, especially when compared with one-off training. **ROE (Return on Experience):** This is where coaching shines but often gets overlooked. The value lies in the leader’s ability to metabolize difficult experiences into lasting growth. ROE shows up as: - Navigating critical transitions without derailment. - Building capacity for paradox and ambiguity. - Judgment and frame-shifting skills that compound over a career. - Moving from repeated vicious cycles (overload, firefighting, burnout) to sustained virtuous ones. What distinguishes ROE is that it **accumulates**. Each cycle of coaching creates durable experience leaders can draw on again and again. Unlike ROI, which is tied to a fiscal quarter or performance cycle, ROE continues to pay back long after the coaching engagement ends. This is also where **leadership development connects to strategy**. Well-coached leaders have an impact far beyond their immediate role. The experience returns ripple into team resilience, cultural norms, and organizational adaptability. ## **(8) What Leadership Coaching Cannot Do** Leadership coaching is powerful, but it’s not magic. One mistake is to approach coaching as a cure-all. When you’re in the thick of complex challenges, it’s easy to project every frustration onto the process, expecting coaching to fix the system, the team, or the organization itself. That’s not what coaching does. Coaching cannot change broken structures or bad incentives. If the organizational architecture is flawed no amount of individual growth will override that. Coaching equips you to navigate those realities with clarity and creativity, but doesn’t dissolve them. It's also not a substitute for training. If what you need is a technical skill — finance modeling, regulatory expertise, data analysis — you get help from a course, mentor, or direct practice. Coaching complements those by helping you integrate knowledge into judgment, but it won’t give you domain specific knowledge. Nor is coaching therapy. While reflection, self-awareness, and emotional growth are central to the process, clinical issues or unresolved trauma require a different container. Coaching may surface such matters, but responsible coaches recognize the boundary and refer appropriately. Finally, coaching is not consulting. A consultant parachutes in with a diagnosis and recommendations. A coach doesn’t hand you answers; they help you sharpen the way you frame problems, test assumptions, and generate solutions. The value lies not in importing expertise, but in strengthening your own capacity to decide, act, and learn. Thus coaching is leverage, not a panacea. It extends your range as a leader. It doesn’t do the work for you, neither does it eliminate the constraints of organizational life. It does however make you more capable within those constraints by turning them from barriers into the conditions where leadership is tested and built. --- Leadership coaching is a long-term investment that compounds quietly but decisively over time. Leaders who get the most from it don’t see it as an intervention but as leverage in sensemaking. A way of working on themselves with the same rigor they bring to working on their organizations. ## Further Reading - [Competing languages of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/) [Competing Languages of LeadershipLeadership advice often focuses on communication style: how to be clearer, more persuasive, etc. While valuable, these tactics eventually hit a ceiling. You learn techniques but revert to old patterns under pressure, or the improved “delivery” somehow doesn’t create the changes you hoped for. That’s because language operates at a![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-72.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Seven-Competing-Languages---Kegan--Lahey-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/) - [Self-development in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) [Self Development in LeadershipLeaders have to be masters at developing themselves aka self-development. Why is self-development so critical to effective leadership?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-73.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Development-in-Leadership.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) - [Leadership myths and reality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/) [Leadership Myths that PersistWhy do organizations repeat the same leadership mistakes despite research showing they don’t work? A key reason is pervasive leadership myths. When Boeing’s board asked CEO Dave Calhoun to step down, it followed a familiar script. New leader, fresh start, problems solved. It was supposed to restore confidence. But the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-74.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leadership-Myths-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/) ### Effective Leaders: A Complete Guide URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/ Last updated: 2025-09-19T18:34:19.000Z What makes some leaders effective while others flounder? Why do certain people navigate organizations with ease, while others stall despite talent and hard work? These are the perennial questions I try to answer in my articles. While the questions aren’t new, the answers most leadership advice offers are shallow. Lists of traits or the latest management fad rarely explain **what actually makes — only a select few — effective leaders.** The difference isn’t charisma, titles, or a mythical “leader gene.” Knowingly or unknowingly, **effective leaders have built capacities that typical advice and training overlook.** In practice, effective leadership boils down to three interlocking capacities: **Skill, Savvy, and Sensemaking.** Skill is your craft — the ability to execute and deliver in your domain. Savvy is your feel of organizations — the ability to read power, politics, and perception. Sensemaking is judgment under complexity — the ability to interpret messy, high-stakes situations and guide others through them. **Most high performers already have the skill piece down. Where they stumble is in the harder, less tangible dimensions of savvy and sensemaking.** These are what separate those who remain competent operators from those who become effective leaders. To make things worse, they are harder to teach and package, and precisely what many leadership programs neglect. But without them, careers plateau and organizations suffer. This page brings together two things: - a framework for effective leadership and - a comprehensive library of my articles over the years on what makes **effective leaders**. My aim is not to offer another “ten traits of great leaders” list, but to give you a deeper lens into what actually drives leadership effectiveness in modern organizations — and how you can build it. On this page: - [How to Use This Guide](#how-to-use-this-guide) - [The Three Pillars of Effective Leadership](#the-three-pillars-of-effective-leadership) - [Skill (Functional Competence)](#skill-functional-competence) - [Savvy (Organizational Acumen)](#savvy-organizational-acumen) - [Sensemaking (Judgment in Complexity)](#sensemaking-judgment-in-complexity) - [Pillar 1: Savvy (Organizational Acumen)](#pillar-1-savvy-organizational-acumen) - [Effective Leaders Build Psychological Safety & Trust](#effective-leaders-build-psychological-safety-trust) - [Effective Leaders Manage Perceptions](#effective-leaders-manage-perceptions) - [Effective Leaders Cultivate and Deploy Power](#effective-leaders-cultivate-and-deploy-power) - [Effective Leaders Understand Organizational Leadership](#effective-leaders-understand-organizational-leadership) - [Effective Leaders Master Communication & Language](#effective-leaders-master-communication-language) - [Pillar 2: Sensemaking (Judgment in Complexity)](#pillar-2-sensemaking-judgment-in-complexity) - [Effective Leaders Read Systems, Not Just Situations](#effective-leaders-read-systems-not-just-situations) - [Effective Leaders Keep Learning How to Learn](#effective-leaders-keep-learning-how-to-learn) - [Effective Leaders Build a Philosophy, Not Just Technique](#effective-leaders-build-a-philosophy-not-just-technique) - [Effective Leaders Think Clearly—Sometimes Silently](#effective-leaders-think-clearly-sometimes-silently) - [Effective Leaders Identify Their Blind Spots](#effective-leaders-identify-their-blind-spots) - [Effective Leaders Practice Courage & Negative Capability](#effective-leaders-practice-courage-negative-capability) - [Pillar 3: Skill (Functional Competence)](#pillar-3-skill-functional-competence) - [Effective Leaders Excel at Goal Discipline](#effective-leaders-excel-at-goal-discipline) - [Effective Leaders Manage Their Careers as a Skill](#effective-leaders-manage-their-careers-as-a-skill) ## **How to Use This Guide** This page is a living library on effective leadership. It will keep growing as I add new insights, tools, and frameworks. Use it as a reference—whether you’re tackling a new role, navigating organizational politics, or learning to lead through complexity. - If you’re early in your journey or shifting into new responsibilities, start with **Skill**. Master the basics of execution and craft so you deliver reliably. - If you’re already strong technically but struggle with influence, spend time in **Savvy**. That’s where you’ll learn to navigate politics, networks, and organizational realities that determine who gets heard. - If you’re wrestling with uncertainty, ambiguity, or growth beyond the tactical, dive into **Sensemaking**. These pieces will stretch how you think, set context, and operate in complexity. Most leaders over-invest in skill—training harder, accumulating credentials—and under-invest in savvy and sensemaking. There’s leverage in redressing that imbalance. If you want to go deeper: - **Subscribe to my** [**newsletter**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tag/newsletter/) for regular essays that expand on these ideas and connect them to current leadership challenges. - **Explore my** [**1-on-1 coaching**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/) **and cohort programs** if you’re ready to apply these concepts directly in your own context. Coaching is where abstract frameworks meet the real constraints of your work. - **Visit other dedicated pages**—on Organizational Savvy and Leadership Sensemaking—to see how these pieces fit into a broader system for leadership effectiveness. Effective leadership isn’t about following one “right” path. It’s about continual learning, adjusting, and expanding your repertoire. Consider this collection a companion on that journey. --- ## **The Three Pillars of Effective Leadership** ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/3-Pillars-of-Effective-Leadership-2.png) ### **Skill (Functional Competence)** Skill is the foundation. It’s the credibility earned by mastering your craft and delivering results. No amount of charisma or strategic talk can make up for a lack of competence. This means knowing your discipline deeply enough to execute with precision and make sound judgments. For engineers, it may be technical mastery; for managers, it’s running teams and processes reliably. But skill doesn’t remain static. At higher levels, functional competence shifts from *doing* the work yourself to *orchestrating* it through others. It evolves into meta-competence: context awareness, execution discipline, and the ability to set goals and standards for others. Many leaders plateau because they assume their early career strengths are enough, without realizing competence itself needs to be redefined. ### **Savvy (Organizational Acumen)** Savvy is what separates competent performers from effective leaders in the messy reality of organizations. It’s your ability to navigate power, politics, and perception — the undercurrents that shape how work really gets done. Those who ignore this dimension end up frustrated because they underestimate the role of influence, networks, and informal structures. Being savvy isn’t manipulation. It’s about understanding human nature and recognizing the difference between how organizations are charted on paper and how they actually operate. Effective leaders sense these dynamics and position themselves and their teams to succeed. Without organizational savvy, skill becomes ineffective, and your impact is severely limited. ### **Sensemaking (Judgment in Complexity)** Sensemaking is the rarest and most decisive of the three. It’s the ability to interpret ambiguous, high-stakes situations and frame them to guide confident action. Leaders face incomplete information, conflicting priorities, and paradoxes that can’t be solved by rules or formulas. Where others freeze, effective leaders reframe. They ask better questions, surface hidden assumptions, and create clarity where none exists. This isn’t about having the right answers—it’s about constructing meaning when the path isn’t obvious. Sensemaking draws on systems thinking, reflection, and the courage to act without certainty. It’s why people look to certain leaders in crises for judgment, not technical expertise. *Since most high-performers already have the functional piece down, we’ll address it last. We’ll start with savvy, then sensemaking, and finally skill (functional competence).* Let’s get started. ## **Pillar 1: Savvy (Organizational Acumen)** ### **Effective Leaders Build Psychological Safety & Trust** Trust and challenge are not opposites — they are allies in high performance. Effective leaders create environments where people can surface concerns, own mistakes, and speak truth, even when it’s uncomfortable. Safety is not softness but the stable foundation from which high standards emerge. [**Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood Dynamic**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/)Safety doesn’t mean being lax, and standards don’t have to mean fear. This piece unpacks the often-mistaken separation between psychological safety and high performance— as if they’re in tension. The most effective leaders know how to hold both: challenge safely and supportingly engage what’s hard. [**Project Aristotle: Implications and Challenges**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/)Google discovered that who’s on a team is much less important than *how* the team works together. What stood out was psychological safety: teams that could speak up, vote, admit mistakes, and rely on each other outperformed others. Implementing this finding remains hard because it’s about practice, not policy: modeling vulnerability, clarifying expectations, and designing norms. [**The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological Safety**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/)How you talk about a challenge sets the tone. This article shows how leaders’ framing — “this is a stretch, not a crisis” or “we’re solving this, not failing” — influences how teams interpret tensions, take risks, and engage. Framing is a leadership act that directly creates or erodes safety. [**Fundamental Attribution Error: Why It’s Always Someone Else’s Fault**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/)We naturally blame individuals rather than systems. This piece shows how leaders fall for that bias and offers a better move: ask “what circumstances shaped this outcome?” instead of “who messed up?” That shift reorients teams away from shame and toward learning. [**Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological Safety**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/)Leadership often mistakes *telling* for *leading*. Edgar Schein’s humble inquiry asks you to resist that doubt impulse, ask without already knowing the answer, and model curiosity instead of authority. This dissolves the fear that silences insight and opens the door to relational depth and truth. [**Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/)Leaders often treat transparency like a double-edged sword, and rightly so. But self-disclosure, when done skillfully, strengthens trust, connection, and psychological safety. However, it’s not full vulnerability; it’s choosing what to reveal, when, for whom, and under what norms. The strongest leaders share enough to be real, but stay disciplined to remain clear, credible, and constructive. ![self-disclosure in leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Self-Disclosure.png) ### **Effective Leaders Manage Perceptions** Authority rarely comes with clear maps. Often it’s invisible boundaries, skimmed-over norms, and unspoken timelines. Savvy leaders don’t wait to be told; they explore, interpret, and expand their zones of impact with confidence and subtlety. [**Please Exceed Your Authority**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/exceed-your-authority/)You’re not “stepping on toes” if you understand your value. This piece teaches you how to test boundaries of authority intentionally, so they build both impact and legitimacy. The skill lies in navigating the gray zone between mandated authority and overstep. [**Impression Management: How Effective Leaders Balance Perception and Reality**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/)Leadership isn’t just about actions; it’s also about perception. This article dissects Goffman’s front stage/back stage framework and how effective leaders manage impressions deliberately, ensuring their strengths and values are accurately perceived. Authenticity isn’t just ethical; it’s strategic. [**Schrödinger’s Cat at Work: When Performance and Perception Collide**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/)Sometimes you’re performing as expected, but perception shifts with the observer. This piece argues that organizations collapse performance into perception — even when the underlying work hasn’t changed. Effective leaders understand both the quantum-like malleability of “achievement” and their role in shaping visibility. [**Work is Not School: Surviving Institutional Stupidity**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/)You can’t treat organizations like merit-based grading systems — they’re messy, subjective, and often absurd. Attributing setbacks to stupidity rather than malice gives you distance to stay curious and strategic. It teaches you to manage not just performance, but the perceptions that gatekeep advancement. [**Schrödinger’s Cat at Work II: Building the Box of Limitations**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-building-the-box-of-limitations/)Often, the biggest cages aren’t built by others—they’re built by us. Phrases like “I’m not strategic” can create invisible boundaries that restrict ambition. Recognizing and breaking these self-made boxes is how freedom — and leadership — are built. [**Frustration Tolerance: An Essential for Surviving Large Orgs**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/)Stagnant meetings, stalled projects, or unreliable leaders are part of organizational life. This piece teaches you **to endure discomfort without losing clarity or resolve**. Frustration tolerance is a leadership muscle that helps you keep showing up, think clearly, and act wisely amidst chaos. [**What Is Implicit Leadership Theory and How It Affects Careers**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/)Leadership isn’t objective. It’s viewed through filters we don’t even realize. This article shows how our implicit theories — assumptions about what leaders “should” look like — shape how others perceive us, and how we perceive ourselves. Effective leaders surface those blind spots, test alignment with their organization’s implicit beliefs, and recalibrate accordingly. ![Implicit leadership theories](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/ILT-and-Career-Success.png) ### **Effective Leaders Cultivate and Deploy Power** Power isn’t just granted, it’s also cultivated. It is built through choices about information, expertise, relationships, and how you shape narratives. Effective leaders systematically expand their influence by design. [**The 6 Types of Power: A Guide for Leaders**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/)Power isn’t one idea, it’s six: legitimate, reward, coercive, referent, expert, and information. This article breaks down how each works, their strengths and weaknesses, and why effective leaders don’t rely on just one. Instead, they flex across the spectrum, knowing which lever to pull. ![6 Types of Power in Leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Types-of-Power--French-Raven-.png) [**Sources of Power in Organizations**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/)Performance alone rarely opens doors. The real upgrade comes from understanding the undercurrents of resource control, decision-premises, information flows, boundaries, tech, and rules. Power is often invisible, and those wise enough to identify what’s missing in their toolkit find ways to make an impact. [**Expert Power — How Knowledge Becomes Influence**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/)Your technical skill won’t automatically scale into influence. Expert power happens when you align deep knowledge with organizational relevance, credibility, and visibility. This article shows **how to convert technical acumen into valuable currency.** [**Referent Power: The Subtle Tool of Effective Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/)People follow leaders, not titles. Referent power is built through consistency, trust, and shared identity, not charisma. Consistency with shared values and the humility to admit mistakes matter more than charm. This is the kind of power that lasts. [**Coercive Power: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/)Sometimes you need to act fast or enforce a boundary. Coercive power has its place, but defaulting to it erodes trust. The article warns against overuse and shows how disciplined limits, used sparingly, can reinforce clarity instead of fear. [**The Political Frame of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/)Organizations are coalitions, not monoliths. Effective leaders see **politics not as dysfunction, but as resource negotiation**. They build alliances, navigate conflicting interests, and design arenas for negotiation rather than trying to command consensus. ### **Effective Leaders Understand Organizational Leadership** Organizations aren’t machines you can fine-tune. They’re living systems with hidden dynamics, blind spots, and myths that shape behavior. Effective leaders learn to see the system itself — not just the people inside it — and adjust their leadership accordingly. [**Organizational Learning Disabilities**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/organizational-learning-disabilities/)Companies don’t fail only because of external competition; they fail because of self-inflicted “learning disabilities.” These include fixation on events, blaming others, and the illusion of taking charge. This piece shows how leaders can diagnose and counter these patterns before they harden into culture. [**Leadership Myths That Persist**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/)Leadership is riddled with durable myths like the idea that it’s a solo act, or that charisma equals effectiveness. These stories endure because they’re comforting, but they mislead managers trying to lead in real systems. This piece surfaces the myths and offers sharper lenses to replace them. [**McChrystal on Leadership: Myth and Reality**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-myth-and-reality/)General StanMcChrystal dismantles the “great man” story of leadership by showing how results emerge from networks and context, not individual heroics. The takeaway for leaders is to shift from trying to control outcomes to cultivating relationships and systems that make them possible. [**Setting High Standards in Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/)Ambitious targets motivate until they don’t — when expectations become unreachable or vague. Bezos’s model clarifies how to set ambitious standards anchored in real scope, clarity, and explicit teaching. Effective leaders coach standards, don’t just demand them. ![High standards in leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Setting-High-Standards--Four-Quadrants--2.png) [**Mintzberg on Managing the Flow of Information and Influence**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/)Leadership is about orchestrating information and influence; not by being a pass-through, but also a valve, sponge, or dam when needed. Effective leaders know when to filter, release, or absorb signals to maintain both clarity and resilience. [**The Amazon Management and Decision-Making System**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-management-and-decision-making-system/)Most companies add layers as they scale; Amazon builds systems that flatten complexity. From long-term customer obsession to “Day-1” culture and bar-raisers safeguardingtalent, Amazon’s system is about designing for agility, not just controlling outcomes. Effective leaders can borrow these principles: bake clarity, speed, and ownership into decision procedures. [**Peter Drucker on Managing Knowledge Work**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/)If you want knowledge work, don’t lead like it’s factory work. Drucker emphasized that knowledge workers expect respect for their autonomy, clarity on contribution, and a sense of achievement, not fear. True leadership treats them as professionals, not units, aligning their work with meaning and impact. The article contrasts this with Musk’s Twitter strategy, showing what gets lost when reverting to outdated “command and control” mindsets. [**Herzberg Hygiene Factors vs Motivators — Why People Leave Managers, Not Jobs**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/herzberg-hygiene-motivation-theory/)You might wonder whether salary or recognition matters more. The truth is more nuanced. Herzberg’s model shows that hygiene factors (pay, policies, status) prevent dissatisfaction, but motivators (growth, achievement, autonomy) drive true satisfaction. The leaders who fail do one of two things: they fix pay but ignore meaning, or hype purpose but leave basic conditions broken. Effective leaders get both right. [**Metanoia — Learning as a Strategy**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-as-strategy/)Learning isn’t an HR checkbox; it’s an orientation. Senge’s “metanoia” is a shift of mind, not an accumulation of information. Effective leaders design work environments where the hunger to learn — the drive to re-perceive yourself and your work — is central, not peripheral. When learning becomes a strategy, organizations don’t just react to change, they create it. ### **Effective Leaders Master Communication & Language** Communication isn’t just about clarity or eloquence; it’s the architecture of leadership. Language shapes reality, not just describes it. You don’t lead people by delivering messages; you shape what they see as possible, plausible, and real through language. [**Competing Languages of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/)Leadership isn’t about a single communication style, but navigating seven languages, from internal transformation to relational impact. Effective leaders learn to interpret, shift, and choose which “language” is needed in the moment. If you can’t navigate these, you’ll default to frustration, blame, and resignation. ![7 Competing Languages of Leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Seven-Competing-Languages---Kegan--Lahey.png) [**Hidden Role of Language in Leadership Communication**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/)Language is everywhere and almost invisible. You don’t just *say* things; you *create* them. Effective leaders build frameworks — paradigms, orientations, commitments — through language. Recognizing that words constitute reality opens new levers for influence and alignment. [**Effective Leadership as Effective Conversations**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/)Leadership happens one conversation at a time. You don’t lead meetings, you lead through conversations. This article argues that tiny actions — how you listen, recognize, andquestion — compound into influence. Conversations are your primary tool; honing them is essential. [**Communicating Effectively using Closure Conversations**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/)Unfinished conversations erode trust. The simplest conversation — closing loops — makes a disproportionate difference. Closure conversations acknowledge promises kept or broken, summarize lessons learned, and clear the air. Done well, they’re the mortar of both personal and organizational integrity. [**Effective Constructive Feedback**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/)Feedback misses the mark when context is assumed or people aren’t aligned on goals. Schein’s seven principles — starting with mutual goal consensus and ending with timing — remind us that itworks only when anchored in clarity, respect, and shared purpose. Effective leaders don’t just correct; they co-create understanding so feedback transforms, not alienates. [**Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Modern Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/)Effectivecommunication requires authority (ethos), emotion (pathos), and logic (logos). Aristotle’s framework gives you a triple lens for every message: Does it feel credible? Does it connect? Does it make sense? Most leaders neglect the integration. Effective leaders don’t just *speak*; they hit all three chords simultaneously. [**The Trust Triangle of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/)Trust isn’t vague. It’s three things: authenticity, logic, and empathy. Frei & Morriss give a diagnostic: if trust’s low, check if you misrepresented who you are, the strength of your reasoning, or how much you showed you care. Effective leaders build trust by tending to all three, not just one. ![Trust Triangle of Leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Trust-Triangle--Ethos-Pathos-Logos.png) [**The Dark Side of Active Listening**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/)Active listening training often slips into performance — asking questions, nodding, providing feedback — while losing what truly matters: authenticity and presence. Effective leaders notice when they’re “performing” listening, pause, and return to stillness and awareness. In that quiet space, meaning and trust emerge. [**Assertive Inquiry**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/assertive-inquiry/)Most teams operate in high-advocacy mode; everyone trying to convince rather than understand. Assertive inquiry flips that. You articulate your own thinking while sincerely asking others to explain theirs. Rather than a diplomatic dodge it’s the only method if you want disagreement to lead to insight instead of division. [**Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/)When everyone is in advocacy mode, dialogue degrades into confrontation. This article shows leaders how to recognize the advocacy-pull in themselves, integrate inquiry, and cultivate a conversation where ideas evolve instead of just competing. ![Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Advocacy-and-Inquiry-copy.png) [**Ground Rules for Effective Meetings**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/)Meetings aren’t for delivering policy, but for surfacing meaning. This article shares rules like testing assumptions, naming inferences, sharing context, and explaining intent. When consistently applied, meetings become breeding grounds for clarity, instead of confusion. [**Filters in Communication**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/)Every message passes through invisible layers: your self-image, mental model of others, situation-definition, intent, and expectations. These filters distort. Effective leaders first slow down to surface those filters, then design communication to clear distortion and speak what deserves attention. [**MBWA: The Lost Art of Managing by Wandering Around**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/)Not all insight comes from analytics and dashboards. MBWA takes you out from behind the screen into the human terrain of hallway chats, informal check-ins, and site visits. Effective leaders maintain pulse awareness not by data alone, but by proximity, presence, and informal exchange. It’s leadership through curiosity, not command. [**Challenges of Experts Transitioning into Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/)Moving into leadership from a technical role can be destabilizing. Your expertise no longer suffices alone. This article shows how using the domains of competence (I-self, We-relationships, It-information) helps you identify your blindspots and avoid career logjams. ### **Effective Leaders Understand Human Nature** Leadership operates in the human domain of meaning, not a mechanical one. Navigating organizations means grappling with human complexity. Understanding human nature isn’t sentimental; it’s strategic. Effective leaders know that people are temporal, story-bearing beings. They don’t just respond to tasks; they respond to meaning, memory, and future orientation. [**Hidden Drivers of Human Performance**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/)A deep dive into the “human OS” that goes into the twelve ontological givens upstream of tactics. Themes include temporality and future-orientation, thrownness, story and language as the medium of reality, biological (not clock) time for change, and the role of care, meaning, purpose, and authenticity as performance levers. It’s a map for real performance, not performative fixes. [**Leaders have to Master Basics of the Human OS**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/)Why the century-old technical-rational paradigm breaks down in people systems. Leadership happens in the domain of meaning and language, which makes “doing something to people” a losing stance. The piece argues for working with human dynamics (soft skills tied to hard outcomes), and reframes leadership as shaping conditions in a living system, not administering techniques to passive parts. [**Creative Leaders vs Controlling Leaders**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/)Drawing on Malcolm Knowles’ work, this piece contrasts leaders who control a system’s energy with those who release it. When you see teams as human-energy systems, the real job becomes designing contexts that unlock initiative rather than constraining it; treating the organization as a system to tune, not a machine to tighten. ## **Pillar 2: Sensemaking (Judgment in Complexity)** ### **Effective Leaders Master Context** Competence at senior levels isn’t just “doing the work.” It’s framing the work: setting the conditions, pacing the heat, and clarifying which problem is worth solving. The articles in this section explore the shift from “content” to “context” — from doing the work to designing the arena in which it gets done. [**Mastery of Context in Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/)Leadership is a *context* sport. This piece shows how context—mental models, language, norms—doesn’t sit at the edges of leadership, but is the very ground beneath decisions. Leaders who want to move beyond efficiency begin by designing conditions: shaping language, changing constraints, and aligning meaning. When context is mastered, action flows clearly, and execution becomes self-sustaining. [**Why Netflix Leads with Context, Not Control**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/)High-performing teams don’t thrive under tight control; they thrive with clarity of purpose plus enough room to act. This article shows how Netflix uses three preconditions (high talent density, innovation goals over error-prevention, alignment + loose coupling) to empower autonomy. When you lead with context instead of control, you build decision-making muscles in others instead of creating dependency. ![Leading through context, not control](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Leading-through-Context-not-Control.excalidraw.png) [**Practices of Adaptive Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/)Leadership isn’t about having all the answers; it’s about creating space for others to solve adaptive problems. This article drills into Ron Heifetz’s core practices—diagnose without acting, regulate distress, focus on real issues, distribute responsibility, and protect dissent at the edges. These aren’t theoretical ideals but repeatable behaviors for leaders who want to stay steady under heat and adapt rather than react. [**Technical Problems vs Adaptive Challenges**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/)You might be solving technical issues when what’s really at stake is adaptive work. This article explains why treating identity, habits, values—everything adaptive—as if they were solvable with expertise or structure fails. Leadership’s leverage comes from diagnosing correctly: resisting easy fixes, engaging people in sensemaking, and embracing loss and uncertainty. That’s where real transformation happens. [**Adaptive Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/)This piece defines adaptive work: identifying when challenges are technical vs. adaptive, owning the discomfort of loss, and orchestrating change slowly enough for people to catch up. Your work is less about fixing and more about helping systems learn forward. [**Tyranny of Content/Control**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/)Chasing content (tasks, deliverables, technical fixes) is seductive—but often the wrong move in systems under pressure. This article argues that what leaders frequently ignore is context: the mental models, framing, and invisible constraints that shape how people act. Effective leadership starts by asking less “What needs fixing?” and more “What worldview is making this look like ‘something’ needs fixing?” Regulating context often changes what content even matters. [**McChrystal – Leaders as Gardeners**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/)Being a gardener means you don’t order plants to grow—you tend soil, water, remove weeds, and shape conditions. This article shows how McChrystal’s model teaches that leadership isn’t about moving pieces—it’s about cultivating the environment for growth. It’s not less action, but different: listening, daily tending, modeling patience, and remembering that small interactions accumulate. Effective leaders don’t just plan—they garden. [**McChrystal – Leaders: Myth and Reality**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-myth-and-reality/)Beware attribution myths. Outcomes emerge from networks, timing, and systems—not single heroic actors. Lead the web of relationships; stop pretending causality is linear. This is a review of McChrystal’s work on how popular leadership myths obscure the reality of what leaders actually do: manage context, relationships, and systems. [**Problem-Setting vs Problem-Solving**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/)Problem-solving is comfortable because it lets you act. Problem-setting demands reflection. This piece argues that before you solve, you must frame: define what you are trying to solve, tag what matters, and set the boundary of attention. Leaders who skip this step often fight yesterday’s symptoms. This is anoverlooked but critical competence for execution at scale. ### **Effective Leaders Read Systems, Not Just Situations** In complexity, tidy plans fail and straight lines deceive. What matters isn’t prediction but perception: seeing patterns beneath events, experimenting with small moves, and holding paradox without rushing to closure. Those who can read systems widen their range of judgment. [**Leadership Capacities based on Systems Thinking**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/)Systems leadership begins with self-awareness. This piece maps out 20 inner capacities — from confronting your “shadow” to staying on the balcony under pressure — that determine whether you can see the system clearly or get trapped in it. It’s less a checklist than a mirror for your development. [**The Laws of Systems Thinking**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/)Senge’s laws remind leaders that interventions rarely play out as imagined. Today’s fix can become tomorrow’s problem; improvements often look better before they get worse. Recognizing these counterintuitive dynamics keeps you from overcorrecting and hurting the very system you’re trying to help. [**The Systems Thinking Iceberg**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/)Events are easy to spot, but they’re the least powerful layer of a system. Patterns, structures, and mental models drive what happens above the surface. Leaders who focus only on events manage symptoms; those who work on the deeper layers change outcomes over time. ![The Systems Thinking Iceberg](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/2-3.png) [**Why We Copy Leaders**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/)Imitation isn’t weakness — it’s a rational move in complex systems. People mirror leaders because visibility and coordination matter more than originality. Your smallest behaviors scale fast. The question isn’t whether people will copy you, but whether what they take will help or hurt. [**A Strategy of Small Wins and Small Bets**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/)Big problems are often unsolvable head-on. Karl Weick argued for small wins: concrete, immediate steps that build momentum and reduce overwhelm. They surface insights and create options without requiring perfect foresight. Effective leaders design for progress, not perfection. [**Singular Big Bet vs Multiple Small Bets**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/)A heroic swing concentrates risk and leaves no room for learning. Portfolios of small bets spread risk, multiply feedback, and keep you in the game long enough for luck and insight. Leaders who diversify their experiments play a longer, smarter game. [**Strategy as Tetris rather than Chess**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategy-as-tetris-not-chess/)Chess assumes stability: fixed rules, perfect information, and time to plan. Real strategy looks more like Tetris: pieces arrive unpredictably, decisions are time-bound, and early placements constrain later ones. Leaders who treat strategy as Tetris optimize for fit and flow, not prediction. [**Paradoxes in Leadership and Management**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/)Should you centralize or decentralize? Standardize or improvise? The answer is both. Effective leaders stop trying to “solve away” paradoxes and instead learn to live inside them by setting boundaries, pacing tensions, and turning contradictions into creative energy. [**Linear Causality vs Circular Causality in Decision Making**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/)“If…then” thinking feels satisfying but is often misleading. In organizations, effects loop back on causes; today’s actions reshape tomorrow’s context. Leaders who embrace circular causality build strategies that account for feedback, delay, and mutual influence rather than chasing linear fixes. [**Loose Coupling: Rethinking Control in Organizations** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/loose-coupling/)Tightly coupled systems are efficient — and brittle. Loosely coupled systems trade uniformity for resilience, allowing local units to adapt without collapsing the whole. Netflix’s mantra of “highly aligned, loosely coupled” captures this logic: control less, learn more. [**Leading Loosely: Leadership in Loosely Coupled Systems**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-in-loosely-coupled-systems/)When coupling loosens, leadership shifts. You set direction and interfaces, not detailed instructions. You amplify information flow, reward judgment at the edge, and hold coherence through context, not approvals. Leading loosely is less about authority and more about trust. [**Types of Contradictions in Organizations**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/)Not every contradiction is the same. Trade-offs, dilemmas, paradoxes, and tensions require different responses: decide, stage, reframe, or hold. Mislabel the pattern and you mismanage the moment. Effective leaders learn to name what they’re facing before they act. [**Laws of Dimensional Ontology**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/)Frankl’s cylinder metaphor shows how contradictions at one level can resolve at a higher dimension. Leadership often requires multi-dimensional thinking: moving beyond the surface clash of perspectives to see the larger truth in which both can coexist. ![Laws of Dimensional Ontology](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Laws-of-Dimensional-Ontology.png) ### **Effective Leaders Keep Learning How to Learn** True learning doesn’t come from ticking a box. It emerges when we embrace discomfort, challenge our perspectives,and use mistakes as a compass. Learning is messy and growth is nonlinear. Effective leaders build systems to learn through uncertainty, not around certainty. [**The Paradox of Real Learning**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/)Learning real leadership skills feels like a step backward before progress happens. Schon’s “Meno problem” highlights the paradox: how can you *do* something you don’t yet know *how to*? Effective leaders commit to “acting into knowledge” knowing that clarity emerges in the doing. ![The paradox of real learning](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Paradox-of-learning.png) [**Self-Development in Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/)Leadership isn’t a checkbox you complete once; it’s a lifelong responsibility. This article dispels the myth that programs, courses, or credentials alone produce leaders. Instead, it grounds leadership in lived experience, reflection, and gradual embodiment. What can’t be taught must be lived. Effective leaders know it’s not what you learn, but how you grow into it. [**Learning to Learn — Why Professionals Struggle with this Meta-Skill**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/)Many leaders stall not from lack of knowledge, but from the gap between how they *think* they act and how they *actually act* — what Argyris and Schon called “espoused theory vs. theory-in-use.” This piece shows how defensive reasoning routines trap professionals in brittle patterns. Effective leaders disrupt these patterns by practicing self-scrutiny and cultivating curiosity toward their own reasoning. [**Conceptual vs Experiential Learning**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/conceptual-vs-experiential-learning/)We value conceptual learning — books, frameworks, ideas — over embodied, messy experience. But leadership is a physical skill as much as an intellectual one. We have instincts waiting to be amplified; our job isn’t to accumulate more concepts, but to provoke and refine what’s already within us through real encounters. The point isn’t choosing between concepts and experience; it’s knowing when each is needed. [**Leadership Can Be Learned but Not Taught**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/)No one can download judgment. It isn’t a module; it’s a reflection-driven, feedback-rich journey. This article shows why learning leadership is like cultivating muscle memory: engage, fail, reflect, and iterate. The best leadership programs don’t just deliver content; they shape conditions for learning*.* [**EQ vs IQ: Misled and Oversold on Emotional Intelligence**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/)Emotional intelligence is powerful, but it’s not magic and is often misused. This article unpacks where EQ matters most (relationships, influence, senior leadership roles) and where it doesn’t substitute for clarity, skill, or IQ. It warns against common myths like EI is everything, or that you can skip technical competence, and shows how it becomes a differentiator only *after* meeting the basics. ![EQ vs IQ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/EQ-vs-IQ.png) [**Leonardo da Vinci on Learning**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leonardo-da-vinci-isaacson/)Da Vinci didn’t narrow scope, he widened it. He drew, painted, probed nature, mechanics, and anatomy not out of ambition for utility, but intimacy with variety. When leaders borrow da Vinci’s curiosity, they don’t just adapt; they invent. [**Greatness as Mastering the Mundane**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/)Breakthroughs are built on the habits no one notices: starts, turns, breathing. Daniel Chambliss found that swimmers reach greatness through repetitive refinement, not flamboyant moments. Leadership works the same way. Effective leaders don’t wait for the spectacular; they refine the mundane until it becomes extraordinary. [**Using Deliberate Practice to Increase Leadership Effectiveness**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/)Deliberate practice isn’t just for musicians; it’s the secret behind masterful leadership. This piece highlights how isolating specific conversational challenges, repeating them deliberately, getting immediate feedback, and reflecting on the process can reshape your leadership muscle. Conversations become more than talk; they become fields of growth. Effective leaders treat everyday interactions as opportunities to practice, experiment, and improve. [**Carl Rogers on Teaching is Overrated**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/)Rogers dismantles the pedestal of teaching: when you “instruct” someone in leadership, you dim their capacity to learn it themselves. This article reveals why learning that changes behavior must be self-discovered, not passively received. It invites leaders to show their vulnerability first. As teacher, you do less talking and more opening space for others to discover truth in their own experience. ### **Effective Leaders Build a Philosophy, Not Just Technique** Your personal leadership philosophy is the invisible scaffolding that guides everything you do, even when pressure tempts you to revert to instinct. It anchors how you interpret challenges and choose between multiple “right” options. It’s not just a style; it’s your operating system: the assumptions, values, and stories you use to make sense of complexity. When you clarify yours, every decision becomes more intentional. [**The Best Leadership Style — There Might Not Be One**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/best-leadership-style/)Leadership models are pristine and orderly, but reality is messy. Chasing “the one true style” leads to rigid thinking. Instead, effectiveness lies in stylistic range: blending styles based on context, values, and capabilities. Leadership is not a fixed posture, but a relational performance. [**On the Differences Between Leaders and Managers**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/differences-leaders-managers/)We’ve been sold a false dichotomy: managers manage tasks; leaders lead people. In practice, good leaders manage; good managers lead. Separating the two is arbitrary and often cripples effectiveness. The task — and the art— lies in integrating both. [**Blake-Mouton Leadership Grid — A Model on Leadership Styles**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/)Task vs. people orientation isn’t a binary; it’s a spectrum. This piece revisits Blake and Mouton’s grid to diagnose your default orientation and reveal your blind spots.Effective leaders ask: which axis am I neglecting when results drop or relationships fray? Balance is the art, not a compromise. ![Blake-Mouton Leadership Grid](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Blake-Mouton-Leadership-Grid.png) [**Speed as the Wrong Criteria**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/)The cult of “fast” skews leadership decisions toward urgency, not impact. I draw on Peter Block and Robert Kegan to argue that leadership unfolds on biological time, not clock time. Real transformation is slow, emergent, and often invisible until after the fact. To be effective, resist the tyranny of immediacy. [**Amazon’s Leadership Principles**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/)Amazon codified leadership into sixteen principles that turn vagueness into action. This article unpacks each principle, framing them as behavioral infrastructure rather than platitudes. Studying them is less about fitting in and more about recognizing the architecture of leadership expectations. Use this to assess your own philosophy. ![Amazon Leadership Principles](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Amazon-Leadership-Principles.png) [**Authentic Leadership and Time**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/)Koestenbaum’s insight—“time management starts with an understanding of time”—shows why traditional productivity hacks fail. When your actions misalign with your deeper convictions, time warps: you feel fatigue, boredom, disconnection. I argue that authenticity emerges from your experience of time, not just your actions. Those who reconnect lived time to values reclaim agency over both rhythm and direction. [**Warren Bennis on Self-Invention**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/warren-bennis-self-invention-authenticity-leadership/)Bennis framed leadership as a lifelong act of self-creation. It isn’t discovered but invented. This article draws on his classic *On Becoming a Leader*, showing that authenticity is forged by grappling with past wounds and future aspirations. Leaders don’t receive identity; they carve it through choices, commitments, and the creative work of “becoming.” [**Pulled by the Future, Pushed by the Past**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/)Leadership is a temporal act of negotiating between memory and possibility. This piece reframes vision not as predicting the future but as being pulled toward it, even as past experiences shape behavior. Effective leaders consciously manage both forces, so the past informs without imprisoning and the future beckons without deluding. [**Authentic Leadership as Knowing What People Actually Do**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/)Most authenticity literature focuses on self-disclosure and emotional transparency. This article adds a tougher dimension: authenticity requires direct engagement with reality. Leaders wanting to be “real” must ground themselves in observing what people actually do and their real challenges, not what they say or wish to see. [**Leadership Identity Development**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/)Becoming a leader is less about new skills than reshaping who you believe yourself to be. This article highlights identity work as central to leadership development; navigating the dissonance between old roles and new expectations. Leaders grow when they integrate those identities rather than disowning them, forging a more coherent self that others can trust. [**James MacGregor Burns on Self-Actualization, Self-Esteem and Effective Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/james-macgregor-burns-leadership/)Leadership isn’t a performance; it’s a *becoming*. Burns argues that effective leaders cultivate self-esteem not by accumulating titles, but through mutual actualization — learning from followers, responding to their needs, and co-creating growth. Leaders who teach rather than impose, who lead by being led, create environments where both individuals and systems thrive. [**How Bezos Thinks**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/)This is an entire collection of mental models that Jeff Bezos wrote in his shareholder letters. Breakthrough innovation demands “invent and simplify” alongside a tolerance — even expectation — of failure. Amazon leaders treat failure as fuel, not shame; they design for invention, invest in reversible experiments, and protect their “builders” from process paralysis. ### **Effective Leaders Think Clearly** Lack of clarity isn’t always about lack of data, but about the thinking patterns that filter it. Effective leaders don’t just manage information; they manage attention, mental models, and assumptions. Reflection, reframing, and deliberate mental discipline are the tools. [**Cognitive Flexibility: Rewiring How Leaders Respond**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/)When pressure mounts, it’s easy to revert to old reflexes. Cognitive flexibility prevents this trap. It’s your ability to shift perspective, pause an automatic reaction, and reframe the situation in real time. This piece shows how flexibility is a trainable skill. Practicing tools like reframing, inquiry, and pattern recognition builds the mental range to respond with clarity when it matters most. [**How Double-Loop Learning Improves Performance**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/)Correcting mistakes within existing systems is helpful. Changing the system itself — that’s where traction lives. This piece draws from Argyris and Schon to show how double-loop learning moves leaders from tweaking behaviors to confronting underlying values and mental models. Elite sports teams use film study, not just performance metrics; effective leaders build similar spaces of honest reflection into their routines and thinking systems. ![Double-loop learning](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Double-Loop-Learning.png) [**Cognitive Distortions that Undermine Clear Thinking**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/)Our minds fill in gaps with assumptions disguised as truth. This piece lists 17 thinking traps — like catastrophizing, personalization, and black-and-white thinking — and shows how they hijack decisions. It’s not just about noticing distortions, but training yourself to pause, name the distortion, and choose a clearer path. [**Is it up to you? The Stoic Dichotomy of Control**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dichotomy-of-control-stoicism-leadership/)**.** Epictetus’s Stoic fork — distinguishing between what’s up to us (our judgments, intentions, and choices) and what’s not (external outcomes and circumstances) — matters more when volatility is normal. This article explains how leaders can focus on internal jurisdiction while calmly accepting the rest. It’s a discipline rather than a mindset hack. [**Circle of Control, Influence, and Acceptance**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/)The concept isn’t new, but its power lies in applied clarity. Where are you investing energy that has no payoff? What influence are you neglecting because it feels uncomfortable? This piece pushes leaders to map their concerns, then redirect attention to where impact is actually possible. Clarity here reduces stress and multiplies effectiveness. ![Circle of Control](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Circle-of-Control--Influence--Concerns--Acceptance--CIA-.png) [**Using the Ladder of Inference to Make Better Decisions** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/)What you believe isn’t always what you observed. This model explains how leaders climb from neutral data to charged conclusions, often unknowingly. We rarely act on raw facts. Instead, we select fragments, add meaning, and leap to conclusions — all in a blink. The ladder of inference makes that process visible. Effective leaders learn to pause on the lower rungs, test the story, and invite disconfirming evidence. Good decisions come by catching yourself before the leap. ![The Ladder of Inference](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Ladder-of-Inference--2-.png) [**Reflection in Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/)This piece argues that leadership demands a steady oscillation between doing and reflecting, especially before acting in complexity. Emphasizing a balance of action and reflection, it asks leaders to build reflective margins: mini-pauses, structured debriefs, and boundaries around reflexive action. Reflection doesn’t replace action, it informs it. [**Belief Triggers**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/belief-triggers-marshall-goldsmith/)Most change efforts fail before they start due to inner scripts. Marshall Goldsmith identified 15 “belief triggers” that sabotage growth: from “I won’t get tired” to “I’ll do it later.” This article highlights how even high achievers get trapped by their optimism and self-deception. Effective leaders deliberately design counter-habits that undercut the sabotage. [**Changing Your Mindset Through Action**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/)It’s easy to wait for the “right” mindset before taking action. This article flips that order: act first, mindset follows. By doing the thing — trying, experimenting, leaning into discomfort — you create the evidence that reshapes belief. Change is a practice. Mindset is downstream of behavior. ![Changing Mindset vs Changing Actions](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Mindset-vs-Actions.png) [**Design Principles for Reflection**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/)Skilled reflection isn’t guaranteed just because you pause. This article outlines practical design principles: make it regular, anchor it in real events, capture insights, and test them back in action. Unstructured reflection drifts into rumination; structured reflection fuels clarity and change. Those who formalize reflective practice avoid being prisoners of their own thinking. [**Locus of Control**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/)This piece emphasizes locus of control as a stance that can shift from internal to external over time due to organizational helplessness. “Internals” take ownership, act proactively, and sustain agency, even when systems resist. The work of leadership is to build environments where that internal control can survive complexity and bureaucracy alike. ### **Effective Leaders Master Multi-Frame Thinking** Leadership isn’t about finding the perfect tool. Instead, it’s about switching tools based on what’s needed. Multi-frame thinking is the discipline of seeing with different lenses — structural, human, political, symbolic — to reveal thehidden. Leaders fluent in frames don’t solve, they sense-make. [**Multi-Frame Thinking** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/)Solving the wrong problem brilliantly is a failure. This article shows why the frame you choose matters more than the facts you collect. Effective leaders shift lenses until one unlocks clarity. In complexity, the right frame can often make solutions obvious. [**Four Frames Model of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/)Organizations aren’t machines, families, jungles, or theaters; they’re all of them. This piece breaks down Bolman and Deal’s four-frame model and the danger of defaulting to one frame. Effective leaders develop fluency in all four: using structure for clarity, human resource for motivation, political for alignment,and symbolic for meaning. ![Bolman-Deal 4 Frames of Leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Bolman-Deal-4-Frames-Model.png) [**The Structural Frame of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/)Tasks vanish when roles are unclear. This piece examines how clarity in roles, processes, and environment shapes effective execution. But structural clarity doesn’t suffice alone; the caveat is not to ignore emotion, meaning, or influence. As a leader, your job isn’t only to design structures, it’s also to test whether they guide or constrain the people using them. [**The Human Resource Frame of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/)People aren’t just resources. They’re meaning-makers. This article argues leadership rooted in human needs treats autonomy, growth, belonging, and trust as competitive advantages. Effective leaders who prioritize human resources know that energized people outperform compliant systems. [**The Political Frame of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/)Conflict is inevitable. This article highlights power play as a core aspect of organizational dynamics and leadership. The best leaders don’t pretend politics doesn’t exist; they map it, negotiate it, and respect it, channeling influence without manipulation. [**The Symbolic Frame of Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/)Numbers matter, but meaning matters even more. Drawing on myths, rituals, stories, this article shows how symbols help organizations interpret ambiguity and sustain identity. Effective leaders know that symbols and narratives are as strategically vital as strategies and budgets. [**Metaphors of Organization: Beyond the Machine** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/metaphors-of-organization/)Seeing organizations purely as machines or markets is misleading. This article introduces Gareth Morgan’s eight metaphors — organizations as families, jungles, psychic prisons, and political systems — and shows how they shape leaders’ perceptions and problem-solving. Effective leaders actively choose metaphors to match messy realities and avoid one-dimensional thinking. ![Metaphors of Organization](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Metaphors-of-Organization---Morgan.png) ### **Effective Leaders Identify Their Blind Spots** Your greatest strengths can become dangerous traps if you stop noticing their distortions. Leaders don’t derail dramatically but through slow erosion of alignment with context, others, and themselves. Recognizing that shadow before it distorts your judgment is a key to effective leadership. [**The Leadership Shadow: When Strengths Backfire**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/)Your trusted ways of working — doing, thinking, or feeling — have blind spots. Staying action-oriented may betray empathy. Being visionary may erode listening. This piece names three contribution modes and their shadow flips: *doing* morphs into omnipotence, *thinking* into infallibility, *feeling* into invulnerability. Effective leaders spot the distortion early before it damages relevance, relationships, and self-awareness. [**Leadership Derailment: How Good Managers Go Bad**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/)Derailment doesn’t come from failure but from staying the same while the world changes. Your strengths — precision, drive, vision — can calcify into isolation, over-control, defensiveness, and disconnect. This article traces the slow drift. Staying alive as a leader means continuous recalibration, honest reflection, and contextual humility. [**Johari Window: A Guide**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/)If people can’t tell you what you don’t see — and you won’t say what you hold back — you’ll lead in a funhouse mirror. The Johari Window gives you a simple mandate: expand the *open* area through calibrated self-disclosure and regular feedback. Build explicit practices (invite disconfirming data, close loops, model “here’s what I’m missing”) so blind spots shrink and trust compounds. ![The Johari Window](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants.png) [**Open Quadrant of the Johari Window**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/)“Radical transparency” isn’t the goal; it’s useful openness. Growing the open quadrant is about timing, reciprocity, and context: disclose what helps the work, not everything you feel. Set norms that reward thoughtful sharing and real inquiry so openness produces accuracy and speed, not oversharing and risk-aversion. [**Mental Models — A Subtractive Approach**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/)While learning more mental models might feel productive, removing bad ones is often more impactful. This piece argues for subtraction: surface the “soft” hidden assumptions driving behavior, then prune, update, or replace them. ![Mental Models: Subtraction vs Addition](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Mental-Models--Subtractive-vs-Additive.png) ### **Effective Leaders Practice Courage & Negative Capability** True leadership isn’t about having all the answers. It’s holding uncertainty, challenging norms, and risking being wrong in service of something better. Courage is the steadiness to stay when most people run. Negative capability, naiveté, or insight aren’t soft. They’re the hidden muscles that sustain creativity, presence, and judgment in chaos and complexity. [**The Type of Courage Needed in Modern Leadership and Organizations**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/)Courage in modern leadership isn’t daring. Instead, it’s a daily habit of choosing truth over comfort. This article strips away the myth of heroic leaders and replaces it with “ordinary courage”: psychological courage to name hard truths, moral courage to stand for better, and existential courage to act despite anxiety. [**Negative Capability in Leadership** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/)When uncertainty dominates, effective leaders don’t rush to be right, they pause wisely. This article dives into Keats’ idea of negative capability: the willingness to *stay with not-knowing*. Resisting the urge to impose certainty creates space for insight, new options, and clarity. Effective leaders don’t fill voids, but hold them, and let wisdom emerge. [**Nine Practices of the Effective Executive**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/)Peter Drucker’s practices strip away charisma and leave only the mechanics of effectiveness. These disciplines include asking “What needs to be done?”, acting in the enterprise’s interest, building shared action plans, and listening last. Effective leaders practice discipline over pretension. [**Naïveté in Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/)Sophistication can blind. This article argues naiveté isn’t ignorance, but open-ended curiosity unguarded against complexity. It challenges the reflex to prove cleverness and suggests leaders who hold naiveté—asking simple questions, avoiding cynicism—keep trust alive and insight fresh. Effective leadership isn’t always smart; sometimes it’s simply open. [**Wisdom, Insight, Profound Simplicity**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/wisdom-insight-profound-simplicity/)Advice often sounds simple in theory but falters in practice. That’s because wisdom isn’t a formula; it’s what happens when you push through confusion and rework your understanding. This article outlines Weick’s path: from superficial simplicity to confused complexity to profound simplicity. Effective leaders don’t skip the messy middle. They take the struggle as signal, not detour, and emerge with clarity. ![Wisdom: Superficial simplicity, Confused Complexity, Profound Simplicity](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Evolution-of-Understanding.png) [**Creative Breakthroughs and Insights – Busting Common Myths**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/)Breakthrough insights don’t drop from the sky, but emerge through sustained inquiry, tension, and release. This article unpacks the five properties of insight. It encouragesyou to focus on problem-finding, not just problem-solving, for more insights to arise. [**Self-Efficacy: A Better Construct than Confidence**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/)Confidence sounds good—but it’s vague and brittle. Self-efficacy, by contrast, is about *knowing* you can navigate challenges based on concrete experiences, feedback, and reflection. This article shows how belief in your capability is shaped by mastery, model-watching, grounded feedback, and managing your reactions. Effective leaders don’t just cultivate confidence; they build deep, precise trust in their own capacity. [**Don’t Overcome Self-Doubt**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/)Self-doubt isn’t a barrier—it’s a signal. You don’t need to purge self-doubt; you need to sit with it, turn it into feedback. In high-ambiguity work, it reveals areas you don’t yet fully understand. This piece reframes it as a companion in leadership—something to navigate, not eradicate. [**Leadership and Creativity are Decisions**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/)Creativity isn’t a gift but a deliberate choice. This piece reframes creativity (and leadership) as an intentional decision: you choose to think differently, reframe problems, and actively use your resources, even when it feels risky. The article underscores that calling yourself a leader isn’t enough; you have to decide to act creatively beyond comfort. That decision becomes the seed of effective leadership. ![Leadership is a decision](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Leadership-as-a-decision-2.png) [**Confidence and Effectiveness** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/)Confidence isn’t a prerequisite for leadership; it’s often the *result*. Many effective leaders acted before feeling confident and let competence carry them forward. This article dismantles the myth that confidence must come first; instead, let action and small wins build it from the ground up. ## **Pillar 3: Skill (Functional Competence)** In leadership coaching, I assume you’re already good at what you do — aka your craft, your domain. However, mastering the basics can dramatically improve performance. ### **Effective Leaders Excel at Goal Discipline** Competence at higher levels isn’t just about knowing the work — it’s about ensuring work gets done reliably, at scale, and aligned to strategy. Effective leaders understand that execution is less about control and more about clear goals, disciplined processes, and the right balance between direction and autonomy. The articles below explore how leaders translate strategy into disciplined execution without suffocating initiative. [**Effective Goal Setting**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/)Most goal-setting advice reduces everything to “make it SMART.” The reality is more nuanced. There are multiple types of goals — stretch, process, intrinsic, implicit — each serving a different purpose. Knowing which to use, and when, separates leaders who align effort from those who create confusion. [**Strategic Agility**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/)Leadership means operating on two clocks at once. You can’t mortgage the long term for short-term wins, and you can’t chase the distant horizon while the present burns. It’s about learning when to play the long game, when to execute for today, and how to move fluidly between the two. [**How Leaders Botch OKRs and Strategy**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-mistakes-okr-strategy/)OKRs aren’t magic. They fail when leaders expect the framework to do the heavy lifting, confuse ambition with clarity, or glamorize “strategy” while dodging the grind of execution. Effective leaders know that OKRs only work when lived daily. [**John Doerr on OKR Hygiene**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/john-doerr-okr-hygiene/)Doerr emphasized that OKRs succeed on hygiene: the simple, often ignored practices of pruning objectives, involving teams, staying flexible mid-cycle, and using them as a tool, not a weapon. Leaders who master this discipline avoid the cynicism that often follows failed rollouts. [**Andy Grove on Balancing Top-Down vs Bottom-Up**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/)Execution breaks down when leaders over-index on one side of the equation: top-down direction or bottom-up energy. Grove argued the best leaders manage the tension between both, knowing when to open the system to debate and experimentation, and when to shift into what he called a “focused, determined march.” ![Andy Grove: Dynamic Dialectic. Top Down vs Bottom Up Strategy](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Top-down-vs-Bottom-up.png) ### **Effective Leaders Manage Their Careers as a Skill** Effectiveness isn’t only about leading others but also about leading yourself over the long arc of a successful career. Many talented people stall not due to lack of ability, but because they neglect career management. Effective leaders treat their careers as a craft: aligning opportunities with strengths, avoiding traps, and thinking long-term. The articles in this section explore how to approach your career with the same rigor you bring to your leadership role. [**Career Myths: Lies We Are Sold**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/career-myths/)Most career advice offers feel-good slogans, not actual paths. This piece dismantles myths like “follow your passion” or “just work hard,” showing how they lead to confusion, stagnation, and misaligned efforts. It replaces them with clarity about what actually matters and how to act. [**Ask Before Setting Goals**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/)This article invites you to ask three foundational questions before committing to goals: Where did your definition of success come from? Who set the criteria? Are you owning the choice? These questions expose whether your goal aligns with your values or is someone else’s benchmark. Effective leaders use them to align performance with integrity. [**Good Careers Gone Bad – Subtle but Lethal Mistakes in Mid Career**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/)Past wins can sabotage future progress. “Active inertia” traps leaders in old routines that once served them. Strategic frames harden into blinders, processes calcify, and comfortable identity becomes a constraint. Effective leaders stay alert to this slide and course-correct proactively. [**Two Questions for a Midlife Career Change**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/)When you feel restless or stuck, asking “Where am I headed?” and “Is this the right trajectory?” are more powerful than any roadmap. Taking stock with those two questions cuts through noise and lets you act from clarity, not chaos. [**The Set of Our Sail**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/the-set-of-our-sail-in-work-and-life/)How you frame your life and work — your “sail shape”—determines what currents catch you. You don’t have to control the wind, but you do have to choose your shape, openness to possibility, and how you show up amid uncertainty. [**35 Essential Mid-Career Change Frameworks**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/)Clarity in career change isn’t usually one great insight. It often comes from selecting a useful framework to unstick the default stories you tell yourself. This article shares 35 models — from decision grids to narrative lenses — that realign perspective, reduce paralysis, and open new paths. [**Four Types of Careers and their Learning Barriers**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/four-types-of-careers-and-learning-barriers/)Not all careers grow the same way. You might be on a linear, institutional, creative, or craft path — each with its own constraints. Knowing your type helps you spot the learning barriers specific to your trajectory and take smarter, strategic next steps. ![4 types of careers](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/4-Types-of-Careers.png) [**Thinking Long-Term in Work: Careers as Practice and Art**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/long-term-thinking-careers-practice-art/)A career isn’t a sprint or marathon. It’s a craft, like pottery or jazz, where small gestures compound over years. This article encourages treating today’s choices as brush strokes in a long arc, rather than immediate status or short-term wins. [**If Vincent van Gogh Was Your Career Coach**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/)Van Gogh’s life teaches that persistence, unconventional choices, and deep inner work matter more than early recognition. Effective leaders lean into resistance and artful persistence, knowing that long-term impact often arrives in unexpected ways. ### ## Posts ### Evidence: How Real Confidence Is Built URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/confidence-comes-from-evidence/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:15:56.000Z If you follow sports, you probably heard the news of Sabastian Sawe's superhuman feat of becoming the first person ever to run a sub 2-hour marathon. Following the win, Sawe’s coach sent a note to Brad Stulberg that ended saying: *"Confidence is based on evidence” has been a guiding concept in the last few days before the race*. \[4\] He was referring to Stulberg’s latest book, [The Way of Excellence](https://amzn.to/4tzlGDW?ref=leadingsapiens.com). In it, Stulberg writes, > ….Underneath confidence you’ll almost always find evidence. > No amount of outward bravado compensates for a lack of inner evidence. Even approaches like self-talk only work if you have reason to believe what you are saying. **There is only one way to gain genuine confidence: by doing the work to earn it.** > The more reps we put in, the more faith we gain in our respective endeavors, and in ourselves. It is not blind or delusional faith. It is faith based on a concrete body of evidence, which is a powerful way to think about confidence. > Confidence comes from evidence. Stulberg’s emphasis on evidence draws on the research of Albert Bandura, who studied the often vague notion of confidence — what he called [self-efficacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/). Bandura’s work found “mastery experiences” — or Stulberg’s evidence — the strongest source of efficacy. Doing, in other words, is the best persuader. In my formative years, not understanding some basic mechanisms of how confidence and doubt operate, I wasted a lot of time and effort chasing the “feeling” of confidence. I wish I’d known/understood two aspects in particular: - **Confidence cannot be pursued; it can only ensue.** What can we pursue instead? A body of work (evidence) that ensures confidence follows naturally. - Doubt will inevitably arise and is unavoidable. The skill is in changing WHAT we doubt. Let’s take a closer look at each of these. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Chasing confidence vs. building evidence ### (1) Evidence is not just a support for confidence, but is the cause of confidence. As important and critical it is to great outcomes, confidence is usually the wrong place to start. It’s rarely the clean starting point we imagine it to be. Rather, it emerges after repeated contact with difficulty has taught us something about ourselves. Once you see confidence as an effect rather than a prerequisite, the whole [problem definition](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) changes. ### (2) You can artificially inflate confidence, but evidence has to be earned. Evidence can’t be faked, and we intuitively know this. *“That was hard, but I got it done”* does far more for confidence than a thousand self-affirmations. ### (3) Confidence, while real, is also unstable. It can change with sleep, fatigue, a recent setback, or internal weather. You feel capable on Tuesday, but not so much on Thursday. Nothing essential has changed in your ability per se, but perception has. This is one reason confidence is a poor object of direct pursuit. You can’t always command it. Evidence is different because it leaves a trace. Rather than moods, it’s built on data points. And our minds treat data differently from vague aspirations. ### (4) Smaller tasks instead of bigger selves. Confidence advice often focusses on inflating ourselves: believe harder, think bigger, visualize success etc. That has its place, but it can also feel hokey and empty. Genuine confidence is built the opposite way: reduce the task until action becomes possible. Move the focus away from yourself and instead focus on what needs done. Inflating ourselves also makes it psychologically expensive. It turns *“I need to give a great presentation”* into *“I need to prove I deserve this.”* That destroys self-efficacy because the task is no longer just a task but a referendum on identity. Instead, *“This is one rep”* shrinks the identity load. And it’s a lot easier to grow when we’re not constantly on trial. ### (5) Appearing confident and internal fortitude are not the same. Organizations regularly reward the performative version of confidence: speaking loudly, sounding certain, or hiding doubt. [Impression management](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/) is obviously important, but it also comes with a steep price when overdone. There’s an ocean of difference between trusting yourself and trying to appear unshaken. The facade of the second is expensive and takes a toll with time. ### (6) Instead of a leap of faith, build a ladder of evidence Popular culture loves the notion of a “leap of faith”. We intuitively know this is often far-fetched and impractical — and maybe that explains the infatuation with it. In practice, though, it’s wiser to build a “ladder of evidence” instead. Or to be more specific, a ladder of tasks of increasing difficulty. How can you practice in environments of increasing stakes instead of jumping straight to the main event? ### (7)“Outcome failure” is not the same as “agency failure”. Failures don’t always mean a lack of competence, or even a lack of progress. You can make the wrong call and still have used a better decision process. In setback (and success), it’s useful to keep the following separate: - Outcome: What happened? - Process: How did I go about it? - Agency ([control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/)): Which of my actions were actually [causal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/)? The more mature form of confidence is not certainty in outcomes, but rather trusting our ability to operate effectively in uncertainty. ### (8) Fortitude is more robust than confidence. It’s natural to want confidence that we’ll perform well. But it's even more useful to think, “I’ll recover even if I don’t do well”. Things rarely go per plan. A mature fortitude reduces the terror of imperfection. We no longer need the situation to go perfectly because we have the resourcefulness to [adapt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/) and respond. ### (9) Instead of changing personality, increase repertoire. We imagine confident people having a certain kind of personality: bold, expressive, dominant, or charismatic. But real confidence — aka self-efficacy — is repertoire-based and domain specific. We don’t have to upgrade our personalities. What’s needed instead is a wider range of practiced behavioral repertoires in a given context. Instead of waiting for a feeling (confidence), practice the behaviors that produce it instead. ## Doubting the doer vs. doubting the work Building evidence inevitably means pushing the limits, which also comes naturally coupled with [doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) — that pesky fellow traveler on the path to mastery who somehow shows up wherever you are. The mistake is trying to avoid it or using it as some sort of negative indicator of competence. **Instead of trying to get rid of doubt, change WHAT you doubt.** In [The Creative Act](https://amzn.to/4eMHgRE?ref=leadingsapiens.com), grammy winning producer Rick Rubin writes, > It’s worth noting the distinction between doubting the work and doubting yourself. An example of doubting the work would be, “I don’t know if my song is as good as it can be.” Doubting yourself might sound like, “I can’t write a good song.” > > These statements are worlds apart, both in accuracy and in impact on the nervous system. Doubting yourself can lead to a sense of hopelessness, of not being inherently fit to take on the task at hand. All or nothing thinking is a nonstarter. > > However, doubting the quality of your work might, at times, help to improve it. You can doubt your way to excellence. “Doubting yourself” is global, imprecise, and non-actionable. In contrast, “doubting the work” is local, specific, and tangible enough to work on. Doubting the work creates distance between the doer and the doing, which gives us a fighting chance. But if I am “broken” myself, how will I fix anything? There’s no breathing room between me and the problem. The practice is to focus doubt on the specifics of evidence. Catch yourself before it goes too global and turns into doubting yourself. ## Related reading Over the years, I’ve tackled the topic of confidence from different angles: - [Do leaders have to be confident?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) - [Self-efficacy: A better construct than confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) - [Being ok with doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) - [The psychology of small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) ## Sources 1. [The Way of Excellence](https://amzn.to/4tzlGDW?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Brad Stulberg 2. [The Creative Ac](https://amzn.to/4eMHgRE?ref=leadingsapiens.com)t by Rick Rubin [You’ve Got to Believe - The Growth EquationThis past weekend, Sabastian Sawe ran the London Marathon in 1:59:30 to become the first person in history to break the 2-hour mark in a legitimate race. If that wasn’t crazy enough, the 2nd place finisher also came in under 2 hours, and the 3rd place finisher broke the previous marathon world record. In other![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/cropped-Updated-White-Favicon-1-1-270x270.png)The Growth Equation -Steve Magness![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/f779bc66b937b1688918bb9e847b575124f0fb26-7200x3780-1-scaled.avif)](https://thegrowtheq.com/youve-got-to-believe/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) [This is wild. On Sunday, Sabastian Sawe became the first person ever to run a marathon in under two hours—1:59:30 in London. The next morning, his coach, Claudio Berardelli sent me this. One of the… | Brad Stulberg | 55 commentsThis is wild. On Sunday, Sabastian Sawe became the first person ever to run a marathon in under two hours—1:59:30 in London. The next morning, his coach, Claudio Berardelli sent me this. One of the best parts of writing a book is when it takes on a life of its own. It’s so neat, and a true honor, to see it being read by (and helping) people at the highest level of their craft. I can’t promise reading “The Way of Excellence” will result in an earth-shattering world record. But you should still read it. Don’t take it from me. Take it from the man who just coached the fastest marathon in history. | 55 comments on LinkedIn![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/al2o9zrvru7aqj8e1x2rzsrca)LinkedInBrad Stulberg![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1777377821300)](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/brad-stulberg-009b168b%5Fthis-is-wild-on-sunday-sabastian-sawe-activity-7454862909123448833-GDdZ?utm%5Fsource=share&utm%5Fmedium=member%5Fdesktop&rcm=ACoAAAKB3twBGUf7ZBJzwStXMJJxx2PEXmX3RAE) ### From Amtrak to Antarctica: Intention - Perception - Strategy URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/intention-perception/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:16:34.000Z > I used to ride the Amtrak train from DC to New York City regularly. The train has a “quiet car”—a section where everyone is supposed to be quiet so you can sleep or get some work done. People use the quiet car because they want serenity, but it was astounding how often it backfired. When you expect quiet, you become ultra-sensitive to the slightest noise. If someone in the quiet car speaks in more than a whisper, the entire car plunges into a state of deep irritation. **I’d bet that sitting in the “peaceful” quiet car actually leaves people with higher blood pressure.** \[3\] Morgan Housel mentions this example in the context of finances and social debt that accrues around expectations. But there are far-reaching implications of **the link between intentions — expectations — perceptions — and the actions/strategy that follow them**. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 --- Allow me to share a more mundane example: my attempts at trying to meditate. Attention training is now a key aspect of how I coach. But for years, I struggled at learning meditation. One reason was because anytime I tried it, I intended to get to “uninterrupted focus”. This intent, however, set up the expectation of quietness — which meant that any and all “noise” was a “disturbance” and an impediment to my goal. To be clear, the sounds I found disturbing were on their own neutral. There are no “disturbing sounds” per se. There are only sounds. **I introduced the notion of “disturbing” which then modified something that was otherwise neutral (mostly).** My practice changed dramatically when I became more comfortable with a slightly different stance. In my changed approach, any sound — a bird singing, a jackhammer going off in the distance, or my mind’s own blabbering — is recognized as “part of the practice” and thus nothing to be fighting against, but instead to be worked with. The sounds arise and then go — I’m simply aware of them. That slight adjustment of intention entirely changed my results. As the meditation teacher Ron Burbea put it, > **Intention sets up the flavor of perception.** --- Let’s now turn to a classic example of strategy and leadership in some of the harshest conditions imaginable. In October 1911, two expeditions set out across Antartica toward the same objective: **the first humans ever to get to the South Pole.** The conditions were brutal: More than 1,400 miles round trip across shifting ice, a punishing ascent up a 10,000-foot glacier, and then a long traverse across the polar plateau in temperatures that dropped below −60°F, with winds reaching 100 miles per hour. Roald Amundsen (Norwegian contingent) and Robert Falcon Scott (British) were both seasoned explorers with prior experience in polar conditions. Scott had already led an Antarctic expedition and returned a decorated national hero. Amundsen had successfully navigated the Northwest Passage, one of the most difficult routes on earth. Both commanded capable teams that prepared for months through the Antarctic winter. **But, despite the similarities, the outcomes were very different.** Amundsen’s team reached the Pole first, planted their flag, and returned to base after an arduous journey but with discipline and control. In contrast, Scott’s team arrived more than a month later, only to find the Norwegian flag already there. On the return journey, weakened by exhaustion, cold, and dwindling supplies, Scott and his men were overwhelmed by conditions they could no longer manage. **They died in their tents, just eleven miles short of a supply depot that might have saved them.** ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/04/Zuidpoolexpeditie_in_1912_door_Robert_Falcon_Scott_-1868-1912-_Poolreiziger_Robert_Falcon_Scott-_SFA002025236.jpg) Robert Falcon Scott (left) at the tent of his competitor Roald Amundsen, together with his companions. Via Wikimedia Commons. --- There are many conflicting interpretations and causal analyses of what went wrong with Scott’s expedition versus the success of Amundsen. But I want to highlight one particular aspect that’s relevant to our discussion here. **While both leaders faced the same environment, they weren’t operating from the same assumptions.** Their goals were the same but intentions and interpretations were very different. Scott’s approach treated wind, cold, and unpredictability as recurring obstacles that had to be pushed through. Amundsen treated those same conditions as the medium through which any serious plan had to operate. For one leader, the environment was to be subdued through a combination of effort, discipline, and determination. For the other, the task was to fit the method to the environment. > Snow, after all, to Amundsen… is simply Nature in another form. It is a versatile, complex and friendly substance. It is building material, insulation, water supply, a refrigerator for preserving food and, to a skier, an efficient means of travel, making all the frozen world a highway. > > **Scott, by contrast, saw snow as an enemy to be conquered, with himself as the invader**… \[1\] Intention changes the flavor of perception. > Leaders are to a social system what a properly shaped lens is to light. They focus intention and do so for better or worse. \[2\] As it turned out, these slight differences while subtle were very consequential. Their differing stances — adapting to conditions vs. overcoming them — shaped many downstream decisions that ultimately played a role in the outcomes: (1) Amundsen understood that **survival required learning from those who had already mastered life in these extreme conditions**. He studied Inuit practices, adopting their clothing systems, methods for icing sledge runners, and deep practical knowledge of dog driving. Scott, by contrast, came from a naval culture that prized stoicism, hierarchy, and courage under hardship. He did not ignore prior lessons outright, but he never fully reorganized his expedition around them. His system remained a mishmash of ponies, dogs, motor sledges, and human hauling, relying more heavily on effort. (2) While Amundsen saw **snow as a surface to travel across efficiently**—a highway for skis and sledges—Scott’s expedition repeatedly experienced snow and terrain as obstacles that slowed movement, exhausted men, and punished transport systems. (3) Amundsen saw **dogs as essential** and combined their power with the efficiency of skis. The Norwegian approach was built around the strengths of animals, tools, and terrain working together. Scott, however, never fully embraced dogs as the central solution, placing greater symbolic and operational weight on man-hauling. Human exertion became a larger share of the plan than it needed to be. (4) Amundsen **rejected heavier European clothing in favor of loose-fitting reindeer and sealskin garments** modeled after Arctic patterns. These allowed better management of heat, moisture, and movement—critical advantages in extreme cold. In contrast, Scott’s party relied heavily on woolens and windproof layers that became heavy, damp, and restrictive under severe conditions. They stiffened with frost and made movement harder. Amundsen’s strategy was built on **adjustment rather than domination**. He did not need Antarctica to cooperate in order to succeed. **His methods assumed the conditions as given** and worked from there. --- Endurance, an obvious requirement in extreme conditions, is equally applicable in the more mundane day-to-day grind of corporate existence. Consider the notion of **high frustration tolerance** — which I deem as a prerequisite for succeeding in large corporate setups where bureaucracy and red tape are the norm. One stance is to treat these dysfunctional systems as headaches and impediments that stand in your way. Once you’ve set this “intention”, politics for example becomes a constant reminder that things are not as they are “supposed to be” and you wish things were otherwise. You wonder: How much more could I get done if it wasn’t for all this backbiting and pesky politics that keeps derailing my aims? A more effective alternative is to adjust our intention and see them as “conditions of the game”. **We chose to play football, so expect to get tackled.** To state the obvious, wanting to play football without getting tackled is wishful thinking. While possible, it won’t be a game anymore. By treating organizational dysfunction as part of the game I accept things “as they are” instead of wanting them otherwise. **The mistake is to treat acceptance as passive or being a doormat. Far from it.** Often grumbling feels active because it makes us think we’re doing something about it, but not really. Accepting things as they are, in contrast, preserves energy and focus, and opens up actions which are otherwise hidden when we’re too focused on what’s not working. We surely get tackled, but don’t die in the process. Instead, we adapt and keep playing the game. All too often, burnout stems from not fully understanding the conditions of the game, and more importantly how our intentions are either fighting against conditions or responsively aligned with them. Once I “accept”, I can see patterns – and patterns are predictable because human nature hasn’t changed. **The same dynamics that ruled tribes of humans as hunter-gatherers are still applicable in everyday meetings to corporate boardrooms.** We might smell and look different, but the underlying mechanisms are still the same. **Constraints, once seen this way, become a goad and guiding mechanism for action instead of something that thwarts ambition.** Intention changes the flavor of perception. The good news about intentions and interpretations is that they are malleable. And the more adept I’m at identifying and adjusting them, the more it increases my capacity for effective action. --- ## Related Reading - [High frustration tolerance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/) - [How’s your adaptive capacity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/) - [Surviving institutional stupidity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/) - [Self-efficacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/): How you interpret your capabilities plays a big role in how you actually respond. - [Systems thinking iceberg](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/): intentions and perceptions are at the deeper levels of the pyramid. - [Double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/): stance determines downstream actions - [Subtracting Mental Models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/): identifying assumptions that are further upstream is more useful ## Sources 1. Huntford, Roland . [Race for the South Pole](https://amzn.to/4cXDAd8?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Pascale, Richard. [Surfing the edge of chaos](https://amzn.to/4tO2LGo?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Housel, Morgan . [The Art of Spending Money](https://amzn.to/4w7yu7c?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Why Words Fail: The Hidden But More Important Layer in Effective Interactions URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/relationship-level-of-communication/ Last updated: 2026-04-12T14:24:20.000Z You just don’t seem to “click” with this new manager. Or despite trying different tactics you just can’t seem to connect with your teenager. All of us have been in some version of this dynamic both at work and home. Invariably this leads us to try and “get better at communication”. Unfortunately, **most communication advice focuses on tactics**: phrase things differently, structure arguments better, and so on. These are then followed up by prescriptions. Now they have AI software that supposedly makes you a better manager/leader by giving you situational scripts. Parenting is probably next (which makes me shudder). There’s clearly value in this. But they also miss something. The assumption is that communication is primarily about what you say and how well you say it. “If I can just find the right words”, we think. **But anyone who has delivered a well crafted thoughtful message also knows another strange reality: you can say something that’s perfect on paper and still miss, or worse backfire.** Conversely, you can say something clumsy or incomplete, but the other person still gets it. So what’s going on here? Human interactions operate on two levels at once. One level carries “content” — the issue at hand. **But content sits within another level called context or “relationship”** — what the interaction implies about authority, trust, and alignment. We spend all our energy polishing the visible layer of content. However the real issue is often one level higher in relationship/context. This distinction — between content and relationship — is key to understand why we fail to connect. In my experience, **focusing on the relationship level is a higher ROI skill than trying to script the perfect message**. It’s also another reason why AI is not going to replace a human anytime soon — based on where and how you are adding value. **AI doesn’t have “judgement, feel, or taste”** — skills that will increase in importance and value as AI infiltrates and commoditizes all aspects of work. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## The Two Levels of Communication Human communication is built on a structural split that’s easy to overlook. Every message contains two elements. Paul Watzlawick called them the “content” and “relationship” levels of communication. \[1\] Content level is straightforward. It’s the literal message: the data, the explanation and so on. It’s the part that can be true or false, reasonable or unreasonable. This is the layer we spend all of our time improving because it’s visible and lends itself to technique. Better phrasing and clearer logic belong here. But there’s a second layer that sits on top of content. It’s the context or relationship level that classifies how to interpret that message. **Context operates at a higher logical level than content.** When you say “We should revisit the plan”, the words are clear. But the message can also be interpreted as “I don’t trust your judgement,” “I’m stepping in,” or “I’m taking control back.” You think you are offering help, but the other sees it as scrutiny. Context is implicit and answers a very different set of questions: - Is this collaborative or evaluative? - Are you giving me a suggestion or a directive? - Are we aligned or in conflict? - Who has authority here? These questions are rarely asked directly, but they are pivotal in how others perceive us. The same words can function as guidance, criticism, invitation, or dismissal depending on the relational logic surrounding them. The relationship level in effect frames content. **When the relationship level is healthy, context is invisible because the “meta-communication” is consistent.** You don’t have to wonder whether a remark was meant as criticism or curiosity because know how to read it. But in more fragile situations — new relationships, ambiguous roles — the context layer is unstable, and small signals take on disproportionate weight. Once you see communication in these two layers, many otherwise confusing interactions start to make more sense. When interacting with human beings, we aren’t just exchanging information, but also negotiating how we relate to each other. **No amount of content-level refinement can fix a context-level mismatch.** ## Interactions morph into set patterns To make matters worse, or rather sticky, Watzlawick notes how over time communication between two people evolves into patterns — what he calls "**ongoing interaction systems**". [Systems](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/) is the key word here. \[1\] The relationship level is not created in any single conversation but something that stabilizes over time. Repeated interactions create expectations. As one person pushes, the other becomes cautious. These sequences repeat, and gradually they become the “normal” way two people communicate. Once set, new messages are interpreted through that established pattern. Even neutral statements get pulled into it. A suggestion comes across as criticism because suggestions have usually functioned that way before. This is why misunderstandings feel persistent. You resolve one issue, but the same conflict reappears in another form. The content changes, but the pattern remains intact. That’s why, **communication problems are rarely just about what was said**. They are features of a pattern. And unless that pattern changes, changing content alone typically has limited effect. See if you can identify the pattern you are currently in: ![Content vs Relationship Level Patterns](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/04/Content-vs-Relationship-Patterns.png) ## The comfort of content Before jumping into how to get better at the relationship level it’s worth asking: **why do we spend nearly all our efforts at the content level**? For one, content is explicit. It’s the part of communication that feels concrete, controllable, and safe. You can point to it, edit it, measure it. We can be “right” at the content level. Organizations reinforce this orientation by rewarding clarity, logic, and precision. Entire industries of communication training are built on content-level improvement. They create the appearance of progress by focusing on the visible layer of the exchange. **Context, by contrast, is nuanced and sits in assumptions about power, trust, and identity. It’s more “squishy”.** Working at the context level means acknowledging difficult questions: Whose interpretation carries weight? What is being negotiated? Focusing on content lets us avoid confronting how we are being perceived. It gives something to work on without us having to confront the underlying dynamics. If a conversation goes poorly, we can treat it as a matter of misunderstanding rather than a signal about the relationship itself. **It’s more comfortable to believe that “they didn’t get the point”** than to consider how our own role, status, or behavior made things harder. Finally, content is plain simpler. Processing the relational logic requires attending to two levels simultaneously: the literal message and the meta-message. We collapse these levels because the brain prefers a single, coherent narrative. It’s easier to argue over the stated issue than to track the unwritten rules actually shaping the interaction. ## Markers of the relationship level The relationship level sounds abstract, but in practice it’s quite concrete. It consists of a handful of signals that define how the interaction should be understood. Paying attention to these six markers in itself can drastically improve your communication. First there’s **role**. Every conversation implicitly answers the question: who is speaking from what position? Are you advising, evaluating, or collaborating? A suggestion from a peer is heard differently than the same suggestion from a manager. While the org chart might dictate a certain role, within a given situation there’s a range of roles you can assume. Next is **inferred intent**. Is there alignment between your intention and how the other sees it? You may intend to explore options, but if the interaction feels evaluative, your questions will be heard as tests. Then there’s **alignment**. Does it feel cooperative or adversarial? When alignment is assumed, we tolerate ambiguity and incomplete information. But when uncertain, even precise statements are scrutinized. The content hasn’t changed but the willingness to interpret it generously has. The fourth component is **authority and autonomy**. Conversations often implicitly negotiate who has decision rights and how much independence exists. A request for input can be heard as consultation or as oversight depending on how authority is perceived. This is why the same conversation can feel empowering in one context but constraining in another. Then there is **trust**. In high-trust relationships, even blunt statements are interpreted charitably. In low-trust relationships, neutral comments can be examined for hidden implications. Finally, there’s **history** because past interactions accumulate. If previous conversations involved scrutiny, new questions are heard the same way. If earlier exchanges were collaborative, the same questions will feel supportive. Taken together, these elements form the relational context. They define the “rules” of the interaction. Once those rules are inferred, the content is interpreted within them. ## Getting better at the relationship level If the relationship level shapes interpretation, and interaction patterns reinforce themselves, the obvious question is: how do we get better at working with this layer? First, pay attention to **how the conversation is progressing**, not just what’s being discussed. Most of us track the topic but aren’t alert to whether the interaction is becoming evaluative, collaborative, defensive etc. These changes often happen long before things breaks down. By noticing them early, you have more room to adjust. Second, **treat reactions as data about the relationship**, not just responses to content. If a neutral question produces defensiveness, it’s telling you something about the relational dynamic. If additional explanation does not reduce resistance, that too is information. Instead of refining wording, pause and ask what the interaction is signaling. Third, **look for recurring sequences**. Watzlawick’s emphasis on interactions as systems suggests that what matters more is not isolated exchanges but patterns over time. If conversations repeatedly follow the same trajectory you are stuck in a relational loop. Recognizing it is the first step to changing it. Fourth, **clarify** [**the type of conversation**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/) **you are having**. Tensions typically arise from assuming different frames. You think the discussion is exploratory, but the other thinks it’s evaluative. Identifying it explicitly — “Let’s explore options before deciding” — can change the relational context and reduce friction. Fifth, **stay alert to how roles are implicitly defined**. Are you seen as an evaluator or advisor? Are you pushing them into a defensive position without intending to? Small changes in stance — inviting input, acknowledging uncertainty — can alter the tone without changing content. Finally, **recognize when improving content is no longer helping**. This is often the clearest signal that the issue is at the relationship level. When more clarity, additional data, or detailed explanations do not change the interaction, it’s usually because the relational frame is broken. ## In closing Getting better at communication is more than just following prescriptive scripts. The hard work is in developing “**sensitivity to interaction**” aka sensemaking. Instead of “What should I say?” a better question is to zoom out: “What’s transpiring here?” The words of course matter. But what happens in the space between the words often matters more. ## Related Reading [Mastering Context: Leadership is a Context SportContext is a powerful tool in leadership but goes underutilized and misunderstood - a deep dive into why mastering context is essential to effective leadership.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/08/1024px-Van_Gogh_from_Space.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) [The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological SafetyFraming is a key skill to create psychological safety and improve performance. But most leaders are unaware or don’t know how to get better at it.![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Power-of-Framing-in-Psychological-Safety.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) [The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition — A Deep DiveThe Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition is one of the most enduring explanations of how human beings develop mastery. We think of experts as people with all the answers — those who can explain, justify, and systematize what they know. But in practice, the most skilled performers often can’t explain![](https://static.ghost.org/v5.0.0/images/link-icon.svg)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Dreyfus-Model---3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/) ## Sources 1. [Pragmatics of Human Communication](https://amzn.to/4ttbTzO?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Paul Watzlawick, Janet Beavin, Don Jackson 2. [Paradoxes of Power and Leadership](https://amzn.to/4sai22u?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Miguel Pina e Cunha, Steward Clegg, Armenio Rego, Marc0 Berti ### Ethos: The Art of Building Trust and Credibility URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-building-trust-and-credibility/ Last updated: 2026-03-30T13:15:46.000Z In leadership, your persuasiveness is contingent upon one question people are always asking: **Can I trust the person behind the message?** That’s the key idea behind the ancient Greek concept of **Ethos**. Originally meaning "habitat" or "character," Aristotle considered ethos, or the appeal to credibility, as the "first among equals" in the [triad of persuasion](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/). If you’ve ever wondered why your best ideas are ignored or why your team seems to be working for the weekend rather than your mission, the answer likely lies in your ethos. > Character contains almost the strongest proof of all. > > — Aristotle \[1\] > Persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. This kind of persuasion… should be achieved by what the speaker says, not by what people think of his character before he begins to speak. > > … his character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion he possesses. \[1\] 💡 Fair warning: Although Ethos meant character, some ideas below will seem like manipulation. Bear in mind, Aristotle was teaching rhetoric which by definition means using language to change minds. As with any effective tool, it can be used both for good and bad purposes. Stay alert to it, and use it for the larger good. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Aristotle’s Ethos > There is no stronger test of a man’s real character than power and authority, exciting as they do every passion, and discovering every latent vice. > > — Plutarch Given how [power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/) changes leaders, people are naturally wary of those in authority. That’s why Aristotle argued that while logic and [emotion](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pathos-in-leadership/) are powerful, "character contains almost the strongest proof of all". He identified three elements of Ethos: 1. Phronesis (Practical intelligence): The audience must believe you have the expertise, common sense, and street smarts to solve the problem at hand. 2. Arete (Virtuous character): You show that you share the audience's values and stand for a cause larger than yourself. 3. Eunoia (Goodwill): The audience must feel you are on their side, acting with their best interests at heart, not for personal gain. Jay Heinrichs calls these **the 3 Cs: Craft (phronesis), Cause(arete), and Caring(eunoia).** Only when all three are present are leaders seen as trustworthy. ## 1\. Phronesis (wisdom and craft) > They should rule who are able to rule best. > > — Aristotle Often translated as "prudence" or "competence”, Phronesis is showing that you actually know what you’re talking about. It’s the **street smarts** of leadership. In uncertainty — where a future course of action must be chosen — everyone’s primary concern is: Will this work? Without Phronêsis, people may believe you are genuine but will ultimately doubt your ability to navigate complex challenges. **Competence is the foundational layer of trust; without it, character is seen as well-intentioned but useless.** That's why Aristotle emphasized that an effective orator—the ancient equivalent of a political or business leader—must have exhaustive knowledge of their subject, whether it be finance, foreign policy, or tech. Heinrichs calls this first pillar of phronesis as Craft. You display craft by focusing on experience. It's why political candidates often tout their backgrounds as businesspeople or doctors because competence is inherently persuasive. “It depends” signals craft. A one-size-fits-all solution is typically viewed with suspicion. In contrast, those who ask about the specific nature of a problem before offering a tailored solution are considered practically wise. ## 2\. Arete (integrity and cause) While Phronêsis shows ability, Arête, or "virtue", is about reliability. Virtue here does not mean being a paragon of morality. It means people trust that your intentions and values are aligned with theirs, rather than what’s merely self-serving. You become rhetorically virtuous by embodying the "us" of the organization. Heinrichs calls this **"Cause" : you stand for something larger than yourself that the audience also values**. This is why values are critical to effective leadership. You build trust by upholding shared beliefs and attitudes. However, virtue is also subjective. What's considered virtuous by a group of tech founders might be seen as reckless by a board of conservative educators. The key to virtue is finding the "Golden Mean"— the sweet spot between two extreme values. A virtuous soldier is neither a coward nor foolhardy but [courageous](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) — the mean between the two. Modern leaders must [navigate this tension](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) daily: staying true to yourself while being agreeable enough to retain the power of influence. ## 3\. Eunoia (unbiased and caring) The final pillar is eunoia, or "goodwill." This is the "caring" component of leadership. It’s the projection of a "disinterested" perspective — showing that you have no personal bias or interest that conflicts with their well-being. A leader shows eunoia by making the audience feel like their interests are the leader’s top priority. You can use the "reluctant conclusion": show that you’re making a decision only because the evidence is strong, and it’s in their best interest, even if it seems to cost you personally. People see you as a partner in their success, rather than a manipulator with a hidden agenda. Historically, this was so important that the American founders often published their political arguments anonymously. They didn't want readers to think they were arguing for their own gain. Those who can honestly say, "I'm doing this because it is best for us, even though it will be difficult for me," earn a different level of trust. In modern terms, this is the "servant leadership" model, where the leader is a benefactor whose primary motivation is the beneficiary’s advantage, not their own. ## Some characteristics of Ethos worth noting ### The art of fitting in Ethos is closely linked to decorum: meeting people’s expectations for tone, appearance, and manners. The word ethos originally meant "habitat" — just as a penguin fits the habitat of an iceberg, a speaker must fit the mental "habitat" of their audience. > You persuade a man only insofar as you can talk his language by speech, gesture, tonality, order, image, attitude, idea, identifying your ways with his. > > — Kenneth Burke \[3\] Decorum isn't about being "polite" but gaining a sense of group identity. This is why a politician might trade a suit for a flannel shirt. It says, "I'm one of you". ### Credibility isn’t pre-ordained A common misconception is that Ethos is simply your "reputation"—the things people say about you *before* you enter the room. While a pre-existing reputation certainly helps, rhetorical Ethos is technically something you achieve *during* the act of communication. Aristotle emphasized that **even a person with a stellar background must re-establish character through what they say and how they say it**. This is empowering: character in an argument is not just based on your past, but a performance you can start afresh in every meeting. This "achieved" character is what allows a newcomer to win over a skeptical board, or a manager to pivot and regain trust after a failure. ### Congruence is persuasive Leadership credibility requires consistency between internal reality and external expression — the alignment of thought, speech, and action. When you "walk the talk," it creates a sense of "constancy" that builds confidence. Carl Rogers, the pre-eminent psychologist of the 20th century, called this “[congruence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/)”. This alignment is an antidote to "empty speech" or "idle chatter," which Aristotle dismissed as the product of "uneducated" or "base" minds. Leaders who are disconnected from their beliefs — aka "doublespeak" — eventually destroy Ethos because people can sense the lack of alignment. ### Adapt your style While the core components of Ethos are universal, Aristotle was a pragmatist who recognized that the "performance" of character must suit the specific "genre" and audience. Addressing a formal assembly requires a different style than when speaking in a courtroom or a ceremony. [Effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/) involves "choosing the most persuasive and evocative language" to fit the moment — what the Romans called propriety. Aristotle’s lesson is that **there’s no single correct personality for leadership**, but rather a correct way to align your natural style with the virtues of clarity, appropriateness, and truth. ### Perfect isn’t as convincing as we think We think that to be persuasive, we must be flawless. But perfection can actually be a liability. When you're too polished, correct, or slick, others become suspicious of your motives. The ancients suggested a counterintuitive tool: dubitatio. It means showing a certain amount of helplessness or uncertainty. This way you lower the audience's expectations and convey a sense of sincerity. Abraham Lincoln was a master of the country-bumpkin image. His seemingly unpolished delivery disguised a brilliant analytical mind, but it was his Ethos — the perception of him as an honest, plain-spoken man — that made his brilliant logic so much more acceptable to the masses. Revealing a "tactical flaw"— a noble mistake or a humanizing weakness — can win a level of sympathy that a perfect performance never could. For more on this, see [self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/). ### Handling blunders > Give me a fruitful error any time, full of seeds, bursting with its own corrections. You can keep your sterile truth for yourself. > > — Vilfredo Pareto The ultimate test of credibility is how you handle blunders. Our instinct is to get defensive or offer a generic apology. But savvy leaders use mistakes as genuine opportunities to build ethos. When you screw up, be first with the news. Affirm arete by acknowledging that you failed to meet your own high standards. But also switch the focus to the future. Instead of dwelling on the past, outline the choices ahead. Focus on phronesis by showing you know how to resolve the problem. Then demonstrate eunoia by dropping everything to get it right. \[3\] By focusing on values and clear actions to fix the mess, you come out more trustworthy than you did before the error. ## In closing As you reflect on your communication, ask: - Can they see my craft: evidence that I can solve this specific problem? - Is my cause clear: shared values that make me "one of them"? - Do I show my caring: disinterestedness that proves I am acting for their sake? True credibility is not something you "have" based on your resume, but something you "perform" by balancing these three pillars in the eyes of those you seek to move. ## Related Reading on Ethos [Ethos, Pathos & Logos: How Leaders Win Trust, Inspire Action, and PersuadeMaster Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos to lead with influence. Build credibility, move hearts, and make clear, persuasive arguments in today’s complex workplace.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-246.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Ethos--Logos--Pathos---1-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) [Aristotle’s Pathos: An Ancient Remedy for Modern LeadershipIt’s common to associate effective leadership with a cool, detached rationality. We assume that if the facts are right and the plan sound, people naturally follow. Yet, how often have you presented a perfectly reasoned plan only to see it met with indifference? Why is it that logic so![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-247.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Pathos-in-Modern-Leadership.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pathos-in-leadership/) [The Trust Triangle of LeadershipHow can I be more trustworthy? How do I show up more authentically? Leaders at all levels grapple with this fundamental challenge of leadership. The answer lies in Aristotle’s 2,000+ year old framework of ethos, logos, and pathos or what Harvard prof Frances Frei and Anne Morris call the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-248.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Trust-Triangle--Ethos-Pathos-Logos-2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) ## Sources 1. Aristotle, [The Art of Rhetoric](https://amzn.to/46gCPcS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Christof Rapp, "Aristotle’s Rhetoric," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022. 3. Jay Heinrichs, [Thank You for Arguing](https://amzn.to/4qL34j5?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Stephen J. Costello, [Between Speech and Silence: From Communication to Meditation](https://amzn.to/4bAI3Dj?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Three Axioms of Effective Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/axioms-of-effective-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:17:32.000Z Recently, a client asked for a book recommendation on leadership. I asked what problem she was trying to solve. Leading effectively is one thing. On the other hand, if she aimed to get ahead in the career game, leadership is only but one of many factors. The problem with run-of-the-mill leadership books is that: - They focus too much on traits and characteristics of so-called “great leaders”. To make things worse, it makes you think that effective leaders are innately that way or that it requires a special set of skills you can never master. Sure, it’s not easy, but focusing too much on traits misses the point. - Too many of them give **moral sounding prescription**s on how great leaders “should” be. Equally, **“managers” are second class citizens vilified as necessary but evil twins.** - Sometimes, it’s one person’s perspective, or revisionist takes (think CEO biographies) that worked for them but doesn’t translate well to our unique situation. - Many ignore the reality of what people face in the workplace. **You read one of these and end up even more disenchanted with the disconnect between what they propose and the dysfunction you see daily**. The good news is that there are, in fact, good ones — although few and far in between — that give you a meta-framework to operate effectively amidst these otherwise imperfect conditions. One of those is Rob Goffee and Gareth Jones’ [Why Should Anyone be Lead by You?](https://amzn.to/3Ngq8Zk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) In this piece, I share a snippet from it. To preserve pithiness, I haven’t added much commentary. I have, however, connected it to my previously published articles that build on these ideas. This is a first in a series on books, both leadership and otherwise — many unknown, others forgotten — that I’ve found useful in my work. While not a summary, these pieces will introduce you to key ideas along with books I highly recommend. Let’s jump in. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## In search of formulas So why are leadership prescriptions so abundant and popular? For one, it’s easier to package and sell traits as a formula. It’s much harder to tell someone — or an entire corporation — that “it depends” and that it will take reflection, time, and effort. The reality is that there’s no one straightforward answer, neither are there proven formulas that work everywhere. As is often the case, it’s more nuanced than we’d like to think. > There are no rules for human behavior that apply in every situation without limit or change. **Humanity yearns for certainty**; it has looked for such rules for thousands of years but has not found them. **For every principle it has discovered, it has also discovered a conflict of principles**. In recent years men of practical affairs—industrial executives, for instance—have often come to psychologists and sociologists begging for a plan or set of rules that the executives can apply “across the board”— that is, in all circumstances—in dealing with their employees. > > There are no such rules, and if there were, they would be dangerous. They might work well for a time; then changing circumstances would make them inappropriate, and the leader would have to deal with a new situation while his mind was clogged with old rules. The maxims of leadership we shall state are, therefore, **not to be taken as absolutes but only as convenient guides for the behavior of a leader**. They apply only within limits determined by the situation that faces him, and there are situations where the maxims will conflict with one another. > > **What a leader needs to have is not a set of rules but a good method of analyzing the situation in which he must act**. **If the analysis is adequate, a way of dealing with the situation will suggest itself**. And if, as a working guide, the leader does have some simple rules in mind, analysis will show him where their limits lie. > > — George Homans \[1\] Instead of generic prescriptions, Goffee and Jones offer three leadership “axioms”. Axioms by definition are self-evident — we intuitively know them from our own experience. The problem is that in the barrage of prescriptions, our own judgements and observations get lost and forgotten. These axioms are also foundational — they are widely applicable, from the military and government to sports teams and businesses. As you read them, notice how it confirms or clashes with your existing notions on leadership, organizations, and careers. Consider the implications. I follow it up with a set of reflection questions you can work with. ## Axiom 1: Leadership is Situational > First, leadership is situational. What is required of the leader will always be influenced by the situation. This is commonsensical, but true. > > History is full of examples of leaders who found their time and place, but whose qualities lost their appeal when things moved on. **Winston Churchill, for example, was an inspirational wartime leader, but his bulldog style was ill suited to the reconstruction agenda of postwar Britain.** Similarly, George Bush (senior) had a colossal opinion-poll lead in the immediate aftermath of the first Iraq war, and yet in the following year he lost to Bill Clinton. By contrast, Nelson Mandela’s ability to offer leadership across widely differing contexts exemplifies situational adjustment from a prison cell on Robben Island to the graceful lawns of Union House in Pretoria. > > There are parallels in organizational life. For example, some hard-edged, cost-cutting turnaround managers are unable to offer leadership when there is a need to build. But their [more adaptable](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) colleagues adjust to shifting agendas—and carry their teams with them. > > The ability to observe and understand existing situations, something we call **situation sensing**, is key to leadership. This involves a mixture of sensory and cognitive abilities. Effective leaders pick up important situational signals. They are able to tune in to the organizational frequency to understand what is going on beneath the surface. This is both a micro and a macro skill, visible in [daily routine encounters](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) (meetings, walking the corridors, elevator conversations) as well as in big, strategic decisions (Does this acquisition smell right? Are these good people to partner with?). Skillful leaders are then able to adjust appropriately, self-consciously deploying their personal capabilities, or leadership assets. > > We do not mean to be excessively deterministic in our claim that leadership is situational. The situation, or context, the leader inherits is simply the starting point. Clearly, leaders’ actions themselves help to [shape the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/), altering the initial situation they found. In so doing, they are able to impact—and therefore reshape—the situations within which they lead. Through their interactions, effective leaders construct alternative contexts to those which they initially inherited. What Goffee calls “situation sensing” is similar to what I call “[leadership sensemaking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/#the-three-pillars-of-effective-leadership-successful-careers)”. ## Axiom 2: Leadership is Nonhierarchical > This leads to our second observation: leadership is nonhierarchical. **Much of the leadership literature is overly concerned with those who reach the top of organizations**. In fact, we would go so far as to say that the [persistent misconception that people who occupy senior organizational positions are leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/) has probably damaged our capacity to understand leadership more than anything else. It has blinded us to the true nature of leadership. > > While we recognize that there is a relationship between hierarchy and leadership (they may fulfill a similar function, for example, by investing authority), we view the relationship as contingent. Being given a particular organizational title—team leader, section head, and vice president—may confer some hierarchical authority, but it certainly does not make you a leader. [Hierarchy alone is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/)for the exercise of leadership. > > Indeed, it could be argued that the **qualities that take you to the top of large-scale and often highly political organizations are not obviously the ones associated with leadership**. People who make it to the top do so for a whole variety of reasons—including political acumen, personal ambition, time-serving, even nepotism— rather than real leadership quality. > > Our interviews and experience inside organizations confirms that leadership is not the sole preserve of the chosen few. Great organizations have leaders at all levels. Some of the first work we did on leadership involved examining military organizations. Our assumption was that their hierarchical nature would make leadership development difficult. Nothing could be further from the truth. The best military organizations understand that [when they move into action, they simply cannot rely on hierarchy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/); it may be obliterated when the first mortar lands. It is imperative that they develop leadership capability throughout. They do. > > It is not just the military that has reached this realization. Consider Sonae, Portugal’s largest company… Sonae’s business stretches from wood veneers to telecommunications, taking in a huge retail operation. It focuses relentlessly on high performance—[mediocrity is not tolerated](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). The company’s mission statement starkly states, “At Sonae you are either a leader or a candidate to be a leader.” The implication is clear; if you are neither, Sonae is not the place for you. > > Successful organizations—be they hospitals, charities, or commercial enterprises—seek to build leadership capability widely and to give people the opportunity to exercise it. ## Axiom 3: Leadership is Relational > The third foundation of our view of leadership is that leadership is relational. Put simply, you cannot be a leader without followers. Much of early trait theory seemed to ignore this. By trying to distill the characteristics of leaders, it neglected the fact that **leadership is a relationship built actively by both parties**. > > In reality, leadership is always a social construct that is re-created by the relationships between leaders and those they aspire to lead. [Effective leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/) are not simply amalgams of desirable traits; they are actively and reciprocally engaged in a complex series of relationships that require cultivation and nurture. Like all social creations, this web of relationships is fragile and requires constant re-creation. You can confirm this every time you talk to a successful CEO, a sports coach, or a team leader. All will tell you that **much of their leadership effort is devoted to the maintenance of particular kinds of relationships** with their followers. > > This insistence on the relational nature of leadership does not mean that these relationships are necessarily harmonious—they may well be edgy—but they are about leaders knowing how to excite followers to become great performers. > > Does this mean generalizations are impossible? We don’t think so. Some fundamental [principles of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/) do apply across the board. Followers want feelings of excitement and personal significance from their leaders—something confirmed by research. In addition, they wish to feel part of something bigger—a community, if you will. **But above all, they look for leaders who are authentic.** Indeed, authenticity is integral to the relationship. Without it, there can be no significant investment of trust on either side. > > How leaders demonstrate authenticity—and how followers sense it—is a complex theme… For now, it is sufficient to note that, although this will involve different behaviors in different contexts, effective leaders are still able to communicate a consistent sense of self that is invested— skillfully—in each of [the roles that they play](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/). ## Some questions for reflection - What are some notions of leadership that you carry? Do they aid you or deter you? For more, see implicit leadership theories. - Who are the managers/leaders you admire? Did they follow convention, or did they break it? How different were they from each other? See [“best” leadership style](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/best-leadership-style/). - Do you wait for permission (hierarchy) to do what it takes? - Are you looking for a simple formula? - How important do you think leadership skill is for career progression? Is that accurate? ## Related Reading **On leadership being situational:** - [Why Netflix leads with Context, not Control ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) - [Framing and psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) - [Leadership can be learned but can't be taught](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/) **On leadership being nonhierarchical:** - [General Stan McChrystal on leadership myth and reality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-myth-and-reality/) - [Problems with the leadership industry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/kellerman-on-the-problem-with-the-leadership-industry/) **On leadership being relational:** - [Leading imperfectly](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/imperfect-leadership/) and [Congruence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/) - [Role of self-disclosure in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) - [Authenticity as knowing how your people get work done](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) ## Sources 1. Goffee, Robert, and Gareth Jones. [Why Should Anyone Be Led by You: What It Takes To Be An Authentic Leader](https://amzn.to/3Ngq8Zk?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Homans, George. [The Human Group](https://amzn.to/4bkkuP1?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Logic of Self vs. Logic of Role (And Why Confusing the Two Is a Trap) URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/logic-of-self-vs-logic-of-role/ Last updated: 2026-05-09T14:17:10.000Z Consider a recent difficult experience at work. Perhaps it was a meeting where your idea was criticized, even dismissed. Or a performance review that was less feedback and more an indictment. “Nothing personal, just business” they say. But it sure hurts. How we process these frustrations fundamentally affects our disposition to future risk-taking and orientation to failure. So how do you “keep it business” and not take it personally? The trick is to discern between **SELF vs. ROLE**. It’s the ongoing practice of staying alert to the **“logic of person” vs “logic of situation”**. We take things personally because in critical moments, the boundary between who we *are* and what we *do* dissolves. But conflating the two is a trap and makes us more fragile. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Identity vs. Expectations Logic of self is driven by long-held habits, personality, and needs—like the desire to be liked or the fear of being judged. It’s what we subjectively consider as our "authentic" self; the internal script we’ve been writing since childhood. In contrast, a role is the set of expectations that a social system—like an organization—places on us to provide specific services. Logic of role is driven by the expectations of those around us, defined by what the context, situation, and social norms require. One focuses on **"Who am I?”**. The other on **"What does this role or situation require of me right now?"** The trouble starts when we allow our professional persona to exclusively define who we are. The world actively colludes to make you forget this distinction. Bosses, subordinates, and stakeholders treat you as if the role you play is the core of your identity. **They don't see you per se; they see a reflection of their own needs, worries, or hopes for a fix to their problems.** Staying alert to this distinction is vital for stability. If you understand that people are reacting to your role and the issues it represents, you gain control over whether your self-worth is at stake. Without this clarity, we become a hostage to professional conflict. ## Consequences of confusing the two One cause of **professional burnout** is failing to distinguish between the two logics, as we become highly vulnerable to external ups and downs. By taking things personally, we spend energy on personal defense instead of moving issues forward. It’s also a **prison**. Logic of self suggests "being yourself” as an unchanging collection of traits. This means deviating from habitual behaviors is to “fake it”. When the going gets tough, it’s easy to retreat into "I can't. That's just not me”. We fail to recognize that the self is a work in progress, not a finished product. **Imposter syndrome** is a logical extension of this. It’s the fear of revealing the gap between the actor and the role when we are thrust into something for which we do not feel fully equipped. We fear being seen through, like the Wizard of Oz. However, this anxiety is usually a sign that we’re too focused on the "self" and not enough on the "role." When leaders feel **powerless or out of touch with circumstances**, it’s because of too much Logic of Person that makes them self-protective. Conversely, lasting power comes from doing what’s best for the group, even when that feels "inauthentic" to your personal needs. It's easy to **lose sight of the goal** when internal weather — fears, insecurities, and needs — overwhelms our commitment to the role. A manager who is too friendly and hands-off because they want to be liked is failing to play the role of the responsible boss. They’ve allowed the logic of self (the need for approval) to override the logic of role (the team’s need for structure). ## Keeping the two separate Given the criticality of keeping role and self separate to effectiveness and longevity, below are some practices and stances. **The direction of gaze.** Logic of Self is inward-looking and self-protective, while Logic of Role is outward-looking and group-oriented. Being effective means moving away from our own struggles—and instead track who we are to others. **You’re the focal point, not a target.** Workplace dynamics are like a soccer match. When the opposing team tackles you, they aren't doing it because they hate you personally, but because you have the ball. A professional athlete doesn't stop to ask, "Why don't they like me?" They understand the conditions of the game. In leadership, you’re the one "carrying the ball". When you raise a difficult question or challenge a long-held norm, you become the focal point for the distress that the challenge generates. People might call you out, block your way, and attack your style. It feels personal, but it’s rarely about you. Instead, it’s the threat your perspective poses to their habits, loyalties, and ways of thinking. **Manage the self as a system.** Practice seeing yourself not as a single, static "self," but as a complex "system" of multiple identities. You are a parent, a spouse, a professional, a friend, and a mentor. Each of these roles is authentically you, but none of them is the whole you. This systemic view allows you to maintain perspective even in choppy waters. **“Be authentic” can be a trap.** We’re told to “be yourself”. But this can also be a recipe for staying stuck in the past. If we only do what feels "natural," we are merely repeating habits and staying within comfort zones. Professional growth requires stretching beyond what feels safe and doing what’s required for the stage we are on. True authenticity comes from learning to accept more of yourself—including the messy, insecure parts—and choosing which characters to bring onto the stage at the right time. Build a responsive “behavioral repertoire” instead of a “dominant style” that reacts. **Think beneficence, not dominance.** Understanding your role as a "steward" rather than a "ruler" recognizes that authority is a gift given by the group to achieve collective goals. This requires the maturity to take the heat, share the spotlight, and put the group first even when it feels counter to our personal desire for recognition. In the long run, beneficence is a lot more durable. **Everything is a performance.** Distinguishing self from role is not about being "fake" but committing to what the situation needs, even when it feels “inauthentic”. Understanding that you're always performing allows you to stop worrying about whether your professional behavior is "the real me" and start focusing instead on whether it is "the responsible me". In this sense, acting is a disciplined practice of managing the noisy parts of our internal life so that the useful parts can do the work. **Move the heat from person to purpose.** Maintaining the self/role distinction allows you to externalize conflict. By internalizing conflict, we make it a personal problem, leading to a misdiagnosis of the situation. We start defending our character instead of focusing on the issue. The job is to keep the work as the center of attention, not you. **Build a balanced portfolio of meaning.** If you define life through a single endeavor, you become vulnerable when the environment changes or the role ends. We find meaning by connecting with others. This can happen in the office, but it happens just as profoundly with family, in communities, and through hobbies. Once you realize that the form of contribution doesn't matter, you gain a massive advantage: the freedom to fail. When self-worth is anchored in a variety of places, we can take bigger risks professionally because you know that even in failure, the "self" remains vital, anchored, and capable of finding new forms of service. **Power as a part, not possession.** A common fallacy in leadership is the "cult of personality"—the notion that power comes from charisma or ambition. In reality, power is social; it lives and dies in context. It’s relevant only to the extent to which others need you. If a project fails or a client leaves, it isn't a verdict on you, but a failed movement in a complex drama. This distance allows for skilled self-reflection where you can analyze your "performance” objectively. --- Distinguishing self from role is a fundamental skill. It provides the psychological distance to handle criticism, the flexibility to stay adaptive, and the humility to serve something higher than self-aggrandizement. Through the practice of discerning between the two, we create more capacity for action. ## Related reading [Frustration Tolerance: An Essential for Surviving Large OrgsIn leadership and life, ambitions often outpace our ability to consistently execute on them. A hidden hurdle that trips up many is their level of “frustration tolerance.” This is particularly true in large organizations that are literally designed to frustrate ambitions and agendas. In this piece, I unpack the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-243.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/High-Frustration-Tolerance-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/) [Core Practices of Adaptive LeadershipThe hardest part of adaptive leadership is practicing it when the system pushes back. Over decades of studying leaders in politics, medicine, and business, Ron Heifetz at Harvard found that those who made progress under pressure weren’t relying on brilliance or charisma. Instead, they were executing a set of![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-244.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/On-the-Balcony-and-the-Dancefloor---Adaptive-Leadership-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/) [Work is Not School: Surviving Institutional StupidityFor 16+ years, we master the rules of school. Study hard, get good grades, follow the formula and ultimately merit wins. Then we enter the workforce and none of it works quite like we thought. This becomes painfully obvious as you rise higher in the org. Even seasoned veterans forget![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-245.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Surviving-Institutional-Stupidity-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/) ## Sources and references 1. Deborah Gruenfeld, [Acting with Power](https://amzn.to/4svliq3?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, and Marty Linsky. [The Practice of Adaptive Leadership.](https://amzn.to/3N6u6Dt?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Ronald Heifetz. [Leadership Without Easy Answers.](https://amzn.to/47qZbsq?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Miguel Pina Cunha, Stewart R. Clegg, Arménio Rego, and Marco Berti. Paradoxes of Power and Leadership. ### The Philosophy Behind the Johari Awareness Model URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/philosophy-johari-awareness-model/ Last updated: 2026-03-28T13:34:52.000Z Why is it that, despite claims to be otherwise, organizational life remains so persistently messy, even [stupid](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/) sometimes? In his now forgotten classic [Of Human Interaction](https://amzn.to/4byNPpv?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Joseph Luft, one of the originators of the [Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) model, highlights some key assumptions and the philosophy behind it. We operate under the illusion that logic and data drive all our interactions in the workplace. But Luft reminds us that human interaction is built on a much more complex, and often irrational, foundation. The Johari Awareness Model shows a more holistic and, perhaps, disarming reality: **leadership is not what just you do, but the “interpersonal dance" you create and participate in through your interactions.** In this piece, I revisit Luft’s philosophy and what it means to leadership. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Eight assumptions underlying the model Luft is remarkably candid about his biases, acknowledging that these paradigms are not shared by all psychologists but essential for a holistic understanding of human behavior. These assumptions redefine how leaders see their team and themselves: > **1\. Holistic vs. elementaristic units.** Human behavior is best understood in terms of wholes or large units of behavior. Analyses of small units of behavior, such as what the muscles or sense organs are doing, are of value only as related to the total person and context. > **2\. Subjectivism vs. objectivism.** The key to what is happening in a group or between persons is what is going on subjectively, what the feelings are. Subjective factors such as attitudes and values tell how the person sees himself and others and how he orders his world. > **3\. Irrationalism vs.rationalism.** Though some of the events in groups and in persons can be viewed as being orderly and making good sense, behavior is influenced more by emotions and by largely irrational strivings; logic and reason play relatively minor roles in human interaction. > **4\. Behaving without awareness vs. behaving with awareness.** The individual, like the group of which he is a part, has limited awareness of the sources of his own behavior and of the effects of his behavior on others. Crucial aspects of behavior are best understood by taking into account sources and determinants of behavior which are hidden from the person or about which he has limited understanding. This lack of awareness is a major cause of [leadership derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). > **5\. Quality vs. quantity.** It is desirable to be able to measure and weigh the forces governing behavior. However, the best understanding comes with appreciation of qualitative differences of the processes of interaction between people and within groups. Qualities such as acceptance, collusion, influence, conflict, and trust, for example, are important even though they cannot be defined or measured with high precision. > **6\. Change states vs. structural properties.** Attention should be directed to ongoing processes and the changes which are taking place. The search for an analysis of structural properties, though useful, is less important than an appreciation of change states. > **7\. Personal vs. nomothetic orientation.** The experiencing individual or group deserves more stress than do abstract transpersonal rules. The problem is to discover general knowledge of persons and groups by direct concern with persons rather than by the application of abstractions which tend to lose humanness along the way. > **8\. Fluid vs. restrictive approaches.** The first of these approaches favors "a basic predisposition to experience people and life in all their complexity in a rather relaxed fashion, while the latter suggests a tendency to deal with reality in a more controlling and compartmental fashion, through restriction of attention and through isolation of entities and events". ## **Qualities of the Johari Awareness Model** If the assumptions are the "why", the qualities are the "how": the characteristics that make the Johari Window a universally applicable tool for leaders. > **1\. Awareness and consciousness are uniquely human attributes.** (Consciousness usually refers to what is felt within oneself and awareness, to that which is felt outside oneself. However, the terms are used interchangeably in these pages.) These states of knowing are supremely human and are of course central to any consideration of human inter- action. The model starts with both states simultaneously. > **2\. Intrapersonal and interpersonal affairs are inextricably united.** Regardless of one's preferred orientation in personality theory, identity and relationships are sufficiently intertwined so that it makes sense to consider them together. This can be done in the Johari framework without committing the theorist to a position which would violate the rest of his theory. > **3\. The model is essentially content free.** No assumptions need be made about the sources of human behavior, such as growth, psycho-sexual or security needs, or other social and psychological needs and drives. Yet the model is sufficiently broad and open so that any of these assumptions could be applied. However, owing to the model's structure, the theorist can never lose sight of the various states of awareness and consciousness. > **4\. The constructs implicit in each of the quadrants, lend themselves to verification.** The open quadrant, Ql, the blind quadrant, Q2, and the hidden quadrant, Q3, are known to at least one person and thus are potentially confirmable. Even the unknown quadrant, Q4, which is known neither to the person nor to others, is eventually confirmable. > **5\. The model can be applied to any human interaction.** There is no inherent subject limitation. Gangs fighting, friends talking, executives leading, lovers loving—any of these interactions can be viewed and conceptualized within the model's framework. In this sense it is universally applicable. > **6\. The model is sufficiently uncomplicated so that it is readily used.** A wide range of people, from college freshmen to postdoctoral scholars, laymen as well as professionals, are able to grasp the model and use it to think about interaction without requiring extensive background in the behavioral disciplines. > **7\. The processes inherent in the model guide the reader to important characteristics of human interaction.** For example, considerations of change in the first quadrant call attention to processes involved in moving to greater or lesser openness. Similarly, the processes involved in reducing or increasing blindness in the second quadrant focus on crucial developments in a relationship. The significance of any interpersonal event is sharpened when it is seen in the context of all four quadrants. ## Implications for Leadership ### Leading beyond logic For a manager, accepting that logic is secondary to emotion or that we're often "blind" to our impact can be quite a realization. It moves leadership's role from task of "command and control" to one of "awareness and discovery". If human behavior is driven more by irrational strivings and subjective feelings, the leader’s role shifts from "Chief Problem Solver" to "Architect of Climate". [Less of a chess master, and more of a gardener](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/). Because the key to group dynamics is what’s occurring subjectively, a leaders who rely solely on objective metrics will remain blind to the "sub world" of grievances and attitudes that actually determine morale. In fact, the most significant changes in productivity come from shifts in informal "group norms" that exist outside the formal structure. ### How I am contributing to the problem The unity of the intrapersonal and interpersonal implies that you cannot "fix" a team without first examining your own behavior and contribution to the mess. This means accountability: a change in any one quadrant of your awareness inevitably affects every other quadrant in the relationship. For leaders, this means that increasing the ["Area of Free Activity" (Quadrant 1)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) is the only reliable way to apply the full skills and resources of the team. When you reduce the energy tied up in defending hidden or blind areas, [you release that energy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/) for collective work. ### The vulnerability of the opaque self Most leaders operate as if they are "open books," assuming a level of transparency and control over their image that simply doesn't exist. By recognizing that their public self is often smaller and more "opaque" than they realize, leaders can begin to invite the feedback necessary to reduce their blindness. Acknowledging that we all behave without full awareness of our motives transforms you from an omniscient authority to a "participant-observer". Because you're always susceptible to how others see you, your "blindness" is not a defect to be cured, but something to be managed through [humility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) and [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/). Those who ignore this, risk becoming imposters, presenting a public self that is widely known to be inauthentic by everyone except themselves. ### Navigating permanent white water When operating in complexity, the emphasis on "change states" over "structural properties" is a requisite for survival. Those who cling to a static organizational chart will be overwhelmed by the dynamic, ever-changing nature of modern workplaces. Instead, the model guides us to see it as a process of "becoming" rather than "being". This fluidity allows you to navigate "permanent white water" by focusing on the "ongoing process" rather than trying to force a return to a non-existent state of certainty. ### The leader's job The model shows that the "law of initial conditions" governs every relationship: the patterns you establish in the first few minutes of an interaction are stored in the "implicit memory" of the group and are remarkably resistant to change. Therefore, a leader’s most vital skill is the capacity for "interpersonal discernment"—the ability to mutually craft a unique relationship with others that honors the mystery of the unknown while expanding the clarity of the known. Related: [how framing creates psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) --- The importance of Luft’s framework to leadership is its emphasis on managing "interpersonal climate"— the degree of trust and openness that allows skills to be applied effectively. From this perspective, innovativeness is not just a matter of better strategy, but also about leaders’ interest in and concern for other people. In many ways, Luft was ahead of his time and was a precursor to psychological safety as we know it today. Consider your own team: How much energy is currently being spent hiding, denying, or being blind to behaviors involved in your daily interactions? Moving beyond pure theory to practical application requires the [courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) to be surprised—both by ourselves and others. ## Related reading on the Johari Window [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-239.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-8.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) [The Five Johari Leadership ArchetypesJoseph Luft in his now forgotten classic Of Human Interaction, has a section on leadership archetypes I found particularly useful, and entertaining. He based these archetypes — ancient patterns in how we influence others — on the work of anthropologist Merrill Jackson, which explains why these are uncannily accurate. Luft explains the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-240.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Five-Leadership-Archetypes-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-leadership-archetypes/) [Open Quadrant of the Johari Window: Beyond Transparency in Leadership“Radical transparency” is often touted as a leadership virtue. So why do leaders still struggle with openness? Using the Johari Window’s Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena), I examine the complexities of leadership transparency and a nuanced approach to mastering openness in leadership. Through the lens of Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena) in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-241.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants-5.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-242.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-9.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) ## Sources 1. [Of Human Interaction](https://amzn.to/4byNPpv?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Joseph Luft. 2. Hanson, P. (1973). **The Johari window: A model for soliciting and giving feedback.** 3. Luft, Joseph, & Ingham, Harry, (1961). **The Johari Window: A Graphic Model of Awareness in Interpersonal Relations.** 4. [The New Johari Window](https://library.psychology.edu/the-new-johari-window-2-models-of-interpersonal-awareness/3/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by William Bergquist ### Active Listening: What It Originally Meant URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/ Last updated: 2026-03-28T13:35:03.000Z > Sensitive, **active listening is exceedingly rare** in our lives. We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding, true empathy. Yet listening, of this very special kind, is **one of the most potent forces for change that I know**. > > — Carl Rogers > Listen, or your tongue will make you deaf. > > — Native American proverb Long before psychological safety and emotional intelligence became standard corporate staples, Carl Rogers and Richard Farson wrote **a 20-page pamphlet that put the term “active listening” on the map**. Published in 1957 by the Industrial Relations Center at the University of Chicago, it was supposed to be a practical guide for supervisors leading people who were largely treated as extensions of machinery. But what they produced **was less management advice and more a blueprint for psychological maturation.** Most managers inherit diluted versions of the original through watered-down communication dictums like paraphrasing, eye contact, and nodding. But they also miss the point. **The document’s real power is in the philosophy behind it.** Rogers and Farson weren’t trying to make conversations smoother. Instead, they were focused on making people more capable. Active listening wasn’t just a soft skill. It was developmental — a mechanism through which people become more capable, less defensive, and more connected to reality; a method for releasing human potential trapped inside systems built to constrain it. They saw people not as resources to be optimized, but as human systems capable of extraordinary intelligence given the right conditions. In what follows, I’ve drawn directly from the 1957 text to bring out the key thrust of their original work. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is active listening First off, what exactly did Rogers and Farson mean by active listening? In their own words \[1\]: > It is called ''active" because the listener has a very definite responsibility. He does not passively absorb the words which are spoken to him. He actively tries to grasp the facts and the feelings in what he hears, and he tries, by his listening, **to help the speaker work out his own problems**. > Despite the popular notion that listening is a passive approach, **clinical and research evidence clearly shows that sensitive listening is a most effective agent for individual personality change and group development**. Listening brings about changes in people's attitudes toward themselves and others, and also brings about changes in their basic values and personal philosophy. > The first reaction of most people when they consider listening as a possible method for dealing with human beings is that listening cannot be sufficient in itself. Because it is passive, they feel, listening does not communicate anything to the speaker. Actually, nothing could be farther from the truth. > > By consistently listening… you are conveying the idea that: "I'm interested in you as a person, and I think that what you feel is important. I respect your thoughts, and even if I don't agree with them, I know that they are valid for you. I feel sure that you have a contribution to make. I'm not trying to change you or evaluate you. I just want to understand you. I think you're worth listening to, and I want you to know that I'm the kind of a person you can talk to. " > > The subtle but most important aspect of this is that **it is the demonstration of the message that works.** While it is most difficult to convince someone that you respect him by telling him so, you are much more likely to get this message across by really behaving that way – by actually having and demonstrating respect for this person. Listening does this most effectively. > This is **a process of thinking with people instead of for or about them.** ## Listening requires restraint, not technique > Until we can demonstrate a spirit which genuinely respects the potential worth of the individual, which considers his rights and trusts his capacity for self-direction, we cannot begin to be effective listeners. Technique without respect ends up as manipulation, and people sense the difference immediately. You can follow every rule — open posture, warm tone, paraphrasing — and still leave someone feeling controlled. In contrast, active listening is built on the conviction that the other person is capable of making sense on their own. When that belief is absent, conversations turn into a performance. When present, people speak from a deeper place **because they sense they aren’t being managed**. Respect, in this context, is the restraint to hold back from imposing your interpretation on others, allowing them to author their own meaning. ## Stop trying to make people see things your way Managers often “coach” by offering interpretations and solutions. But embedded in these is **a subversive message: your perspective is insufficient, mine is better.** The more the manager explains, the more people defend. The focus shifts from understanding to winning. What makes active listening powerful is that it suspends this competition entirely. It signals, “Your perspective matters enough to explore before we try to change anything.” That reduces resistance more effectively than any technique ever can. ## Advice and praise are also forms of control > It is a difficult lesson to learn that **positive evaluations are sometimes as blocking as negative ones**. It is almost as destructive to the freedom of a relationship to tell a person that he is good or capable or right, as to tell him otherwise. To evaluate him positively may make it more difficult for him to tell of the faults that distress him or the ways in which he believes he is not competent. Advice seems helpful on the surface, but it subtly moves the center of gravity away from the person and toward the manager. Praise does the same: it creates an image we now feel compelled to live up to. Rogers’ point was simple: anything that pulls a person out of their own perspective interrupts growth. The impulse to help often comes from discomfort, not wisdom. Leaders offer solutions because they can’t tolerate watching someone struggle. But struggle is how insight forms. **Advice short-circuits that process.** This is why listening is far more effective than advice. Advice pushes people toward a conclusion, while listening pulls them into awareness. And awareness is what leads to durable change. ## Growth and control can’t coexist > Passing judgment, whether critical or favorable, makes free expression difficult. Similarly, **advice and information are almost always seen as efforts to change a person** and thus serve as barriers to his self-expression and the development of a creative relationship. Moreover, advice is seldom taken and information hardly ever utilized. Managers typically try to help through feedback and behavioral prescriptions. But human beings don’t respond well to surveillance. Growth requires psychological spaciousness: room to explore, contradict, and revise our story without fear of penalty. **Control reduces that space.** The moment you try to direct how someone should develop, defensiveness activates, and learning narrows to compliance. They stop thinking and start [managing impressions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/). True development is self-directed. The leader’s role isn’t to shape others, but to remove the internal obstacles that prevent people from shaping themselves. You cannot micromanage someone into maturity. You can only create the conditions under which it becomes possible. ## Real listening is risky Active listening is often sold as a harmless virtue — a warm, humane gesture that leaves everyone feeling better. Rogers rejected that idea outright. He pointed out the cost: > Active listening carries a strong element of personal risk. If we manage to accomplish what we are describing here — to sense deeply the feelings of another person, to understand the meaning his experiences have for him, to see the world as he sees it — we risk being changed ourselves. …**It takes a great deal of inner security and courage** to be able to risk one’s self in understanding another. Active listening isn’t neutral. To listen deeply is to allow someone else’s reality to enter ours. Their disappointments, interpretations, fears — all of it presses against the boundaries of our worldview. The sense of certainty softens and assumptions become less absolute. We begin recognizing that our version of events is but only one version. Most of us don’t want this. **We crave influence but without the vulnerability; we want to stay in command of the narrative, not be reshaped by it.** This is why conversations stay superficial because real listening destabilizes certainty and threatens identity. It asks you to loosen the grip on your perspective long enough to let another one coexist. Active listening makes you more permeable. **And that’s psychologically demanding work.** ## Understanding must be confirmed, not assumed > A good rule of thumb is to assume that one never really understands until he can communicate this understanding to the other's satisfaction. As George Bernard Shaw noted, > The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. The mistake is to think that understanding is something we generate internally. But true understanding is not what we achieve but what the other recognizes in our response. They must feel accurately reflected. Not summarized, interpreted, or reframed, but mirrored in a way that makes them say, “Yes, that’s what I meant.” This is a higher bar than most of us ever attempt. It requires the collaborative process of checking, validating, and adjusting. Not a private conclusion. **While assumptions create distance, verification creates connection.** For more, see [ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) and [ground rules for effective meetings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/). ## Self-listening is the foundation of active listening > To listen to oneself is a prerequisite to listening to others. ….A person’s listening ability is limited by his ability to listen to himself. You cannot hear someone else through the noise of your own irritation, anxiety, or pride. If you don’t know what’s happening internally, those unacknowledged emotions will leak into the conversation. Self-listening doesn’t mean self-analysis but noticing your internal weather —impulse to correct, or impatience — and not letting those states dictate your stance. Leaders often attempt empathy without self-awareness and end up projecting their own reactions onto the other person. True listening begins with an honest inventory of our internal state. ## Professionalism masks emotional avoidance Modern workplaces place enormous value on “professionalism,” but in practice that just means emotional distance. Leaders fear being pulled into someone’s frustration, disappointment, or distress. They fear that empathy will blur authority, so they keep the conversation clean and controlled. But **emotional cleanliness is not the same as emotional competence.** When leaders refuse to be affected by what they hear, people sense it. They stop revealing what matters, which makes conversations bureaucratic: **a lot of information, not enough truth**. While people don’t need leaders to fix their emotions, they do need leaders who aren’t afraid of emotions. ## Hostility is easier than intimacy > It is both interesting and perplexing to note that negative or hostile feelings or expressions are much easier to deal with… than are truly and deeply positive feelings. **Organizations handle tension better than tenderness**. Things like escalation paths, PIPs, or “[disagree and commit](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#13-have-backbone-disagree-and-commit)” are well documented. In contrast, intimacy — admiration, appreciation, genuine regard — feels too exposing. That’s why praise can become formulaic, and **why gratitude in workplaces feels awkward or overly ritualized.** People fear the vulnerability of positive emotion. They fear being seen too clearly or caring too much. Those who lead with genuine empathy — without deflecting, minimizing, or joking it away — create real depth that teams can lean on when the going gets hard. ## Pseudo-peace is worse than conflict Rogers captured a dynamic that describes a good chunk of corporate life: > Because we all fear that people will crumble under the attack of genuine negative feelings, **we tend to perpetuate an attitude of pseudo-peace**. It is as if we cannot tolerate conflict at all for fear of the damage it could do to us, to the situation, to the others involved. But of course the real damage is done to all these by the denial and suppression of negative feelings. Pseudo-peace is the fragile harmony that comes from avoiding the truth. On the surface, things look calm as meetings are orderly and frustrations are politely withheld. But underneath, resentment builds, and [trust](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) erodes as people communicate for self-protection instead of honesty. **Conflict isn’t necessarily the problem; the real problem is suppressing it.** Suppression prevents recalibration, stops learning, and turns genuine issues into chronic ones. Cultures that avoid discomfort eventually break under the weight of everything they refuse to listen. ## Listening is how organizations think Rogers and Farson were writing for floor supervisors, but they were describing the mechanics of [adaptive organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/). Listening is how systems learn and surface hidden information. Much of organizational intelligence is locked within skilled folks who are too guarded to speak plainly. When people feel unsafe, they give you the **minimal viable version of themselves**. They protect their ideas, hide their instincts and wait for permission. Listening reverses this dynamic. It activates capacity and brings intelligence back online. People articulate things they didn’t know they knew, surface risks they were afraid to mention, generating insights previously trapped beneath fear. A single leader practicing active listening creates a pocket of psychological safety. An entire team of them creates a feedback-rich culture. ## In leadership, active listening is power From a leadership perspective, active listening is a [form of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/). There’s a kind of authority that doesn’t depend on expertise or hierarchy. It comes from presence — your ability to give another person full, unhurried attention. People orient toward that instinctively. They trust it because it’s free of coercion. Listening creates that gravity. The listener becomes someone others want to think with, not because they have all the answers but because they create the space where better answers emerge. This is [referent power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) that's grounded in attention. When leaders rely on positional power, they get compliance. In contrast, when leaders rely on listening, they get commitment. The deeper invitation of active listening is to [become more courageous](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/). **The hardest conversations are the ones where someone finally tells the truth, and you realize you now have to respond to the world as it is, not as you preferred it to be.** Listening merely brings this reality into clearer view. And that’s the real work of [effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/). ## Articles related to Active Listening [The Dark Side of Active ListeningWe’re constantly told to be better communicators. As part of this push, courses and programs tell us to become “active” listeners. But this active approach towards listening can actually be counter productive and make your communication worse, not better. Consider some of the common recommedations of active listening: \* Paying attention![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-220.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Dark-Side-of-Active-Listening.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-221.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-7.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-222.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1-6.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) [MBWA : The Lost Art of Managing by Wandering AroundManaging effectively using data is all the rage today. But most of it is shallow “hard data”. The real challenge is to get so called “soft data”. How do you get the real pulse of your teams, or your customer’s true opinion? There’s a simple method that can![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-223.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/President-Lincoln---MBWA-2.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) [Leading Imperfectly: Less Intervening, More BeingIf you were to believe all the ChatGPT generated slop on LinkedIn, you’d be convinced that to lead effectively, you must maintain a certain image that’s calm, authoritative, and in control. ALWAYS. From this perspective, leadership, and so-called “executive presence”, is a performance you put on. I’m![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-225.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Imperfect-Leadership---Less-Intervening--More-Being.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/imperfect-leadership/) [The Power of CongruenceWhy do we feel an instinctive sense of trust when interacting with some people, while others leave us with a vague sense of unease, as if interacting with a polished but hollow shell? This is especially relevant to effective leadership —you might be saying all the right things, but others![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-226.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Carl-Rogers---3-Pillars-of-Congruence.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/) ## Sources 1. Rogers, Carl R., and Richard Farson. [Active Listening](https://amzn.to/3MFO5c9?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Rogers, Carl R.. [A Way of Being](https://amzn.to/49R37ol?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Rogers, Carl R. [On Becoming a Person](https://amzn.to/4k1FGvF?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Rogers, Carl R. [On Personal Power](https://amzn.to/49Yqc78?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Leading Imperfectly: Less Intervening, More Being URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/imperfect-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-07-01T21:29:35.000Z If you were to believe all the ChatGPT generated slop on LinkedIn, you’d be convinced that to lead effectively, you must maintain a certain image that’s calm, authoritative, and in control. ALWAYS. From this perspective, leadership, and so-called “executive presence”, is a performance you put on. I’m obviously exaggerating, but this kind of [impression management](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/) is indeed a necessary hazard of the job, and sometimes precisely what’s needed. **Not always though, and it’s only one dimension.** When done exclusively, these conventional notions sabotage our ability to connect, and ultimately effectiveness. Many leaders learn this the hard way, especially as they move into senior roles where an inability to adapt leads to [derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). Carl Rogers — one of the foremost psychologists of the 20th century — proposed a different worldview that challenges these conventional notions. For example: - The more we try to manipulate others, the less likely they are to change. - **We are most effective not when we are perfectly consistent, but when we are "transparently real"**— even if that reality means being annoyed, bored, or uncertain. In today’s piece, I share a few of Rogers’ key ideas that challenge common notions we assume as givens. 💡 Fair warning: (1) Most of the ideas will sound unrealistic, especially in corporate settings. But that’s precisely the point. Instead of dismissing them outright, play with them lightly and observe the effects. You’ll be surprised, positively, I promise. (2) They look unrealistic because we’ve been trained to see things in a certain way. But there are many equally effective approaches. In other words, I’m talking about ****“developing range”**. Culture typically pushes one extreme based on ongoing fads. However as is often the case, there’s no one universally effective stance for all situations. ****Having the requisite range and a diverse repertoire ensures you stay adaptive and responsive.** (3) I’ve written this from the perspective of managers and leaders. But the ideas hold true in any “helping” relationship like a parent, friend, or sibling. Let’s jump in. ## The efficacy of not fixing There’s **a nagging anxiety most managers (and parents) feel: If I don't "fix" my people (child), how will they improve?** This means our default response is to always intervene. We feel an obligation to promptly rectify situations, establish goals, and influence behavior in accordance to what we think is right. But Rogers found that **the more we try to mold, manipulate, and push people toward a specific goal, the more they resist**. In contrast, the more he was "simply willing to be myself" and accept the realities in both himself and the other person, more change was stirred up. When we see the other as a separate person with their own rights and meanings, we help them in becoming self-responsible. Change is not something we do to someone else, but that which occurs naturally when the environment is conducive for them to stop defending their current state. ## Facades make us fragile As I noted, impression management is often a job requirement. But in the long run, it’s counter-productive to act as though we are something we are not, such as acting pleasant when we feel critical or pretending to know an answer when we don't. Instead, Rogers emphasized [congruence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/): where internal reality matches outward awareness and communication. When you are "transparently real," others perceive you as dependable and trustworthy. **Leadership, in this sense, is less about rigid consistency and more about being "dependably real".** We humans are evolutionarily wired to sense congruence or the lack of it. When you’re defensive and hide your internal reality, you send contradictory messages that breed distrust and kill credibility. For me the biggest drawback of fake facades is that **they're simply exhausting and unsustainable long-term**. See more in [The Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/). ## The personal is general We hide our internal experience and struggles in professional settings, fearing that they are too specific or unprofessional to be understood by others. **Rogers discovered the opposite: "what is most personal is most general".** He found that when he expressed attitudes that felt uniquely his own—aspects so unique he assumed no one else could possibly understand them—those were the very expressions that resonated the most with others. For leaders, this means openness and sharing of internal reality is a bridge to deeper connections. It’s why self-disclosure is one of the keys to effective leadership. ## Understanding is risky It sounds simple to say that leaders must understand their teams. But real understanding is actually risky. Why? Because **if you truly enter someone’s private world without judgment, you might be changed by what you find.** Most of us have an immediate reflex to evaluate, judge, or "set things straight" when people have a different view. We label ideas as right, stupid, or unreasonable. Effective leadership requires creating channels where others can not only communicate their private meanings but also differ with you. When we permit ourselves to really understand someone, it enriches us and—paradoxically—**it’s that very understanding that permits the other person to change and grow.** Related: [knowing how your gets work done](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) and [MBWA](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) ## Move the locus of evaluation In organizations, the “locus of evaluation” revolves around managers, who dole out praise and criticism. Positive [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) is treated as unquestionably good, and training programs teach you to “catch people doing something right”. There’s an entire genre of books just on this one topic. Rogers, however, argues that external evaluations—even positive ones—are a threat to growth. Why would praise be threatening? **Telling someone they are “good" implies you also have the right to tell them they are "bad”.** By offering judgments—even favorable ones—leaders maintain a relationship of dependency and keep the locus of evaluation external to the individual. Effective leaders work to free their teams from the threat of external evaluation. By keeping a relationship free of judgment, you help people to move their locus of evaluation within themselves. When people realize they are responsible for the meaning and value of their own experience, they become truly self-accountable. You’ll be surprised how many companies with “empowerment” as a focus don’t get this simple point. **Effective empowerment starts by not taking away power to begin with. Stop disempowering, before you start empowering.** Related: [learned helplessness in organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/#locus-of-control-and-learned-helplessness-in-organizations) ## Our maturity is the weak link Perhaps the most challenging take Rogers offers is that the effectiveness of your leadership is a direct reflection of your maturity. **The degree to which you can create an environment that facilitates others’ growth is a direct measure of the growth you’ve achieved yourself.** This means leadership is not merely a set of skills, but an ongoing practice of evolving yourself. This requires: - Trusting your experience. Learning that your total sense-making of a situation is more trustworthy than intellect alone. It requires the [courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) to follow hunches and "felt" directions, even when they lack immediate intellectual justification. - Welcoming facts. Recognizing that even [evidence which disproves your position ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/#6-accuracy-is-painful)is a path to a more accurate way of seeing things. - Self-acceptance. Realizing that you cannot move away from who you are until you first thoroughly accept yourself. ## Past vs. potential This one is probably one of the hardest habits/biases to break. Managers are taught to evaluate employees based on track record: past performance and established personality traits. But when we view people as "fixed, already diagnosed and classified, already shaped by his past," we essentially confirm those limitations in them. However, if we meet them as someone “in the process of becoming," we stay open to their potentiality. **When people are treated as "mechanical, manipulable objects” they tend to act in ways that support that hypothesis.** Conversely, when treated as a "living person, capable of creative inner development" they move in that direction. --- Which of the above do you find doable? Which ones sound ridiculous? Why? And how can you change that? Effective leadership from the Rogerian perspective is less about ***what we do*** and more about ***who we are*** in the presence of others. Put simply, **less intervening, more being.** ## Related Reading [Gen. Stan McChrystal: The Leader as GardenerHow do you view your role of leader or manager? Is it as a chess master or a gardener? The lure of control Often unknowingly, leaders and managers suffer from the myopia of control. The underlying ethos is of knowing everything, solving problems directly and having everything under control. It’s![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-208.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leaders-as-Gardeners-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-209.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-8.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-210.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-6.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) [MBWA : The Lost Art of Managing by Wandering AroundManaging effectively using data is all the rage today. But most of it is shallow “hard data”. The real challenge is to get so called “soft data”. How do you get the real pulse of your teams, or your customer’s true opinion? There’s a simple method that can![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-211.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/President-Lincoln---MBWA-1.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) [How’s Your Adaptive Capacity?In nature, species that survive aren’t the strongest or smartest. They’re the most adaptive. When the environment shifts, they don’t just work harder, they evolve. Our work lives follow the same brutal logic. The question isn’t whether we’re the most talented or hardest working. It’s also whether we’re adaptive enough.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-212.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/How-is-Your-Adaptive-Capacity-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/) ## Sources 1. Carl Rogers, [A Way of Being](https://amzn.to/49R37ol?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Carl Rogers, [On Becoming a Person](https://amzn.to/4k1FGvF?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Carl Rogers, [On Personal Power](https://amzn.to/49Yqc78?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Aristotle's Pathos: An Ancient Remedy for Modern Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pathos-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-03-28T13:35:27.000Z *It’s common to associate effective leadership with a cool, detached rationality. We assume that if the facts are right and the plan sound, people naturally follow. Yet, how often have you presented a perfectly reasoned plan only to see it met with indifference? *Why is it that logic so often fails to move the needle of human behavior?* The answer lies in a 2,300-year-old distinction that modern managers forget: *Pathos*.* **We’re not thinking machines that feel; we are feeling machines that think.* Aristotle recognized that while logic (logos) is the "body” of persuasion, it is emotion (pathos) that triggers action.* > At the end of reasons comes persuasion. > > — Ludwig Wittgenstein --- ## The trap of logic In our modern, data-driven culture, we’ve been conditioned to believe that professionalism means the suppression of emotion. We are taught to be suspicious of emotion, viewing it as a form of manipulation or a waste of time. And that facts are the only legitimate currency of persuasion. But according to Aristotle, the father of systematic persuasion, this is a fundamental misunderstanding of how humans actually make decisions. The problem is that people don’t act based on reason alone. When we over-index on logic, we make the audience work too hard to find a reason to care. Reason goes out the window when feelings are not addressed. Harvard’s Frances Frei and Anne Morris call this **the “empathy wobble”**. In their [Trust Triangle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) framework, trust is built on the three pillars of Authenticity, Logic, and Empathy that mirror Aristotle’s [ethos, logos, and pathos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/). Logos (logic) might convince someone that a plan is sound, but it is notoriously ineffective in moving the human will. When trust breaks down, it’s usually because one of these pillars has “wobbled”. An "empathy wobble" is when your team begins to suspect that you care more about yourself, your goals, or your own brilliance than you do about them. This is particularly common among high performers who are analytical and driven to learn. They get so focused on the logic of the problem that they forget the people experiencing it. This wobble is often the invisible barrier to what Frei and Morris call "empowerment leadership". To fix it, leaders have to develop Pathos — a deep understanding of others’ emotions. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What Pathos Is (and What It Isn't) In modern parlance, "pathetic" is a term of derision, implying weakness and inadequacy. To the Greeks, however, pathos carried a lot of weight because it meant suffering and experience. **Aristotle did not view emotion as a distraction, but a sophisticated mechanism that directly shapes how we perceive truth.** He defined pathos as "putting the audience into a certain frame of mind”. For leaders, this means recognizing that **your team’s emotional state is not a distraction from work but a lens through which the work is evaluated.** From this perspective, Pathos is the bridge between understanding choices and taking action. More than just a feeling, pathos induces a specific state of mind intended to influence judgment. > Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. When leading others, you are, by definition, asking people to judge a future direction as beneficial or a past failure as a learning opportunity. ### Emotions as rational A common mistake is to view emotions as irrational baggage that interferes with clear thinking. Aristotle gives a different take: emotions are judgment-based. We don’t just feel angry or fearful in a vacuum; we feel that way because of what we believe to be true about a situation. For leaders, this means that to change a team’s emotional state—from, say, fear of a merger to confidence in a new direction—**you don’t need motivational speeches. You need to address the underlying beliefs that are generating the fear.** When teams are resistant to change, they aren't being "difficult." In their current state of mind, the pain of the proposed change outweighs the perceived benefit. Your task is to investigate the "intentional objects" of their emotion. By treating **emotions as data points of underlying beliefs**, you can lead with much higher precision. ### The three factors of Pathos Aristotle proposed that to produce a specific emotion in an audience, you must understand three distinct factors: 1. The state of mind of the subject: What is the **internal condition** of the audience? 2. The circumstances or stimulus: What **specific events** or words provoke the emotion? 3. The object of the emotion: **Toward whom or what** is the emotion directed? If you are wobbling on empathy, it's likely because you have ignored one of these pillars. **You are presenting a solution (logos) without first understanding the underlying psychology of your team.** As an example, consider Aristotle’s analysis of anger. He defines it as a "desire, accompanied by pain, for revenge for an obvious belittlement". > One must in each case divide the discussion into three parts. Take the case of anger. We must say what state men are in when they are angry, with what people they are accustomed to be angry and in what circumstances. ### Pathos is not about you Given the importance of Pathos many leaders mistakenly think they must perform with dramatic, high-octane passion. This is a fundamental misunderstanding. Pathos is not about your emotional state but understanding and modulating the emotional state of those you lead. Although genuine conviction can certainly be a starting point, it’s not about your passion per se. Failure to persuade often stems from a gap: a strong emotional connection to a decision yourself, but ignoring the distinct emotional state of those you lead. This is why often leaders who are deeply passionate about a project somehow can’t get their team behind it. **They mistakenly believe that their personal passion for the work will automatically inspire and motivate their team.** However, they fail to recognize their team's mental state. **Without addressing the team’s fatigue or frustration, your passion comes across as a relentless and oppressive pressure instead of an inspiring force**. True pathos begins with sympathy: aligning yourself with the listener's current mood before attempting to change it. For leaders, this means you are not the protagonist of the emotional drama but the director. Your goal is to move the audience from a state of indifference or hostility to a state of receptiveness. To do this, you must stop asking "How do I feel?" and instead ask "What is the current emotional baseline of my team, and where do I need it to be for this decision to make sense?" ### Emulation is powerful Pathos also includes emulation: our emotional response to role models we admire. Aristotle noted that **we are more likely to be persuaded by those we perceive as having a cause larger than themselves**. This is why leaders who walk the talk—like Yvon Chouinard of Patagonia—are so influential. Their authenticity creates a "flywheel of trust" that allows them to lead at scale, even in their absence. By revealing your own "high standards and deep devotion," you invite others to reach for a better version of themselves. You are using pathos to create a community of people who want to do the right thing, instead of a workforce of automatons who merely follow orders. ### Sincerity vs. manipulation Is pathos manipulation? The ancient Greeks wrestled with this. Plato viewed rhetoric as a form of flattery, a knack for producing gratification rather than truth. Aristotle, more pragmatically, believed that while logic should be enough, the "baseness of the audience" made the study of pathos necessary. For the modern leader, this line between persuasion and manipulation is indeed thin. **The balance is achieved through intent and connection.** Using emotional triggers to distract from a flawed plan is manipulation. In contrast, using them to help a distracted team grasp the importance of a sound plan is leadership. The most effective pathos is based on a genuine respect for the other’s worldview. ## Ways to practice Pathos Following are some ideas to move your audience based on Pathos. ### 1\. Bending reality using storytelling Logic comes across as cold and calculated, whereas stories are like a shared experience. Stories convince where logic only informs because they humanize and transform impersonal fragments of data into a pattern with a purpose. While a list of facts might trigger the skeptical System 2 brain, a story engages the instinctive System 1 brain, which is far more amenable to persuasion. Aristotle emphasized **“enargeia”**— painting a mental picture so vivid that the audience feels they are experiencing the events themselves. A detailed story — a "perfectly pathetic tale”— creates a vicarious experience and makes the audience feel that this could happen to them. In his "I Have a Dream" speech, Martin Luther King Jr. did not merely lecture on civil rights. Instead, he used the metaphors of “promissory note” and a "bad check" to turn a complex injustice into a vivid, relatable narrative that moved people: > … we have come to our nation's capital **to cash a check**. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the declaration of Independence, they were signing a **promissory note** to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. > > It is obvious today that **America has defaulted on this promissory note** insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people **a bad check** which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to **cash this check** – a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. ### 2\. Emotional volume control Cicero and Quintilian both taught that the most powerful "pathetic" argument is frequently one that's understated. A speaker who appears to be struggling to contain their own emotions often persuades more effectively than one who allows them to overflow. This "useful doubt" or feigned helplessness makes you appear honest rather than tricky. **When someone struggles to hold back their emotions—their voice cracking slightly or their pace slowing down—it creates a sense of sincerity.** This is the "clumsy speaker" effect: an audience often mentalizes the case for a speaker who seems genuinely overwhelmed by the weight of their own message. There are also times when the goal is not to inflame, but to calm. You can use **the passive voice—a staple of scientific writing—to intentionally lower the temperature of a conflict**. By stating that "mistakes were made" rather than "you failed," you remove the bad actors, moving the audience away from defensive anger and toward collaborative problem-solving. ### 3\. The bridge of desire If the goal is commitment rather than simple agreement, logic (logos) and character (ethos) are usually insufficient. Logic can change a mind, but only desire can bridge that final gap to action. All leaders hit this persuasion gap between people agreeing that an idea is good and actually being willing to do the work to implement it. The role of pathos in leadership is to bridge this chasm. **Pathos acknowledges that people are desire machines.** We do not act on facts but on what we value and desire: whether that’s safety, status, a new product, the pride of belonging to an elite team, or a return to a golden past (nostalgia). By matching your choice to the audience’s desire, you achieve "agreeability"—the state where the audience wants you to persuade them. --- In the end, pathos is about being the most attuned. **Leadership is "consensual"** – rather than an exchange of information it's a marriage of minds in pursuit of a shared goal. Leaders who lack pathos are like the mapmaker who forgets that people actually have to walk the terrain they’ve drawn. By relying solely on logic, you are treating your team as if they were calculators, not people. The next time you find logic failing to move your team, **don't simply add more information**. Instead, pause and ask: "What’s their current emotional frame, and am I brave enough to address it?" ## Related Articles on Pathos [Ethos, Pathos & Logos: How Leaders Win Trust, Inspire Action, and PersuadeMaster Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos to lead with influence. Build credibility, move hearts, and make clear, persuasive arguments in today’s complex workplace.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-201.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Ethos--Logos--Pathos---1-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) [The Trust Triangle of LeadershipHow can I be more trustworthy? How do I show up more authentically? Leaders at all levels grapple with this fundamental challenge of leadership. The answer lies in Aristotle’s 2,000+ year old framework of ethos, logos, and pathos or what Harvard prof Frances Frei and Anne Morris call the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-202.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Trust-Triangle--Ethos-Pathos-Logos-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-203.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-7.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) [MBWA : The Lost Art of Managing by Wandering AroundManaging effectively using data is all the rage today. But most of it is shallow “hard data”. The real challenge is to get so called “soft data”. How do you get the real pulse of your teams, or your customer’s true opinion? There’s a simple method that can![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-204.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/President-Lincoln---MBWA.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) [Referent Power: The Subtle Tool of Effective LeadershipTraditional authority—titles, commands, and rewards—has lost its edge in the modern workplace. What compels people is trust, respect, and admiration. This is the essence of referent power—a subtle but effective form of power that inspires loyalty and performance without coercion. It is effective but rare. In this![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-205.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Referent-power-in-leadership-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) [The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological SafetyFraming is a key skill to create psychological safety and improve performance. But most leaders are unaware or don’t know how to get better at it.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-206.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Power-of-Framing-in-Psychological-Safety-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) ## Sources 1. Aristotle, [The Art of Rhetoric](https://amzn.to/46gCPcS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Jay Heinrichs, [Thank You for Arguing](https://amzn.to/4qL34j5?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Sam Leith, Words Like Loaded Pistols 4. Nancy Duarte, [Resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences](https://amzn.to/4tFH9fL?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. Frances Frei, Anne Morriss, [Unleashed: The Unapologetic Leader's Guide to Empowering Everyone Around You](https://amzn.to/4qLHGKu?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. [https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th\_century/mlk01.asp](https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th%5Fcentury/mlk01.asp?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 7. [Christof Rapp, "Aristotle’s Rhetoric," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Legitimate Power: Authority and Power are Not the Same Thing URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/ Last updated: 2026-02-22T15:10:40.000Z *Consider for a moment the last time you followed a directive at work that you privately questioned, or disliked. Why did you comply? Was it the fear of reprimand, or was it a more reflexive sense that the person giving the order had the right to do so? This difference between using force vs. the accepted right of someone to lead is the basis of what’s called *“legitimate power”*. *It’s the power we give others because we believe they have a right to influence us, and we have a corresponding obligation to comply.** *Much of the order in our professional lives is maintained by this quieter, more abstract force of legitimate power. But it also *remains a misunderstood lever of leadership*.* *In this piece, I take a closer look at French and Raven’s original formulation of legitimate power (one of* [*six types of power*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/)*), and how leaders misunderstand it.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is Legitimate Power In their foundational 1959 model, French and Raven defined legitimate power as that which "stems from the target’s accepting the right of the agent to require the change in behavior". Put simply, legitimate power, or authority, is your ability to influence others’ actions **because they accept your right to make decisions and thus feel a genuine obligation to follow your lead**. You can hear this power in the language used in organizations in terms such as "obliged," "should," "ought to," and "required". **We frequently follow instructions from people we neither particularly like nor personally respect.** Why? Consider the traffic policeman at a busy intersection. When he signals for traffic to stop, drivers typically obey without a second thought. They do not do so because they are enamored with his personality ([referent power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/)) or because they have performed a detailed cost-benefit analysis of his ability to fine them ([coercive power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/)) at that exact moment. **They obey because they recognize the "rightness" of his role in that context.** In organizations, this is what allows a manager to assign tasks that employees might find tedious or disagreeable, yet which they fulfill because "that person is the boss". A critical distinction of legitimate power is that it r**esides in the position or the office, rather than in the individual who happens to occupy it**. It is **"positional power". When a CEO retires, their legitimate power does not follow them into their garden; it remains vested in the role, waiting for the next incumbent to take it up.** This creates the dynamic where an officeholder’s personal abilities can be quite mediocre, yet they are "robed in the mantle of high agency" simply by virtue of their title. You see this in the military, where rank is visibly displayed to ensure that a command is obeyed because of **the "should" inherent in the social structure**, regardless of whether the subordinates feel a personal connection to the officer. As research evolved, Raven further differentiated legitimate power to include more subtle forms that draw on universal social norms instead of just formal job titles. He identified **three specific variants** \[2\]: ### **Legitimate power of Reciprocity** We are socialized to follow the rule that one good turn deserves another. When someone does something beneficial for us, it creates a sense of obligation that makes us more likely to comply with their future requests. In the workplace, this operates through a **"I did that for you, so you should do this for me" sentiment**. It acts as a lubricant for organizational cooperation, as it allows people to make the first move or a concession, confident that the social ledger will eventually be balanced. This power is so potent that it can even obligate us to return favors from people we don't particularly like or to repay a small favor with a much larger one **just to relieve the psychological burden of being "indebted"**. Robert Cialdini later popularized this notion through his "[Influence](https://amzn.to/45TzeBo?ref=leadingsapiens.com)" framework. ### **Legitimate power of Equity** This form of power allows someone to influence you because they've "worked hard and suffered". Their sacrifice creates a perceived moral right to ask for a compensatory action or concession. It relies on our **internal sense of justice** — belief that the benefits and burdens in a work relationship should be fairly and equitably distributed. When we see someone paying a high personal cost for the group, we acknowledge their legitimate right to be repaid or supported in return. **Unlike reciprocity, which is about returning a favor, equity is about balancing the scales of effort.** It provides a platform for those who have shouldered the heaviest loads to exert influence based on the merit of their contribution. ### **Legitimate power of Responsibility** Often called the "power of the powerless," it's the inherent **obligation we feel to help those dependent on us or who cannot help themselves**. It shifts the focus from what we have to do for a boss to what we should do for someone counting on us. A manager can invoke this power by saying, **“I’m really depending on you to do this for me”**. By highlighting their dependence on our specific expertise or effort, they are activating our internalized sense of social responsibility. Because this power is based on the person’s own value system, it doesn't require the threat of punishment to be effective. Instead, it works through the willing acceptance of a shared duty to the collective success of the team. ## The Three Pillars of Legitimacy Legitimate power is not a one-sided imposition of will. It’s a relational agreement where the subordinate "ratifies" the status of the superior through their commitment and the quality of their decisions. Unlike reward or [coercive power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/)—it doesn’t require ongoing surveillance. Since legitimate power is not a *thing* you possess but a *relation* that others recognize, where does it originate? The **sources of legitimacy generally fall into three categories \[1\]**: **(1) Prevailing cultural values.** In many societies, specific attributes such as age, gender, or high-status lineage inherently grant a person the right to influence others. In organizations, this shows up as **beliefs in the sanctity of the hierarchy or the specialized value of certain functional roles**. For example, the accountant's involvement in financial matters or the engineer’s prerogative in technical decisions. **(2) Accepted social structure.** This is the most common form in modern work life. When accepting a role in a company, we're effectively entering a social contract that validates the hierarchical structure, thereby granting legitimate power to our designated managers. **(3) Designation by a sovereign entity.** Legitimacy can also be transferred. A committee chairperson or an elected official holds power because they've been designated as the representative of a larger, powerful group that the community already recognizes. You can see parallels between French-Raven’s formulation and that of Max Weber — the foundational voice on institutional power. Weber identified **three types of rule that makes obedience probable** \[4\]: **Rational-legal authority.** This is the hallmark of the modern bureaucracy. It's founded on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands. We obey the "files" and "functions" because we believe the system itself is rational and impartial. **Traditional authority.** This power is rooted in the sense of the sacredness of long-standing traditions. It's the power of the king or the tribal elder, where legitimacy is granted because "that’s how things have always been". **Charismatic authority.** This is the most unstable yet potent form that’s based on a person’s extraordinary personal qualities. Followers comply out of identification with or devotion to the leader’s perceived heroic or exemplary character. While not the same, [referent power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) is a more durable form of this power. ## How Leaders Misunderstand Legitimate Power A common misunderstanding in modern leadership is the **belief that legitimate power—the authority vested in a formal role—is synonymous with your capacity to get things done**. **We treat promotions as if they were an upgrade, like going from analog to digital.** The assumption is that when you get a title, it comes with the corresponding amount of influence. But in reality, being at the top of an org chart is no guarantee that a team will follow your lead. **If you have to rely solely on your formal position to command action, you aren't demonstrating strength but exposing weakness.** Legitimate power is effectively a social contract. It exists only to the extent that others consent to being controlled. When you step into a role — whether as a manager, doctor, or pilot — you are robed in an impersonal power that precedes your arrival and continues after your departure. Your "office" provides a mantle of agency that allows you to decide, appoint, and execute, **not because of who you are, but because of the position you hold.** Let’s look at some common stumbling blocks around legitimate power. ### Authority is not power The first misunderstanding is the conflation of authority with power. Authority is merely the formal right to give orders based on a title or rank, whereas power is the actual capacity to influence behavior and outcomes. You can hold the highest office and possess absolute formal authority, yet find yourself **"in office but not in power"** — your commands echo in an empty chamber because you lack the social capital to make them stick. **This power gap is inherent in almost every leadership job** because modern leadership requires the cooperation of people over whom you have no explicit control, such as peers, superiors, and external stakeholders. Managers often find themselves in the frustrating position of being responsible for outcomes while lacking the unilateral power to compel necessary actions from others. **True power is relational**; it exists only in the context of a relationship and depends entirely on the extent to which others need you for rewards or to avoid penalties. In this sense, authority is conceded from the bottom up. It’s a mandate granted by others that allows a disagreement to dissolve in favor of the leader’s direction. **When we wholeheartedly enlist in someone’s cause, we effectively delegate a much stronger kind of power to them than their title alone could ever provide.** ### Legitimacy comes from below We typically visualize authority as flowing from the top of the hierarchy to the bottom. But if people do not consent to be led, the leader has no authority, regardless of the size of their desk or the prestige of their title. When people comply with a boss they don’t respect, it creates an atmosphere of resentment and minimal effort. This is the **"cost of weakness"—the gap between how much power a leader is perceived to have and what they can actually achieve \[6\]**. **We legitimize the status quo because questioning the natural order of the hierarchy is cognitively taxing and socially risky**. We carry our bosses around in our heads, following their lead to avoid the psychic stress of total autonomy. \[7\] ### The limits of "because I said so" A common mistake among new or insecure managers is relying too heavily on "position power" to gain results. While legitimate power can ensure ***compliance***—getting people to follow basic rules and procedures—**it is notoriously poor at generating *commitment***. Commitment occurs when someone wants to execute a decision, which typically stems from expert power or referent power rather than formal rank. Over-reliance on using force when other tactics fail creates "docile bodies" who perform the minimum required while withholding the creativity and initiative that organizations need to survive. **Ironically, the more someone feels the need to demonstrate they are powerful by pulling rank, the less real power they likely possess.** ### Power-*with* vs. power-*over* There’s a paradox at the heart of legitimate power: **to increase your power, you must delegate it**. Mary Parker Follett distinguished between **"power-over**" (coercive and prohibitive) and "**power-with**" (coactive and facilitative). True legitimate power is facilitative. It's **the "power to"** achieve something in concert with others. When leaders use their position to solve systemic problems rather than just personal ones, their status and legitimacy rise. Conversely, the more leaders have to use bullying or intimidation, the less real power they actually possess. Direct intervention and force are usually signs that legitimate authority has failed or slipping. --- Ultimately, legitimate power is not a right but a fragile trust. It’s the part you play in someone else’s story, and that’s only sustainable as long as it adds value to the collective whole. **Power is simply a medium through which we relate to each other.** The most powerful leader is the one who needs to use force the least because they have built a system of authority so grounded in mutual benefit and shared vision that their will is naturally accepted as the group's own. **Realizing that you likely have more power than you think — but less than your title implies — is the first step toward using it well.** ## More articles related to Legitimate Power [The 6 Types of Power: A Guide for LeadersUnderstanding and using power is key to effective leadership. The French-Raven model of power bases is a good primer on the different types of power. This post introduces this foundational framework of power and the 6 types: coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, referent, and information power. In 1959, social psychologists John![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-194.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Types-of-Power--French-Raven-.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/) [Sources of Power in OrganizationsWhat makes some folks and certain teams more powerful than others in organizations? What is the source of their power? In contrast, why do others despite having competence and positional authority are ineffective? This is one of a series on power in organizations. I focus on Gareth Morgan’s classic![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-195.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Sources-of-Power---I-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/) [Referent Power: The Subtle Tool of Effective LeadershipTraditional authority—titles, commands, and rewards—has lost its edge in the modern workplace. What compels people is trust, respect, and admiration. This is the essence of referent power—a subtle but effective form of power that inspires loyalty and performance without coercion. It is effective but rare. In this![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-196.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Referent-power-in-leadership-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) [Coercive Power: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern LeadershipUnderstanding different types of power is crucial for effective leadership. Coercive power is a controversial yet sometimes necessary and effective tool. I delve into the nuances of coercive power, its applications, why leaders shouldn’t avoid it, and Elon Musk as an example of coercive leadership. What is Coercive Power![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-197.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Coercive-Power-in-Leadership-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) [Expert Power — How Knowledge Becomes InfluenceExpert power, one of six key types of power, allows leaders to shape decisions and influence outcomes through specialized knowledge. This makes expert power as influential as formal authority. It’s a subtle but potent way to increase your power, regardless of your position on the org chart. In this article,![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-198.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Expert-Power-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) ## Sources 1. French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). [The bases of social power](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1960-06701-004?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Raven, B. H. (1993). [The bases of power: Origins and recent developments.](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-17397-001?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Huczynski, A. (2004). [Influencing within organizations](https://amzn.to/3M3pP3r?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Clegg, S. R., & Haugaard, M. (2009). [The SAGE handbook of power](https://amzn.to/4aiGacn?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Clegg, S. R., Courpasson, D., & Phillips, N. X. (2006). [Power and organizations](https://amzn.to/4krq5FV?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1976). [Ambiguity and choice in organizations](https://amzn.to/4aKdIAH?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 7. Kleiner, A. (2003). [Who really matters: The core group theory of power.](https://amzn.to/3ZYUPVn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Decisional Self vs Performative Self: Why Decisions Don’t Translate into Actions URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/performative-self-bandura/ Last updated: 2026-05-09T14:20:21.000Z Most of us have facets of our lives where things are just not up to the mark. We’d like things to be different, but somehow it hasn’t panned out. And equally likely, **we already know what needs to be done and how to go about it.** Yet, we falter. Why? To state the obvious: **knowledge per se doesn’t trigger action.** Knowing what to do and actually doing what it takes in the heat of action are worlds apart. Maybe because it’s obvious, we don’t give much thought to it. In coaching, I’ve found that paying closer attention to differences between “the one who plans” vs “the one who executes” pays rich dividends. Albert Bandura — the foremost researcher on [self-efficacy (confidence)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) — called these **the “decisional self” and the “performative self”. \[1\]** **If the decisional self is the architect, the performative self is the contractor who must build the structure in a messy, unpredictable reality.** The goal then is twofold. Ensure that: - The **decisional self is bold enough** to consider high-value options. - And the **performative self is resilient enough** to execute them. Recognizing and accounting for these two selves goes a long way in sticking with our most ambitious goals. ## The Decisional Self The decisional self is concerned with the slate of options available to us. It’s the one who gathers information, weighs potential costs and benefits, and envisions likely consequences of various paths. **The first major theme of the decisional self is self-censorship.** Not only is the decisional self a choice-maker, it’s also an internal architect who determines which possibilities are even allowed to enter our field of vision. It’s a restrictive filter that only presents the options self-belief allows us to see. It’s the architect who only draws rooms it believes we are capable of entering. Bandura notes: > People simply eliminate from consideration occupations they believe to be beyond their capabilities, however attractive the occupations may be. We do not simply weigh all available paths; we "rapidly eliminate entire classes of options on self-efficacy grounds" without even bothering to analyze their potential costs or benefits. If you judge yourself as inefficacious in something—whether it’s negotiation or a new technology—you eliminate those options entirely from your range of possibilities. This is worth pausing over. Whatever your goals are, consider that there were an entire slew of them you didn’t even bother considering simply because you didn’t think you can pull it off. Usually, we don’t question this dynamic. It’s simply accepted as a given. To counter this tendency, r**emember that internal filters are often based on “faulty self-knowledge" and "illusory inefficacy" rather than actual ability.** When we believe we lack the power to produce a result, we lose the incentive to even consider the attempt. So, it’s useful to consciously re-examine "foreclosed options”—things that got dismissed not because they were irrational, but because we didn’t think we have what it takes. **The second major theme is how we “structure” our aspirations.** Long-range goals provide direction, but they're too far removed in time to act as current motivators. **When the decisional self only focuses on the distant peak, it risks getting demoralized through the wide disparity between current state and the final standard.** The most effective way to empower the decisional self is to structure the journey into attainable subgoals which provide: - Clear markers of our growing capability. - Immediate incentives that build the commitment to keep going. - Corrective data that helps identify and adjust strategies in real-time. **The third major theme of the decisional self is how we account for failure.** Those with high self-efficacy use the decisional self to visualize successful outcomes that provide positive guides for performance. Conversely, those plagued by [self-doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) dwell on potential failures and imagine difficulties to be more formidable than they truly are. With low decisional efficacy we procrastinate or spend inordinate amounts of time gathering information for "self-protective purposes". **We aren't seeking clarity, but building a shield against the risk of being wrong.** The decisional self must weigh costs and benefits, yet this process is typically inefficient, even illogical. We act (or don’t act) because of our **beliefs about *what we can do*** as much as on our **beliefs about *the likely outcomes***. ## The Performative Self There’s an entire genre of books, departments, and gurus who focus exclusively on “decision-making”. But focusing too much on making the perfect decision creates the illusion **that once a choice is made, we’re done**. We assume that if we weigh the options, consider the costs, and pick a path, the hard part is over. That if we think something is worth it, we’ll take the necessary actions. **In reality, though, a decision is merely an intention.** And **intentions are not actions**. The decisional self may form an intention (e.g., "I want to quit smoking"), but this intention is merely a goal. Getting there requires a performative self to survive the day-to-day. As Bandura noted: > **A psychology of decision-making requires a psychology of action**. Without a robust performative self, even the most brilliant decisions remain idle fantasies because we doubt if we can muster the resources needed to persevere through the inevitable obstacles of setbacks during implementation. We remain stuck in analysis and preparation. That’s why talent alone cannot predict success. We’ve all seen capable individuals falter, even when they know full well what to do. **The performative self is the bridge that connects knowledge and action.** An athlete or manager may have excellent mechanics but fail to behave optimally because they doubt their performative self’s ability to improvise when the going gets unpredictable and stressful. **The performative self also determines how hard we work and how long we keep going.** The strength of the performative self's conviction determines whether we even try to cope with a given situation. When faced with obstacles, setbacks, or failures, those with a robust performative self "redouble their effort to master the challenges," while those who doubt their capabilities "slacken their efforts, give up, or settle for mediocre solutions". In this sense, the performative self is the seat of resilience. It determines whether we read a setback as a sign of personal deficiency—which stifles performance—or as instructive feedback for enhancing our capabilities. ## Strengthening the Performative Self Given the importance of the performative self in closing the knowing-doing gap, below are some strategies to strengthen it. ### 1\. Do hard things The decisional self is all about “outcome expectations”: the belief that a certain action will bring about a desired result. But the performative self is all about “efficacy expectations”: the conviction that we can actually pull off the behaviors needed. **In other words, we cannot simply talk the performative self into action; we must provide action-based evidence.** Mastery experiences, like conquering tough challenges, are the most powerful proof that we’ve got what it takes. Some pointers: - To succeed at long-term projects, it’s important to focus on small, incremental progress towards the larger goal. These [**small wins**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) build confidence and motivation, making it easier to take the next step. - On the other hand, **success that comes too easily can be fragile**. It’s crucial to develop a resilience by consistently overcoming significant obstacles. If we only experience quick results, [it’s easy to lose hope](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stockdale-paradox/) when faced with a setback. - When learning new skills, it’s natural to seek help initially. However, we have to eventually execute the skill independently. Achieving these “independent successes” removes doubts about our abilities. ### 2\. Scaffolding for self-management The performative self fails because [we’re not psychologically prepared for the long run](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). Unlike outcomes, execution is not a fixed one-time act but an ongoing rhythm of day-to-day continuous improvisation. This requires [better goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/), systems for tracking these goals, and processing setbacks: - It's hard to stay consistent without tracking results. However, the performative self is easily undermined by "selective attention to poorer performances". Accuracy requires [an emphasis on what’s working as well](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) to ensure successes are noticed, remembered, and built upon. - **The performative self is highly sensitive to how feedback is framed**. Evaluations that focus on progress underscore capability, whereas those focusing on shortfalls from a distant goal highlight deficiencies. - Proficient action requires the performative self to remain "task-oriented" rather than "self-diagnostic". **This means treating mistakes as useful feedback rather than a verdict on talent.** ### 3\. Thought hygiene A common reason the performative self fails to meet the decisional self's standards is the intrusion of unhelpful thought patterns. By dwelling on personal deficiencies or imagining potential difficulties as more formidable than they actually are, **we divert attention from the task to our shortcomings.** To get better at execution, we must develop **thought control efficacy**. Two practices I can personally vouch for are: - Attention training practices like meditation. - And minimizing [cognitive distortions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/). ### 4\. Re-interpreting physical cues The performative self often misreads biological signals. In stressful situations, a weak performative self reads fatigue, aches, and pains as proof of physical inefficacy. In contrast, a strong performative self interprets the same physiological arousal as an energizing sign that they are ready for action. **Accomplished actors do not view nervousness as personal incapability, but as a "normative situational reaction".** To align the performative self with the decisional self, we must **learn to view visceral physical cues not as an ominous sign of vulnerability, but as the biological engine being revved for the task at hand.** ## In closing **Only when the performative self believes in its capability can the decisional self's choices be executed and realized in the real world.** As Bandura notes, the performative self is the "existential commitment to one’s own capacity to build a worthwhile life". When we strengthen it, not only do we improve performance, we increase the likelihood of **intentions becoming realities**. ## Related Reading [Self Efficacy: A Better Construct than ConfidenceConfidence is overrated. A more effective, scientifically-grounded approach to improve performance is self-efficacy. We often hear about the importance of confidence. “Believe in yourself,” the advice goes. Although intuitive, it’s not as helpful. What exactly is confidence? Is it innate? Or can you work at it? Self-efficacy is a more![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-188.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Efficacy.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) [Types of Goals - Nuances of Effective GoalsUnderstanding the different types of goals can dramatically increase how effective we are at goal setting. It’s more than the generic SMART goals framework.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-189.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Effective-Goals----Nuances.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) [The Stupidity of My SMART Goals - Mistakes and LearningsSMART goals are anything but smart. They assume a mechanical, linear stance instead of the iterative, dynamic, ever changing terrain we face everyday.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-190.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Wall-of-Frustration-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/) [The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the MundaneExcellence is more mundane than we think. Understanding its nuances increases our likelihood of success. Not doing so sets us up for failure.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-191.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project_-454045--2.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) [Cognitive Distortions that Undermine Clear ThinkingLeaders are paid to think clearly. And a big impediment to clear thinking is what CBT/REBT calls Cognitive Distortions: errors in thinking or thinking traps we commonly fall for. Most high-performers are not pathological, but instead fall for them when upset or in high-stress situations. In this post, I![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-192.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Cognitive-Distortions--lr-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) ## Sources 1. Bandura, A. (1997). [*Self-efficacy: The exercise of control*](https://amzn.to/4fIdone?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Bandura, A. (2009). [Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394320769.ch6?ref=leadingsapiens.com). In Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. 3. Peltier, B. (2010). [*The Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory and Application*.](https://amzn.to/3B8SKxh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### The Five Johari Leadership Archetypes URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-leadership-archetypes/ Last updated: 2026-03-03T21:23:18.000Z *Joseph Luft in his now forgotten classic* [*Of Human Interaction*](https://amzn.to/4byNPpv?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, has a section on leadership archetypes I found particularly useful, and entertaining. He based these archetypes — ancient patterns in how we influence others — on the work of anthropologist Merrill Jackson, which explains why these are uncannily accurate.* *Luft explains the archetypes using his* [*Johari window model*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/)*. Each of the five archetypes —*the Shaman, the Mystic, the Naturalist, the Priest, and the Magician*—operates uniquely within the Johari Window, emphasizing different quadrants of awareness to achieve their ends. All have inherent strengths and traps.* *It’s a useful, often entertaining, way for managers to recognize which styles they’re defaulting to and whether it truly serves their team’s current stage of development.* --- Before diving in, a brief primer. The[ Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) is a matrix of self-other awareness: | | Known to Self | UnKnown to Self | | ----------------- | ------------- | --------------- | | Known to Others | Q1 - Open | Q2 - Blind | | Unknown to others | Q3 - Hidden | Q4 - Unknown | Every interaction shifts this window—**through disclosure (Q3 → Q1), feedback (Q2 → Q1), self-discovery (Q4 → Q1), or concealment**. The leader’s type reveals which quadrants they operate from most frequently, and which they ignore or misuse. ## The Shaman You probably known someone who doesn't just enter a room, but seems to become the room. There’s a certain magnetic pull to them—**an ability to influence through the sheer force of personality**. In Luft’s typology, this figure is the Shaman. Unlike the "Naturalist" leader who stays focused on factual, impersonal tasks, the Shaman's power is personal. They deal with you to call attention to themselves and to enhance their own image. Their influence is built on **a foundation of craft, charm, and a high degree of interpersonal cunning**. They are masters of social prediction. They know intuitively how you will respond to certain actions, and reveal bits of information in a calculated way to show how admirable and capable they are. By demonstrating this power, they encourage you to rely on them, be impressed by them, and ultimately, trust them. **Shamans make you feel better, convinced you’ve been in the presence of someone truly wonderful.** In Johari terms, their go-to move is skillful disclosure from the third quadrant (the Hidden Self) into the first quadrant (the Open Self). However, this is not the vulnerable, raw disclosure advocated by some. Rather it’s[ impression management ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/)designed to elicit a specific response: - They pay close attention to step-by-step disclosure, carefully noting the effect it has on others. - Because they enjoy being admired, external validation makes them appear more confident and more spontaneous, which in turn makes the audience more enthralled. - They are aware of their performance (Q1), playing off what they think you see (Q2), and selectively pulling from their hidden storehouse (Q3). Whether loud or quiet, the constant is that the focus is always on the leader's personality. **When highly capable, the Shaman becomes a charismatic leader**, where their vivacity and forcefulness can be spectacular. Every leadership style has its trap and for the Shaman, it’s the preoccupation with what they do to people rather than what they do with them. - People may learn from and be excited by the Shaman, but often struggle to transfer that learning to other situations where the Shaman’s charisma is absent. This creates a hangover where the relationship feels let down once the performance ends. - The Shaman may fail to truly connect with others who have their own narcissistic needs, leading to a clash of personalities. - They maintain **the facade of being an open book. In reality, they're using the appearance of openness to maintain a highly controlled image**. ## The Mystic Sometimes, the most effective form of leadership is the potential you perceive in others—potential they haven’t even recognized in themselves. In Luft’s taxonomy, the Mystic operates with a surgical precision, bypassing the ego to focus on others’ untapped potentials. Unlike the Shaman who uses personal charisma to enthrall, the Mystic leads by engaging with the Unknown Area (Q4) of those they lead. In the Johari Window, their primary mode of interaction is a bridge between their Open Area (Q1) and the follower’s Unknown Area (Q4). While most leaders are preoccupied with what’s visible—performance metrics, public behavior, and stated goals—**the Mystic is a diviner of latent talent**. They operate on the assumption that every individual possesses unrealized potential. By relating to each person as a matchless individual, the Mystic acts as a medium through which others can gain access to their own storehouse of wisdom and skill. They do not simply tell others who they are. Instead, **they** [**create the conditions**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/) **for others to discover themselves**. **What distinguishes the Mystic from more manipulative archetypes is genuine altruism**: - The Mystic does not deal with others to enhance their own image or elicit approval. While the Shaman needs admiration to fuel their spontaneity, the Mystic holds their own needs aside to focus entirely on the growth of others. - Most leadership models inadvertently create dependencies. The Mystic, however, relates to others without seeking to create this dependency. The goal is not to mold others into a specific shape, but to facilitate their movement toward self-determination. The Mystic’s approach is vital to modern organizations. They provide a sanctuary—a safe, high-trust relationship for real growth. By providing support for self-discovery, the Mystic helps others transition toward authentic self-confidence. The result is people who come away enriched and self-reliant, rather than enthralled or trapped in a hangover once the leader is gone. **Leading as a Mystic is probably the most difficult of the five archetypes to sustain** because of the immense inner strength it requires. It’s a high-wire act of interpersonal discernment: - A Mystic who is not truly self-sufficient may experience a sense of being used or unappreciated, leading to sourness that poisons the relationship. - It requires an extraordinary ability to sense both what’s going on in oneself and others simultaneously, all while maintaining a large open area so that the leader’s own blind spots do not cloud the perception of others’ potential. ## The Naturalist Many leaders treat every interaction as a math problem to be solved rather than a human experience. In the typology of leadership archetypes, this is the Naturalist who relies on the cold, clear light of technical rationality. To them, the interpersonal dynamics are not a dance but a set of explicit objectives to be managed. The **Naturalist functions primarily as a technician or an engineer of human interaction.** Their worldview is defined by: - **Realistic stance:** They want to find the core of a problem and address it directly through empirically tested methods. - **Impersonal conduct:** They view personality as something that should be kept out of the work. On the job, they are cool and skillful, often appearing machine-like because they prioritize technical data over messy emotional dynamics. - **Irrelevance of affect:** **Feelings are considered irrelevant noise** that distracts from the primary goal. This mode is **common in professionalized sectors**. Consider the physician respected for their clinical results but criticized by patients for being cold—inspecting and poking the patient as if they were a piece of complicated machinery rather than a person. In the Johari Window, the Naturalist operates exclusively within a specific vertical column: - **They thrive on direct communication where everything is explicit and aboveboard (Q1 Open Area)**. Their operating style involves well-planned designs, clear stipulations for every stage of work, and formal, didactic explanations. - For them, Q3 (hidden area) is not a place for secrets, but a "factual storehouse" of knowledge and skill to be drawn upon as the task requires. - Because they value certainty, the Naturalist has little interest in the Blind(Q2) or the Unknown Area (Q4). They assume that if everyone is sufficiently motivated and organized, there is no need to probe into unacknowledged feelings or unconscious motives. The Naturalist is highly respected because they deliver results. However, this relentless focus comes with a significant relational cost. By treating the second and fourth quadrants as non-existent, the Naturalist inadvertently creates lost opportunities. When a leader ignores the nutrients of the fourth quadrant—emotions, intuitions, and other intangibles—the relationship eventually loses its vitality and commitment. Communication may flow in a predictable and efficient way, but **ultimately superficial and unsatisfying** for those who crave confirmation as whole individuals. ## The Priest There’s one archetype that’s **more pervasive than all others in large modern organizations**. It’s that of The Priest — where the individual is less important than the office they hold. Instead of personal charm like the Shaman, their **power is borrowed through institutional influence**. Authority derives from a powerful hierarchy—be it a multinational corporation, rigorous academia, or a long-standing government institution. Priests live and breathe the institution, maintaining social order by invoking four primary motifs: - **Continuity:** The Priest emphasizes the past, present, and future of the organization. They act as a bridge between the founding legends and the future goals, ensuring that the "way we do things here" remains intact. - **Hierarchy:** Authority is not earned through a popularity contest but granted by the status held within the power structure. They use "great names" and previous legends of the institution to inspire reverence and provide a roadmap for others to follow. - **Election: Membership is a privilege that must be earned**. Before a recruit is welcomed into the inner circle, they must endure trials of initiation and discipline, essentially undergoing a self-transformation to fit the institutional mold. - **Mission:** The organization is portrayed as having a purpose that transcends any single member. The Priest leads with a missionary zeal for this objective, requiring others to align their personal identity with the collective mission. The Priest’s interaction pattern is complex: - Their public self (Q1) is often a "coerced mask" provided by the role they play. They speak as an agent of the institution, using formal language and processes that have been established for generations. - While they present a clear institutional front, the Priest holds a large store of protected information (Q3) about the internal workings of the power structure, only revealing it to those who have passed the trials of election. - Perhaps the most distinctive quality of the Priest is their role in mediating the mysterious and awe-inspiring forces that define the organization's deeper purpose. By performing established rituals, they make these unknown potentials (Q4) feel manageable and safe for the collective. Why do people follow the Priest? Because **they offer the one thing the individual cannot find alone: certainty.** Individual differences tend to disappear beneath the weight of the institution’s mission. This provides followers with a sense of membership in an omnipotent authority, which serves as a powerful container for the collective anxiety of the group. The trade-off, of course, is the loss of individual initiative. ## The Magician What happens to a team when the source of their leader's power is entirely hidden from view? Of all the archetypes, the Magician is the most enigmatic. The Magician operates in the cool, dimly lit corridors of the “Hidden” and "Unknown" areas of the Johari Window. **They’re like a black box that produces results without ever revealing its mechanics.** Their influence doesn’t flow from the "Open Area" of shared information, **but from what is withheld and what’s yet to be discovered.** The Magician relies on arcane complex rules or a unique methodology that no one else can duplicate. This is material deliberately moved into the Hidden area (Q3). He sets up his own work conditions and follows a process that he never fully explains, using secrecy as the primary mechanism of power. The Magician acts as if he is in touch with the essence of things that others cannot penetrate. He is guided by hidden cues and a logic that transcends rational, Open Area (Q1) approaches. The **relationship between a Magician-leader and their followers is one of the most asymmetrical**. The leader leads from the shadows, even as others are expected to follow on faith. - The Magician demands that followers trust his "magic" without fully understanding his ways. In the context of trust, this is the belief that the leader can produce the gold without an understanding of the context or "why". - Others are often rendered passive and reliant. They do not relate to the Magician as a person so much as they rely on the results. - Because the Magician’s power depends on the boundary between what is known and what’s hidden, any accidental "leakage" from Q3 to Q1 can be devastating. If the "magic" is explained, it ceases to be magic, and the leader may feel a loss of control over their influence. Before you dismiss the magician as an ancient archetype irrelevant to modernity, think again. **In today’s world, the Magician appears in the guise of the elite technical expert or the proprietary consultant**. This is the leader who manages through arcane rules—complex algorithms, legal maneuvers, or specialized jargon that's over other's heads. The Magician produces order out of chaos not by teaching the team how to navigate the turbulence, but by a performance that "snatches structure and certainty out of the mouth of the dragon of chaos". **While this can provide a temporary reprieve, it’s ultimately disempowering,** as others learn to rely on the leader’s secret knowledge instead of developing their own. ## In closing Each leader type emphasizes some quadrants and avoids others. It’s a mistake to assume anyone fits a single archetype perfectly. Most leaders are a mixed bag, such as the "charismatic naturalist" or the "priestly leader" who uses the Magician's secrets to maintain power. **The goal isn’t to pick a type. It’s to stay alert to your dominant quadrant, and to build** [**flexibility**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/) **across all others.** From this perspective, leadership, rather than a mastery of technique, is **the wise use of presence, perception, and** [**power**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/). ## Related Reading on the Johari Window [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-179.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-5.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) [Open Quadrant of the Johari Window: Beyond Transparency in Leadership“Radical transparency” is often touted as a leadership virtue. So why do leaders still struggle with openness? Using the Johari Window’s Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena), I examine the complexities of leadership transparency and a nuanced approach to mastering openness in leadership. Through the lens of Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena) in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-180.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-182.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-6.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) [Four Levels of CommunicationWhy is it that the most critical information is often the very thing that remains unsaid? Leaders tend to operate under the illusion that communication is a simple, linear process of “telling”—setting direction, articulating values, and dispensing expertise. Or at best an “exchange”. Yet, the higher they rise in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-181.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Johari-Window---Levels-of-Communication-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/four-levels-of-communication/) [Impression Management: How Effective Leaders Balance Perception and RealityIs leadership about substance or perception? The truth is, it’s both. You must not only be effective; you must also appear effective. Impression management — first introduced by Erving Goffman — has been widely studied and researched. And it’s especially relevant to leadership. In this piece, I dig into Goffman’s framework![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-183.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Impression-Management.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/) [Referent Power: The Subtle Tool of Effective LeadershipTraditional authority—titles, commands, and rewards—has lost its edge in the modern workplace. What compels people is trust, respect, and admiration. This is the essence of referent power—a subtle but effective form of power that inspires loyalty and performance without coercion. It is effective but rare. In this![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-184.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Referent-power-in-leadership.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) [Expert Power — How Knowledge Becomes InfluenceExpert power, one of six key types of power, allows leaders to shape decisions and influence outcomes through specialized knowledge. This makes expert power as influential as formal authority. It’s a subtle but potent way to increase your power, regardless of your position on the org chart. In this article,![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-185.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Expert-Power-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) ## Sources 1. [Of Human Interaction](https://amzn.to/4byNPpv?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Joseph Luft. 2. Hanson, P. (1973). **The Johari window: A model for soliciting and giving feedback.** 3. Luft, Joseph, & Ingham, Harry, (1961). **The Johari Window: A Graphic Model of Awareness in Interpersonal Relations.** 4. [The New Johari Window](https://library.psychology.edu/the-new-johari-window-2-models-of-interpersonal-awareness/3/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by William Bergquist ### The Power of Congruence URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/ Last updated: 2026-02-25T18:27:10.000Z Why do we feel an instinctive sense of trust when interacting with some people, while others leave us with a vague sense of unease, as if interacting with a polished but hollow shell? This is especially relevant to [effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/) —**you might be saying all the right things, but others experience you as fragmented or off**. Leaders are expected to maintain a calm, professional demeanor. This leads many to wear masks of certainty and authority, believing that to reveal a moment of doubt or a flicker of irritation would be to lose control. Maintaining poise is of course important. But that’s only one dimension. **Poise that’s out of context and out of touch turns into a perma-facade that’s a drag on leadership**. It’s because we are evolutionarily primed to detect a failure of **what Carl Rogers called “congruence”** — unity between our internal experience and what we project. According to him, **the most powerful state a human being can inhabit is not one of calculated control, but congruence — a state of being integrated and whole, "all in one piece”.** Nowhere is this more applicable than in leadership. While congruence is often simplified as "being yourself" or the more cliched “authentic”, in Rogers’ framing it’s a more nuanced, three-part alignment that’s a lifelong leadership challenge. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## The Three Pillars of Congruence > Congruence is the accurate matching of physiological experiencing with awareness, and the matching of these with what is communicated. > > — Carl Rogers Rogers defined congruence as a state of internal consistency that requires an the matching of **three distinct levels: experience, awareness, and communication**. Instead of constantly presenting a curated "professional" image, congruence requires being unified and integrated in the moment. This means whatever we’re experiencing is accurately reflected in our consciousness and communication. When an infant feels hunger (experience), their awareness matches it, and their cry (communication) is perfectly aligned with that hunger. The infant is transparently themselves because they are unified all the way through. In contrast, adults often suffer from a mismatch between these levels. **This is why an infant’s cry feels much more real than a CEO’s well-rehearsed apology.** ### 1\. Experience (visceral level) The first level is the actual physiological and visceral events occurring within us. It’s the "gut-level" reaction that happens before we’ve even put a name to it. It’s everything going on at any given moment that’s available to the senses, whether it’s the apprehension that feels like a chill inside, the heat of anger, or the lightness of contentment. Because this flow is a biological reality, we can use it as a referent to check against our mental constructions. ### 2\. Awareness (symbolic level) The second process is the symbolization of our experience where the raw data of experience is represented in consciousness. Awareness is our mind’s representation of the visceral flow. Congruence happens when these symbols accurately match our real experience. **When we’re congruent, there are no barriers or inhibitions preventing the full experiencing of whatever is naturally present.** When these two processes fail to match — when there’s a mismatch between experience and awareness — Rogers calls it **defensiveness or denial to awareness**. For instance, a manager whose face is flushed and voice is shaking with rage (experience), yet insists with evident sincerity that they’re not angry at all (awareness). Their physiological experience (anger) is not accurately represented in their awareness. They aren't necessarily lying but simply **unable to access the truth of their own internal state**. When leaders are incongruent, communication becomes contradictory and confusing to others. ### 3\. Communication (expressive level) Communication is the outward expression — the words, tone, behavior, and gestures used to signal our experience and awareness to others. To be fully congruent, what we say to others must match both what we are thinking (awareness) and feeling (experience). Rogers used the term "transparent" to describe this state: one makes themselves see-through to others, holding nothing back. What’s present in one’s awareness is what’s shared with the world. When we’re aware of our internal state but choose to project a different image, it’s a **falseness or deceit**. A classic example is the host consciously aware of their boredom but who tells their guest, "I enjoyed this evening so much". Here, the person knows their internal truth but chooses to project a front. Internal alignment is present, but the external communication is a facade. ## The Congruent Self Why is internal alignment vital to leadership? When we’re unaware of our own experience—such as annoyance or skepticism—communication becomes contradictory. On the surface your words may convey support or acceptance. But subsurface subtle cues, tone, or body language communicate the hidden annoyance. This split creates confusion. **Even if the other person cannot quite name what is wrong, they become distrustful because they sense a reality the leader is denying.** When all three processes—experience, awareness, and communication—are in alignment, we’re completely in one piece aka congruent. This unity makes communication clear and believable to others. Because all cues from speech, tone, and gesture spring from a single source of truth, others experience us as unambiguous. Rogers considered congruence the most critical of his "core conditions for change". He formulated what he called a "General Law" to explain the reciprocal nature of this state: > The more a person (X) is congruent in a relationship, the clearer their communication becomes because all cues—speech, tone, and gesture—are unified. This clarity makes it more likely that the other person (Y) will feel "empathically understood". When Y feels understood, their own defensiveness decreases, allowing them to communicate more congruently in return. Thus, congruence is contagious and key to effective leadership. A congruent leader creates a climate of growth where others feel safe enough to drop their own masks. Conversely, incongruence is equally contagious but negatively. By being dependably real across all three levels, the congruent person creates a working environment where initiative flows up organically instead of being coerced from the top down. Congruence is an ongoing, fluid process of revising the self through a constant openness to experience. **You’re constantly choosing to risk being seen exactly as you are, rather than as you wish to be perceived.** ## Implications for Leadership Traditional notions of leadership assume that leaders must consolidate power and use it to direct, reward, and punish. Rogers’ research and experience, however, showed that this kind of "power over" others often results in a "clutter of facades" that stifles creativity and increases dependency — the opposite of what leaders claim to want. Congruence shifts the politics of leadership toward a more genuine stance. Consider the different ways congruence plays into effective leadership. ### Facades are stifling Professional facades are typically used as self-protection by maintaining distance and authority. While many leaders want to be genuine, in actual practice they fall far short because they prioritize these techniques over personal realness. But facades are unsustainable and counter-productive in the long run. Because our bodies and brains are built for congruence, it requires significant cognitive effort to maintain facades. When we try to cover up parts of ourselves, the incongruence "leaks" through nonverbal cues. We send double messages: words say one thing, but tone, gestures, and vibe leak the unowned feelings beneath the surface. That’s how incongruence breeds suspicion. Others instinctively sense the discrepancy and become cautious and wary. When leaders aren’t real, people feel unsafe, sensing that the authority figure cannot be fully trusted. ### The power of realness When leaders are congruent, they provide a "discernible reality" that people can relate to. By being "dependably real," the leader removes the threat of themselves as a "potential changer" or evaluator. This empowers others to find their own internal "locus of evaluation". **You aren’t “giving” power to your team per se; rather, you aren’t taking it away to begin with.** This enables reciprocity, transparency, and trust: - The more you’re a real person and avoid self-protective masks, the more others reciprocate and change in a constructive direction. - When others can see a real person, they drop their own masks. - **Congruence signals that the relationship is being lived, not managed.** ### Consistency vs. “dependable reality" A common leadership myth is that being trustworthy requires rigid consistency—always acting the same way regardless of the circumstances. We mistake "trustworthy" for "consistently nice." But true trustworthiness stems from being dependably real. When annoyed, it is more helpful to own that feeling ("I feel irritated") than to act pleasant while leaking hostility through subtle cues. Others sense this honesty and feel safe to be real themselves. When leaders act consistently “pleasant” while internally feeling critical or annoyed, they’re being incongruent. While they might be acting as trustworthy, the underlying feelings will eventually be perceived as inconsistency or as inauthentic. Others sense the gap between the surface behavior and the underlying reality, which undermines your credibility. ### Daring to be real Leading congruently is not merely a technical skill, but an ongoing "existential choice". In every interaction, we face the risk: "Do I dare to communicate the full degree of congruence that I feel?" **We fear that showing cracks in our facade will make us appear weak or inept. However, Rogers’ research showed the opposite:** the more someone is themselves, putting up no professional front, the greater the likelihood of constructive change in the other. True power doesn't come from being perfectly effective, but from being congruent—owning one's feelings, even the difficult ones. This means, to be effective, leaders must develop the capacity to sense what is happening within themselves at any given moment: - Acknowledging imperfect feelings like boredom, fear, or rejection. - Accepting these attitudes as facts and parts of themselves rather than pushing them away to maintain a facade. - Permitting internal states to show through when appropriate. It requires two ongoing practices, **self-awareness and risk-taking**: - Your ability to be genuine with others is strictly limited by how genuine you are with yourself. This involves a keen awareness of one's own internal structure. - To be real is to risk being changed. It involves the "anxiety of separateness"—the fear that if we are truly seen as we are, we might be rejected. Congruence is inextricably linked to Rogers’ most famous quip: > The curious paradox is that when I accept myself as I am, then I change. When leaders are congruent, relationships become "real" rather than static. By being willing to be themselves, the leader finds that not only do they change, but the people they relate to also begin to change. In this sense, congruence is the catalyst that allows both parties to move away from "false fronts" and toward a more positive, self-actualizing direction. Rogers admits that this is a difficult task and one he never fully achieved, yet he viewed it as a prerequisite for facilitating growth in others. **The degree to which one can create a helping relationship is often a direct measure of the growth and congruence we’ve achieved within ourselves.** ### Genuineness as a political act It may feel natural to hide our inner experience because we learned to do so as a survival mechanism. Congruence, in contrast, is a trained stance of choosing to align our outer words with inner reality. In a way, **choosing to be genuine is a revolutionary political act**. Conventional approaches rely on "power over" others through professional distance and the control of information. **To be genuine is to consciously renounce this control.** In this supportive stance, the "actualizing tendency" of the group is released. When leaders own their experiences and uncertainties—teams tend to move away from rigid, "structure-bound" patterns toward a fluid, self-correcting process of discovery. This is **the great, secret might of non-interference proposed by Lao-Tzu:** > When actions are performed without unnecessary speech, > People say ‘We did it”. ## Related articles on Congruence [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-172.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-5.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) [Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood DynamicThe term “psychological safety” is often misleading. When managers hear safety, many dismiss it as a soft style that implies complacency. Meanwhile, psychology implies too much mumbo jumbo. High-profile figures like Elon Musk advocating for a “hardcore” style perpetuate this misconception. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-173.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Psychological-safety-and-High-Standards--2-5.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-174.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-6.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Carl Rogers On Why Teaching is OverratedCarl Rogers, one of the most pre-eminent psychologists of the 20th century, delivered a speech at Harvard in 1952 that created quite a ruckus at the time.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-175.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Teaching-is-not-learning-Rogers-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/) ## Sources 1. Rogers, Carl R.. [A Way of Being](https://amzn.to/49R37ol?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Rogers, Carl R. [On Becoming a Person](https://amzn.to/4k1FGvF?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Rogers, Carl R. [On Personal Power](https://amzn.to/49Yqc78?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Four Levels of Communication URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/four-levels-of-communication/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:34:49.000Z *Why is it that *the most critical information is often the very thing that remains unsaid?* Leaders tend to operate under the illusion that communication is a simple, linear process of "telling"—setting direction, articulating values, and dispensing expertise. Or at best an “exchange”.* *Yet, the higher they rise in an organization, the more difficult it is to get to the truth. This creates *a growing gap between the apparent words they speak and the underlying reality of the human systems they lead.** *Bridging this chasm is where the work of Edgar Schein’s foundational work on Process Consultation \[1\] comes in. In this piece, I first look at Schein’s framework of levels of communication based on* [*the Johari Window*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) *and then its implications for effective leadership.* ## The Four Levels of Communication Schein’s philosophy of "helping" applies to every human relationship, whether between a manager and subordinate, or a parent and child. It starts with the counterintuitive premise that **the helper—no matter how experienced—is often ignorant of the “client’s” internal reality.** We can only truly help others to help themselves. This means shifting our focus from the "content" (the what) to the "process" (the how). Schein provides a map of this process using the Johari Window— a mental model that divides the "self" into four quadrants: the open, concealed, blind, and unknown selves. This architecture shows how whenever two people interact, they are not simply exchanging data but more like an "interactive dance" where multiple meanings are transmitted across distinct layers of connection. He identified four specific levels of communication in his framework: ![Four Levels of Communication based on the Johari Window](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/01/Johari-Window---Levels-of-Communication-1.png) ### (1) Open Communication (manifest level) The first level of interaction is between the open selves/quadrants of two individuals. It consists of information, feelings, and data that we are consciously aware of and are willing to share, even with strangers. In a professional setting, this typically involves information/data, explicit stating of a position, or the exchange of "name, rank, and serial number". Most popular analyses of communication are confined to this level, focusing on the “content” of the discussion. While this is the most common form of interaction, **it is rarely the most revealing**. That’s because cultural rules and social norms of "face work"—the necessity of maintaining our social value—dictate that we generally stay within safe, polite boundaries at this level. Because **we’re taught from childhood to be diplomatic and tactful**, the manifest level is used to sustain our "claimed selves" rather than reveal our true internal states. Thus, it acts as a professional and social "uniform"—safe and predictable, but often lacking the [congruence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/) needed for high-stakes trust. ### (2) Unwitting communication (leakage level) The second level involves signals picked up from a person's blind self — the parts of our personality, feelings, and impulses that we unconsciously conceal from ourselves, but that remain visible to everyone else. But **we "leak" our true internal states through subtle cues that bypass our conscious control**, including: - Tone of voice and vocal inflection. - Body language and posture. - The timing and cadence of our speech. - Emotional intensity and facial expressions. These are meanings we as a sender are unaware of transmitting, yet the receiver picks them up clearly. A classic example is the executive who insists “I’m completely open to feedback”, all while their crossed arms and tightened jaw suggest exactly the opposite. This gap between the spoken word and the transmitted signal is the essence of "leakage". When "leakage" occurs, the receiver gets a double message: a manifest apparent message from the open self and a latent hidden message from the blind self. This creates confusion in professional relationships. The receiver must decide whether to respond to the polite words or the aggressive tone. Often, this leads to a state of conflict or "emotional contagion," where the sender's unacknowledged tension unknowingly affects the receiver, making them feel inexplicably anxious without knowing why. For high performers and leaders, unwitting communication shows why seeking [deliberate feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) is critical. **Because we cannot remove our blind spots by ourselves, we require another person to reveal what we’re culturally scripted to conceal**. Moving toward effective leadership requires shifting [from “advocacy” to “inquiry”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/), where curiosity about one's own blind spots and those of others can transform a mere exchange of data into an actual dialogue. ### (3) Confiding (leveling) Why is the phrase “let me level with you” so disarming? That’s because it signals a sudden shift in the architecture of a conversation, **moving from the safe, scripted boundaries of polite interaction into a space of high-stakes honesty**. This is Confiding, or Leveling—the third level of communication. It occurs when we deliberately choose to reveal something from our concealed self—the area containing information we ordinarily keep hidden: - Private reactions or immediate feelings about the other person that we judge as too impolite or hurtful to reveal face-to-face. - Insecurities or memories of past failures that are inconsistent with our public self-image. - "Undiscussibles" or the "dead rats" that everyone knows exist but no one is willing to acknowledge. Leveling is actually a deliberate violation of deeply held cultural rules. Most of our daily interactions are governed by social norms. We routinely conceal our true reactions to avoid humiliating others or appearing tactless ourselves. When we choose to "level," we are essentially suspending these rules of social economics to share a more private layer of our reality. We make ourselves vulnerable to the other person’s reaction, **gambling that the revelation will build a bridge rather than a wall**. This is why leveling is a critical to building trust — **it provides evidence that we value the relationship more than we value the protection of our own "public face"**. ### (4) Emotional contagion The final and less common level is what Schein called emotional contagion — a subterranean current where one person influences the other without either party being consciously aware. It manifests in two distinct patterns: - Mirroring: This happens when the recipient unconsciously adopts the same emotion as the sender. If a leader denies their internal tension but "leaks" it through their presence, the receiver may begin to feel inexplicably tense or anxious as well. - Conflict and confusion: This occurs when a sender transmits a "double message". The receiver is presented with a manifest message from the sender's Open Self (such as a polite statement) while simultaneously sensing a latent message from the sender's Blind Self (such as unacknowledged anger). The resulting tension in the receiver stems from a fundamental uncertainty: **should they respond to the polite words or the aggressive underlying feeling?** Unlike the first three levels of communication, this exchange bypasses the conscious thought process entirely. It operates as a hidden force that can either build an unspoken bond between people or create an atmosphere of unacknowledged, persistent conflict. ## Implications for Leadership Leadership is not merely a role but a relational engagement that thrives or withers based on how effectively you navigate the four levels of communication. Sensing which level is active in any interaction is **a key aspect of leadership sensemaking – a prerequisite for leading effectively**. Let’s look at some implications of Schein’s framework to leadership. ### The transactional trap Most leaders operate almost exclusively at the manifest level (Open Communication), exchanging data and role-based instructions. While efficient for simple tasks, this "professional distance" creates a vacuum of information. **The trap is to assume that clear "telling" is the same as effective leading**. Leaders believe they have fulfilled their duties by clearly stating their expectations. But complex, "messy" problems cannot be solved through Level 1 transactional communication alone. To move toward effective dialogue, leaders must acknowledge their own "blind self" and invite others into a Level 2 relationship—one characterized by "whole-person" interaction that goes beyond mere role-based transactions. It requires a shift away from a "Culture of Tell" toward a spirit of [inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/), where the goal is not just to exchange manifest data but to build a shared set of meanings. ### Silence kills Because of cultural norms, to point out a leader’s error or a team's systemic failure is to risk **social murder—humiliating another and, in the process, appearing tactless or unreliable oneself**. In high-hazard industries—such as nuclear power, aviation, or surgery—the failure to identify these “undiscussibles” can be fatal. Research into **disasters like the NASA Challenger or the BP Gulf oil spill** often reveals that lower-ranking employees possessed the information needed to prevent the accident but did not feel safe bringing "bad news" to their superiors. Leaders operate under the illusion that their teams are being frank because of "professional responsibility". However, subordinates are naturally sensitive to status cues and will withhold critical data if they perceive that "speaking truth to power" results in indifference, impatience, or retaliation. When subordinates feel it is unsafe to correct a superior, they may withhold critical safety information to avoid causing the leader to lose face. Therefore, a core leadership task is to create [psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/)—a climate where it is safe to reveal what’s ordinarily concealed. ### The art of leveling up For leaders, the ability to initiate leveling is a prerequisite for moving beyond "Level 1" transactional relationships. Open manifest communication often fails because subordinates, trapped by cultural norms, withhold the "real problems” to avoid looking incompetent. True exchange only becomes possible when the communication channel is "equilibrated," allowing for honest disclosure. A person cannot remove their own blind spots unless the other party is willing to reveal—through leveling—what they would ordinarily conceal. **Since leveling is a "violation" of social norms, how can a leader make it safe?** Schein suggests creating a "container" or a "cultural island"—a temporary setting like an after-action review **where the usual rules of deference and demeanor, rank and status are minimized or even suspended**. This includes: **(1) Modeling vulnerability.** The higher-status person must typically go first, revealing a personal goal or a doubt to give others "permission" to do the same. This shift from debate to dialogue ensures everyone is finally talking the same language which is the bedrock of true organizational learning. **(2)** [**Humble Inquiry**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/)**.** Instead of telling, the leader asks open-ended questions that minimize the "one-down" feeling of the subordinate. **(3) Specific feedback.** Leveling works best when it is descriptive and behavioral rather than judgmental. Saying "I felt ignored when you interrupted me" is a productive form of leveling. In contrast, saying "You are rude" is a threat that triggers defensiveness. **(4) The process review.** This is a dedicated period at the end of a meeting to ask: "How did we do? Did we leave anything unsaid?". This forces the group to look at the "how" of their interaction rather than just the "what," making the invisible forces of communication visible. **(5) Status equilibration.** In any hierarchy, the leader is "one-up" and the subordinate "one-down". By asking for a subordinate’s preference—such as a surgeon asking a nurse for their input on a tool—the leader acknowledges their own "[here-and-now humility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/)". This empowers the lower-status person to speak up across hierarchical boundaries, turning a "telling" relationship into a collaborative one. ### Managing "Leakage" Leaders are often unaware that they are perpetually sending messages from their "blind self" (Unwitting Communication). You might proclaim an "open door policy" but your body language leaks impatience or defensiveness. Subordinates, being highly sensitive to status cues, will always prioritize these latent signals over the manifest words. [Effective leadership requires congruence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/)—aligning one’s unwitting signals with one's spoken intentions to build trust. ### Accessing ignorance To get better at sensing relevant levels, leaders must master the discipline of what Schein calls “accessing Your Ignorance". This requires an ongoing awareness to distinguish between what's actually known and what is merely assumed based on prior stereotypes or expectations. By adopting a stance of "Here-and-now Humility," a leader **acknowledges their dependency on others for information they do not possess**. This shift allows the leader to use Humble Inquiry—asking questions to which they truly do not know the answer—to draw out the "concealed" or "blind" insights of their team. Sensing becomes more accurate when a leader [stops trying to be the "expert"](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/) who knows all the answers and instead becomes a "process consultant" to their own team, focusing on how the interaction is occurring rather than just the content of the words. ### Transitioning to level 2 relationships At Level 1, parties maintain distance and apathy toward the other's well-being, which prevents the sharing of "latent" meanings. A leader senses the need for a Level 2 relationship when the task at hand requires high levels of interdependence, trust, and open communication. Building this level of connection requires "adaptive moves"—small, intentional acts of personalization, such as sharing a personal doubt or asking about a team member's unique experience. As the relationship moves to Level 2, the "blind spots" that hinder organizational performance begin to disappear because "it takes two to see one": we require others to help us see the signals we are sending unwittingly. ## Related Reading [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-156.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) [Filters in CommunicationWhen we communicate, there are several layers of invisible filters that can muddle the message. Knowing the most common communication filters we use can help avoid the traps of miscommunication and make sure our message gets across. Why we use filters One key aspect of leadership is that your words![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-157.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Filters-in-Communication-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-158.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) [Open Quadrant of the Johari Window: Beyond Transparency in Leadership“Radical transparency” is often touted as a leadership virtue. So why do leaders still struggle with openness? Using the Johari Window’s Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena), I examine the complexities of leadership transparency and a nuanced approach to mastering openness in leadership. Through the lens of Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena) in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-159.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-160.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-5.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [The Five Johari Leadership ArchetypesJoseph Luft in his now forgotten classic Of Human Interaction, has a section on leadership archetypes I found particularly useful, and entertaining. He based these archetypes — ancient patterns in how we influence others — on the work of anthropologist Merrill Jackson, which explains why these are uncannily accurate. Luft explains the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-187.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Five-Leadership-Archetypes-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-leadership-archetypes/) ## Sources 1. Schein, E. H. (1988). [Process consultation: Its role in organization development](https://amzn.to/45u8fMm?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Schein, E. H. (2011). [Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help](https://amzn.to/3Zxrst6?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Schein, E. H. (2025). [Humble inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling](https://amzn.to/3NFo3Wv?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Schein, E. H. (2023). [Humble leadership: The power of relationships, openness, and trust](https://amzn.to/3NLPZrK?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Hope vs. Realism: The Stockdale Paradox URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stockdale-paradox/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:35:03.000Z Are you an optimist or a pessimist? In the movie A House of Dynamite, an unidentified nuclear missile is inbound towards a major city in the United States. The defense systems designed to stop it have already failed once. Whatever happens next to millions of people hangs on whether the last remaining systems work. There are seconds left. Needless to say it’s a crisis everyone involved is trained for in theory but not really prepared to respond. ![The Stockdale Paradox: Hope vs Realism](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/01/Screenshot-2025-12-09-at-4.23.56---PM.png) As it unfolds, Captain Olivia Walker (played by Rebecca Ferguson) turns to a junior officer who’s visibly unraveling and reassures him: > This is gonna be over in a minute, right? > End of our shift, we’re gonna be on our way home…. > When you look back at this drama, this is gonna be the second most exciting thing that happened to you today. Right? He answers half-convinced, “Right." Was the captain’s response the right call? What might you have done in that situation? ## The broken heart phenomenon On September 9, 1965, James B. Stockdale was flying his A-4 Skyhawk low over North Vietnam when antiaircraft fire tore through his jet. Flames engulfed the cockpit. He ejected into hostile territory, knowing in those seconds of free fall that his life had changed. What followed was seven and a half years in the Hỏa Lò prison, the notorious “Hanoi Hilton.” Stockdale arrived badly injured — his leg shattered in the landing — and faced relentless beatings, rope torture, and years of solitary confinement in a windowless cell. As the highest-ranking U.S. naval officer captured, he became the de facto senior leader of more than four hundred American prisoners. Several decades later, and now Vice Admiral, when asked in an interview by Jim Collins **which POWs didn’t make it out of the harrowing ordeal**, Stockdale said: > **Oh, that’s easy, the optimists.** > > Oh, they were the ones who said, “We’re going to be out by Christmas.” And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, “We’re going to be out by Easter.” And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. > > **And they died of a broken heart.…** This is eerily similar to what Viktor Frankl observed in equally horrible conditions. Writing about his experiences at the Auschwitz concentration camp in Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl highlighted **the problem of putting hope on a schedule**: > The death rate in the week between Christmas, 1944, and New Year’s, 1945, increased in camp beyond all previous experience. > > In the chief doctor of the concentration camp’s opinion, the explanation for this increase did not lie in the harder working conditions or the deterioration of our food supplies or a change of wealth or new epidemics. **It was simply that the majority of the prisoners had lived in the naive hope that they would be home again by Christmas.** > > As the time drew near and there was no encouraging news, the prisoners lost courage and disappointment overcame them. This had a dangerous influence on their powers of resistance and a great number of them died. ## The duality of faith vs. realism Both Stockdale and Frankl concluded that survival required a sophisticated psychological duality—what Frankl termed "tragic optimism". Frankl defined it as "optimism in the face of tragedy". It’s the ability to remain optimistic about the value of life while simultaneously acknowledging and remaining present in the tragedy of one’s circumstances. Stockdale put it this way: > This is a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. Collins later codified this lesson into what he called the Stockdale Paradox \[3\]: > Retain faith that you will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties. AND at the same time, confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. ## The seductive lie of either/or and why naive optimism fails Long, uncertain challenges tempt us toward simplicity. One extreme says: stay hopeful, picture the win, and keep spirits high. The other says: strip away illusion, face the facts, and brace for pain. Both extremes — blind optimism and bare-knuckled realism — although they feel like strength, leave us brittle. Modern psychological research shows why Stockdale and Frankl saw the optimists fail. NYU Prof. Gabriele Oettingen’s research into "positive fantasies" shows that merely dreaming about a desired future can actually impede its achievement. Starry-eyed dreaming saps the "initial oomph" and energy required to perform the hard work of meeting real-life challenges. Stockdale and Frankl’s findings mirror **what Oettingen calls "mental contrasting".** By juxtaposing a dream with the "pesky reality of day-to-day life," we gain the energy to take constructive action. Conversely, the "ostrich approach" of sticking one’s head in the sand and hoping for difficulties to go away often precludes taking the necessary steps to handle a predicament effectively. The Stockdale Paradox shows a third way beyond the simplistic binary notions of optimism and pessimism. It's mental jujitsu that sounds contradictory but works as an armor against both despair and delusion — difficult to do but far more resilient. ## Two commitments in tension > You can only be an optimist in the long run if you’re pessimistic enough to survive the short run. > > — Morgan Housel \[6\] Stockdale’s mental discipline built in the horrors of prison and solitary confinement required two seemingly incompatible commitments. The first: **unwavering faith**. This wasn’t hope tied to a deadline or a wish that things might get better soon, but a deep, defiant conviction. That long-range faith gave meaning to suffering and kept despair from swallowing the men. It offered a reason to keep moving when no external evidence suggested rescue or victory. The second: **confronting the brutal facts.** Stockdale refused to look away from pain, uncertainty, and loss of control. He acknowledged the reality of torture and indefinite captivity, accepted that there was no predictable timeline, and adjusted tactics accordingly. This realism protected prisoners from the psychological whiplash that destroyed the “just-hold-on-until-Christmas” crowd. It also forced practical ingenuity — the small, daily acts of resistance and survival that eventually brought the men home with dignity intact. Hope by itself is brittle; each disappointment becomes a small crack until it eventually shatters. Meanwhile, realism alone easily turns into cynicism and helplessness. Done together, however, they create a more durable stance that can endure uncertainty without losing either clarity or purpose. It asks you to see clearly without giving up, and to believe fiercely without lying to yourself. Holding both at once is what makes it a paradox and why it’s hard. For leaders, this is tricky. Organizations reward clarity and optimism even while bad news threatens morale and careers. Cultures punish those who bring up harsh truths. But teams lose trust when leaders peddle false cheer and fixed timetables. Navigating that tension — belief without illusion, realism without defeat — is the essence of the Stockdale Paradox. ## Leading when you can’t promise rescue The Stockdale Paradox is an internal stance when the future cannot be controlled or guaranteed. It’s uncomfortable because it denies leaders two easy moves under pressure: - The first is **false rescue**. It’s the comforting promise that “everything will be fine soon” to keep people engaged. - The second is **hard fatalism**: the stoic-sounding but corrosive message that “this is just how it is, brace yourself.” Both feel protective — one shields morale, the other shields credibility — but neither are durable. The first disintegrates when promised relief doesn’t come on schedule, while the second drains initiative and trust. Holding the paradox means leading without certainty. It asks you to articulate a future worth working toward, while simultaneously admitting that the road is unclear and the present is worse than people wish to believe. It means allowing frustration with reality to coexist with belief in eventual success. It’s a form of [moral courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/): to stay honest without abandoning hope, and to keep hope alive without lying. Doing that requires self-control, clarity about what you can and cannot promise, and the capacity to keep moving without the psychological crutch of certainty. If no one is unsettled by your realism, you may be sugarcoating. If no one is stretched by your belief, you may be leading from resignation. Living the Stockdale Paradox is to [operate in that tension](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). ## What would Stockdale do So in our opening example, how might Stockdale have responded? The captain didn’t need to invent a future where everyone was safely home by the end of the shift. That kind of reassurance only works if reality cooperates—and on that day, it already wasn’t. Stockdale probably would have grounded the team somewhere else entirely: instead of an outcome or timelines, he might have focused on **what the Buddha called “right effort” and “right action”**. Something like: *I don’t know how this ends. But I know this: we stay here, we do our jobs cleanly, and we don’t look away. That’s what’s in our control.* That’s a much harder message to deliver because it offers no relief. But it doesn’t borrow hope from the future, either. Instead, it locates stability in identity and action, instead of rescue. The Stockdale Paradox is an endurance practice that asks you to hold two forces seemingly allergic to each other. Most of us — and organizations — struggle to stay there. We lurch toward comfort. [Effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/) lives in that in-between where hope becomes a discipline and realism a responsibility. Bruce Springsteen \[7\] said it best: > …to accept the world on its terms without giving up the belief that you can change the world. That’s a successful adulthood—the maturation of your thought process and very soul to the point where you understand the limits of life, without giving up on its possibilities. How will you respond? ## Related Reading [Is it up to you? The Stoic Dichotomy of Control.In today’s business landscape, leaders often struggle with uncertainty and lack of control. The Stoic concept of “dichotomy of control” is a practical framework to address these challenges. When done consistently, this can help focus your energy effectively and make better decisions. I explore how the Stoic dichotomy of control![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-149.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Stoic-Dichotomy-of-Control.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dichotomy-of-control-stoicism-leadership/) [Locus of Control: A Leadership PerspectiveLocus of control refers to how we view circumstances in terms of the amount of control we have over situations and the experiences that affect us. I look at locus of control specifically in the context of leadership and management: how locus of control impacts leadership performance, and how it![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-148.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Locus-of-control---internal-vs-external-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) [Circle of Control, Influence, and Acceptance: Where to Focus Your EnergyHow do effective leaders maintain their composure when everything seems out of control? They’re adept at discerning what they can control vs what they can’t, and what they can influence. The circle of control, influence, and concerns (acceptance) framework or CIA — is a “leadership triage” tool that helps![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-150.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Circle-of-Control--Influence--Concerns--Acceptance--CIA--2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) ## Sources 1. Stockdale, J. (1993). [Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus's Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior](https://amzn.to/4qC8PjK?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Stockdale, J. (1995). [Thoughts of a Philosophical Fighter Pilot](https://amzn.to/4sUTM6g?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Collins, J. (2001). [Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don't.](https://amzn.to/4bHXDgM?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Oettingen, G. (2014). [Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation](https://amzn.to/4qLM90g?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Housel, M. (2023). [Same as Ever](https://amzn.to/49APlWH?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Stulberg, B. (2023). [Master of change](https://amzn.to/4sSIvU3?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 7. Frankl, V. E. (1946).[ *Man’s search for meaning*](https://amzn.to/49NWiT4?ref=leadingsapiens.com). [Watch A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE | Netflix Official SiteWhen a single, unattributed missile is launched at the United States, a race begins to determine who is responsible and how to respond.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/nficon2016-1.png)Netflix![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/AAAABaw-BJYuTdmOY91IpcPQz6udosHMmgg5VG_bOTKrrcaQjWw4D4rDPDWtEM3e6f-BtoWVVtZZ08qZGaqJ_pXc6WD0N_ESVdSJmzje-1.jpg)](https://www.netflix.com/title/81744537?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition — A Deep Dive URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/ Last updated: 2026-08-07T19:43:57.000Z **The Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition* is one of the most enduring explanations of how human beings develop mastery. We think of experts as people with all the answers — those who can explain, justify, and systematize what they know. But in practice, the most skilled performers often can’t explain their brilliance. Their knowledge shows up in *how they see, not always in what they say*.* *This intuitive side of mastery is almost invisible and routinely misunderstood in organizations. This is *particularly relevant in today's push towards AI and understanding where humans still have an advantage*. The Dreyfus Model shows how we improve, and why real expertise looks different from what we usually expect.* *In a followup piece, I'll use the model to make the case *why AI will not be replacing competent leadership any time soon.** *On this page:* - [The easy promise of expertise](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/#the-easy-promise-of-expertise) - [Origins of the model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/#origins-of-the-model) - [Five Stages of the Dreyfus Model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/#five-stages-of-the-dreyfus-model) - [Key Concepts and Underlying Dynamics](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/#key-concepts-and-underlying-dynamics) - [Why the Dreyfus Model is still relevant](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/#why-the-dreyfus-model-is-still-relevant) - [Dreyfus Model - An Example](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/#dreyfus-modelan-example) - [Related Reading on Learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dreyfus-model/#related-reading-on-learning) --- ## The easy promise of expertise > Mathematical formalizers wish to treat matters of intuition mathematically, and make themselves ridiculous.. . . The mind. . . does it tacitly, naturally, and without technical rules. > > Blaise Pascal in Pensees (1670) \[1\] I'm not sure about Pascal, but we surely live in a time when mastery is packaged as something quick and tidy. Books and courses promise hacks, formulas, and and so called "accelerated" paths to expertise. Organizations do the same, embedding expertise into frameworks and competency models. The assumption is that with enough knowledge, motivation, and repetition, expertise will follow. Not necessarily. **Skill if often understood as the *accumulation* of information and behaviors. The Dreyfus model focuses instead on *perception*.** As skill deepens, action becomes less about conscious analysis and more about immediate recognition. Experts aren't necessarily evaluating a situation step by step. They simply see what needs doing. These nuanced aspects are both powerful and difficult to articulate. By the time someone reaches true expertise, they often cannot explain how they know what they know. Knowledge becomes tacit, embodied, and deeply situational. This contradicts many of our cultural assumptions. We expect experts to present crisp reasoning, coherent frameworks, and linear explanations. Yet, those traits typically signal competence, which is not the same as expertise. Competence works reliably in stable environments but can misfire with increasing complexity. **Beyond a certain point, you need something else: judgment, sensemaking, and what Hubert Dreyfus called “skillful coping.”** 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Origins of the model Before going through the five stages of the model, it’s worth understanding why it exists in the first place, and what problem it was originally trying to solve. In the 1970s, the U.S. Air Force faced a puzzling contradiction. **Its best pilots routinely violated the very rules they were trained to follow.** In high-stakes situations, they made rapid, decisive moves that couldn’t be explained by checklists or doctrine. When asked how they knew to take a certain action, many simply shrugged and said, “I just knew.” The Air Force turned to an unlikely pair at UC Berkeley: Hubert Dreyfus, a philosopher of phenomenology, and his brother Stuart, a mathematician. What they uncovered went far beyond aviation. Their research revealed that **genuine expertise has little to do with memorizing more information or applying more rules**. Instead, it involves a shift in perception. An expert pilot doesn’t just read the cockpit dials; they also feel the aircraft where awareness is fused with the situation. These insights became the Dreyfus Model which challenged the idea that mastery can be reduced to frameworks, checklists, or certifications. As people progress from novice to expert, not only do they get better at applying rules, eventually, **they outgrow the need for rules at all.** Their conclusion was radical for its time: human learning isn’t primarily the accumulation of facts. It’s a transformation of how we interpret situations. Beginners break the world into pieces; intermediate performers recogne patterns, while experts perceive the entire situation at once and respond fluidly. **They don’t follow rules but *inhabit* situations.** This cut against decades of rule-based thinking. It also challenged the assumptions of corporate training, which was—and largely still is—built around the idea that performance improves by adding more structure, guidance, and steps. The Dreyfus model argued the opposite: **the highest levels of performance emerges (and is often required) when operating in uncharted territory that's devoid of already understood frameworks.** Let’s take a closer look at each of the five stages. ## Five Stages of the Dreyfus Model ![Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition- Characteristics of each stage](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/01/Dreyfus-Model---1.png) ### 1\. Novice At the novice stage, learners enter a domain with no relevant experience. They don’t yet know how to discern what matters and what doesn’t, so they rely on explicit, context-free rules handed down by others. They don’t see situations but steps, and **the priority is compliance, not understanding.** Correctness means sticking to the script. Novices operate entirely through rule-following, and the rules are: taught explicitly, applied rigidly, and independent of context. Because nothing feels familiar, they treat all elements as equally important. This leads to a form of information overload: trying to track everything, but lacking the discernment to know what can be safely ignored. Performance is cautious, rigid, and often brittle in real-world conditions. When the rules fail to fit the situation, they’re stuck: they either freeze, or ask for help. A novice chess player knows the rules: how pawns move, how to castle, or how to capture pieces. They may memorize basic openings, but cannot yet recognize threats, spot opportunities, or plan sequences. They play move by move without an overarching strategy. The novice benefits most from: - Simple, clear-cut rules with minimal ambiguity. - Error-free practice environments that minimize overwhelm. - Repetition to build comfort with procedures. Progress to the next stage begins when rules start to feel intuitive, and when contact with reality shows that not all situations can be addressed by generic instructions. ### 2\. Advanced Beginner The advanced beginner starts to build a bank of recognizable features. They no longer follow rules blindly, and instead draw on specific experiences and precedents. **They begin to develop situational memory, noticing repeating patterns and associating them with outcomes.** However, these insights are often fragmentary. They don’t yet have a bird’s-eye view, but have seen enough to say, “This reminds me of that other time when…” The advanced beginner knows something about some situations, but doesn’t yet know how much they know or whether it actually applies. They operate through concrete recollection rather than abstraction. This makes them **flexible, but also inconsistent**. One memory may cause them to overgeneralize; another might lead them to miss subtle differences. Advanced beginners combine rule-following with spot-memory. They: - Remember what seemed to work last time. - Begin to recognize contextual cues (but can’t yet interpret them). - Experiment, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. - Are more improvisational than novices, but still lack the structure to reliably assess whether their responses are good, lucky, or risky. The advanced chess player begins to spot basic tactical motifs like forks and pins. They can sometimes set traps or avoid blunders, but don’t yet grasp larger strategic patterns. They know “that kind of setup” usually leads to trouble, but aren’t sure why. Advanced beginners need: - Exposure to varied examples so they can compare and contrast. - Guided feedback to help discriminate signal from noise. - Support in building relevance, so they can learn which details to attend to and what to ignore. **At this stage, the risk is misattribution.** Because they can now recall more, they often assign significance too quickly or try to reuse a tactic in a situation where it doesn’t fit. To move forward, they must stop collecting fragments and start organizing them into more integrated patterns. That’s the threshold of competence. ### 3\. Competent The competent performer stands at **a turning point in skill acquisition.** Where the novice followed rules and the advanced beginner collected fragments, the competent individual begins to construct their own map of the domain. This is the first stage where the learner doesn’t just act but owns their decisions. They now grasp situations as structured wholes that are meaningful configurations oriented toward goals, instead of just familiar patterns. **Perspective becomes decisional: “What am I trying to accomplish, and what’s the best course of action?”** Plans matter now because the performer now has the capacity to construct and commit to them. This commitment comes with a cost though. **With agency comes anxiety**: Where earlier stages allowed for deflection (“I just followed the rules”), the competent performer begins to feel accountable. Choices are no longer obvious, and outcomes carry emotional weight. The competent performer operates with conscious deliberation. Their decisions are: - Goal-oriented, organized around long-term aims. - Analytical, involving comparison of alternatives. - Plan-driven, consisting of steps that are evaluated for fit and outcome. Unlike advanced beginners, competent performers don’t merely *recall* past examples but *construct* responses for the current situation. They use principles, heuristics, and mental simulations, but must still think them through. They begin to develop personal maxims: if-then rules shaped by experience. But these maxims are still considered, not yet internalized or felt. A competent chess player recognizes not just tactical patterns but also starts formulating plans such as building pressure on the king-side or controlling the center. They visualize several moves ahead, weigh consequences, and adapt if the opponent responds unexpectedly. They are no longer reacting move by move. Competent performers grow by engaging with structured complexity. **Instead of more rules, they need practice that forces them to navigate uncertainty.** They benefit from: - Deliberate decision-making under pressure, where they must balance tradeoffs. - After-action reviews, where they examine not just what they did, but why. - Incremental autonomy, where they are given responsibility and space to revise their judgments in real time. This is also where professional identity starts to coalesce. You think of yourself as “a driver,” “a player,” “a practitioner.” **Identity fuels deeper commitment but also heightens self-evaluation.** Competence is a productive plateau but also a fragile one. Many stall here: gaining confidence in analysis, but avoiding the deeper perceptual and intuitive work required to move further. To break through, they must begin to see situations as not just solvable, but also interpretable and malleable. That requires relinquishing control over every variable and learning to read the whole rather than just manage the parts. ### 4\. Proficient The proficient performer experiences a fundamental changes where **situations now speak for themselves.** Where earlier stages required effortful rule application or analytical planning, the proficient person perceives meaning directly from the flow of events. They don’t have to reconstruct the whole from pieces; the pattern arrives pre-assembled, though not always with full clarity. They grasp the situation as a coherent whole, informed by extensive experience. But while their perception is largely intuitive, response is still partially analytical. They may understand what’s going on almost immediately, but still pause to reason through how to act. Perception becomes fluid and context-sensitive. Judgment is faster, but not yet automatic. They no longer rely on decomposing the situation into steps. Instead, they draw on maxims: rich, situation-sensitive guidelines that help them frame what’s happening. **Instead of rigid rules, these are contextual prompts, honed by experience.** The proficient performer’s decisions are shaped by a blend of intuition and analysis. They intuitively grasp what the situation is about, but still need to deliberate about how best to respond. This stage is defined by pattern recognition coupled with partial deliberation. They feel the direction things are going — they know when something is “off,” or when a subtle opportunity is emerging — but aren’t yet fully absorbed in the action. Importantly, they can detect deviations from expectations without being told. **Their mental model now includes anticipated futures, so when the future starts to unfold differently, they feel it before they can articulate it.** A proficient chess player quickly senses the strategic potential of a position: perhaps recognizing that the opponent’s king is subtly exposed or that a positional imbalance can be exploited. They deliberate on concrete variations, but **exploration is now guided by intuition instead of just blind analysis.** Proficient performers benefit from: - Case-based reflection, especially those that highlight when their intuitions served them well, or failed them. - Mentoring conversations where experts help them articulate their fuzzy perceptions into clearer reasoning. - Exposure to edge cases where expected patterns don’t quite apply. At this stage, **the main challenge is calibrating intuition**. The performer begins to trust their gut, but that trust can lead to overreach if experience hasn’t yet covered enough variation. To move forward, they must begin to let go of deliberation entirely and act with absorbed responsiveness. That means **becoming comfortable knowing more than they can say, and acting from that place.** ### 5\. Expert At the expert level, performance becomes immediate, fluid, and embodied. The expert doesn’t choose a response; they simply act. Action is not based on rules, calculations, or even conscious deliberation, but emerges from deep familiarity with the situation itself. This is the culmination of years of exposure, feedback, and reflection. Instead of mere problems, they see meaningful patterns, deviations, tensions, and affordances that are directly perceived. Responses are deeply context-sensitive and often difficult to articulate. In fact, **much of what experts do cannot be fully explained, even by themselves.** Crucially, skill is not a matter of automaticity or repetition. It’s adaptive improvisation, a subtle dance with the situation as it unfolds, adjusting moment to moment with no need for conscious reconstruction. The expert: - Does not deliberate in typical cases, they respond. - Recognizes anomalies instantly and adapts without pause. - Can explain their thinking if required, but typically only after the fact. Expertise is not the absence of, but a different kind of thinking that's embodied, situated, and tacit. Experts operate from an internal library of experiential understanding that has become second nature. Their actions feel **obvious to them but opaque to others.** The expert chess player sees a position and instantly feels that something is wrong — perhaps a subtle mis-coordination between the opponent’s pieces. They don’t need to calculate dozens of moves to verify it; intuition tells them where the vulnerability lies. The subsequent moves are shaped by that recognition, **surprising even to them in retrospect.** At this stage, learning looks very different. It’s less about acquiring new rules and more about: - Refining discernment, especially in ambiguous or high-stakes situations. - Sharpening adaptability to novel or unstable conditions. - Translating tacit knowledge into teachable insights for others; a process that often requires slowing down and reflecting on what has become second nature. The challenge here is to [stay reflective](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). Expertise can lead to [overconfidence or complacency](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). What experts gain in fluidity, they can lose in conscious awareness. So the expert must cultivate **humility: noticing when old intuitions no longer fit new contexts.** ## Key Concepts and Underlying Dynamics To understand the Dreyfus model as more than a staircase of competence, it's useful to examine the mechanisms underlying the process of skill acquisition. ### Four Interrelated Variables Across each stage of development, the learner’s engagement with the world is shaped by changes in four key dimensions: components, perspective, decision, and commitment. Taken together, these dimensions chart a transformation in how we perceive, engage with, and make sense of our environment. ![Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition- Variables](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/01/Dreyfus-Model---2.png) #### Components At early stages, the learner sees the world as fragmented composed of isolated, context-free elements. These are “facts,” “rules,” or “features” to be memorized or matched. As skill develops, those discrete components fuse into meaningful patterns, shaped by prior experience. What begins as abstraction becomes **situated reality**. The learner stops seeing pieces and starts seeing wholes. #### Perspective Novices must choose where to direct their attention, often arbitrarily or according to instruction. The world presents too much information, and the novice lacks the filter to know what matters. Over time, perspective becomes guided by experience and relevance. Experts do not merely see more; they see what matters, often instantly. #### Decision In early stages, decisions are made analytically, by applying rules or procedures. As experience deepens, decisions move toward recognition-based responses. The competent performer compares options; the proficient performer sees patterns; the expert responds without conscious calculation. **Decision-making becomes less a matter of choice and more about “attunement”.** #### Commitment **Perhaps the most under-appreciated variable, commitment** is the emotional investment in the task. While novices follow instructions and competent performers own their choices, expert performers are fully immersed. They feel what’s at stake, and that engagement feeds learning. ### Knowing *How* vs. Knowing *That* A central distinction in the Dreyfus model is between knowing *that* (explicit, declarative knowledge) and knowing *how* (tacit, embodied skill). This is a fundamental reorientation of what counts as understanding. **Knowing *that*** involves facts, concepts, procedures. Things that can be stated, tested, and taught. **Knowing *how*** involves embodied responsiveness, the ability to act skillfully without necessarily being able to articulate why. The model asserts that true expertise resides in knowing how. It’s what allows a nurse to feel something’s wrong with a patient even when all the vitals are normal, or a chess player to spot a subtle weakness in a position with no clear calculation. Tacit capacity is not inferior to rational knowledge. In fact, it’s often more powerful, especially in fast-moving, uncertain, ambiguous contexts. Importantly, the Dreyfuses argue that **knowing *how* is not reducible to knowing *that***. You cannot simply add more information to reach mastery. Expertise requires embodied experience from repeated exposure to real contexts, with consequences and feedback. ### What Intuition Really Means In the Dreyfus model, intuition, rather than being guesswork, magic, or irrationality, is a precise term describing a particular kind of understanding: > Intuition is the effortless recognition of similarity to past patterns of experience. \[1\] It’s built through accumulated familiarity. Where the novice reasons, the expert recognizes. Intuition allows you to grasp the feel of a situation without breaking it down into parts. The expert’s intuition is reliable because it's anchored in deep experience, forged through repeated exposure to variation, feedback, and consequence. ### The Role of Emotion in Learning Unlike other models of expertise, the Dreyfus framework places serious weight on **emotion as information instead of distraction.** Emotional responses — anxiety, pride, regret, confidence — are integral to learning. When a competent performer’s plan fails, the sting of that failure sharpens attention. When a judgment proves correct, satisfaction reinforces the pattern. Experience, in this model, is not simply time spent in a role. It is: > The refinement of preconceived notions through encounters with actual situations that add nuance, texture, and divergence to theory. \[1\] **Emotion is the mechanism by which those nuances are encoded**, and often what marks the transition from abstract knowledge to lived understanding. ### Expert Deliberation Isn’t Absent but Transformed One misconception is that experts don’t think, but act purely on instinct. The Dreyfus model nuances this: in most situations, experts act intuitively, but they can deliberate when necessary. However, their deliberation is not the rule-application of novices. It’s a reflective process of: - Re-experiencing a case to make sense of what went wrong. - Noticing elements that were overlooked. - Challenging their [framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/). - Re-training their intuition through structured exposure or critical questioning. **Deliberation becomes a way to tune intuition, not replace it.** This has implications for leadership, coaching, and use of AI — where deliberate reflection and intuitive fluency must co-exist in high-stakes decision-making. ## Why the Dreyfus Model is still relevant Organizations like clarity with predictable steps and clear outcomes. They prize what they can measure. That’s why even today, most organizations are designed around what the Dreyfus model would describe as competent-level logic: deliberate analysis, structured planning, and the formal application of frameworks. This is the third stage of skill acquisition where people begin to take responsibility for their decisions but still rely on decomposing problems into parts, evaluating options, and choosing the “best” course of action. It’s the domain of SOPs, dashboards, process improvements, and rational planning. It’s also the level at which performance is visible and explainable. That makes it highly scalable, trainable, and promotable, which is precisely why many systems stop there. Competent-level behavior is easy to monitor, standardize, and reward. So companies build entire infrastructures from job descriptions to development programs around this kind of logic. **But competence isn’t expertise.** In complex, fast-moving environments, competent-level reasoning often breaks down. Linear logic struggles to keep up and rule-based planning however sophisticated becomes brittle. **What’s required is judgment** that only comes from in-depth experience and intuitive perception, and exactly what the model describes in its final two stages. But those stages are frequently undervalued or invisible in organizations. Experts don’t always follow the process. They deviate, improvise, and “just know” which makes it harder to train, manage, and replicate. ## Dreyfus Model - An Example Below is an example of the Dreyfus Model applied to an entire arc of a career, developed by Peter Denning. \[5\] ![Dreyfus Model of Skill Acquisition- An Example](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2026/01/Screen-Shot-2021-10-11-at-4.24.30-PM.png) ## Related Reading on Learning [The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the MundaneExcellence is more mundane than we think. Understanding its nuances increases our likelihood of success. Not doing so sets us up for failure.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-140.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project_-454045--1.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) [Experiential Learning CycleIt’s easy to assume that you learn from all experiences. Not always. Those who adapt and learn the fastest are actually using a deeper process that turns experience into compounded learning. David Kolb called this the experiential learning cycle thats consists of Concrete Experience (experiencing), Reflective Observation(reflecting), Abstract![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-141.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Experiential-Learning-Cycle---David-Kolb-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/experiential-learning-cycle/) [Wisdom and Insight are Not Quite PortableExperts promise hacks and easy formulas, but actually succeeding at something often is much harder, sometimes even impossible. Is it just us, or are the experts plain wrong? Understanding how knowledge evolves into wisdom can help explain this discrepancy. How understanding evolves Consider this all too common scenario: You read![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-142.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Wisdom---profound-simplicity---2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/wisdom-insight-profound-simplicity/) [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-143.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) [Donald Schon on The Paradox of Real LearningOften in leadership coaching, clients are asked to “try on” a new behavior just as they would try on new clothes at the store so they get a “feel” for it. The pushback often comes in the form of “but I don’t know how to do that”. We’ve all been![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-144.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Schon-Paradox-of-Learning2-1-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) [Leadership can’t be taught but can be learned. How coaching can helpLeadership like any skill is something we can learn. Paradoxically though, it cannot necessarily be taught. Coaching can help navigate this conundrum.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-145.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leadership-Cant-Be-Taught.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/) [The Deliberate AmateurWould you rather be a pro or an amateur? How about choosing between sophistication and naiveté? Most of us choose to be sophisticated pros. But consider the fact that expertise comes with its own pitfalls, while deliberately staying an amateur has its counter-intuitive upsides. The trick is in balancing the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-146.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Evolution-of-Na-vet---1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-amateur/) [Carl Rogers On Why Teaching is OverratedCarl Rogers, one of the most pre-eminent psychologists of the 20th century, delivered a speech at Harvard in 1952 that created quite a ruckus at the time.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-147.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Teaching-is-not-learning-Rogers.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/) ## Sources and references 1. Dreyfus, Hubert L., & Dreyfus, Stuart E. (1986). [Mind Over Machine: The Power of Human Intuition and Expertise in the Era of the Computer.](https://amzn.to/4a2dRQA?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Dreyfus, Stuart E. (2004). [The Five-Stage Model of Adult Skill Acquisition.](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0270467604264992?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Vanderburg, Willem H. (2004). [The Human Skill-Acquisition Model of Stuart Dreyfus: Its Relevance for the Design of Engineering Education.](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287477977%5FThe%5FDreyfus%5FModel%5Fof%5FSkill%5FAcquisition%5FA%5FCareer%5FDevelopment%5FFramework%5Ffor%5FSuccession%5FPlanning%5Fand%5FManagement%5Fin%5FAcademic%5FLibraries?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Dreyfus, Hubert L. (1979). [What Computers Can’t Do: The Limits of Artificial Intelligence.](https://amzn.to/45lPxGO?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. Peter J Denning. (2002).[The profession of IT: Career redux ](https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/567498.567516?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Experiential Learning Cycle URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/experiential-learning-cycle/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:35:25.000Z *It’s easy to assume that you learn from all experiences. Not always. Those who adapt and learn the fastest are actually using *a deeper process that turns experience into compounded learning*. David Kolb called this the *experiential learning cycle* thats consists of Concrete Experience (experiencing), Reflective Observation(reflecting), Abstract Conceptualization (thinking), and Active Experimentation(acting).* *While usually depicted as a sequence, Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is much more powerful and nuanced. The key insight is that *learning happens in the tensions between opposites—between acting and reflecting, between experiencing and thinking*. Instead of a loop you complete once, it's a spiral that changes you with each turn, subtly altering your approach each time.* *In this piece I take a closer look at Kolb’s experiential learning cycle and *why understanding the tensions is key to leadership sensemaking*.* --- ## **The basis of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle** Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is a synthesis of three distinct but converging streams of thought from John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Jean Piaget. Each brought a different lens to the same underlying question: How can we actually learn from experience in a way that changes how we think, feel, and act? ### **Turning Impulse into Purpose (Dewey)** John Dewey saw learning as a developmental process where raw impulses and desires are refined into purposeful action through observation, reflection, and judgment. He argued for postponing immediate action until we’ve examined the situation. In his view, experience isn’t just something that happens to us; it’s the raw material we shape through thoughtful engagement. The “pause” between impulse and action is where learning transforms future possibilities. ### **Feedback Loops (Lewin)** Kurt Lewin’s action research made here-and-now experience the starting point. His big contribution was the emphasis on feedback as the lifeblood of learning. Without it, we fall into the two traps of acting without enough information, or drowning in analysis without acting. Instead of just moving forward, it’s making sure each move is informed by reality, not assumption. ### **Assimilation and Accommodation (Piaget)** Piaget approached learning from the cognitive standpoint. We either assimilate — fit new experiences into existing mental models — or accommodate — adjust our mental models to fit new experiences. Learning thrives in the tension between the two. When accommodation dominates, we mold ourselves entirely to circumstances (imitation). When assimilation dominates, we impose our own concepts without adjusting to reality (play). True growth requires a balance, which over time goes from concrete, immediate engagement to more abstract and reflective modes of thought. ## **Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle** Kolb brought together all three strands in what he called the experiential learning cycle. It has four modes but none of them is sufficient on its own. Each adds something the others don’t. ![Experiential Learning Cycle - David Kolb](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/11/Experiential-Learning-Cycle---David-Kolb-1.png) - **Experiencing or Concrete Experience (CE):** direct, lived events — the meeting that went sideways, the decision that surprised you, the conversation you can’t shake. This is raw contact with reality before interpretation starts. - **Reflecting or Reflective Observation (RO):** stepping back to look at what happened, how it unfolded, and what stands out. This is where you notice patterns, contradictions, and possible meanings. - **Thinking or Abstract Conceptualization (AC):** translating those observations into ideas, principles, hypotheses, or mental models. You build an explanation for what happened and why, so it can apply beyond the specific moment. - **Acting or Active Experimentation (AE):** taking those ideas back into the field. You try something new — a different approach, a revised frame, a new behavior — and generate fresh experience. That new experience becomes the start of the next cycle. Rather than a loop you complete once, it’s an ongoing rhythm: experience → reflection → understanding → action → experience… Two aspects often misunderstood are worth mentioning: First, **in practice, the cycle isn’t sequential.** You don’t go through experiencing → reflecting → thinking → acting in a tidy order. Instead, we move between modes depending on what the moment demands. Sometimes you’re reflecting first while in others you jump straight into action. Sometimes a concept comes before the experience that later confirms or challenges it. Second, **the cycle only works if you move through all four modes.** You may not touch each mode in every situation, but growth requires eventually passing through all of them. When one mode is overused— acting without reflecting, or theorizing without testing — the cycle is stuck in a loop around your comfort zone. The value of Kolb’s cycle is that it gives a **complete map of how learning actually happens**. It shows that development is a movement among very different forms of engagement: being in the experience, stepping out of it, making sense of it, and re-entering it with intention. This is why two people can go through the same events and come out with completely different levels of growth. One simply had experiences while the other matured through cycles. ## **The Two Tensions** Kolb was clear that experiential learning isn’t a sequence of steps but a dialectical process – **each mode has an opposite that counterbalances it**. Real learning emerges not from choosing one over the other, but from engaging the tension between them. These tensions come from how we make sense of the world: whether we meet experience directly or hold it at a distance, pause to interpret or intervene to shape what happens next. Kolb described these as movements between opposing ways of knowing. Each pole offers something indispensable but also becomes distorting when relied on exclusively. The work of learning lies in shifting across these opposites over time, allowing each to challenge, correct, and deepen the other. In this sense, the cycle isn’t merely a model of learning but a description of [psychological flexibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/) required to grow. ![Two Tensions - Experiential Learning Cycle - David Kolb](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/11/Two-tensions--Experiential-Learning-Cycle.png) ### **Experiencing vs Thinking** At one end is Concrete Experience **(experiencing)**: immersion in the moment, engaging directly with people, situations, and events. It’s sensory, emotional, and specific. At the other end is Abstract Conceptualization **(thinking)**: stepping back, stripping away the details, and building a mental model or theory. The tension is between being in it and standing apart from it. Rely too much on concrete experience and you risk being swept along by events without perspective. Lean too far into abstraction, and you drift into theory detached from reality. Learning requires moving between immediacy and distance, letting each inform and correct the other. Ron Heifetz called this [being on the balcony vs on the dance-floor](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/#diagnose-the-system). ### **Observation vs Experimentation** The second tension is between Reflective Observation **(reflecting)**: watching, listening, and considering multiple perspectives, and Active Experimentation **(acting)**: intervening, making a change, and seeing what happens. [Reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) without action leads to analysis paralysis; elegant insights that never touch the ground. Action without reflection leads to busy ineffectiveness; energy spent without learning from the results. The skill is in knowing when to pause and when to move; when to look for patterns and when to test them. ### **Why the Tensions Matter** In practice, we can’t occupy both ends of either spectrum at once. You can’t be fully immersed and fully detached in the same moment. Or be deep in reflection and fully committed to action simultaneously. **The cycle works because it pushes you to shift modes over time**, touching all the bases so you don’t get stuck in the one that feels most natural. The idea isn’t a perfect balance but a kind of adaptive rhythm. Some situations call for rapid movement between modes while others demand staying in one mode longer than is comfortable. Learning is not about finding one “best” way, but about becoming fluent across the full range. ## **Applying the Learning Cycle** The real value of Kolb’s experiential learning cycle is in using it as a self-audit tool. The key is to recognize your default mode and learn to deliberately shift into the ones you tend to avoid. Most of us have a **“home base” in the cycle—a mode we inhabit without thinking**. It feels comfortable, natural, and productive… right up until it limits us. **The fastest way to speed up your learning is to spot that bias and lean into the opposite mode.** ### **If *Experience* is your preference** You learn by being in the thick of things — in the room, on the call, close enough to feel the energy of the moment. Your instincts come from direct contact with what’s happening, not from standing back and theorizing about it. The risk is that you move from one situation to the next so quickly that nothing accumulates. The learning stays local and episodic because you haven’t stopped long enough to identify the underlying pattern. The fix is to pause before you act again. Step into Abstract Conceptualization (thinking) long enough to articulate the principle behind what just happened. When you can explain the pattern, learning becomes transferable rather than situational. ### **If *Thinking* is your preference** You learn by thinking things through: framing problems, building models, shaping explanations. You gravitate toward the conceptual layer because that’s where things feel manageable and coherent. The risk is of drifting upward into theory and losing contact with reality. The map becomes more compelling than the territory. The fix is to return to Concrete Experience. Sit in on the meeting; watch the process unfold. Stay close to the mess and unpredictability of real events; it will tune your concepts more precisely than another round of analysis ever could. Related: [MBWA: Managing by Wandering Around](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) ### **If *Reflection* is your preference** You learn by slowing down — noticing patterns, comparing perspectives, taking stock before deciding what to do. You see what others miss because you give yourself time to interpret. The risk here is that **clarity becomes a requirement rather than an advantage**. You wait for the perfect angle of understanding, and in the waiting, opportunities pass. You mitigate this by leaning into Active Experimentation (acting). Pick one interpretation and test it in the field *before* it's fully baked. The feedback will sharpen your insight far more quickly than continued contemplation. Related pieces: [Action creates clarity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/), [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) ### **If *Action* is your preference** You learn by doing — trying things, adjusting on the fly, moving ideas into action before they calcify. You generate momentum and learn through forward motion. The **risk is that speed becomes a substitute for depth**. You move from one action to the next so quickly that the learning evaporates between steps. Mitigate it by stopping long enough to enter Reflective Observation (reflecting). Ask yourself, “What did that last action teach me?” Pausing is not the enemy of momentum — it’s what allows action to accumulate into capability. Think of the four modes as muscles. You’ll always have a dominant one, but strength comes from agility with all four. In any given situation, ask yourself: *Which mode am I in right now? Which one am I avoiding?* Then make the shift especially when it feels least natural. That’s how the cycle starts becoming a practice and discipline. ## **Experiential Learning Cycle: A Tool for Leadership Sensemaking** Leadership roles are often a race against time. You’re expected to make decisions quickly, navigate competing priorities, and keep moving in changing conditions Under that kind of pressure, it’s easy retreat to your default mode in the experiential learning cycle. Some double down on action: moving fast, making calls, and staying ahead through momentum. While others retreat into reflection: gathering more data, weighing perspectives, thinking it through before risking a move. Although both tendencies have value, they can also trap you. **Kolb’s cycle offers a way out of these traps.** It gives you a map for where you are in your thinking and acting, and more importantly, where you’re not. The cycle **doesn’t replace judgment but instead sharpens it by making the gaps visible.** In the middle of a complex decision or a tense situation, ask: - Am I close enough to the reality (Concrete Experience), or am I working off second-hand reports and [proxies](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-danger-of-processes-becoming-proxies)? - Have I paused long enough to reflect (Reflective Observation/reflecting), or am I charging ahead? - Have I [framed the problem](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) clearly (Abstract Conceptualization/thinking), or am I improvising without a model? - Have I tested my assumptions (Active Experimentation/acting), or am I clinging to a plan that hasn’t met reality yet? Even a 30-second scan through these questions can change your next action. It can stop you from reflexively operating in the mode you prefer and pull you toward the one that the situation actually needs. Having a discipline like this matters for avoiding blindspots, faster adaptation, and better judgement under pressure. The cycle is akin to a **real-time instrument panel** for your learning and leadership. The next time you’re facing a decision, a problem, or even an unexpected success, run the cycle in your head and ask: - Which mode am I in right now? - Which mode am I avoiding? - What would happen if I shifted? Kolb’s model is a rhythm to master. The more fluently you move through it, the more each experience becomes not just something that happened, but something that changes how you see, think, and act. Aka leadership wisdom and sensemaking. ## Related Reading [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-136.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) [Design Principles for Practicing ReflectionFor leaders and managers, the art and practice of doing regular reflection is essential to functioning at peak levels. The challenge is that the environment surrounding them enables anything but reflection. It’s designed to do the exact opposite. Are there basic guidelines that can help to reflect more often and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-131.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Design-Principles-for-Reflection.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) [Just Do It - Changing Mindset through ActionWe think action comes from the right mindset. This can be counter-productive. Often mindset follows action. It’s easier to control physical action.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-132.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Mindset-vs-Actions.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/) [Strategic Agility - Balancing future focus with current actionsBalancing the long term with the short term is an ongoing challenge for leaders. Peter Drucker addressed how to go about it in his writings.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-133.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-10)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/) [Leadership reflection: a meta skill for effective leadershipLeadership reflection is a critical mechanism to accelerate self-development of effective leaders.But it gets ignored due to stereotypes.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-134.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Importance-of-Reflection-in-Leadership.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) ## Sources 1. [*Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development*](https://amzn.to/4o0AyIw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David A. Kolb. ### ICs vs Managers vs Leaders: Why Real Leadership is Rare URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ics-managers-leaders-why-real-leadership-is-rare/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:35:35.000Z > *It should be considered that there is nothing more difficult to handle, more doubtful of success, or more dangerous to carry through than to initiate a new order of things. For *the innovator makes enemies of all those who prosper by the old order* while only lukewarm support is forthcoming from those who would prosper under the new.* > > *Their support is lukewarm partly from fear of their adversaries, who have existing laws on their side, and partly because men are generally incredulous, never really trusting new things unless they have tested them by experience. In consequence, *whenever those who oppose the change can do so, they attack vigorously...** > > —Niccolo Machiavelli, [The Prince](https://amzn.to/47JMzxu?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Machiavelli’s dictum is as true today as it was in 1532, perhaps even more so. Except, instead of warring princes and kingdoms, we now have mini fiefdoms inside large organizations. In a previous piece, I highlighted how high amounts of [“frustration tolerance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/)” are key to succeed and thrive in large organizations. This begs the question: why are they so mind-numbingly frustrating to begin with? One primary reason is that **many "leaders" in these orgs aren't leading anyone, anywhere.** They're managing the status quo, rubber-stamping decisions, or hung up on slide template changes. Meanwhile, high-performers get disenchanted watching VPs of strategy who never make a strategic choice or directors of innovation who haven't championed a new idea in years. They have titles but lack what actually matters: **the ability to "make happen what wouldn't have happened otherwise"**— aka leadership. **These are powerful people acting powerlessly.** This creates familiar organizational absurdities: - You proactively start a cross-functional OKR but two powerful stakeholders have contradictory goals. Rather than force a choice, you water the objective down to "improve cross-team collaboration," which keeps the peace but changes nothing. - You initiate a voluntary working group across design, ops, and engineering to fix a recurring failure point. Momentum builds which prompts a director to file a complaint that you're "creating a shadow org." Your performance feedback states: "stay in swim lane." Why is this common? How do you keep a straight head in this madness and still contribute? One framework I’ve found useful comes from the work of **Robert Quinn at University of Michigan**. Most professionals — regardless of title — operate from one of three dominant paradigms: Individual Contributor (IC), Manager, or Leader. Each has a different internal logic. **Once you understand Quinn’s framework, absurdities and stupidity won’t disappear but they stop being personal.** They become patterns we can anticipate and account for. In other words, you have an increased capacity for action. Without it, we keep blaming these frustrations on politics, bad luck, or our own shortcomings. --- 💡 **👉 In what follows, it's easy to confuse the three paradigms as roles or titles. "Stance" is a better way to understand them. You can be an IC operating with a transformational (leader) stance. Conversely, you might be a senior leader by title but stuck in a technical (IC) stance. The skill is in being aware of your tendencies and then making adjustments for what your context actually needs.* **Also note that whether we recognize it or not, we’re always making a choice to operate by a certain paradigm.* ***Burnout often happens when there’s a mismatch between how you think things “should” be vs how they simply “are”.** *Organizations reward the IC and Manager paradigms, while the Leader paradigm is dangerous territory. No wonder leadership is rare.* ## Three ways of seeing the world Quinn identifies three distinct mindsets that professionals embody as they progress. Understanding them shows why talented people plateau, and why organizations desperately need leaders. Studying this table alone is well worth your time: ![ICs vs Managers vs Leaders: 3 Mindsets of Organizational Life](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/11/ICs-Managers-Leaders-1.png) The following differences are worth noting: **Individual Contributor (technical)** - Internal Logic: "*If I excel at the work, I’ll be recognized."* - Driver: Mastery - Organizational lens: Technical system - Basis of power: Competence **Manager (transactional)** - Internal Logic: *"If I manage relationships and deliver outcomes, I’ll advance."* - Driver: Stability - Organizational lens: Political system - Basis of power: Position **Leader (transformational)** - Internal Logic: *"If I live the vision, others will follow, even if I'm rejected."* - Driver: Purpose - Organizational lens: Moral system - Basis of power: Behavioral integrity Each logic is internally consistent and works. But only up to a point. All have predictable failure modes: - The IC logic breaks down when systems become more about relationships than rationality. - The Manager logic breaks down when systems require courage, not maintenance. - The Leader logicis often rejected by the very systems it seeks to rebuild. All three are necessary though. Organizations need craft (IC), coordination (Manager), and courage (Leader). The problem isn't that any single approach is wrong; it's that **many of us don’t recognize what’s actually needed for what we’re trying to achieve.** The IC keeps perfecting technical skills when they need to build influence. The manager optimizes processes when the situation requires transformation. The leader challenges systems that aren't ready to change. The real tragedy is that people with leadership potential waste years operating by the wrong criteria. To understand how this happens — and more importantly, how to prevent it — let’s take a closer look at each of them ## The Individual Contributor (Technical Stance) Consider Sarah, a data scientist. She's the go-to person for complex analytics, works nights and weekends to perfect her code, and consistently delivers insights that drive business decisions. She represents the best of the IC mindset: deep expertise, technical mastery, and measurable results. While managers spend their days in meetings, Sarah takes pride in shipping “real work”. Her early career sails on autopilot. But somewhere in the 8-15 year range, Sarah hits a wall. She watches less technically skilled peers get promoted while she's passed over repeatedly. Walk through any Fortune 500 company and you’ll find Sarahs — brilliant individual contributors whose careers mysteriously stall despite exceptional performance. The problem runs deeper than office politics. It’s a mismatch of paradigms: - Sarah believes competence equals authority and defines success through what she personally produces, not what she enables others to achieve or her ability to influence outcomes. - She dismisses organizational politics as beneath her, not realizing that **relationships aren't office drama but essential tools to make things happen in a social system**. - Sarah assumes her work speaks for itself. She waits for recognition instead of working on her positioning — what I call organizational savvy. She ends up being the 20-year expert who gets passed over for strategic roles, bitter about "politics" while less experienced colleagues shape the organization's future. She has deep expertise but shrinking influence — a **master craftsman stuck in a system that has needs beyond craft**. The IC trap isn't inevitable, but breaking through it requires a painful adjustment: **viewing excellence not as solitary craft unto itself, but as a lever for broader impact.** ## The Manager (Transactional Stance) Now consider David, a senior analyst recently promoted to team lead. Unlike Sarah, David figured out early that success is not only about individual performance but also getting things done through others. David sees the world differently. Unlike ICs who believe in the supremacy of personal output and technical solutions, he knows that getting things done requires relationships, positioning, and political acumen. He builds alliances, maintains credibility with senior leadership, and ensures the team delivers. Initially, this increases his impact far more than he ever had as an IC. He's playing the game, and winning. But over time, the skills that made David effective start working against him. **He becomes so good at navigating the system that he becomes trapped by it.** Several years into his role, David finds himself **prioritizing what's politically expedient over what's strategically sound.** He knows the right answer, but he chooses the safe one because it won't ruffle feathers. The managerial trap creeps up over time: - Compromise becomes religion. Skilled at finding middle ground he loses touch with what matters. Every decision seeks the path of least resistance. - Playing not to lose, he optimizes for avoiding failure rather than achieving breakthroughs. "Don't rock the boat" becomes the doctrine. - Perpetual fire-fighting means David lives in a reactive mode, managing crises and keeping stakeholders happy, but never stepping back to question why these fires keep happening. David becomes what one exec calls a **"highly paid administrator"** orchestrating processes that no longer serve anyone, including himself. He has the title but feels empty, going through motions he no longer believes in. Most managers plateau in this way. **They’ve become too embedded in the system to challenge it.** By getting rewarded for playing by the rules and maintaining stability, they hesitate to drive real change. While they may advance in title and responsibility, they remain stuck in transactional thinking. > The transactional paradigm arises from **administrative socialization**. An organization informally teaches its members this paradigm. > > — Robert Quinn \[1\] They’ve mastered what I call organizational savvy, but lost something more important: the [courage to challenge the systems](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) they’ve learned to navigate well. ## The Leader (Transformational Stance) 💡 **👉 Fair warning: This section will sound idealistic. But that’s precisely why genuine leadership is both rare and badly needed. A goldmine of opportunity if you're willing to do the work.* Maria, a senior manager, operates differently. While Sarah perfects her technical work and David navigates organizational politics, Maria is asking different questions entirely: "What if we're solving the wrong problem? Why do we accept these constraints? What if we change the rules?" Folks like Maria operate on an entirely different playing field. Where ICs focus on excelling within systems and managers focus on optimizing across them, leaders focus on transforming the systems themselves. It’s a fundamentally different orientation. Their compass isn't efficiency but direction. The criteria isn't approval from above, but alignment with something worth building, even if it comes at personal cost. This requires **departing from conventional organizational and career logic.** For Maria, power isn't granted through position or political maneuvering, but claimed through **congruence**. Her **credibility comes from behavioral integrity**: what she says, does, and believes are in alignment. Unlike managers who see power as something that comes from position and political transactions, Maria understands that real **power flows from clarity and conviction**. Three things set her apart: - She's self-authorizing. Maria acts without waiting for permission from the system. She doesn't ask if she can challenge the budget process, she proposes a better way and starts implementing it. - She's willing to disrupt. While David avoids rocking the boat, Maria actively challenges norms, questions assumptions, and takes unpopular positions when they serve a higher purpose. - She mobilizes others. Maria doesn't just have teams and direct reports; she creates other leaders. People don't just comply with her directives; they get energized by her and start acting on their own initiative. But the leader’s transformational stance comes with significant challenges of isolation, resistance, and high personal risk. Ron Heifetz puts it bluntly: [leadership is a dangerous job](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/). ## Why real leadership is rare > Organizations are natural incubators of the first two paradigms. Our educational systems and our career experiences in organizations naturally socialize us to the technical and transactional paradigms. The strategies of these paradigms are reinforced in nearly all our interactions. > > — Robert Quinn \[1\] As Quinn notes, the first two paradigms come automatically, but only a select few successfully make the leap to genuine leadership. It’s because going from IC or Manager to Leader is about identity and risk tolerance, not just skills. Rather than a promotion or permission, [it's a decision](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/)to stop deferring, stop avoiding discomfort, and stop letting the system define you. And it’s especially difficult because **the very systems that promote people into positions of authority also discourage actual leadership.** ### Systems reward stability, not disruption The uncomfortable truth is that most organizations don’t actually want leaders like Maria. They say they do, but reality is a different story. The same company that claims it wants “innovation” and “disruptive thinking” also has 13 approval layers for a $10K software purchase. The system says it wants change while punishing those who attempt it. Why? - Companies are risk-averse by default; disruptive leaders introduce uncertainty that makes senior managers and executives nervous. - **As Machiavelli noted, change threatens existing power structures;** transformational leaders redistribute power away from those who spent years accumulating it. - Stability is comfortable; even managers who push “innovation” prefer predictable routines to the chaos of reinvention. Thus organizations unconsciously suppress transformational leadership by **rewarding rule-followers and sidelining challengers. It’s baked into the structure.** Unlike the transition from IC to Manager—which comes with clear support in the form of promotions, raises, and expanded scope—the move to genuine leadership is often punished, not rewarded. While David gets credit for maintaining stability and hitting the numbers, Maria gets questioned for “being too intense, “creating unnecessary complexity” and “not being a team player.” Maria gets misread by others. Colleagues call her naive, arrogant, or difficult because she's not playing by the conventional script. Her direct reports love working for her, but **peer managers complain she “makes them look bad”**. She’s accused of “moving too fast” and “not considering all stakeholders.” Her performance review concludes she needs to work on “collaborative leadership.” ### Acting without guarantees David operates within defined processes and predictable outcomes. In contrast, Maria operates in the unknown often without clear markers of success. This is terrifying because: - There's no predefined roadmap for challenging the status quo. Unlike the managerial stance based on KPIs and performance reviews, real leadership operates in ambiguity. - You must be willing to fail publicly. The fear of being seen as wrong, [naive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/), or reckless stops many from doing what it takes. - Professionals build their identity on being competent and respected. Taking transformational risks means willingly putting that status at stake. ### The burden of self-authorization Managers like David operate within established norms. In contrast, Maria creates new benchmarks and **acts** before anyone **gives her permission.** This isn’t easy. Professionals spend entire careers waiting for approval, recognition, and validation before taking big steps. **We're conditioned from childhood to seek external legitimacy.** **Self-authorization means becoming the source of your own legitimacy.** Maria acts not because she was given permission, but because she believes the action serves something larger than herself. > *This perspective, in which a man sees himself only as an individual contrasted with other individuals, and not as a genuine person whose transformation helps towards the transformation of the world, contains a fundamental error. *The essential thing is to begin with oneself*, and at this moment a man has nothing in the world to care about than this beginning. Any other attitude would distract him from what he is about to begin, weaken his initiative, and thus frustrate the entire bold undertaking.* > > *— Martin Buber \[3\]* ## Why bother If organizations systematically resist change, **why develop leadership capabilities at all?** I’ll share two reasons to do so. The first one is simple: resistance creates opportunity. While organizations may not explicitly reward transformational leadership, they desperately need it. The very dysfunction you observe — meetings about meetings, strategies that go nowhere, or talented people checking out — are symptoms of leadership scarcity. Those who develop true leadership capabilities become invaluable precisely because they're rare. At a time when AI can optimize processes and analyze data better than any human, the premium will be for those who can do what machines can't. But as I noted, this path can be risky. That brings us to the second reason. Once you’ve achieved a reasonable amount of success by traditional standards of money and titles, **the only way you can continue playing the game without losing your soul is by inventing your own terms, and reinventing yourself.** The “how” — different ways you can achieve this — has many variations but the “why” boils down to this simple idea. ## Where are you at? Making shifts requires awareness and honest self-assessment. The following questions can help reveal which paradigm currently drives your actions and where you might be stuck: - Are you optimizing for validation, coordination, or transformation? - When did you last act on principle, knowing it might cost you? What was the outcome and what did it teach you? - What drives your decisions? Is it accuracy, alignment, or integrity? - In your org who speaks hard truths? Are they being ignored, protected, or punished? - Where does your authority come from? Is it skills, role, or convictions? - What rules have you internalized that no longer serve your aims? What do you need to unlearn in order to grow? - If your title were removed, what would remain? - Have you mistaken having a title for having influence? Are you shaping the conversation or simply managing logistics? - Would you rather be dismissed for doing what needed done, or promoted for preserving what's broken? What does your answer say about your actual orientation? ## Related reading [Leadership as More a Decision than Skill or AbilityThe default way of looking at leadership ability is in terms of skill, style, or talent, which in turn drives actions and behaviors. But skills and talents are not sufficient for effective leadership. There’s another simpler but necessary step — the decision to lead. In this view, leadership is a![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-109.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leadership-as-a-decision-2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/) [Why We Copy Leaders — A Complexity Point of ViewLeaders are often cautioned to watch their actions and behavior because it sets an example and gets replicated through the organization. Which begs the question: why do people copy leaders? The common explanations tend to be psychological. But it goes beyond simple carrot and stick notions from behaviorism. There’s a![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-110.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-9)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/) [Expert Power — How Knowledge Becomes InfluenceExpert power, one of six key types of power, allows leaders to shape decisions and influence outcomes through specialized knowledge. This makes expert power as influential as formal authority. It’s a subtle but potent way to increase your power, regardless of your position on the org chart. In this article,![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-111.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Expert-Power-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) [The Case for Naive Leaders over Clever, Sophisticated OnesNaïveté is considered a liability. But is it really? We’ve been oversold on the merits of sophistication and cleverness, meanwhile missing out on the benefits of a considered approach to naiveness.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-112.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Cultivated-Na-vet--2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) [How Implicit Leadership Theory Affects CareersWhat makes someone “leadership material”? This often depends on who’s making the call and what their Implicit Leadership Theory is - we all have one.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-113.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/How-ILT-Affects-Careers-4-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) ## Sources 1. [Deep Change: Discovering the Leader Within](https://amzn.to/4p5RC0J?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Robert E Quinn. 2. [The Prince](https://amzn.to/47JMzxu?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Niccolo Machiavelli 3. [The Way of Man According to the Teachings of Hasidism](https://amzn.to/4iRwYjn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Martin Buber ### How's Your Adaptive Capacity? URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:35:51.000Z *In nature, species that survive aren't the strongest or smartest. They're the most adaptive. When the environment shifts, they don't just work harder, they evolve.* *Our work lives follow the same brutal logic. *The question isn't whether we're the most talented or hardest working.* It's also whether we're adaptive enough.* --- [Adaptive leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) — from the work of Harvard's Ron Heifetz — is a key principle underlying my approach to leadership coaching. Over the summer, I finally got a chance to go through his entire body of work spanning multiple decades. I captured some of what I learned in a series of three articles (links at bottom). Heifetz borrowed the term "adaptive" from evolutionary biology/psychology. Successful adaptation in nature has three elements: - **Preserve** what’s essential. - **Discard** what no longer serves. - **Create** new capacity for a harsher environment. Thriving in careers and organizations requires the same. Effective adaptations conserve our values and strengths, prune away patterns holding us back, and generate fresh capacity to operate in new conditions. But we usually don't think about work this way. Instead, we treat it like [technical problems ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/)to solve. We get an MBA, switch companies, or learn another productivity system. **It's like trying to survive climate change by buying a better umbrella.** Because often the challenge isn't technical at all — it's adaptive. An [adaptive challenge](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) is when the assumptions we built our work/life around no longer fit; when what once drove us feels hollow. You can't fix these problems by working harder. They demand something deeper. ## **Clarifying DNA** Every living system survives by protecting its core DNA while adapting its behavior and responses. Without genetic continuity, it disintegrates. Equally, without adaptive capacity, it becomes fragile when conditions shift. We face the same challenges. The first step is to know what’s essential vs what’s expendable. DNA in this context isn’t a resume or title. It’s the combination of values, strengths, and purpose that give us identity. Preserving that core keeps us anchored. Losing sight of it leaves us vulnerable to [chasing other people’s scripts](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#know-which-game-you%E2%80%99re-choosing-to-play): promotions, credentials, or definitions of success that don’t fit. Adaptation also requires discarding. All of us have habits, assumptions, and roles that once served well but no longer do. The hardest part is recognizing what we must now outgrow. Sometimes it’s a skill set that kept you competent but now boxes you in. At other times it’s an identity — the expert or the high performer — that once defined us but now limits. The real challenge is discerning the difference. In evolution, less than 2% of human DNA shifted from our primate ancestors. Yet that small change unlocked extraordinary new capacities. Most of what makes you effective can and should be carried forward. But **the small fraction that must be released or rearranged often carries the deepest resistance,** because it touches what we’ve built our identity and confidence around. - What part of your DNA must be preserved, regardless of the environment? - What needs to be discarded, even if it feels like a betrayal of your core identity? - What new capacities can be created by loosening your grip on what’s familiar? **Thriving doesn’t require wholesale reinvention. Evolution is a lot easier over time than outright revolution.** ## **Orchestrating Loss** Every adaptive shift involves loss. Heifetz calls leadership “**the art of orchestrating loss at a rate people can absorb**.” To adapt, we have to let go of roles and routines that once gave us competence and status. That’s why resistance is strong. What looks like procrastination, fear of risk, or lack of discipline is often grief in disguise. You’re not just deciding whether to change jobs or retrain in a new field; you’re facing the loss of being the expert and high performer everyone depends on. Adaptive work is painful because it always involves giving up a part of yourself. The danger is trying to skip this step. **It’s common to treat adaptation as addition:** a new credential, a side project, or a quick pivot. But without letting go of what no longer fits, the old DNA keeps pulling us back. **Real adaptation requires**[ **subtraction**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/)**.** It means absorbing the pain of no longer being who we were, in order to create space for who we want to become. The skill is in pacing losses. Just as [effective leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/) regulate the heat of adaptive work in organizations, we must regulate our own transitions. If we try to change everything at once, we collapse under the strain. But by avoiding the discomfort altogether, we stay stuck. Loss is unavoidable. The art is to move incrementally — absorbing it in doses we can metabolize — while still keeping momentum alive. - What identity/role have I outgrown, but still cling to because it feels safe? - What loss am I postponing because it feels too threatening? - What small step can I take to start absorbing loss in a tolerable way? ## **Building through Experiments** In evolution, adaptation occurs through variation and trial. Countless experiments unfold. 99% or more fail, only a few succeed, but those few set the path for survival. Our lives are similar. Lasting adaptation doesn’t come from one decisive leap. Instead, it’s often from a series of small, imperfect experiments that gradually open new terrain. This is where many of us struggle. **We want certainty *before* we act;** guarantees that the next role or venture will work. But the adaptive process — by definition — doesn’t have any guarantees. If it was a given, it wouldn’t require adapting. This means moving forward with partial knowledge, learning quickly from what doesn’t work, and treating each step as a probe that yields new information. In evolution, **most variants don’t survive — but the species thrives because the cost of failure is distributed across many experiments**. Amazon tests thousands of ideas a year. Most fail. But the few that work —[ like AWS emerging from an internal tool](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#wandering-vs-efficiency) — generate billions annually. We need the same logic: spread learning across[ multiple small bets](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/) instead of pinning it all on one radical reinvention. Over time, this steady rhythm of testing and adjusting builds the capacity to navigate uncertainty that no credential can match. - Where in my life am I running safe-to-fail experiments? - How can I lower the stakes of learning to try more without fear of failure? - How many of my current efforts are genuine probes into new ground versus repetitions of what I already know? ## **Diversifying the Portfolio** In nature, monocultures are efficient but fragile. They replicate quickly, but when the environment shifts, they go extinct. **The Irish Potato Famine killed over a million people because the entire country relied on a single crop variety.** When disease struck, there was no backup. Careers face the same risk. If our identity rests on a single role, employer, or skill set, we’re running a monoculture. It works fine in stable conditions — until it doesn’t. The moment the environment shifts, fragility is exposed. Robust careers that thrive over time are rarely linear. They're built like healthy ecosystems, drawing strength from redundancy and diversity. Sometimes that diversity is in skills, other times it's in the range of people and communities we're connected to. **Resilience isn’t just personal grit; it’s also structural.** Heifetz writes: > Invest your need for meaning in your life in more than one place. Have what the investment advisers call a balanced portfolio. Shakespeare’s King Lear learned too late that he needed to find meaning and develop skill in his role as a father as well as his role as a king. > > **Look for meaning in multiple places in both your personal and your professional life.** Find it in your community life and in the care you take to exercise your mind and body to keep them both functioning at a high level as you grow older. Find it in the friendships that sustain you at difficult moments and provide a means to share and amplify your life’s joys. **Narrowing your life’s meaning to a single sphere, whether it is your work or home or civic or religious life, makes you vulnerable when there are major shifts** in the environment in which you are solely invested. - What part of my career is overexposed — a single skill or identity that everything depends on? - Where can I build variation to increase my adaptive capacity? - Who are the voices or networks at the margins that I’ve overlooked, but that could expand future possibilities? ## **Staying in the Game** Getting started in a new direction is easy. The real challenge is staying with it long enough for change to take effect. In evolution, meaningful adaptation unfolds slowly. Tiny variations accumulate over thousands of cycles before they show up as durable shifts. But we tend to imagine transformation as a bold leap. I call it **"**[**movie time**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/#movie-time-versus-human-time)**" —the Rocky montage where we emerge stronger in 5 minutes of inspiring music and a solid workout.** Meaningful, sticky growth happens incrementally, through extended periods of ambiguity and effort that feel pointless. You’ll run failed experiments and spend months where the old identity no longer fits but the new one hasn’t emerged.It’s tempting to retreat to the safety of what we know. This is why adaptation demands patience and [frustration tolerance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/). It requires **"intelligent persistence"**—staying in the game long enough for compound effects to take hold. In leadership, this means holding steady while conflict and disequilibrium unfold. At work, this means staying engaged in the long (often slow) arc of change — long enough for [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) to compound into durable capacity. Truly adaptive change rarely offers the satisfaction of quick closure. Instead, it demands endurance. - Where am I demanding results faster than the process allows? - What routines or anchors help me stay steady during periods of uncertainty? - How can I sustain efforts so I don’t step out of the game just before the gains emerge? --- We approach careers like engineers: if something breaks, find the right fix. But life isn’t a machine; it’s a living system. What thrives is what adapts. The real question then isn’t if we have the perfect plan. It’s whether we adapt when the plan stops working, which it inevitably will. We ask ourselves, “Am *I successful?”* as if it’s permanent. **But “success” is one fleeting moment — a brief alignment between capabilities, current conditions and outcomes.** When conditions shift, today’s success will be irrelevant. A more relevant question is: *Am I adaptive?* ## Related Reading on Adaptive Leadership - [Technical Problems vs Adaptive Challenges ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) [Technical Problems vs Adaptive ChallengesIf you’re a leader, you’ve likely faced a problem that refused to be solved by the usual methods. A problem that made you question everything you knew about leadership. Consider this scenario: You’re a senior manager, respected for solving complex business challenges. But now, you’re confronting an issue that’s defying![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-128.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Technical-Problems-vs-Adaptive-Challenges-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) - [Adaptive Leadership: What It Means and Why It's Essential](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) [Adaptive Leadership: What It Means and Why It’s EssentialMost leadership models sound good until they’re tested in the wild. A crisis, a reorg, or conflicting loyalties can easily expose the gaps in any conventional playbook. It’s because many vexing problems aren’t technical, they’re adaptive: people must let go of something they value, learn something![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-129.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Real-Leadership-is-Dangerous-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) - [Core Practices of Adaptive Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/) [Core Practices of Adaptive LeadershipThe hardest part of adaptive leadership is practicing it when the system pushes back. Over decades of studying leaders in politics, medicine, and business, Ron Heifetz at Harvard found that those who made progress under pressure weren’t relying on brilliance or charisma. Instead, they were executing a set of![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-130.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/On-the-Balcony-and-the-Dancefloor---Adaptive-Leadership-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/) ## References and Sources 1. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). [*Leadership Without Easy Answers*](https://amzn.to/4lXzN2O?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 2. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). [*Leadership on the Line*](https://amzn.to/4ojYiZI?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 3. Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). [*The Practice of Adaptive Leadership*](https://amzn.to/4ojkt20?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 4. [Adaptive Leadership: Making Progress on Intractable Challenges](https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/insights/all-insights/adaptive-leadership-making-progress-intractable-challenges?ref=leadingsapiens.com#:~:text=What%20is%20Leadership?,and%20that%20is%20a%20success.%E2%80%9D) 5. [The Theory Behind Adaptive Leadership – Cambridge Leadership Associates](https://cambridge-leadership.com/adaptive-leadership/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. [The Work of Leadership – Harvard Business Review](https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Transformative Learning in Leadership Coaching URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/ Last updated: 2025-09-18T20:30:18.000Z *Leaders today face complex challenges that can't be solved through skill development alone. *Jack* *Mezirow's transformative learning framework*, developed through three decades of research, is a useful tool to help leaders shift *how they think and make meaning* of their roles. In this piece, I explore Mezirow's transformative learning theory and *how it’s used in leadership coaching*.* --- First off, why bother? The reality is that most leaders don't need any more information. What they need is better ways to make sense of what they already know — what I call *leadership sensemaking*. Two people in the same meeting can leave with entirely different interpretations of what happened and what to do next. The difference isn't in *what* they see — it's in the invisible filters that determine *how* they're seeing. This is where leadership development often misses the mark. It gives leaders new techniques —adding more content to their mental library — but rarely examines how they think and make meaning. **It's the difference between giving someone a new map and helping them understand how they've been reading maps all along.** I've structured this article around key terminology from Mezirow's Transformative Learning theory: - [(1) Frames of Meaning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#1-frames-of-meaning) - [(2) Disorienting dilemmas](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#2-disorienting-dilemmas) - [Meaninglessness as signal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#meaninglessness-as-signal) - [Edge emotions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#edge-emotions) - [(3) Critical reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#3-critical-reflection) - [Three levels of reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#three-levels-of-reflection) - [Organizations block premise reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#organizations-block-premise-reflection) - [Leadership coaching and premise reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#leadership-coaching-and-premise-reflection) - [(4) Reflective discourse](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#4-reflective-discourse) - [The dialogue dilemma](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#the-dialogue-dilemma) - [Coaching as dialogue laboratory](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#coaching-as-dialogue-laboratory) - [(5) Reflective action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#5-reflective-action) - [The action paradox](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#the-action-paradox) - [From insight to integration](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#from-insight-to-integration) - [Action is the final test of meaning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#action-is-the-final-test-of-meaning) - [Leadership coaching as a vehicle for transformation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#leadership-coaching-as-a-vehicle-for-transformation) - [(a) Coaching targets mental models, not just behaviors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#a-coaching-targets-mental-models-not-just-behaviors) - [(b) Coaching supports the emotional labor of change](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#b-coaching-supports-the-emotional-labor-of-change) - [(c) Coaching enables autonomy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#c-coaching-enables-autonomy) - [(d) Coaching makes change sticky](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transformative-learning-in-leadership-coaching/#d-coaching-makes-change-sticky) Throughout, I discuss their use in the [leadership coaching process](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/). I close the piece by showing how coaching is an apt vehicle for enabling transformation. Let's jump in. ## **(1) Frames of Meaning** To understand how coaching works as a vehicle for transformation, we must first understand how we make sense of our world. Mezirow called these ***meaning structures***: the hidden scaffolding behind judgments, decisions, and reactions. In leadership, the mental models that create success at one level become constraints at the next. The detailed analysis that made you an effective director creates decision paralysis as a VP. The control that worked with a team of five becomes micromanagement with fifty. **It’s a structural problem, not a skills problem.** You have the right tools but you’re working from the wrong blueprint. Meaning structures operate at three levels, from surface to depth: - **Points of view** are immediate judgments and assumptions that feel like facts: *"My manager is skeptical of my suggestions." "This team resists accountability."* These are easier to examine because they're closer to conscious awareness. - **Habits of mind** are deeper thinking patterns inherited from culture, upbringing, and experience: *"I need the right answer before I speak." "Strong leaders don't show vulnerability."* These unconscious predispositions shape our interpretations, but most don't realize it. - **Frames of reference** are the deepest structures — the invisible filters that determine what counts as relevant information in the first place. E.g. they decide what you notice in a meeting and what you dismiss entirely. In coaching, the work often begins by surfacing these frames. Leaders may come with well-formed questions, but beneath those goals are filters they're unaware of. Coaching reveals the structure behind the structure: **not just *how* you're acting, but *why* certain possibilities don't even show up as options.** Conventional leadership development focuses on skills or behavior. But behavior follows interpretation, and interpretation is shaped by meaning structures. Coaching that respects this architecture doesn't rush to advise or direct. It stays with the interpretation and creates space to examine the lens, not just the problem. This is slow work. But it's what distinguishes temporary improvement from lasting transformation. Once a frame of reference shifts, everything downstream changes. ## **(2) Disorienting dilemmas** If meaning structures are the architecture of sensemaking, what causes someone to consider renovating the structure? Mezirow called these **disorienting dilemmas**: experiences that don't fit the existing map. Something that cracks the logic of your current frame of reference. It's not only uncomfortable; it's existentially confusing. You can't make sense of it, or go back to how things were. These are entry points into transformation because they're destabilizing. **In leadership, disorienting dilemmas are common and inherent to the role:** - You're promoted into a job you don't feel ready for. - A once-successful strategy stops working. - You're forced to make decisions with no clear "right" answers. - Feedback reveals an unknown blind spot. These situations are potent because they violate your assumptions. You thought you knew how leadership worked, or that you were good at something. Suddenly, the internal model doesn't hold. This isn't a tactical failure; it's a failure of your meaning structure. It's inadequate. ### **Meaninglessness as signal** Mezirow described disorienting dilemmas as events that create "a patch of meaninglessness." What triggers transformation is the inability to make sense of it. This matters because **in most professional cultures, disorientation is seen as a problem to quickly solve or avoid. But from a developmental lens, they're invitations;** evidence that your current meaning structure is too small for the world you inhabit. Instead of prematurely reassuring or problem-solving, leadership coaching helps you stay with the discomfort long enough to extract something from it. ### **Edge emotions** Disorienting dilemmas trigger what researchers call edge-emotions: shame, fear, anger, confusion, grief, and despair. While they feel dangerous, they're essential. They "offer *access to knowledge we could not perceive from our existing meaning perspectives." \[4\]* In other words, these emotions are not noise, but data. They mark the boundaries of our current frame of reference and are often the only path to something new. Coaching that avoids these emotions or rushes to regulate them misses the point. **The task is not to eliminate discomfort but to metabolize it.** To sit at the edge long enough for something else to emerge. Leaders facing disorienting dilemmas often can't articulate the problem. They just know something feels off. A skilled coach doesn't rush to clarity. They help the leader notice what no longer fits, ask questions to surface underlying assumptions, and scaffold a new, coherent frame of meaning. In practice, this means: - Naming the disorientation instead of fixing it. - Exploring emotions the leader would typically bypass. - Identifying ineffective long-held beliefs. - **Recognizing that ambiguity signifies growth, not weakness.** This work isn't always clean or linear. But it allows you to update meaning structures instead of merely surface-level tactics. ## **(3) Critical reflection** Once a disorienting dilemma has fractured the old meaning structure, the real work begins by asking: *What was I standing on before it broke?* This is **critical reflection**, and the centerpiece of adult development. Without [reflection in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/), discomfort becomes disorientation without growth. With it, discomfort fuels transformation. But not all reflection is created equal. ### **Three levels of reflection** Mezirow distinguishes **three types of reflection**, and only one restructures meaning. **(1) Content Reflection.** Focuses on the *what*. What happened? What do I believe? What do I need to do? This is tactical problem-solving. It's the go-to mode for most professionals: analyzing situations, updating knowledge, troubleshooting issues. **(2) Process Reflection.** Focuses on the *how*. How did I make that decision? How do I approach this type of situation? This level starts to get under the hood of habits and routines. It examines patterns of thinking and acting and opens the door to behavioral change. **(3) Premise Reflection.** Focuses on the *why*. Why do I see it this way? What assumptions underlie my beliefs? What criteria am I using to evaluate this? This is the deepest level. It interrogates the frame through which we interpret reality. It questions the logic, values, and rules governing perception and judgment. This reflection reorganizes your internal operating system. **Only premise reflection leads to Mezirow's transformation of meaning perspective.** The others may tweak or refine, but do not fundamentally reshape. Note the parallel to[ double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/). ### **Organizations block premise reflection** In modern workplaces, premise reflection is rare, not due to leaders' incapability, but because the environment disincentivizes it. Work cultures systematically prevent premise reflection. Quarterly earnings calls don't pause for existential inquiry. Leaders who say "I need to examine my assumptions about this market" may get nervous looks from the board. This creates what we might call **"premise avoidance": an organizational bias toward content and process reflection because they feel safer and more controllable.** **The deeper the reflection, the more it threatens existing power structures and certainties.** Time pressures reward fast, tactical fixes (content reflection). Cultures that fetishize best practices often substitute technique for thinking (process reflection). Ironically, the more senior the leader, the harder it is to find safe ground for premise reflection. **Questioning deeply held assumptions can feel destabilizing, especially when your role is to project clarity and certainty.** Their identity is often fused with the very ones that need to be challenged. That's where leadership coaching becomes essential. ### **Leadership coaching and premise reflection** Coaching helps leaders to *reflect at the right level*. This means slowing down the urge to fix, and instead identify the underlying pattern: - *"What belief did you have going in?"* - *"What feels familiar?"* - *"What are your assumptions about success here?"* - *"Whose voice is this in your head?"* These are designed to probe beneath the behavior and into the assumptions — implicit, inherited, or outdated — driving it. This work can be disorienting. Leaders often discover they're operating from mental models they never consciously chose. **The things that brought them past success — hyper-control, constant availability, and self-reliance — are now undermining them.** What emerges is not just self-awareness, but what Mezirow called ***subjective reframing*:** the capacity to re-see one's narrative from a place of informed distance. This separates leadership coaching from advice-giving or mentorship. It's not about telling you what to do differently, but helping you see and choose differently. Premise reflection can be emotionally taxing, surfacing regret, embarrassment, and grief. Leaders might realize they've made key decisions out of fear or followed outdated scripts from early authority figures or past roles. But the cost of not reflecting is higher: stuck patterns, repeated failures, and[ derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). Coaching creates a protected space — a reflective container — for this work. A place where leaders don't have to perform, impress, or justify; where they can dismantle old assumptions and build something more sturdy and context-relevant. ## **(4) Reflective discourse** Transformation doesn't happen in isolation; leaders must test their new sensemaking with others. But most organizational conversations make this impossible. ### **The dialogue dilemma** Leaders need honest dialogue to test evolving perspectives, but their role requires projecting certainty. Most workplace conversations focus on performance or persuasion, not genuine [inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/). Even [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) sessions mask judgment behind openness. The higher you rise, the fewer people will challenge your thinking. Everyone has an agenda, a hierarchy to navigate, or a relationship to protect. The conversations leaders need most — where they can express uncertainty and [test assumptions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) — become the riskiest. ### **Coaching as dialogue laboratory** Leadership coaching creates "reflective discourse": a space to bring uncertainty without consequence. Here **"I don't know" isn't a liability but the start of discovery.** Your coach is a "discourse partner": someone who challenges without threat, listens without judgment, and reflects inconsistencies to sharpen awareness: - *You value collaboration, but just described your team's input as 'a distraction.' Help me reconcile that.* - *You're confident in your plan, but seem uneasy. What's beneath the certainty?* - *What if you’re wrong about that stakeholder?* The coaching dialogue is a rehearsal space where new perspectives are formed, tested, and integrated before being enacted in the real world of consequences and performance. ## **(5) Reflective action** Transformation is incomplete until it manifests in the real world. A mindset shift, no matter how profound, is only theoretical until it changes your actions, decisions, and relationships. In Mezirow's framework, this final step is **reflective action**, where new meaning translates into meaningful conduct. But not all action is reflective. Much of what leaders call "taking action" just reinforces old frames, executing the same logic with new energy. Reflective action, by contrast, requires reexamining the underlying assumptions driving behaviors. ### **The action paradox** Leaders facing a disorienting dilemma confront an impossible choice: act quickly on incomplete understanding, or pause for deeper reflection while external pressure mounts. **Traditional leadership advice says "be decisive." Transformative learning says "stay with the confusion until clarity emerges."** The resolution isn't choosing one or the other. Rather, **it's developing the capacity to act from conscious uncertainty rather than false certainty.** This is what separates effective leaders from merely competent ones. ### **From insight to integration** The hallmark of reflective action is congruence. After a disorienting dilemma and deep reflection, leaders see what needs to change, why it matters, and how it fits with a more honest understanding of themselves and their context. - A manager who used to over-control team dynamics may start delegating because they've re-examined their assumptions about trust and control. - A high-performing exec might say "I don't know" more often because they now see ambiguity as part of their role, not a threat to their identity. - Another leader might slow down execution because they've reframed their view of success from quick wins to long-term system health. Each shift is a deeper premise transformation. **They aren’t just acting differently, but doing it from a different place altogether.** ### **Action is the final test of meaning** Mezirow argues that transformation is about acting from a frame that is more coherent, inclusive, and aligned with reality. In leadership, this means not just adapting to complexity, but inhabiting it. Acting in ways that acknowledge ambiguity, invite multiple perspectives, and reflect a grounded sense of self. This is **the paradox of reflective action: it's outwardly pragmatic but inwardly profound.** A small behavioral tweak may signal a tectonic shift underneath, reshaping how you think, feel, and make meaning in the world. ## **Leadership coaching as a vehicle for transformation** It's tempting to view learning as content: What did I learn? What tools did I acquire? But when the real task is to rethink fundamental assumptions, **the container matters as much as the content.** The coaching relationship provides just that: structured yet flexible, personal yet performance-oriented. Let’s consider the ways coaching enables Mezirow’s vision of transformation. ### **(a) Coaching targets mental models, not just behaviors** Transformative learning requires modifying meaning structures, habits of mind, and points of view. Traditional leadership development aims to add tools. Good coaching doesn't just add. Instead, it edits, refines, and [discards mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) that are no longer working. The shift is subtle but crucial: Instead of "What should I do?" you ask, "What am I assuming?" or "How am I framing this?" Coaching operates at the level of assumptions. ### **(b) Coaching supports the emotional labor of change** Changing your premises is not only an intellectual task, but also an emotional reckoning. Premise reflection can challenge deeply held views of self and others. Mezirow calls it "an intensely threatening emotional experience." That's **especially true in leadership, where frames are tied to identity:** *Am I competent and respected? Am I really in control?* Coaching is the secure base where leaders can stay in the discomfort of ambiguity without rushing to a solution. ### **(c) Coaching enables autonomy** The end goal isn't just a more capable leader, but a more **autonomous** one. Mezirow is clear: the goal of transformative learning is to create **self-authorship**; defining your own values, purposes, and beliefs, instead of adopting them uncritically. Coaching supports this by: - Helping identify outdated assumptions. - Creating space for new, honest, relevant, and grounded interpretations. - Reinforcing a sense of agency, not just competence. This is vital in ambiguous environments. [Self-directed leaders ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/warren-bennis-self-invention-authenticity-leadership/)don't have the "right" answers but know how to interrogate the frame behind the question. ### **(d) Coaching makes change sticky** Leadership coaching helps translate new understanding into sustained behavior in several ways: - **Designing experiments.** Instead of vague commitments ("I'll listen more"), the coach helps the leader define specific, testable behaviors ("I'll ask two open-ended questions before offering an opinion in our next team meeting"). - **Anticipating friction.** The coach surfaces the internal and external resistance during change, including the pull of the old self, skepticism of others, and the temptation to revert under stress. - **Naming regressions without judgment.** When leaders inevitably backslide, the coach reframes failure as simply data that shows which parts of the old frame still exert influence and where the new one needs reinforcement. - **Building** [**self-efficacy**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/)**.** Through [guided reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) on what works and why, leaders internalize the new frame as a new capacity. This process is powerful because it occurs in real-time with real challenges. Over time, this cycle of insight, enactment, and reflection builds self-directed competence. --- Leadership coaching works not because it gives advice, but because it enables **meaning reconstruction and premise transformation**. It meets leaders at the boundary of their knowledge and helps them build a bridge toward who they want to become. That bridge is built through challenge, safety, reflection, dialogue, and action. Coaching makes the invisible architecture of transformation visible and walkable. ## **Sources and References** 1. Mezirow, J. 1991\. Transformative dimensions in adult learning. 2. Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to Think Like an Adult. 3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational Learning. 4. Eschenbacher, S., & Fleming, T. (2020). Transformative Dimensions of Lifelong Learning: Mezirow, Dewey, and the Quest for Transformation. Journal of Transformative Education. 5. Johnson-Bailey, J. (2010). Transformative Learning. In C. E. Kasworm, A. D. Rose, & J. M. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. 6. Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to Change. 7. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. 8. Sherlock, B. (2004). Transformative Learning Theory: A Perspective from Practice. Studies in the Education of Adults. ### Core Practices of Adaptive Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:43:39.000Z The hardest part of adaptive leadership is practicing it when the system pushes back. Over decades of studying leaders in politics, medicine, and business, Ron Heifetz at Harvard found that those who made progress under pressure weren’t relying on brilliance or charisma. Instead, they were executing a set of disciplined behaviors that helped them survive the heat and keep others engaged with the real work of adaptive challenges. These can be called **the core practices of adaptive leadership.** Rather than steps in a linear process, they are more like stances leaders keep returning to. What makes them practices is that they can be learned, repeated, and refined. **They turn adaptive leadership from a concept into a craft.** *This article is the final in a three-part series. The first drew the line between* [*technical and adaptive challenges*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) *— why confusing them is the most common leadership mistake. The second* [*defined adaptive leadership*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) *itself. This one maps the core practices of adaptive leadership in action. Together, they’re a way for leaders to think and act differently in complexity, when the usual playbooks stop working.* - [Practice of Adaptive Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/#practice-of-adaptive-leadership) - [Diagnose the System](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/#diagnose-the-system) - [Regulate Disequilibrium](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/#regulate-disequilibrium) - [Distinguish Leadership from Authority](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/#distinguish-leadership-from-authority) - [Give the Work Back](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/#give-the-work-back) - [Protect Voices Without Authority](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/#protect-voices-without-authority) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Practice of Adaptive Leadership Because adaptive challenges are fundamentally different, they require a different kind of leadership practice; one that doesn’t rush to solutions, but involves observation, inquiry, and restraint. Heifetz calls these practices “five strategic principles of leadership” \[2\]: > 1\. **Identify** the adaptive challenge. **Diagnose the situation** in light of the values at stake, and unbundle the issues that come with it. > > 2\. **Keep the level of distress** within a tolerable range for doing adaptive work. To use the pressure cooker analogy, keep the heat up without blowing up the vessel. > > 3\. **Focus attention on ripening issues** and not on stress-reducing distractions. Identify which issues can currently engage attention; and while directing attention to them, counteract work avoidance mechanisms like denial, scapegoating, externalizing the enemy, pretending the problem is technical, or attacking individuals rather than issues. > > 4\. **Give the work back to people**, but at a rate they can stand. Place and develop responsibility by putting the pressure on the people with the problem. > > 5\. **Protect voices of leadership without authority**. Give cover to those who raise hard questions and generate distress-people who point to the internal contradictions of the society. These individuals often will have latitude to provoke rethinking that authorities do not have. > > …In focusing on immediate problems, a person intent on leading must ask four practical and related questions: > > How can he identify an adaptive challenge, keep attention focused on the ripening issue, regulate stress to keep it within a productive range, and take action to promote social learning so that a new equilibrium is reached? These ongoing disciplines are required for navigating the complex and often uncomfortable terrain of [effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/). Let’s take a closer look at each practice. ## **Diagnose the System** Adaptive leadership starts with observation, not action. It’s [resisting the urge to intervene](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/) before understanding what’s actually at play. Diagnosing the system means learning to see clearly in real time, without getting pulled into the fray. Heifetz calls this “**get off the dance floor and onto the balcony**”. That’s where you notice patterns of informal alliances, avoidance behaviors, unspoken roles, and deeper loyalties behind resistance. > **The single most important skill and most undervalued capacity for exercising adaptive leadership is diagnosis**. In most companies and societies, those who have moved up the hierarchy into senior positions of authority are naturally socialized and trained to be good at taking action and decisively solving problems. > > There is no incentive to wade knee-deep into the murky waters of diagnosis, especially if some of the deeper diagnostic possibilities will be unsettling to people who look to you for clarity and certainty. Moreover, when you are caught up in the action, it is hard to do the diagnostic work of seeing the larger patterns in the organization or community. **People who look to you for solutions have a stake in keeping you focused on what is right in front of your eyes:** the phone calls and e-mails to be answered, the deadlines to be met, the tasks to be completed. \[1\] Leaders often operate from a mechanical view where inputs lead to outputs, reporting lines define influence, and success is about fixing what’s broken. But adaptive leadership asks you to suspend that lens and see your organization as a living system. This isn’t necessarily a root-cause analysis. Instead, you’re watching how the system protects itself from disturbance. What’s being defended? What’s left unsaid? Where is authority being overused, and where is it being avoided? Instead of a [structural lens](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/) or strategy, it’s about values in conflict: - A startup claims to prize innovation, but its decision-making filters every risk through what investors want to hear. - A reorg is framed as necessary for growth, but beneath it is a battle over turf and visibility. What looks like dysfunction is often an equilibrium; imperfect, yes, but functional for someone. **If you don’t see who benefits from the status quo, you miss the bigger picture.** Diagnosing the system means asking: - What are the adaptive tensions at play? - Where are values colliding? - What loyalties, fears, and narratives are being protected? And **perhaps most importantly: What work is the current dysfunction *doing* for the system?** Diagnosing the system requires remembering that **once people know they’re being observed, they adjust accordingly.** ## **Regulate Disequilibrium** Every adaptive challenge stirs discomfort. People feel the weight of loss — losing habits, status, familiar roles, or their sense of competence. That generates heat: anxiety, resistance, ambiguity, and pushback. But heat isn't the problem. It's the crucible. Heifetz originally described this individual experience as **distress** — the anxiety that surfaces when people are pushed into new territory. But there's a systemic dimension too. **Disequilibrium** is the disruption that ripples through networks, roles, and loyalties when adaptive work begins. The leader's job is to keep both within tolerable range, and that's where the counterintuitive nature of adaptive leadership shows up. Push too hard, too fast, and the system shuts down. People revert to habitual roles, conflict turns personal, and learning stops. Back off too quickly, and it reverts to equilibrium. The pressure evaporates, and the urgency to change dissolves. Regulating means working like a thermostat: adjusting the heat to keep people in the **productive zone of disequilibrium** where real adaptation can occur. You're trying to stretch without snapping, which requires attention at multiple levels: - *Individual:* noticing when people are overwhelmed or shutting down, and creating enough psychological safety for them to re-engage. - *Systemic:* watching for signals that the collective is tipping out of balance — too much conflict, or collusion — and intervening to restore movement. - *Yourself:* managing your own anxiety first, because how you show up is itself a regulator of the system's temperature. In practice, this balancing act means: - *Pacing the work.* Timing matters. Spread the losses, sequence the [wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). - [*Framing*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) *the challenge.* People can absorb more if they understand why the heat is rising. - [*Managing your presence*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/)*.* If you show panic, others will escalate. If you collapse, they'll drift. - *Using structure wisely.* Temporary routines can hold anxiety so the work can proceed. Leadership here is counterintuitive. The impulse is to shield people, reduce pressure, and be the steadying hand. But in adaptive work, your job is to maintain it just enough that they stay awake. The[ paradox](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) of adaptive leadership is that **the distress and disequilibrium people want you to remove is exactly where the work gets done.** Your role is to hold them in that tension long enough for genuine adaptation to take root. ## Distinguish Leadership from Authority Most organizations equate leadership with authority. If you hold the role, you're assumed to be leading; if you don't, you're a follower. Adaptive leadership forces a sharper distinction. **Authority is a contract.** People give you trust and compliance in exchange for protection, order, and direction. The expectation is simple: solve problems, shield us from uncertainty, and keep things moving. This is why people instinctively turn to authority in a crisis; they want clarity and comfort. **But leadership is different.** It mobilizes people to face reality and adapt. It creates disturbance, disrupts habits, and surfaces conflict by drawing attention to the very things people want to avoid. Often, it's the opposite of what authority is rewarded for delivering. That's **why Heifetz calls leadership "dangerous work."** It threatens people's sense of competence, belonging, or identity. It also threatens you, because exercising leadership often means disappointing those who rely on you for reassurance. But this also means adaptive **leadership can come from anywhere in the system:** a middle manager who addresses a tough reality or a junior analyst who raises a key point. Leadership is not bound to a role; **it emerges wherever someone is willing to hold up a mirror and mobilize the system.** For those with formal authority, this creates a constant [contradiction](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/). You're asked to provide answers when none exist, expected to lower anxiety when the real work requires raising it, and rewarded for stability even if it blocks progress. Adaptive leadership asks you to navigate that tension. This means asking: - What role am I being asked to play here: authority or leadership? - Am I protecting people from discomfort when exposure is what's needed? - Am I confusing the absence of authority with the absence of leadership? **You can't abandon authority. But you can't hide behind it either.** ## **Give the Work Back** Authority is seductive. The more capable you are, the more others hand you their problems. And the more adaptive the challenge, the more tempting it is for everyone to make it your job. Over-functioning is a common trap for leaders. When people look to you for answers, it feels natural — and responsible — to step in, solve the problem, and restore order. In technical situations, that's what's needed. But in adaptive situations, it backfires. **"Giving the work back"** is shorthand for resisting the instinct to rescue. It doesn't mean stepping away or withholding support. Rather it’s resisting the impulse to carry what others must learn to hold. Adaptive work can't be done for people. It has to be done by them. If you try to carry it, you rob the system of growth. This means redirecting responsibility when people hand it to you: - When a team asks, *"What should we do?"* reframe it as, *"What options do you see?"* - When a group waits for you to resolve their conflict, you invite them to articulate what's at stake. This process can be frustrating. You may see the problem clearly and have a workable path in mind. But if the system isn't engaged, your clarity won't matter. Solutions imposed too early — or too cleanly — can backfire. They relieve pressure prematurely without producing movement. This work is difficult because it runs against the grain of authority. People often want protection more than growth, clarity more than complexity. Giving the work back means disappointing them at a tolerable rate — enough to keep them engaged, not so much that they shut down. The paradox is that real leadership often looks like *less* action. It's the discipline of holding the mirror without supplying the answer, long enough for people to claim the work as their own. Giving the work back is an act of faith in the system's capacity to evolve, if you stop shielding it from its own work. ## **Protect Voices Without Authority** Adaptive challenges rarely originate from the center of power. They tend to appear first at the margins, from people whose perspective is inconvenient, or whose status makes them easier to dismiss. Dissenting voices are usually the first to see cracks in the system. They question assumptions others take for granted. But because their takes are unsettling, the system moves quickly to silence or sideline them. One of the obligations of adaptive leadership is to **protect these voices** — not because they're always right, but because they carry insight that formal structures can't easily access. **Dissent is diagnostic. It reveals where pressure is building.** This doesn't mean elevating every critic or indulging every complaint. It means recognizing that **insight comes bundled with vulnerability**. Those who speak first about what's not working are often least protected by the system they're trying to improve. That protection can be as simple as: - Redirecting attention back to a junior colleague's comment that was brushed aside. - Slowing down a conversation long enough for quieter voices to enter. - Ensuring that those on the periphery — contractors, frontline employees, skeptics — are included in key discussions. - Absorbing the political risk yourself so others can raise what needs to be said. Doing these in practice is difficult because **organizations are skilled at avoidance**. They close ranks, ostracize and subtly punish difference. It's less about [advocacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) and more about **preserving the conditions for truth-telling**. Without that, adaptive work stalls. The system recycles familiar narratives, and leadership becomes performance, instead of progress. By protecting voices without authority, you're not only defending individuals, you're expanding the system's capacity to learn. It's in those marginal insights — the easiest to ignore — that adaptive work begins. --- Adaptive leadership doesn't promise to make leadership any easier. Instead, it makes it more honest. It’s about [being disciplined enough to do ordinary things](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) — listen, observe, experiment, protect, engage — when everything pushes you toward the familiar territory of authority. Ironically, in a world obsessed with disruption and transformation, we haven't developed leaders who can actually navigate it. Leadership development operates on the seductive premise of better tools and frameworks that can somehow tame complexity. We're still training people for a world of clear problems and proven solutions, and then wonder why they struggle when faced with [adaptive challenges](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/). Adaptive challenges don't yield to technique. They yield to discipline — the discipline of staying present to what's actually happening, not what we wish. ## Related Reading on Adaptive Leadership [Technical Problems vs Adaptive ChallengesIf you’re a leader, you’ve likely faced a problem that refused to be solved by the usual methods. A problem that made you question everything you knew about leadership. Consider this scenario: You’re a senior manager, respected for solving complex business challenges. But now, you’re confronting an issue that’s defying![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-81.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Technical-Problems-vs-Adaptive-Challenges-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) [Adaptive Leadership: What It Means and Why It’s EssentialMost leadership models sound good until they’re tested in the wild. A crisis, a reorg, or conflicting loyalties can easily expose the gaps in any conventional playbook. It’s because many vexing problems aren’t technical, they’re adaptive: people must let go of something they value, learn something![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-82.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Real-Leadership-is-Dangerous.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) [How’s Your Adaptive Capacity?In nature, species that survive aren’t the strongest or smartest. They’re the most adaptive. When the environment shifts, they don’t just work harder, they evolve. Our work lives follow the same brutal logic. The question isn’t whether we’re the most talented or hardest working. It’s also whether we’re adaptive enough.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-101.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/How-is-Your-Adaptive-Capacity.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/) ## References and Sources 1. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). [*Leadership Without Easy Answers*](https://amzn.to/4lXzN2O?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 2. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). [*Leadership on the Line*](https://amzn.to/4ojYiZI?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 3. Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). [*The Practice of Adaptive Leadership*](https://amzn.to/4ojkt20?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 4. [Adaptive Leadership: Making Progress on Intractable Challenges](https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/insights/all-insights/adaptive-leadership-making-progress-intractable-challenges?ref=leadingsapiens.com#:~:text=What%20is%20Leadership?,and%20that%20is%20a%20success.%E2%80%9D) 5. [The Theory Behind Adaptive Leadership – Cambridge Leadership Associates](https://cambridge-leadership.com/adaptive-leadership/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. [The Work of Leadership – Harvard Business Review](https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Adaptive Leadership: What It Means and Why It's Essential URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:29:53.000Z Most leadership models sound good until they’re tested in the wild. A crisis, a reorg, or conflicting loyalties can easily expose the gaps in any conventional playbook. It’s because many vexing problems aren’t technical, they’re adaptive: people must let go of something they value, learn something new, or redefine success. They require **what Ron Heifetz at Harvard calls Adaptive Leadership.** Rather than a style or personality trait, adaptive leadership is a practice. It’s the discipline of mobilizing people to confront difficult realities and increase their collective capacity to adapt. **Heifetz put it bluntly: leadership is dangerous work.** It threatens what people hold dear and disappoints their demand for certainty. You are a target because your job is to surface the very issues others are working hard to avoid. *This is the first in a three-part series on Heifetz’s adaptive leadership framework. In this piece, I define what it is and spell out what makes it distinct. A companion piece examines the distinction between*[ *technical and adaptive challenges.*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) *The final one turns to practices — the specific behaviors and interventions that bring adaptive leadership to life. Together, they provide a practical methodology for leaders facing challenges that can’t be solved by* [*expertise*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) *or authority alone.* --- ## What is adaptive leadership? To define adaptive leadership, Heifetz and colleagues \[1\] use the analogy of evolutionary biology to emphasize its criticality to modern organizations. **The natural world and organizations are more alike than we realize.** Heifetz explains: > *Adaptive leadership is the practice of mobilizing people to tackle tough challenges and thrive*. The concept of *thriving* is drawn from evolutionary biology, in which **a successful adaptation has three characteristics:** (1) it preserves the DNA essential for the species’ continued survival; (2) it discards (reregulates or rearranges) the DNA that no longer serves the species’ current needs; and (3) it creates DNA arrangements that give the species’ the ability to flourish in new ways and in more challenging environments. **Successful adaptations enable a living system to take the best from its history into the future**…. > > ***Adaptive leadership is specifically about change that enables the capacity to thrive*.** New environments and new dreams demand new strategies and abilities, as well as the leadership to mobilize them. As in evolution, these new combinations and variations help organizations thrive under challenging circumstances rather than perish, regress, or contract. > > **Leadership, then, must wrestle with normative questions of value, purpose, and process.** What does *thriving* mean for organizations operating in any particular context? In biology, thriving means propagating. But in business... signs of thriving include increases in short- and long-term shareholder value, exceptional customer service, high workforce morale, and positive social and environmental impact. Thus adaptive success in an organizational sense requires **leadership that can orchestrate multiple stakeholder priorities to define thriving and then realize it.** > > ***Successful adaptive changes build on the past rather than jettison it*.** In biological adaptations, though DNA changes may radically expand the species’ capacity to thrive, the actual *amount* of DNA that changes is minuscule. More than 98 percent of our current DNA is the same as that of a chimpanzee: it took less than a 2 percent change of our evolutionary predecessors’ genetic blueprint to give humans extraordinary range and ability. A challenge for adaptive leadership, then, is to engage people in **distinguishing what is essential to preserve from their organization’s heritage from what is expendable**. Successful adaptations are thus both conservative *and* progressive.They make the best possible use of previous wisdom and know-how. The most effective leadership anchors change in the values, competencies, and strategic orientations that should endure in the organization. > > ***Organizational adaptation occurs through experimentation*.** In biology, sexual reproduction is an experiment: it rapidly produces variations—along with high failure rates. As many as one-third of all pregnancies spontaneously miscarry, usually within the first weeks of conception, because the embryo’s genetic variation is too radical to support life. In organizations, the process appears similar. Global pharmaceutical giants must be willing to lose money in failures to find the next profitable medicine. Those seeking to lead adaptive change need an experimental mind-set. They must learn to improvise as they go, buying time and resources along the way for the next set of experiments. > > ***Adaptation relies on diversity*.** In evolutionary biology, nature acts as a fund manager, diversifying risk. Each conception is a variant, a new experiment, producing an organism with capacities somewhat different from the rest of the population. By diversifying the gene pool, nature markedly increases the odds that *some* members of the species will have the ability to survive in a changing ecosystem. In contrast, cloning, the original mode of reproduction, is extraordinarily efficient in generating high rates of propagation, but the degrees of variation are far less than for those in sexual reproduction. Cloning, therefore, is far less likely to generate innovations for finding and thriving in new environments. > > **The secret of evolution is variation, which in organizational terms could be called distributed or collective intelligence.** Likewise, adaptive leadership on economic policy would want to diversify an economy so that people are less dependent on one company or industry for sustenance. For an organization, adaptive leadership would build a culture that values diverse views and **relies less on central planning and the genius of the few at the top**, where the odds of adaptive success go down. This is especially true for global businesses operating in many local microenvironments. > > ***New adaptations significantly displace, reregulate, and rearrange some old DNA*.** By analogy, **leadership on adaptive challenges generates loss**. Learning is often painful. One person’s innovation can cause another person to feel incompetent, betrayed, or irrelevant. Not many people like to be “rearranged.” Leadership therefore requires the diagnostic ability to recognize those losses and the predictable defensive patterns of response that operate at the individual and systemic level. It also requires knowing how to counteract these patterns. > > ***Adaptation takes time*.** Most biological adaptations that greatly enhance a species’ capacity to thrive unfold over thousands, even millions, of years. **Progress is radical over time yet incremental in time**. It seems to work this way: a variant in the current population has the adaptive capacity in its time to venture a bit beyond the normal ecological niche for its kind, stressing itself near the margins of the range that it and its offspring can tolerate. … Although organizational and political adaptations seem lightning fast by comparison, they also take time to consolidate into new sets of norms and processes. Adaptive leadership thus requires persistence. Significant change is the product of incremental experiments that build up over time. And cultures change slowly. **Those who practice this form of leadership need to stay in the game, even while taking the heat along the way.** There's a lot to unpack in this. I'll focus on a few key ideas. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## **How adaptive leadership is different** Adaptive leadership treats leadership as a process, not a position. Here are a few distinctions that differentiate it from common notions of effective leadership: ### **1\. Leadership is dangerous** Real leadership is dangerous work because it requires surfacing what people most want to avoid. Adaptive challenges force loss: of competence, comfort, status, and identity. And loss creates resistance. People don’t fight change because they dislike new ideas; they fight because something they value is threatened. That’s why exercising real leadership makes you a target. The pushback can be subtle — avoidance, scapegoating, withdrawal of support — or overt, like political attack or personal isolation. **Systems have built-in defenses to protect themselves from disturbance, and the person leading the disturbance is the one the system turns against.** This signals you’re in the right territory. **If your work isn’t provoking loss, it probably isn’t adaptive.** The danger also means leadership requires resilience. **You cannot lead adaptively without exposing yourself.** The question is not whether you’ll face risk, but if you can survive it long enough to stay in the game. That survival depends on the discipline of what Heifetz and Linsky call “anchoring yourself” — practices that help you withstand the heat without being consumed by it. Leaders who mistake danger for failure retreat too early; those who underestimate it burn out or get taken out. **Rather than being fearless, adaptive leadership means managing your own vulnerability while holding others in theirs**. It requires you to “disappoint people at a rate they can absorb,” pacing the losses without collapsing under the pressure yourself. **If leadership feels entirely safe, it probably isn’t leadership at all.** ### **2\. Adaptive leadership orchestrates loss** Every adaptive challenge involves loss. People are asked to give something up — a familiar role, sense of competence, or a source of pride. These aren’t just inconveniences fundamental values and identities. **Adaptive work always generates resistance as it rearranges what we hold dear.** Leadership is the orchestrating of this process of loss. It requires helping people discern what's essential to preserve, what to leave behind, and what new commitments to create. As in evolutionary biology, most of the DNA is carried forward; only a small portion changes. But those small changes make all the difference. Adaptive leadership is not only about what works but also what matters. **You cannot dodge value questions by framing everything as strategy or structure.** Mobilizing people adaptively requires surfacing conflicts about purpose, loyalty, and identity, and pacing the process of letting go and creating anew. Orchestration here is literal. **Move too fast and people revolt or disengage. Move too slow and the system calcifies.** The leader’s task is to hold the tension — applying just enough pressure for people to confront the loss, while providing enough containment to prevent collapse. That’s why adaptive leadership is counterintuitive. Authority promises protection, while leadership forces exposure. But without orchestrating these losses, systems regress, avoid, or collapse under new conditions. **Leadership, from this perspective, is not about protecting people from loss but helping them navigate it.** ### **3\. Leadership operates on perspective** Heifetz’s enduring metaphor is **the balcony and the dance floor**. On the dance floor, you’re in the middle of the action — immersed in the noise, speed, and pressing expectations. On the balcony, you step back to see larger patterns: who’s moving with whom, which conflicts repeat, and what’s avoided. Effective leadership requires balance. Too much time on the dance floor and you get consumed by the urgency of tasks, unable to distinguish noise from signal. Too much on the balcony and you lose credibility, [cut off from the reality people are living](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/). **The work is in the rhythm between action and observation, engagement and detachment.** Leaders need diagnostic distance even in the heat of the moment. This is harder than it sounds. **Most organizations reward speed, decisiveness, and availability. You’re socialized to respond, not pause.** Yet without the capacity to step back, you can’t see the system at work. Balcony work allows leaders to regulate themselves. When you’re caught up in the action, your own anxiety merges with the system’s. On the balcony, you can see your [triggers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/belief-triggers-marshall-goldsmith/) more clearly, recognize when you’re [hooked into dysfunction](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/), and regain the steadiness to intervene deliberately. Perspective is not a luxury but what makes leadership possible. Without it, you’re just another dancer, swept along by the music. ### **4\. Leadership is experimental, incremental, and collective** Adaptation doesn’t arrive pre-formed as a grand design. In nature, it unfolds through countless small experiments — most of which fail. A genetic variation thrives only if the environment supports it. The same is true in organizations. Adaptive change is rarely a single breakthrough. Instead, it’s a series of trials,[small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/), and lessons that accumulate over time. This means **leadership is less about perfect plans and more about imperfect experimentation**. Those expecting clean solutions get [frustrated](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/). The evolutionary logic of adaptation requires space for pilots, rapid iterations, and course corrections. They help the system learn its way forward, instead of pretending the path is clear. **The incremental nature of adaptive work is unsatisfying.** Authority pushes for answers, certainty and speed. Adaptive leadership resists that demand, holding the line long enough for progress to emerge through small wins. Each experiment — including failed ones — adds information to the system, nudging it toward new possibilities. Because the odds of success rise with variation, effective leadership is inherently collective. It depends on diversity of thought and perspective. Monocultures — genetic or organizational — collapse under pressure. **Voices at the margins, dissenters, and unconventional views are often sources of adaptation.** The leader’s role is to expand the system’s capacity to generate them. Thus, adaptive leadership is not the work of one heroic individual. Rather, it is distributed, fueled by variation, tested through experiment, and advanced incrementally. The discipline is to keep the experiments going, protect the diversity that feeds them, and [resist the pressure for premature closure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). ### **5\. Leadership is sustained, not episodic** Adaptive challenges rarely resolve in a single initiative. Even with progress, new tensions surface, values collide, and the system resists in fresh ways. Adaptive work is less a project to complete and more a process that unfolds over time. This required persistence is exhausting. People don’t stay engaged indefinitely; they want closure. Authority promises neat endings. But adaptive work reopens itself. It’s recursive, demanding leaders stay present through cycles of conflict, experimentation, and renewal. For the leader, this means developing stamina and discipline. Heifetz and Linsky warn that leaders burn out when they expect adaptive change to move faster than it can. Cultures change incrementally and habits of avoidance run deep. Adaptive leadership requires you to stay in the game, sometimes for years, **absorbing the frustration of slow progress without letting the work dissipate**. Adaptive leadership requires a steady, sustained presence. It asks you to pace yourself and create conditions for others to persist alongside you. Without continuity, your efforts collapse under fatigue. With it, small experiments compound into durable change. **Leadership is not a single act of** [**courage** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/)**but a sustained commitment** to keep people engaged long after the excitement of the kickoff has faded. --- Heifetz’s adaptive leadership endures because it identifies the work many leaders avoid: orchestrating loss, holding conflict, and sustaining people in disequilibrium long enough for them to grow. It captures the brutal reality of leadership when authority fails: danger, uncertainty, disappointment, and risk. ## Related Reading on Adaptive Leadership [Core Practices of Adaptive LeadershipThe hardest part of adaptive leadership is practicing it when the system pushes back. Over decades of studying leaders in politics, medicine, and business, Ron Heifetz at Harvard found that those who made progress under pressure weren’t relying on brilliance or charisma. Instead, they were executing a set of![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-125.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/On-the-Balcony-and-the-Dancefloor---Adaptive-Leadership-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/) [Technical Problems vs Adaptive ChallengesIf you’re a leader, you’ve likely faced a problem that refused to be solved by the usual methods. A problem that made you question everything you knew about leadership. Consider this scenario: You’re a senior manager, respected for solving complex business challenges. But now, you’re confronting an issue that’s defying![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-126.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Technical-Problems-vs-Adaptive-Challenges-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) [How’s Your Adaptive Capacity?In nature, species that survive aren’t the strongest or smartest. They’re the most adaptive. When the environment shifts, they don’t just work harder, they evolve. Our work lives follow the same brutal logic. The question isn’t whether we’re the most talented or hardest working. It’s also whether we’re adaptive enough.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-127.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/How-is-Your-Adaptive-Capacity-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/) ## References and Sources 1. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). [*Leadership Without Easy Answers*](https://amzn.to/4lXzN2O?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 2. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). [*Leadership on the Line*](https://amzn.to/4ojYiZI?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 3. Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). [*The Practice of Adaptive Leadership*](https://amzn.to/4ojkt20?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 4. [Adaptive Leadership: Making Progress on Intractable Challenges](https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/insights/all-insights/adaptive-leadership-making-progress-intractable-challenges?ref=leadingsapiens.com#:~:text=What%20is%20Leadership?,and%20that%20is%20a%20success.%E2%80%9D) 5. [The Theory Behind Adaptive Leadership – Cambridge Leadership Associates](https://cambridge-leadership.com/adaptive-leadership/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. [The Work of Leadership – Harvard Business Review](https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### On fishes, frames, and messes URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/lsw-70/ Last updated: 2025-08-29T14:35:59.000Z ## Knowing what *they* like > I am very fond of strawberries and cream, but I have found that for some strange reason, fish prefer worms. So **when I went fishing, I didn’t think about what I wanted. I thought about what they wanted.** > > —Dale Carnegie All too often, we are so gung-ho on our own point of view, we forget what the other person really wants. This applies to both first dates and executive pitches. Are you speaking your language or your stakeholders’ language? Related: - [How to balance advocacy with inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-64.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) - [Filters in play when we communicate](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) [Filters in CommunicationWhen we communicate, there are several layers of invisible filters that can muddle the message. Knowing the most common communication filters we use can help avoid the traps of miscommunication and make sure our message gets across. Why we use filters One key aspect of leadership is that your words![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-65.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Filters-in-Communication.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) ## Pay attention to your frame > While on a family vacation in Santa Fe, New Mexico, a father and his three‐year‐old daughter were out for a stroll. While stopping to admire a particularly beautiful landscape, the father took a picture of his little girl against this lovely backdrop. This was long before the days of the smartphone camera. The girl had been told by her father many times that film had to be taken to a special store to be developed and that it would be several days before they could see their photographs. Although she knew this information, she asked the question anyway, as three‐year‐olds are so prone to do, **“Why can't we see the picture right now?”** Her father patiently offered the explanation yet again, but this time her question settled into his mind in a way it hadn't before… Why *can't* we see the picture right now? > > Later, **Edwin Land, founder of Polaroid,** would recall that day in 1943 and he would add that “within an hour, the camera, the film, and the physical chemistry became clear.” As an armchair physicist, he worked out in his head a new kind of photography system that would include all of the components of a conventional darkroom in a single handheld device – even before they returned from their walk. He called his patent attorney that same day. **There was a certain power in the way in which his daughter asked her question. It caused Land to ask the question of himself, a question he had never really considered before. Questions can be powerful.** > > — From [Strategic Doing](https://amzn.to/3V9dUC9?ref=leadingsapiens.com) The way we frame our question (and answer) goes a long way in how others respond to it. How much time have you spent designing the frame you'll use? Related pieces: - [Power of framing in creating Psychological Safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) [The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological SafetyFraming is a key skill to create psychological safety and improve performance. But most leaders are unaware or don’t know how to get better at it.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-66.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-7)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) ## Messes vs problems > Managers are not confronted with problems that are independent of each other, but with dynamic situations that consist of complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. I call such situations *messes.* > > Problems are abstractions extracted from messes by analysis; they are to messes as atoms are to tables and charts . . . Managers do not solve problems: they manage messes. > > — Russ Ackoff quoted in [The Reflective Practitioner](https://amzn.to/3JSBhNC?ref=leadingsapiens.com) You get paid a lot more if you can solve undefined “messes” instead of well-defined “problems.” Conflating the two is a persistent source of [frustration](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/) and also opportunity. Related : - [Why problem-solving is overrated. And problem-setting is more critical.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) [Problem-Solving is Overrated. Problem-Setting is More Critical.Almost everyone has the term “problem-solving” featured prominently in their resumes. Conversely, barely anyone uses the term “problem-setting”. Except in complex domains like leadership, problem-setting is often more critical than problem-solving. What is problem-setting, how is it different from good old problem-solving, and why is it critical to effective leadership?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-68.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Problem-Setting-vs-Problem-Solving.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) - [Adaptive challenges are very different from technical problems.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) [Technical Problems vs Adaptive ChallengesIf you’re a leader, you’ve likely faced a problem that refused to be solved by your usual methods. A problem that made you question everything you knew about leadership. Consider this scenario: You’re a senior manager, respected for solving complex business challenges. But now, you’re confronting an issue that’s defying![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-69.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Technical-Problems-vs-Adaptive-Challenges.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) ## Recent newsletter editions ICYMI - [Language that keeps you stuck: Seven competing languages of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/) [Competing Languages of LeadershipLeadership advice often focuses on communication style: how to be clearer, more persuasive, etc. While valuable, these tactics eventually hit a ceiling. You learn techniques but revert to old patterns under pressure, or the improved “delivery” somehow doesn’t create the changes you hoped for. That’s because language operates at a![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-70.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Seven-Competing-Languages---Kegan--Lahey-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/) - [Career myths and lies we are sold](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/career-myths/) [Career Myths: Lies We Are SoldI recently wrote a piece on leadership myths. While writing, I realized these weren’t just organizational myths. They’re also personal myths about careers. The same cognitive leaps that make us believe in heroic CEOs also lead us to fall for formulaic career paths. The attribution errors that distort![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-71.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Career-Myths-vs-Reality.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/career-myths/) ### McChrystal on Leadership Myth and Reality URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-myth-and-reality/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:36:33.000Z General Stanley McChrystal commanded forces in one of the most results-driven environments imaginable — yet his deepest insight about leadership has nothing to do with outcomes. If someone whose career depended on winning wars discovered that results aren't what leadership is about, what does that say about how the rest of us think about it? McChrystal studied leaders across vastly different contexts, from corporate executives to military commanders to social reformers. What he found challenges the fundamental assumptions most of us carry about what leadership actually is. In *Leaders: Myth and Reality \[1\]* he writes, > If we were to circumscribe these \[myths\] with a more accurate definition, we might say that **leadership is a complex system of relationships between leaders and followers*, in a *particular context*, that provides meaning to its members*. This is a radical departure from how we typically think about leadership. Notice what's missing from this definition: There's no mention of traits, techniques, or results. Instead, he focuses on relationships, [context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/), and [meaning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). Leadership becomes less about what leaders *do* and more about what they *create* — a web of relationships that helps people make sense of their world. For a general who spent decades in command positions where lives hung on tactical decisions, this insight is particularly striking. McChrystal didn't arrive at this definition through academic theory. He discovered it by studying what actually worked across the most demanding leadership challenges imaginable. His reframe illuminates why the[ five leadership myths](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/) are both seductive and dangerous. He explains: > Sometimes that meaning may take the form of driving and achieving results. Other times it will take the form of achieving some sense of understanding, or hope, or identity. But we miss part of what makes leadership powerful if we confine it to just one aspect or the other. > > This reframed definition provides fresh perspective on our three myths. > > First, it speaks to the Results Myth, and begins to explain why we’re so willing to define leadership as the pursuit of specific outcomes, and still look up to leaders who have failed us. **Human systems are oddly capable of selecting or tolerating immoral and incompetent leaders because they provide a different kind of meaning elsewhere, such as social identity or ideological affiliation.** Leadership, like humanity, is often ends-focused *and* path-dependent. Rarely do we stop to consider [why we follow our leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/), and whether we do so for the sense of purpose they provide or the results they can offer. In some situations we think we need a symbol, and in others, a doer. In reality, and despite the preponderance of the Results Myth, neither alone can suffice, at least not for long. > > Second, it speaks to the Attribution Myth, and portrays **leadership as a network of relationships**, while allowing for the fact that leaders still matter greatly within this web. Also, it shifts from the one-directional process of [causality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) to **leadership being a property of a system**, subject to the vast array of influences that push it around. > > Third, it speaks to the Formulaic Myth, and explains quite directly that leadership cannot be made prescriptive, precisely **because effective leadership makes sense only in a given context, which is always changing**. Not only is there no “right answer,” but **effective leadership often emerges as a juxtaposition of two behaviors that seem contradictory**, thus necessarily it can’t be distilled to the “right” kind of leadership. For instance, this helps resolve the puzzle whereby humble and vulnerable leaders can be just as effective as leaders who present as strong and confident, because we’re more open to the idea that both sides of this apparent paradox are true. > > Finally, this view of leadership also speaks to what makes leadership both so universally necessary and also so confounding. Leaders are necessary because we tend to understand the world through individuals who organize into various structures as a way of fulfilling collective needs. This is particularly important in our current digital age, **for there will still be a unique niche for human learning and organic intelligence, and it is in this enduring sphere that leadership will remain prized.** > > In sum, this view of leadership expands rather than diminishes leadership; it is something that helps us to make sense of the world, sustains our common identities, and holds hope for a brighter tomorrow. Like leadership itself, our need for such symbols—meaning, [identity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/), hope—is part and parcel of our human nature, which few ever saw as being so simple. **Coming to terms with our own complex selves allows us to recognize that leadership too is necessarily difficult and yet endlessly inspiring.** ![Stanley McChrystal, Leaders: Myth and Reality](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/08/Stan-McChrystal---Leaders-Myth-and-Reality--1.png) The implications go deeper than changing how we evaluate leaders. They challenge how we think about [our own development](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). If leadership is a property of relationships and context, then the question isn't *"Am I leadership material?"* but *"What relationships am I cultivating, and what meaning am I helping create?"* - The executive who spends hours perfecting strategy presentations might ask: What conversations am I avoiding that would build the relationships necessary for actual change? - The manager frustrated by team performance might ask: What context am I creating through my daily interactions, and is it the context that brings out people's best work? - The individual contributor waiting for a formal leadership role might ask: Where can I create meaning and strengthen relationships right now, regardless of title? McChrystal's insight reveals that leadership development isn't about accumulating traits or mastering techniques. Instead, it's learning to read the complex interplay of relationships and context around you — and then having the [courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) to act in service of something larger than yourself, even when you can't control the outcome. The mythic leader is a fantasy. Leadership as an emergent property of healthy systems is both more realistic and more powerful. ## Related Reading [Gen. Stan McChrystal: The Leader as GardenerHow do you view your role of leader or manager? Is it as a chess master or a gardener? The lure of control Often unknowingly, leaders and managers suffer from the myopia of control. The underlying ethos is of knowing everything, solving problems directly and having everything under control. It’s![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-61.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leaders-as-Gardeners.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/) [Why Netflix Leads with Context not ControlControl was the dominant management paradigm in early twentieth century industrial factories. A century later, in many modern workplaces it continues to be dominant and mostly goes unquestioned. Often we don’t even realize that this is the case. But in knowledge work, context is a far more effective and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-62.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leading-through-Context-not-Control.excalidraw-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) [Mastering Context: Leadership is a Context SportContext is a powerful tool in leadership but goes underutilized and misunderstood - a deep dive into why mastering context is essential to effective leadership.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-63.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1024px-Van_Gogh_from_Space-2.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) ## Sources 1. [Leaders: Myth and Reality](https://amzn.to/3VfPvdY?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by General Stanley McChrystal, Jeff Eggers, Jay Mangone. ### Competing Languages of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:36:47.000Z Leadership advice often focuses on communication style: how to be clearer, more persuasive, etc. While valuable, these tactics eventually hit a ceiling. You learn techniques but revert to old patterns under pressure, or the improved "delivery" somehow doesn't create the changes you hoped for. That's because language operates at a more fundamental level than most leadership advice suggests. Like an invisible operating system, it shapes how we think, relate, and act. **The primary factor keeping us stuck isn't a lack of communication techniques; it's that our everyday language works against us.** That's the central point Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey make in *How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work* (2001). They identify seven “**competing languages”** — pairs of ways of speaking with two different orientations to the same issue. - On one side is familiar language that’s effortless: complaint, blame, rules, and quick fixes. It's the language of reflex, safety, and control. - The other is a more generative language that takes practice: commitment, responsibility, inquiry, and genuine agreements. This is the language of growth and ownership. Each competing language is a default way of speaking that reflects a habitual way of thinking. They are “competing” because the old ones keep tugging at us even as we strive toward the new. **Effective leadership is less about mastering new techniques and more about becoming fluent in these deeper language shifts.** The task is not to eradicate the old languages but to recognize and shift when context demands it. Without these shifts, we remain trapped in what Kegan and Lahey call our *immunity to change*. --- ## **(1) From Complaint to Commitment** We underestimate the sheer amount of workplace conversation that's complaint. Two acronyms summarize this well: **NBC (Nagging, Bitching, Complaining)** and **BMW (Bitching, Moaning, Whining)**. We grumble about broken processes, poor communication, and absent accountability. On the surface, complaints are critiques of the outside world, evidence that the problem lies elsewhere. But every complaint carries a hidden signal: it reveals something you care about deeply enough to feel violated when it's missing. > Beneath the surface torrent of our complaining lies a hidden river of our caring, that which we most prize or to which we are most committed. Strip away the frustration, and what remains is a commitment: - *"This team is not accountable"* also means *"I want to work where people honor their word"*. - *"My boss doesn't listen"* reveals *"I want relationships built on respect and dialogue".* - *"This place is so disorganized"* shows that *"I am committed to order, clarity, and coherence."* The shift from complaint to commitment relocates action: - **Complaints externalize**; they reinforce that someone else needs to change. - **Commitments internalize**; they surface what we can own, model, and invite others into. > The language of complaint essentially tells us, and others, **what it is we can’t stand**. The language of commitment tells us (and possibly others) **what it is we stand for**. Without having our complaints taken away and without giving them up, this first transforming language enables us to make a shift **from experiencing ourselves as primarily disappointed, complaining, wishing, critical people to experiencing ourselves as committed people who hold particular convictions** about what is most valuable, most precious, and most deserving of being promoted or defended. Leaders are swimming in complaints, both their own and others'. If you treat complaint as noise, you miss the underlying values driving them. In contrast, if you treat it as commitment, you unlock energy, clarity, and purpose. The practice is simple: when you catch yourself complaining, ask *"What commitment is this pointing to?"* When you hear others complaining, ask *"What do they care about so strongly that it shows up as frustration?"* This transforms complaint from resignation into insight, often the first step in overcoming the inertia of the status quo. ## **(2) From Blame to Personal Responsibility** Blame is the default language of organizational life. When things go wrong, the instinct is to locate the fault elsewhere: *"They dropped the ball,"* *"Finance is too slow,"* *"The client is being unreasonable."* It feels safe because it keeps the spotlight away from us. Kegan and Lahey point out that blame protects us from examining our own role in the pattern. The competing language here is **personal responsibility** — not in the narrow sense of guilt or self-blame, but in the broader sense of **acknowledging how we are participants in the very systems we complain about.** > We tell stories on ourselves, not for the purpose of humiliating or diminishing ourselves but to begin putting them in a place where we can look at them and learn from them. We tell our stories **so we can *stop being our stories* and become persons who have these stories**. We tell these stories so that we can become more responsible for them. The shift is fundamental: - **Blame focuses outward.** It reinforces a narrative of helplessness, as though the environment alone dictates outcomes. - **Responsibility looks inward as well.** It asks: *What am I doing (or not doing) that allows this pattern to persist?* Consider a leader frustrated with low team engagement. Blaming sounds like: "This team is lazy and entitled." Responsibility sounds different: "What have I done — or not done — that is enabling disengagement? Have I clarified expectations and created the conditions for ownership?" **By reclaiming a piece of the problem, you reclaim a piece of the solution.** It moves you from critic to actor. It doesn't deny external factors or others' shortcomings, just refuses to make them the whole focus. The paradox is that **claiming responsibility gives you more freedom**. You stop waiting for others to change and begin experimenting with what you can. People trust leaders who own their part in the mess. It signals maturity, humility, and seriousness. Blame will never fully disappear and will always compete with responsibility. The practice is to notice when it takes the microphone and then deliberately shift: *What responsibility can I take here, even for 5% of the outcome?* That small adjustment can change the entire conversation. ## **(3) From New Year’s Resolutions to Competing Commitments** Every January, we make [resolutions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/): *"I'll be less reactive,"* or *"I'll delegate better."* Leaders make promises to themselves after feedback or a performance review. Yet, like most New Year's resolutions, these promises evaporate under pressure. Kegan and Lahey argue that this is not due to weak willpower. It’s because every sincere commitment has a ***competing unconscious commitment*** powerful enough to derail change. Take a leader who vows, *"I need to give more direct feedback."* A few weeks later, nothing has changed. Why? Because beneath the resolution lies a competing commitment: *"I'm committed to being seen as kind and supportive."* Or *"I'm committed to avoiding conflict so people will still like me."* You're genuinely committed to both sides — giving direct feedback *and* maintaining harmony. The two pull against each other, like a tug-of-war inside your leadership identity. The problem isn't that one commitment is false; it's that both are true. Resolutions fail not because you don't care, but because you care about two things at once, and the hidden one usually wins. A competing commitment is a hidden contract you've made with yourself, usually to stay safe. > Our… commitments name something of greater consequence than a disposition, trait, or attitude (such as “I don’t like to make others feel threatened”); they name a way in which we may be actively spending ourselves (“I am committed to not making others feel threatened”). They tell us an important thing we are up to—doing—in our lives. > > They also remind us we are doing what we are doing on behalf of a powerful, normal, human motive: to protect ourselves. There need be nothing shameful about self-protection; in fact, in the abstract, self-protection is clearly a crucial act of self-respect. > > **The problem is not that we are self-protective, but that we are often unaware of being so.** The trick is to treat failed resolutions not as moral weakness, but as a diagnostic tool. Each broken promise points to an unspoken loyalty. Once you name that loyalty, you can decide: *Is it still serving me? Does it need to be renegotiated?* ## **(4) From Big Assumptions to Testing Assumptions** If competing commitments are the hidden structures that shape our behavior, big assumptions are the bedrock they're built on. These are deep, taken-for-granted beliefs about how the world works, so ingrained that we mistake them for facts. > What is a Big Assumption? In our language, an assumption is “big” if we do not actually take it as an assumption but instead as the truth... Assumptions-taken-as-truth are what we mean by Big Assumptions. They are not so much the assumptions we have as they are the assumptions that have us. One leader may hold the assumption: *"If I don't have all the answers, people will lose confidence in me."* Another might assume: *"Conflict always damages relationships."* Or: *"Delegating will make me less valuable."* Big assumptions are powerful because they feel like reality and are rarely questioned. They silently organize our choices, emotions, and what we notice in the environment. The problem isn’t that assumptions exist — they always will — but that they remain **unexamined**. Left untouched, they keep us locked in old patterns. The competing language here is **testing assumptions**. **Testing assumptions means treating them as hypotheses, not truths.** This shift, from fact to hypothesis, opens new paths. Instead of saying, *"If I speak up, my boss will think I'm undermining her,"* you ask: *"What small, safe experiment could I run to see if that's true?"* Maybe you voice a dissenting view in a low-stakes meeting and observe how it lands. Testing doesn't mean discarding assumptions recklessly. It means running thoughtful, low-risk experiments that generate real evidence. With enough experiments, you discover that many "truths" are exaggerated, outdated, or only true in certain contexts. I explored this aspect from a different angle in a previous piece: [Please Exceed Your Authority.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/exceed-your-authority/) > A round of modest tests might be followed by tests of a slightly bigger kind. As we come to trust there is firm ground beyond the imagined limits of our Big Assumptions, we shift our weight and move out onto new spaces. By such small steps, we emerge from the bedrooms of our established habits of mind. This shift reclaims freedom. You no longer have to live as a prisoner of unexamined beliefs. There's a humility in this stance that says: *"I could be wrong. I will find out by trying."* That [humility, paradoxically, builds credibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/). Teams trust leaders who are willing to test their assumptions publicly. ## **(5) From Prizes and Praises to Ongoing Regard** An accepted truism in modern organizations is that motivation requires recognition. Leaders rely on praise, awards, or public shout-outs as the currency of encouragement. And it works, at least on the surface. Kegan and Lahey call this a “language of prizes and praises”: a way of reinforcing behavior that still positions the leader as the judge and the other as the performer. It creates a **subtle asymmetry: *I hand out approval; you earn it.*** Recognition isn’t wrong but it’s intermittent and conditional. It creates a cycle where people perform for the prize rather than develop for themselves. At its worst, it traps individuals in **external validation loops, where the absence of praise feels like failure.** The alternative is the “language of ongoing regard.” Instead of trophies or applause, it’s about steady, specific acknowledgment of someone’s presence, effort, and contribution. > We call the regular expression of genuinely experiencing the value of a coworker’s behavior the **language of ongoing regard**. Ongoing regard has **two faces, one of appreciation and the other of admiration.** Consider how these two powerful positive feelings have somewhat different qualities and rhythms... We imaginatively inhabit the other’s world and find ourselves instructed, inspired, or in some way enhanced by the other’s actions or choices. Notice the difference. Ongoing regard is: - **Descriptive, not evaluative.** It names what happened and why it mattered, rather than passing judgment. - **Continuous, not episodic.** It happens in the flow of work, not just at highlight moments. - **Mutual, not hierarchical.** Anyone can offer it, not just the leader. > The Value of Being Valued > > We all do better at work if we regularly have the experience that what we do matters, that it is valuable, and that our presence makes a difference to others. We may know in our hearts that what we do matters, but it is certainly confirming to hear the words from others. We do not, after all, work and live in a vacuum. Believing that what we do and how we do it makes a difference can also lead us to take additional care in performing our work. > > Perhaps more important, hearing that our work is valued by others can confirm for us that we matter as a person. It connects us to other people. This is no small matter in organizations where the pace and intensity of work can lead a person to feel isolated. > > This sense that we signify may be one of our deepest hungers. One way we experience that what we are doing at work is valuable is by hearing regularly from others how they value what we do. This shift changes the fuel teams run on. Instead of dangling carrots, it’s a climate of recognition woven into daily interactions. **People feel seen, not scored.** And over time, this builds intrinsic motivation and stronger trust that prizes can never buy. ## **(6) From Rules to Public Agreement** Organizations run on rules: formal policies, handbooks, and unspoken norms that define what people can and cannot do. They provide clarity, set boundaries, and reduce ambiguity. **But rules are also blunt instruments.** They’re imposed from above, often without much conversation, and can quickly become disconnected from the realities on the ground. **Rules don’t generate commitment; they generate compliance.** And compliance, while tidy on paper, is brittle in practice. When circumstances shift, or when no one is watching, it tends to break down. This is why Netflix operates on the [principle of context, instead of rules](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/). The alternative language is **public agreement**. Instead of rules as external dictates, teams openly negotiate and articulate what they expect of each other. Agreements are explicit, co-created, and visible. They reflect shared ownership rather than top-down enforcement. Consider the difference: - A rule says, *“You must submit your report by Friday.”* - A public agreement sounds like, *“We’ve agreed as a team that Friday deadlines allow us to keep projects moving. Can we count on each other for that?”* The second doesn’t dilute accountability but deepens it. When people help shape the agreement, they’re more likely to feel responsible for upholding it. And when circumstances change, it can be revisited, rather than quietly broken. > The two principal outcomes of a language of public agreement are (1) the experience of organizational integrity (**in contrast to ordinary experiences of organizational unfairness, inattentiveness, or ineffectiveness**, which create the demoralizing and enervating experience of disintegrity); and (2) the use of violations as a resource for surfacing further inner contradictions for our learning (in contrast to treating **violations as the professional equivalent of shameful sin**). In leadership, this is pivotal. It means creating conditions where agreements can be surfaced, questioned, and renewed, rather than assuming that compliance will hold indefinitely. **The work isn’t about designing ever-better rules**; it’s cultivating a shared language of commitment and flexibility. ## **(7) From Constructive Criticism to Deconstructive Criticism** “Constructive” criticism has become part of our vernacular to the point we don’t question it. The idea is to frame feedback in a palatable way, wrap the negative in positives, and present it as advice for improvement. At best, it makes hard truths easier to hear. At worst, it’s a polite mask for avoidance, more about preserving harmony than addressingwhat needs to be said. This language of constructive criticism has built-in limits. It assumes one person holds the truth and the other needs correction. That dynamic **reinforces hierarchy and shuts down curiosity**. The alternative is **deconstructive criticism.** **Instead of one person offering a polished critique, both parties engage in a conversation that unpacks the assumptions, interpretations, and blind spots in a situation.** The goal isn’t to *fix* someone but to *expand the shared understanding.* For example: - Constructive criticism says, *“You need to manage your time better on this project.”* - Deconstructive criticism sounds like, *“When the project ran late, I understood it as a time-management issue. But are there other factors I’m missing? How do you see it?”* > ... behind the apparent virtue of constructive criticism there lies a collection of barriers to learning that can be overcome by stepping back not from our negative evaluations but from a truth-claiming relationship to our negative judgments. > > We call this stance a deconstructive one because its **central intention is neither to tear down nor build up but instead disassemble**, and **the object of attention is not first of all the other but our own evaluation or judgment**. This shift requires humility to recognize that your critique may be partial or distorted. It also requires a kind of [psychological, more existential, courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) to make your own interpretations available for scrutiny. What emerges is not just feedback but a **co-created learning process for both parties.** It turns feedback from a one-way street into a shared inquiry. In this way, criticism doesn’t end the conversation but opens it. ## Leaders are language leaders The seven competing languages are a developmental arc that effective leaders must navigate: first mastering the inner moves of personal transformation (first four), then extending those capabilities into the relational realm (last three) where culture is shaped. L**anguage doesn't just describe reality—it constructs it.** And this brings us to the most important point: > This premise that **work settings are language communities** brings us to a corollary premise: **all leaders are leading language communities**. Though every person, in any setting, has some opportunity to influence the nature of the language, leaders have exponentially greater access and opportunity to shape, alter, or ratify the existing language rules. > > In our view, leaders have no choice in this matter of being language leaders; it just goes with the territory. We have a choice whether to be thoughtful and intentional about this aspect of our leadership, or whether to unmindfully ratify the existing drift of our community's favored forms. We have a choice to make much of the opportunity, or little. We have the choice to be responsible or not for the meaning of our leadership as it affects our language community. > > But we have no choice about whether we are or are not language leaders. The only question is what kind of language leaders we will be. Organizations are flooded with people fluent in complaint, blame, and broken resolutions — languages that are natural but trap teams in loops of frustration. As Kegan and Lahey note, leaders have the most leverage to meaningfully shift these patterns. The seven competing languages are an essential toolkit for being an intentional language leader. ## Related Reading [Please Exceed your Authority“I don’t want to step on anyone’s toes.” This is a common and reasonable stance in organizational life. But this mostly logical approach often does more damage than good. If “that’s not my job” tops the list of career-limiting phrases, an overcautious respect for boundaries is equally limiting. It![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-48.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Zone-of-Authority.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/exceed-your-authority/) [Why Netflix Leads with Context not ControlControl was the dominant management paradigm in early twentieth century industrial factories. A century later, in many modern workplaces it continues to be dominant and mostly goes unquestioned. Often we don’t even realize that this is the case. But in knowledge work, context is a far more effective and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-55.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leading-through-Context-not-Control.excalidraw.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) [The Type of Courage Needed in Modern Leadership and OrganizationsWe don’t usually think of courage in the context of careers and organizations. But this is a mistake. Courage is more fundamental than we think, and equally relevant. The key is to understand the specific type of courage required, and how it applies to an ordinary work life. Ordinary![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-49.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-3)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-51.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Hidden Role of Language in Leadership CommunicationUnderstanding and leveraging language is critical to leadership effectiveness. There are aspects of language that are hidden in plain sight.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-50.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-4)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/) ## Sources and references 1. Kegan, Robert, and Lisa Laskow Lahey. [How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work](https://amzn.to/4msUGDr?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2001. 2. Kegan, Robert, and Lisa Laskow Lahey. [Immunity to Change](https://amzn.to/4lFUFup?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2009. 3. Argyris, Chris, and Donald Schön. [Organizational Learning](https://amzn.to/3HIu0PS?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 1978. 4. Argyris, Chris. [Overcoming Organizational Defenses](https://amzn.to/4oL4VUZ?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 1990. 5. Kegan, Robert. [The Evolving Self](https://amzn.to/41SIB1T?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 1982. 6. Kegan, Robert. [In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life](https://amzn.to/3JsVLwd?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 1994. 7. Kegan, Robert, and Lisa Laskow Lahey. [An Everyone Culture](https://amzn.to/4mrr3T2?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2016. 8. Berger, Jennifer Garvey. [Changing on the Job: Developing Leaders for a Complex World](https://amzn.to/3HIubuw?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2025. ### Career Myths: Lies We Are Sold URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/career-myths/ Last updated: 2025-08-23T14:37:48.000Z *I recently wrote a piece on*[ *leadership myths*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/)*. While writing, I realized these weren’t just organizational myths. They’re also personal myths about careers.* *The same cognitive leaps that make us believe in heroic CEOs also lead us to fall for formulaic career paths. The attribution errors that distort leadership evaluation also distort how we evaluate our professional progress. They miss the complexity of what actually drives outcomes and set up the next cycle of disappointment.* *Beyond a certain level, disillusionment comes from* ***holding ourselves to the wrong standards; standards that exist more in idealized career advice than in reality.*** *In this piece, I explore the myths and the machine that generates them, and two ideas I’ve found useful: bounded-accountability and process orientation.* --- ## **The Career Advice Industrial Complex** Walk into any bookstore's business section and you'll see the same promise repackaged: *Follow these seven habits. Think like this billionaire.* Career (and leadership) advice becomes a mythology machine: simple stories promising control over complex outcomes. LinkedIn amplifies this daily with performative success stories that scrub out randomness. Business schools package it into frameworks suggesting careers follow engineering principles. Career coaches sell personalized versions of the same templates. They're selling the illusion that professional success follows predictable, reproducible patterns. The mythology persists because it serves everyone involved. Publishers need books that promise transformation. Platforms need content that drives engagement. Coaches need methodologies that justify their fees. Most importantly, we want to believe that someone has cracked the code; that there's a proven path to get where we want to go. This includes yours truly. But careers aren't engineering problems. They're more like improvisational theater. Equal parts preparation, adaptation, reading the room, and pure chance. **The mythology machine can't monetize that complexity, so it ignores it.** Instead, it sells you hero's journeys that conveniently ignore all the variables that were equally determinative. It isn't just that this advice fails. The real tragedy is it misleads by blinding us to the unique aspects of our own circumstances. Busy following someone else's 'playbook', we miss the specific dynamics, constraints, and opportunities in our particular role, company, or industry. We optimize the wrong variables while the ones that actually matter remain invisible. 💡 ***Full disclosure** *:* **I happen to be a small part of this industrial* **complex, but I strive to recognize its limitations; something not everyone acknowledges. The issue isn't practitioners' intentions (which are usually good), but an oversimplified narrative that emphasizes personal agency while overlooking the complex realities of professional life. Rest assured, you won't hear me promising a VP title or an IPO in six months. I prefer grounded possibilities over unrealistic guarantees.* ## Myths That Keep Us Stuck These myths aren't misconceptions but systematic errors in interpreting professional success and failure. Each of them seems logical in isolation, but together they distort how things really work. Like all good myths, they persist because they're psychologically irresistible: simple explanations for complex outcomes, that make us feel like someone is in control. ### **(1) "I Control My Outcomes"** Calling this a myth sounds like heresy in an age of “agency” and “self-made.” But bear with me. This is the career version of the [leadership attribution myth](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/). When you get promoted, it was your strategic thinking. When you get passed over, it was your lack of networking. We forget that outcomes are embedded in systems much larger than individual performance. Budget cycles, reorgs, and regulatory changes create and destroy opportunities regardless of competence. **The person who joined Google in 2003 wasn't necessarily smarter than the one who joined Enron in 2000.** The attribution myth works both ways. In good times, it breeds overconfidence: "I cracked the code." In bad times, it breeds [learned helplessness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/#locus-of-control-and-learned-helplessness-in-organizations): "I must be doing something wrong." Both responses miss systemic factors that were equally determinative. This doesn't mean individual action doesn't matter. It means outcomes result from our actions interacting with forces largely outside our control. Understanding this changes how we position ourselves and interpret setbacks. This is hard for many high-performers. A better way to think about it is **“bounded-accountability” as a counterbalance to the ideal of “extreme ownership”**. More on this later. ### **(2) "There's a Proven Playbook"** This is the career equivalent of the[ formulaic leadership myth](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/). MBA → consulting → startup equity → executive role. Engineering → product management → VP of Product → CPO. LinkedIn profiles and CEO biographies make it look inevitable: follow this sequence, hit these milestones, achieve this outcome. The logic (albeit a convincing one) is that “success” can be reverse-engineered. But what looks like a proven playbook is often survivorship and hindsight bias disguised as strategy. For every visible success story, there are hundreds who followed similar paths and stalled out. The consultant who never made partner or the startup employee whose equity became worthless. Their stories don't get written, so they don't factor into our mental models of "what works." Even the visible ones are cleaned-up versions that omit the wandering and dead ends that led them there. The real problem with formulaic thinking is that it makes us rigid when we need to be adaptive. **We follow a script when we need to improvise.** **Careers are less like algorithms and more like jazz improvisation.** You need to know the fundamentals, but you can't pre-plan the performance. And you have to enjoy playing. ### **(3)** **"Good Outcomes = Good Strategy"** You switched industries before your old sector faced a major downturn. Meanwhile, your new field is booming. Clearly, you saw the writing on the wall and made a great pivot. This is the results myth: using outcomes to validate strategy *after* the fact. **Conflating correlation with causation in careers is just as misleading as in leadership evaluation or investing.** When good outcomes validate choices, it creates a false sense of pattern recognition. You attribute success to the wrong variables, while missing other systemic factors. Then you try to replicate those "winning" behaviors in different contexts with disastrous results. The flip side is equally problematic. When outcomes disappoint, you assume your strategy was flawed. But maybe you made the right bet at the wrong time, or optimized for yesterday’s variables. Smart **strategy isn't about predicting outcomes but focusing on process and positioning.** A process to systematically build capabilities that compound. And positioning that benefits from multiple scenarios regardless of how events unfold. ### **(4) "Advancement Flows from Above"** You're waiting for senior leadership to notice your contributions. This is the hierarchy myth; the assumption that career progression follows org charts. That someone higher up decides your fate and grants you access to the next level. It creates a passive mindset of waiting for permission. It's seductive because it feels logical; authority flows downward, so opportunity must too. But influence in organizations is more lateral and networked than hierarchical. Careers are **less about climbing ladders and more about building bridges,** both internal and external. The insidious aspect is we **attribute too much intelligence to higher ups and don’t trust our own thinking**. We assume those with bigger titles have superior judgment, clearer perspective, and deeper insights. How else would they have gotten there? But organizational hierarchies don’t optimize just for intelligence or wisdom. They also optimize for a complex mix of political skill, risk tolerance, communication, and yes, luck. Sometimes, it’s plain [institutional stupidity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/). Deference to imagined authority means we second-guess insights that are actually correct. You dismiss your pattern recognition in favor of "strategic thinking" that's just **poorly informed decision-making dressed up in executive language.** You wait for someone else to validate ideas only you are uniquely positioned to understand. ### **(5) "Some People Are Built for It"** "She has a way with clients." "He's leadership material." These complimentary phrases imply these abilities are innate, not developed. We don't consciously believe success is purely genetic, but our language and mental models often treat professional capabilities as if they are. This is the career equivalent of assuming some leaders are born to lead. What looks like innate talent is usually **the compound effect of early exposure, practice, and feedback loops.** The person with "great instincts" for sales probably observed client interactions early on. The one with "executive presence" likely had mentors who taught them to project authority. But we don't see the development process. We only see the polished end result and assume it was always there. This creates a fixed mindset of either you have "it" or you don't. It shows in how quickly we categorize colleagues ("she's more of a big picture thinker") and in our own [self-limiting notions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-building-the-box-of-limitations/). The truth is messier and more hopeful: most professional skills can be developed if you understand the domain and are willing to put in the work. ## Two ideas to tackle these myths Given their prevalence, what’s the best way to handle these myths? Here are two approaches I’ve found helpful: *bounded-accountability* and *process orientation*. ### **Hyper vs bounded accountability** Luck and timing aren't just external factors but integral to success, especially when defined in conventional terms. Most advice ignores this because it's uncomfortable and uncontrollable. My point isn't that individual agency doesn't matter. Of course it does. But **most of us don't have a problem with taking ownership. Rather, the problem is hyper-accountability.** Hyper‑accountability is assuming you *should* have controlled everything. It’s the invisible clause under every post‑mortem in your head: *“If I were truly competent, I could have prevented this.”* Foresight and omnipotence become part of the job description. You absorb every setback as a personal flaw. **Wins are diminished as “just luck,” while losses are catalogued as evidence against yourself.** The feedback is skewed: **no data point can exonerate you, but every one can indict you.** The trick is to narrow the frame, not widen it. Own what’s legitimately yours, but be precise about what’s outside your [circle of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/). That’s *bounded accountability*. Bounded accountability protects both performance and perspective. Without it, your capacity gets spent retrofitting control onto things that were never controllable. With it, we retain agency without assuming omnipotence. You **take action while acknowledging the scale of the system you’re operating in**. It acknowledges that agency operates within constraints and opportunities we don’t control. Succeeding doesn't mean eliminating luck from the equation. Instead, it's positioning to benefit from good fortune, and **even more importantly, surviving and thriving amidst the inevitable bad breaks**. And thriving requires appreciating the nuance between hyper-accountability and bounded-accountability. ### **The ordinariness of extraordinary outcomes** Strip away the mythology and careers look disappointingly mundane. No dramatic pivots, visionary moments, or sudden flashes of brilliance. Just the[ accumulated compound effect of consistent actions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) over time, most of which feel insignificant in the moment. This means showing up and “doing the work” day after day, year after year. You only notice the shape in hindsight, and even then, it looks less like a strategy and more like a **sedimentary buildup of small, nearly invisible actions.** This mundanity is unsatisfying to our narrative-hungry brains. It feels like nothing’s happening. So we over-index on visible milestones (outcomes) and ignore the slow work (process) that actually creates the conditions for those outcomes. Embracing this ordinariness is an edge. Most people don’t fail due to one bad move but **because they can’t survive the long, dull, low-reward stretches in between.** We burn out chasing “proof points” instead of compounding [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) and pacing ourselves for the [long run](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/long-term-thinking-careers-practice-art/). The “big break” is rarely the beginning of the story. It’s often **the first visible tile in a mosaic we’ve been assembling for years.** ## In closing The career advice industrial complex sells a seductive lie: with the right playbook, we can game the system and speed things up. Ironically, by clinging to these myths, we make careers harder than they need to be. What was meant to empower ends up straightjacketing us. But once you stop fighting complexity and start working with it, what felt like stagnation starts to look like optimizing for the wrong game. **The real challenge isn’t finding a “proven” roadmap, but cultivating a different way of engaging** with the game. In the end, the most damaging career myth is the idea that there's a "right" way to do it. The most satisfying ventures aren’t those that follow a prescribed path, but ones that create new paths that are uniquely ours. ## Related Reading [Leadership Myths that PersistWhy do organizations repeat the same leadership mistakes despite research showing they don’t work? A key reason is pervasive leadership myths. When Boeing’s board asked CEO Dave Calhoun to step down, it followed a familiar script. New leader, fresh start, problems solved. It was supposed to restore confidence. But the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-43.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leadership-Myths.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/) [Building vs Buying Complexity: the Pleasure of ProcessIncreasing entropy is the natural state of the universe — everything disintegrates to lower levels of order, especially living things. But when it comes to human choices, we are always moving toward higher states of order, or what some might call “taste”. Our tastes tend to evolve over time, and become![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-44.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Buying-vs-Building-Complexity.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/building-vs-buying-complexity-the-pleasure-of-process/) [If Vincent van Gogh Was Your Career CoachMost of us have heard of Vincent van Gogh the artist but not many are aware that he was an equally prolific writer. The most well known are his letters to his brother Theo, and they are a treasure trove of wisdom on art, life, work, and everything in between.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-45.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1024px-Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Dr_Paul_Gachet_-_Google_Art_Project-1.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/) [Circle of Control, Influence, and Acceptance: Where to Focus Your EnergyHow do effective leaders maintain their composure when everything seems out of control? They’re adept at discerning what they can control vs what they can’t, and what they can influence. The circle of control, influence, and concerns (acceptance) framework or CIA — is a “leadership triage” tool that helps![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-46.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Circle-of-Control--Influence--Concerns--Acceptance--CIA-.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) [Fundamental Attribution Error: Why It’s Always Someone Else’s FaultTraining in biases is standard fare these days. However, I see managers regularly fall for one particular bias: the fundamental attribution error. Unlike other biases, FAE directly affects several aspects of leadership. In this piece, I dive into what fundamental attribution error is, how it trips up leaders, and ways![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-47.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Fundamental-attribution-error-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/) ### Leadership Derailment: How Good Managers Go Bad URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/ Last updated: 2026-03-04T22:57:02.000Z *The executive felt shell-shocked and feeling blindsided. Her boss had just asked for her resignation. How did it come to this? This scene plays out in organizations more often than we think.* **Leadership derailment — when a once-promising leader stumbles and falls** *— isn't limited to the C-suite. It can happen to team leaders, middle managers, and senior executives alike.* *Leadership derailment is insidious yet avoidable. Research* ***shows clear patterns in how promising leaders falter.*** *In this piece, I examine:* - *How successful traits become career-ending liabilities.* - *Why derailment goes unnoticed until it's too late.* - *Organizational structures that enable derailment.* - *How to recognize early warning signs.* - *Ways to prevent derailment.* --- ## **The Hidden Nature of Derailment** Derailment is less cataclysmic and more like a slow drift. Leaders continue doing what made them successful, unaware that the context has changed, or that they’ve changed. But those closest to them can feel it. The direct reports who once thrived under their intensity now flinch. Collaborators walk on eggshells, and spouses notice the volatility long before HR does. **This asymmetry comes with the territory.** As you gain seniority, two things happen: - First, you gain discretion: more freedom to decide and interpret. - Second, you get less feedback: fewer honest signals, less pushback, and more filtered responses. **What’s reinforced is confidence, but at the price of calibration.** The outward signs still look like high-functioning leadership. But what’s happening underneath is harder to see. Derailment is more visible in the close-in relationships. And even then, calling it out comes with risk. Most **derailments happen because honesty has become risky.** Initially, the suspect traits are rewarded. But over time, the same behavior that once stood out begins to wear down teams and isolate the leader. It feels sudden because the signals were hidden behind the leader’s familiar habits, **normalized by success, and reinforced by silence.** This makes derailment harder to prevent. **Instead of a lack of skills or gaps, you slowly becoming misaligned** — with the role, [context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/), others, and oneself — and not catching it in time. ## **What Goes Wrong** When leaders fail, it’s tempting to blame obvious deficiencies like poor communication or weak execution. But the research on leadership derailment tells a different story. **Most derailments aren’t about lack of talent, but misapplied talent.** Strengths that no longer fit the context, or that have stopped evolving while everything else moves on. Across multiple field studies, consistent patterns emerge. \[1,11\] And none are [technical](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/). They’re relational, behavioral, and cumulative: - *Breakdown in interpersonal relationships.* Described as arrogance, manipulation, aloofness, or being a lone wolf who can’t engage. - *Failure to deliver results.* Not from lack of effort, but from overpromising, micromanaging, or being overwhelmed by complexity. - *Inability to lead or sustain a team.* Usually because the leader burns people out, undervalues contributions, or substitutes control for trust. - *Difficulty adapting to change.* A rigid mindset, refusal to shift, and over-reliance on past formulas. - *Overly narrow focus.* Technically deep but organizationally shallow; unable to widen the frame beyond their function. **These aren’t the typical sins of junior employees.** These are missteps of people who’ve succeeded long enough to be trusted with more and who continue applying the same strengths until they backfire. Surprisingly, **derailment doesn’t correlate with low intelligence or poor social skills.** In fact, some studies show the opposite: **the derailed group tests higher in perceived charisma and cognitive ability than their peers**. The difference is their inability or unwillingness to adjust when context demands it. Under pressure, leaders lean harder on what has always worked. The perfectionist doubles down on details while the relationship builder avoids conflict. These're common and expected patterns. Leaders often can't see these issues in themselves because the actions feel familiar and have worked well in the past. It seems like business as usual. But context doesn’t stay still; organizations evolve and roles shift. When leaders don’t evolve, what was once a strength becomes a liability. While not overnight, it happens incrementally until performance suffers and recovery becomes harder. **It’s more of an absence of calibration, rather than a lack of skill.** ## **Patterns of Derailment** A clear predictor of derailment isn’t skill gaps but personality in overdrive. As Dotlich and Cairo observed, leaders derail because of **habitual tendencies that turn toxic under pressure**. These aren’t random. They’re repeatable, recognizable, and — for many — entirely familiar. For example, the achiever becomes compulsive or the detail-oriented leader becomes paralyzed by caution. These are deep behavioral grooves forged by success and reinforced by feedback loops. Under stress, they stop being strategic preferences and become hardwired, unconscious reflexes. This is why derailment frameworks focus not just on skills, but on character patterns. The Hogan Development Survey maps “dark side” traits that emerge under strain: arrogance, melodrama, aloofness, perfectionism, mistrust. Not all of these are career-ending. What matters is context: the role’s requirements, others’ experiences, and how long it goes unexamined. But personality alone isn’t the problem. **It’s what happens when it operates in conditions of wide discretion.** As leaders advance, they gain more autonomy. But discretion is a double-edged tool. It’s how they make a difference but also lose the ability to self-correct. As de Haan and Hogan pointed out, **discretion without feedback becomes distortion**. The more leeway a leader has, the more their personality fills the vacuum. It’s why leaders in high-discretion environments — startups, tech, creative industries, founder-led firms — are more vulnerable to derailment, as they are less likely to push back. **In weak cultures, with limited oversight, the guardrails disappear.** A leader’s inner tendencies become the operating system. Without counterweights — peer feedback, grounded data, trusted dissent — strengths keep scaling, and eventually distorting. Derailment is rarely about bad intentions. It’s about **unchecked tendencies gaining too much room.** ## **Systemic Factors Causing Derailment** It’s easy to view leadership derailment as a personal failure. But **most derailments are co-produced**; shaped by the organizational systems that elevate, tolerate, or misread the person. Often, the problem isn’t the leader’s personality but **the environment rewarding it.** Consider the classic of a high-performing specialist promoted into leadership, not because they’re ready, but because there’s a gap to fill. They’re sharp, driven, and reliable, until they have to manage people. The technical depth that made them indispensable now becomes a trap. They micromanage and can’t delegate. The team underperforms, but the organization sees only surface indicators of deadlines met and work delivered. So they keep rising until something breaks. This is the **Peter Principle in action**; people being promoted to the point of their incompetence. Rather than incompetence in the traditional sense, it’s a contextual mismatch. The assumption is that past success at one level predicts success at the next. It often doesn’t. And when the system lacks a robust progression architecture — clear expectations, calibrated assessments, honest feedback — these mismatches become common. There’s also the **Law of Crappy People**. For any given level in a large organization, the least capable person holding that title becomes the de facto standard of what’s accepted. Once they’re in, others benchmark against them. Over time, [standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) shift downward. Organizations aren’t negligent, but they’re often unprepared to help leaders navigate the complexity that comes with transition. In high-growth or politically charged environments, **the urgency to fill roles outweighs the patience to develop them.** Leaders get slotted into stretch roles with little onboarding and even less structural support. Then layer in **culture clash** during M&A, restructures, or rapid scaling. Those thriving in one context flounder in another. Not because they became incompetent but because their implicit assumptions — about autonomy, pace, feedback — no longer match the system. These collisions manifest as attrition, conflict, and passive resistance. Add one more layer: **title inflation**. In many places, they are used for morale and retention. In others, they’re tightly guarded. But in either case, **titles** **hide capability gaps**, making it harder to distinguish role complexity from role competence. A “Director” in one org may be equivalent to a “Manager” elsewhere. But expectations are rarely reset when people move between systems. All of this means that derailment isn’t just about the individual but also about the organization’s architecture: how it promotes, transitions, defines readiness, and absorbs lack of fit. When that structure is weak — informal promotions, broken feedback loops, or style over substance — even well-intentioned leaders go off course. ## **Predicting Derailment** Derailment hides in plain sight. By the time a leader is visibly failing, the patterns have been in motion for months or years. But because derailment at the senior level rarely resembles dysfunction — and often looks like intensity, decisiveness, and commitment — it tends to be rationalized or ignored. As I noted earlier, detection is difficult due to the **asymmetry of experience.** Most [systems don’t reward speaking up](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/) — especially if the leader is delivering results — so warning signs surface only when unavoidable. **But the signs are always there.** They show up first in relationships, not performance metrics. Research backs this up. Gentry et al. \[7\] found that **co-worker ratings of self-awareness — not manager ratings, or self-assessments — best predict derailment and even likelihood of being fired years later.** To make matters worse, the higher the leader rises, the wider that self-awareness gap becomes. Psychologists like Hogan and Courtis have offered taxonomies for these breakdowns: - *Errors of commission:* doing what shouldn’t be done; overreaching, reacting impulsively, pushing too hard. - *Errors of omission:* what’s not said, not addressed, not confronted. Often invisible, but corrosive. - *Errors of timing:* good decisions delivered too early or too late. - [*Credibility*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) *errors:* doing the right thing, but in a way that irritates or alienates. The delivery undermines the impact. - *Qualitative errors:* choice wasn’t wrong, but lacked judgment and depth. Finkelstein added another lens: signs like unnecessary complexity, excessive hype, distraction from fundamentals, and a growing distance from reality. These aren’t traits but patterns **noticed by close observers but dismissed by those higher up.** Many organizations treat derailment as a sudden crack in the system. But **it can be detected early if people are paying attention. The problem is that most leaders and systems aren’t.** ## **Avoiding Derailment** Leaders who avoid or recover from derailment stay calibrated to their context, others, and themselves. When things go off-course, they don’t double down. They pause, realign, and recalibrate. That’s harder than it sounds, especially at senior levels where autonomy is high and feedback diluted. Recovery is hindered by the leader’s **inability to metabolize feedback** without defensiveness. ### **Some strategies** Research consistently shows that **the most reliable buffers against derailment are not traits but practices:** practices around [reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/), relationships, and responsiveness. Here are a few I’ve seen work well: *Self-awareness grounded in* [*feedback*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/)*.* Especially the kind that shows up in unfiltered peer comments and uncomfortable moments. Tools like the Hogan Development Survey can show how others experience you under pressure. *Willingness to change course.* Derailment doesn’t happen because of one bad call. Leaders derail because they kept making them long after the context shifted. The turning point comes when the pain of continuing outweighs the fear of change. *Support systems that tell the truth.* This could be a direct report who won’t sugarcoat, a peer who knows the pattern, or a coach who holds up a mirror. Without these, it’s easy to drift into echo chambers of what worked. *Structured reflection under pressure.* Kets de Vries recommends asking: - What defenses am I relying on that no longer serve me? - How am I experiencing and expressing emotion, and is it appropriate for my context? - How honest is my [self-perception](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/)? Those who can sit with those questions and act on what they find are most likely to course-correct in time. I’ve added more reflection questions in the last section. ### **At the organizational level** Recovery and prevention shouldn’t rely on individual heroics. Many **derailments are preventable with better org architecture:** *Disciplined* *promotion* *processes.* Define expectations clearly, ensure cross-functional calibration, and **treat promotions as design decisions, not rewards.** *Advancement tied to developmental readiness, not just performance.* **Don’t confuse title inflation with readiness.** This means evaluating not only what someone has done, but whether they’ve shown the capacity to evolve. *Support during transitions.* The most common point of derailment is the jump to a more complex role. This is where systems typically underinvest. Yet it’s where **scaffolding like coaching, onboarding, and reset conversations** are most needed. *Learning cultures that surface reality.* Environments that anticipate errors, normalize feedback, and create space for sensemaking reduce derailment risk. The goal isn’t to avoid failure but to make it easier to detect and recover quickly. **Avoiding derailment isn’t about becoming flawless, but being more reflective, responsive, and context-sensitive.** ## **Reflection questions** The question isn’t if you have derailers. You do. It helps to stay alert by regularly reflecting: - Which of your strengths could become a liability if overused? - Who will clearly and honestly tell you when that happens? Can you clearly process that feedback? - What’s worked well in the past but may not fit your current role? - Where are you getting compliance, but not real engagement? ## Related Reading - [Leadership Shadow](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/) [The Leadership Shadow: When Strengths BackfireIt’s easy to assume that leaders derail due to obvious flaws—poor judgment, unchecked ego, toxic behavior. But most leaders don’t derail because of recklessness. They derail because they lean too hard on the very strengths that got them there. Like a rope fraying one thread at a time, this![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-37.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/The-Leadership-Shadow-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/) - [Coercive Power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) [Coercive Power: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern LeadershipUnderstanding different types of power is crucial for effective leadership. Coercive power is a controversial yet sometimes necessary and effective tool. I delve into the nuances of coercive power, its applications, why leaders shouldn’t avoid it, and Elon Musk as an example of coercive leadership. What is Coercive Power![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-39.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Coercive-Power-in-Leadership-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) - [Psychological Safety vs High Standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) [Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood DynamicThe term “psychological safety” is often misleading. When managers hear safety, many dismiss it as a soft style that implies complacency. Meanwhile, psychology implies too much mumbo jumbo. High-profile figures like Elon Musk advocating for a “hardcore” style perpetuate this misconception. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-40.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Psychological-safety-and-High-Standards--2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) - [The Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-41.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) - [Implicit Leadership Theory](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) [How Implicit Leadership Theory Affects CareersWhat makes someone “leadership material”? This often depends on who’s making the call and what their Implicit Leadership Theory is - we all have one.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-42.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/How-ILT-Affects-Careers-4-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) ## **References** 1. Bentz, V. J. (1985). A view from the top: A thirty-year perspective of research devoted to the discovery, description, and prediction of executive behavior. 2. Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2010).[ The Psychology of Personnel Selection](https://amzn.to/3UgeptE?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. de Haan, E., & Kasozi, A. (2014). [The Leadership Shadow](https://amzn.to/4okBLvI?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Dotlich, D. L., & Cairo, P. C. (2003). [Why CEOs Fail](https://amzn.to/4oBW7ku?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. Finkelstein, S. (2004). [Why Smart Executives Fail](https://amzn.to/4m0FjSe?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Gentry, W. A., et al. (2007). The relationship between self-awareness and leadership derailment across time. 7. [Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Kaiser, R. B. (2010). Management derailment.](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2010-06019-015?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 8. Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2006). [The Leader on the Couch](https://amzn.to/4fooMFd?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 9. McCall, M. W., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). [Off the Track: Why and How Successful Executives Get Derailed](https://cclinnovation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/off-the-track-why-successful-executives-get-derailed.pdf?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Technical Problems vs Adaptive Challenges URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/ Last updated: 2026-03-31T16:21:21.000Z As a leader, you've likely faced a problem that refused to be solved by the usual methods. A problem that made you question everything you knew about leadership. Consider this scenario: You're a senior manager, known for solving complex challenges. But now, you're confronting an issue that's defying every attempt at resolution. On paper, things look fine. But something isn't adding up. Decisions are delayed, and important conversations are avoided. Team members nod in agreement in meetings, only to act differently afterward. Initiatives launch enthusiastically, but fizzle out weeks later. Your instinct is to fix things: redesign the RACI matrix or roll out a new engagement survey. These fixes worked in the past, but this time, nothing works. What you don't realize is that you're not solving the wrong *part* of the problem; you're solving the *wrong kind* of problem entirely. The mistake is to confuse an adaptive challenge for a technical one. Ron Heifetz's distinction between **technical problems and adaptive challenges** is a powerful — and overlooked — idea in leadership. > *Leadership would be a safe undertaking if your organizations and communities only faced problems for which they already knew the solutions. Every day, people have problems for which they do, in fact, have the necessary know-how and procedures. We call these *technical problems*.* ‌‌‌‌ > > *But there is a whole host of problems that are not amenable to authoritative expertise or standard operating procedures. They cannot be solved by someone who provides answers from on high. We call these *adaptive challenges* because they require experiments, new discoveries, and adjustments from numerous places in the organization or community.* > > ‌‌‌‌– Ronald Heifetz & Marty Linsky in Leadership on the Line > The most common cause of failure in leadership is produced by treating adaptive challenges as if they were technical problems. > > —Heifetz, Linsky, Grashow \[3\] We'll cover the following: - [Adaptive challenges are a different beast](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/#adaptive-challenges-are-a-different-beast) - [An example of technical problem vs adaptive challenge](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/#an-example-of-technical-problem-vs-adaptive-challenge) - [What Is a Technical Problem?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/#what-is-a-technical-problem) - [What Is an Adaptive Challenge?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/#what-is-an-adaptive-challenge) - [Why We Default to Technical Solutions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/#why-we-default-to-technical-solutions) - [How to Differentiate: Technical vs Adaptive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/#how-to-differentiate-technical-vs-adaptive) - [A Diagnostic: Technical Problems vs Adaptive Challenges](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/#a-diagnostic-technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Adaptive challenges are a different beast Technical problems are solvable with expertise, process, and control. They can be complex, but are fundamentally linear: define → analyze → fix. The system stays intact; you just upgrade the components. Adaptive challenges are different. They’re entangled with beliefs, loyalties, habits, and identities. They resist definition, let alone resolution. Solving them requires people to change how they see, not just what they do. To make things worse, adaptive challenges often come disguised as technical ones. They feel like a workflow glitch or a communication breakdown. But underneath, they demand a deeper kind of work that requires a shift in understanding, values, or relationships that the system isn’t ready for. If you miss that, solutions won't just fail, they’ll worsen things. Each failed fix deepens cynicism and reinforces the status quo. Before discussing the differences, let’s look at a simple analogy that captures the essence of this distinction: **diets.** ## **An example of technical problem vs adaptive challenge** Consider the goal of losing weight. For a small number of people, this is a straightforward task. They cut sugar, increase their steps, maybe download a tracking app, and the weight comes off. In this case, the challenge is mostly technical. The problem is well defined (excess calories), the solution is known (caloric deficit), and the path to implementation is clear. It’s a matter of discipline and follow-through. But for the vast majority, the story is very different. They sure know what to do. They might lose weight initially, but eventually, the old patterns return. The solution doesn’t stick. It’s not due to a lack of willpower. It’s because the presenting issue — weight — is only a surface symptom. Beneath it lie emotional triggers, stress loops, familiar patterns, identity structures, and unresolved grief or shame. The **problem wasn’t technical to begin with. It was adaptive.** The person needs new meaning, not just habits. Food isn’t just fuel; it’s comfort, control, celebration, permission, or rebellion. Solving that kind of problem requires more than a new regimen. It requires new **sensemaking**: a deeper understanding of what’s driving behavior. An underperforming team might not need a new KPI system or restructuring. Those are technical moves. If the real issue is unspoken conflict, risk-aversion, or a legacy of dysfunction, then no amount of tracking will help. The problem is adaptive. Any solution that fails to identify it as such will fail. The diet example is useful because it exposes **the core question every leader must learn to ask: Does this require new skills or new thinking?** If it’s the latter, technical tools are both insufficient and misleading. They give the illusion of progress while avoiding the real work. And that, more than anything, stalls growth. It’s not a lack of knowledge, but a lack of clarity about the kind of work that’s required. Let’s unpack the differences, starting with what makes a problem “technical.” ## **What Is a Technical Problem?** What makes a problem technical isn’t scale or complexity. It’s that the **solution already exists**, even if it’s not yet in hand. Not all technical problems are simple. Many are complex, high-stakes, and demand deep expertise. Performing surgery, upgrading an enterprise system, or navigating a supply chain breakdown during a geopolitical crisis, are difficult problems, but not adaptive. The defining features of a technical problem are: - The problem is clearly defined and agreed upon. - The solution is known or discoverable with current expertise. - Implementation can be delegated to those with authority or skill. - The system doesn’t need to change; it needs adjustment or optimization. In short: **technical problems exist within the existing paradigm.** The tools match the task, and expertise already exists. The organization doesn’t need to change; it just needs to execute better. If your CRM isn’t syncing across platforms, that’s a technical problem. So is an ambiguous workflow, poorly scoped role, or underperforming product feature. These are fixable with the right resources, coordination, or upgrades. Technical solutions can be elegant. In fact, good leadership often *requires* decisive technical action: fixing what’s broken, resourcing what’s underfunded, or simplifying what’s bloated. But this is precisely **why technical solutions are traps.** They are seductive, offering the allure of speed, clarity, and closure. Such approaches allow leaders to signal competence and decisiveness. Their appeal is enhanced by predictable timelines, visible wins, and milestones that signal progress. Under high pressure, it’s easy to default to what’s actionable: restructure teams, or bring in external experts. These are all valid moves, only *if* the problem is technical. Trouble begins when it isn’t. Because **technical solutions applied to adaptive challenges don’t just fail, they mask the real work needed**. They provide temporary relief while the deeper issue remains hidden. [Leadership derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/) happens doesn't usually come from dramatic failures. More often than not it happens because of well-intentioned efforts that skim the surface but that never solve the root issue. How do you know when the problem isn’t technical? ## **What Is an Adaptive Challenge?** An adaptive challenge is a problem with no clear agreement on the definition, no known solution, or no path that can be executed by authority or expertise alone. It doesn’t live in the realm of facts and fixes. Instead, it’s about competing values, shifting identities, and conflicting interpretations. Adaptive challenges require that those with the problem become part of the solution through learning and sensemaking, not mere compliance. If technical problems are about skill, **adaptive challenges are about meaning, which is always contested in organizational life.** Here are the core features of an adaptive challenge: - The problem is unclear or experienced differently by stakeholders. - There is no off-the-shelf solution because the system has never faced *this* version of the problem before. - Authority can’t solve it alone. It requires engagement of those with lived experience. - Progress requires loss: of identity, control, power, and outdated patterns. - The solution is often emergent, not designed. It unfolds through experimentation, conflict, and learning. In other words, **adaptive work is *developmental*.** It asks the organization and people to grow in ways they may not have chosen. That’s why these challenges are often avoided, or reinterpreted as technical ones. Because the real work requires confronting discomfort and asking hard questions: - What aren’t we talking about? - Whose values are in conflict? - What assumptions are we protecting? - Who needs to change for this to be resolved? They show up as recurring breakdowns: talent strategies that never take root, stalled “transformation efforts,” and persistent collaboration challenges despite workshops and such. Each time, the fix is technical. And each time, it fails. What’s required is a[ change in framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/). A willingness to stop asking *“What should we do?”* and instead ask: *“What are we not seeing?”* [Adaptive leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) is difficult. You have to **identify what’s being avoided**, regulate the anxiety it provokes, and create enough tension for learning, without tipping the system into collapse. The required leadership is to **sensemake under pressure**. Adaptive work feels less like progress and more like risk and discomfort from not having all the answers. That’s why leaders use the wrong tools. Let’s examine why technical solutions are often misapplied to adaptive challenges, and the costs. ## **Why We Default to Technical Solutions** ### **The illusion of progress** Technical solutions are appealing because they let you act quickly, appear competent, and restore control. They present problems as definable, containable, and fixable. In uncertainty, they offer relief to the leader and the system. But the relief is often short-lived. Adaptive challenges don’t yield to technical force. They require engagement, learning, and loss. When leaders mistake one for the other, the consequences compound because of misdirected action. ### **Action bias under pressure** In most organizations, decisiveness is celebrated. You are rewarded for moving quickly, signaling confidence, and driving outcomes. Few are applauded for saying, “I don’t know yet,” or “We may be solving the wrong problem.” This cultural bias toward speed and clarity makes adaptive leadership harder. Because it starts by slowing down, grappling with ambiguity, and holding off on premature solutions. It doesn’t look like progress. Often, it looks like pause, discomfort, and conflict. That’s precisely when the pressure to “do something” becomes strongest. And **the quickest way to look effective is to reach for a technical fix.** ### **Safety in certainty** Ambiguity is emotionally destabilizing. Leaders under pressure want to resolve the discomfort of not knowing. A technical solution — however partial or misaligned — offers clarity. Even when they suspect the real problem goes deeper, the pull toward certainty can override that instinct. Especially if there’s an audience. ### **The politics of evasion** Adaptive challenges surface things organizations would rather not examine: outdated beliefs, political bottlenecks, and hidden fault lines. Identifying these openly can be risky because it creates tension, threatens[**power**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/), and destabilizes norms. That’s why technical solutions are used to avoid the adaptive work those problems point to. They help manage anxiety: organizational, political, and personal. Everyone gets to look busy while preserving the status quo. ### **Hidden costs** When technical solutions are applied to adaptive challenges, they erode trust. People stop believing the organization can face what matters. Cynicism grows, engagement fades and meanwhile, the real challenge, still unaddressed, takes root. Over time, the organization gets skilled in avoidance. People feign alignment without real commitment. Plans are revised annually while nothing fundamental changes. And hard conversations are postponed indefinitely. Eventually, you end up creating a system that no longer believes change is possible. ### **A familiar pattern** Stepping back reveals a pattern: - An adaptive challenge surfaces. - It creates discomfort, ambiguity, and political tension. - A technical solution is introduced to ease the pressure. - The deeper work remains untouched. - The system learns to tolerate symptoms while avoiding causes. This is how organizations protect themselves from change, loss, and truth. Unless the cycle is interrupted, it becomes self-reinforcing. The real leadership challenge isn’t just solving problems. It’s clearly identifying the problem and refusing the false comfort of a fix that conceals the work. ## **How to Differentiate: Technical vs Adaptive** The hardest part of adaptive leadership isn’t solving the problem. It’s **seeing it for what it really is**. Here’s how to tell the difference. ### **Look for disagreement** Technical problems usually come with broad agreement. People may argue about how to fix it, but not about what it is. Adaptive challenges are different. There’s disagreement about both the solution and the situation. The marketing lead thinks it’s a messaging issue. The product team thinks the value proposition is off. Everyone is solving a different problem because they’re experiencing a different system. When there’s **no shared definition of the problem**, you’re likely in adaptive territory. ### **Watch for repeated attempts** One of the hallmarks of adaptive challenges is that they resist resolution. You try to fix the workflow, restructure the team, or launch a new strategy. But six months later, the pattern reemerges. Not because the fix was bad, but because it was aimed at the wrong layer. When you find yourself returning to the same issue over and over, with diminishing returns, you’re likely facing something adaptive. ### **Notice when the problem lies in habits and assumptions** Technical problems reside in tasks, tools, and execution. Adaptive challenges lie in how **people make sense of their world**. You’ll know you’re dealing with the latter when: - The issue touches on values or identities. - People feel threatened or defensive, even with a gentle approach. - Progress would require someone to unlearn a success formula they’ve relied on for years. **These are not technical barriers but adaptive fault lines.** Adaptive leadership begins where competence ends and identity begins. ### **Can it be delegated?** A useful litmus test: can someone else solve this? Technical problems can be delegated to someone with expertise, authority, or the right tools. Adaptive challenges cannot. They require **the people experiencing the problem to be involved in solving it** because the solution doesn’t exist yet. It has to be created through participation, conflict, and iteration. If the problem demands others change — but you’re solving it for them — you’re likely defaulting to a technical fix. ### **Pay attention to resistance** Adaptive work surfaces loss. Not always a dramatic one, but of comfort, identity, and coherence. This triggers resistance and momentum stalls. What looks like disengagement may actually be self-protection. That’s not failure but a sign you’ve touched the real issue. Technical and adaptive problems don’t exist in separate silos. Most real-world challenges are mixed. T**he danger is in solving only the technical part** — because it’s visible, measurable, and comfortable — **while leaving the adaptive core untouched.** The work of leadership begins when you stop asking, “What do we do?” and start asking, “What’s really going on?” ## **A Diagnostic: Technical Problems vs Adaptive Challenges** | **Dimension** | **Technical Problem** | **Adaptive Challenge** | | --------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | **Problem Definition** | Clear and agreed upon. Everyone sees the same issue. | Disputed or ambiguous. Different people define the problem differently or see different root causes. | | **Solution Availability** | Known. A solution exists and can be implemented using current expertise or standard methods. | Unknown. No clear solution exists yet; the answer must be discovered or co-created. | | **Location of the Work** | Outside the people—can be delegated to experts, consultants, or systems. | Inside the people—those with the problem are also part of the solution. Cannot be outsourced. | | **Type of Work Required** | Application of knowledge, execution, coordination, process optimization. | Learning, experimentation, value negotiation, identity work, and sensemaking. | | **Time Horizon** | Short to medium term. Results can be planned and forecasted. | Medium to long term. Progress is emergent and unfolds in non-linear ways. | | **Primary Leadership Role** | Direct, instruct, deploy resources, resolve. | Diagnose, frame the issue, hold space, regulate distress, mobilize learning. | | **Kind of Change Needed** | Transactional. Tweak routines, improve execution, or apply new tools. | Transformational. Change mental models, roles, relationships, or underlying assumptions. | | **Role of Authority** | Authority figures can define the problem and deliver the solution. | Authority alone is insufficient. Leadership must engage others in working through the problem. | | **Nature of Resistance** | Minimal or technical—disagreement over method or timeline. | Emotional and political—linked to fear of loss, disruption of identity, or conflicting values. | | **Markers of Misdiagnosis** | Solution implemented but problem persists or recurs. | Repeated cycles of initiative without sustainable change; surface compliance but underlying stagnation. | | **Risk of Avoidance** | Low. Fixing the problem is seen as desirable and straightforward. | High. Naming the problem may provoke conflict, discomfort, or threaten norms and loyalties. | | **Signs You’re in Adaptive Work** | People are uncomfortable or disengaged. The “fix” doesn’t stick. The system pushes back without clarity. | Progress requires loss, unlearning what once worked, and tolerating ambiguity. | --- Most organizations aren’t short on tools, plans, or urgency. What they lack is the **habit of asking the right question early enough.** By the time the issue is on the table, the reflex is already underway: call it an execution problem, assign it to the right person, and track progress. Although it looks like action, the work has gone off course because the problem hasn’t been clearly understood. For leaders, the job is not to work harder or implement faster. It’s to see sooner and to match action with the problem. Everything else flows from that. ## Related reading on Adaptive Leadership [Adaptive Leadership: What It Means and Why It’s EssentialMost leadership models sound good until they’re tested in the wild. A crisis, a reorg, or conflicting loyalties can easily expose the gaps in any conventional playbook. It’s because many vexing problems aren’t technical, they’re adaptive: people must let go of something they value, learn something![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-104.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Real-Leadership-is-Dangerous-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) [Core Practices of Adaptive LeadershipThe hardest part of adaptive leadership is practicing it when the system pushes back. Over decades of studying leaders in politics, medicine, and business, Ron Heifetz at Harvard found that those who made progress under pressure weren’t relying on brilliance or charisma. Instead, they were executing a set of![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-103.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/On-the-Balcony-and-the-Dancefloor---Adaptive-Leadership.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/practices-of-adaptive-leadership/) [How’s Your Adaptive Capacity?In nature, species that survive aren’t the strongest or smartest. They’re the most adaptive. When the environment shifts, they don’t just work harder, they evolve. Our work lives follow the same brutal logic. The question isn’t whether we’re the most talented or hardest working. It’s also whether we’re adaptive enough.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-102.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/How-is-Your-Adaptive-Capacity-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/) ## **Sources and** references 1. Heifetz, R. A. (1994). [*Leadership Without Easy Answers*](https://amzn.to/4lXzN2O?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 2. Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). [*Leadership on the Line*](https://amzn.to/4ojYiZI?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 3. Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). [*The Practice of Adaptive Leadership*](https://amzn.to/4ojkt20?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 4. [Adaptive Leadership: Making Progress on Intractable Challenges](https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/insights/all-insights/adaptive-leadership-making-progress-intractable-challenges?ref=leadingsapiens.com#:~:text=What%20is%20Leadership?,and%20that%20is%20a%20success.%E2%80%9D) 5. [The Theory Behind Adaptive Leadership – Cambridge Leadership Associates](https://cambridge-leadership.com/adaptive-leadership/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. [The Work of Leadership – Harvard Business Review](https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Multi-Frame Thinking URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/ Last updated: 2025-08-21T17:04:09.000Z *We think effective leaders are great problem-solvers. That’s only partially true. What they’re really good at is multi-frame thinking. *They help solve problems by changing**[ ***how they are framed***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/)*, operating one level upstream where the real leverage lies.* **Multi-frame thinking means deliberately shifting interpretive lenses* until you find the one that unlocks action. The frame you choose — consciously or not — determines which solutions you even see.* *It shapes what gets attention, what gets dismissed, and what feels actionable.* *Get it wrong, and you solve the wrong problem perfectly. Get it right, and the path forward seems obvious.* *In stable environments, default frames work fine. The categories are familiar, the patterns predictable. But* ***in complex situations—where real leadership is required—the frame itself is the decision.*** *In this piece, I examine why multi-frame thinking is essential in leadership, how it works, and where it can mislead you.* --- Effective leaders see more not because they’re smarter, but because they’ve trained themselves to shift lenses. They don’t stop at the first explanation that makes sense. They pause, rotate the perspective, and ask what the situation looks like from different angles. In other words, they’re adept at changing frames. As complexity increases, the real constraint is the ability to interpret what’s happening with enough depth and dimensionality to act wisely. The challenge is that most professionals aren’t taught to do this. They’re trained in a dominant frame — finance, operations, HR, engineering — and rewarded for pattern recognition within that logic. Over time, their interpretive range narrows. **Multi-frame thinking is one way to undo that narrowing through deliberate contrast.** It invites you to ask: What’s the focus? What’s being dismissed? What logic is driving the definition of the problem? ## **What Are Frames** A frame is the lens through which a situation is understood: what gets foregrounded, what fades into the background, and what doesn't register at all. You see this filtering effect in meetings all the time. A project misses its targets. One executive blames poor follow-through, another points to unclear accountability, and a third questions the project made strategic sense to begin with. Same data, but completely different interpretations. **They're not solving different aspects of the same problem; they're seeing different problems altogether.** Whether you notice them or not, frames are already operating. And unlike tools in a kit, they don't wait to be selected, but are shaping the conversation implicitly. As Donald Schön and Martin Rein write, > Different frames… cause us to notice different facts and make us receptive to different arguments, and there is no frame-neutral basis for choosing among them. In other words, **facts don't speak for themselves. What you see depends on where you're looking from.** Frames show up in different forms. Sometimes they appear as [metaphors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/metaphors-of-organization/): Is this a relay or a chess game? Sometimes they're role-bound: Are we acting as regulators, builders, or mediators? But every frame, as Gareth Morgan reminds us, **"reveals something and at the same time conceals other perspectives that might just as readily have been used."** Frames don't just shape interpretation; they generate their own momentum. They filter which details are noticed, which causes are deemed credible, and which responses feel justified. They also influence tone: a problem seen through a learning frame invites curiosity, but through a threat frame, it invites defensiveness. Once established, frames resist revision. You stop noticing what doesn't fit, or explain it away. The result is tunnel vision dressed as clarity. This creates a frustrating dynamic: teams that keep rehashing the same issue — armed with more data each time — but nothing changes. **The problem isn't information. It's the frame.** Behavioral scientists like Kahneman and Tversky have long shown how framing shapes decision quality. The same set of facts, framed in terms of potential loss rather than gain, radically shifts people's preferences. In leadership, this becomes a structural liability; if your frame is off, no amount of analysis will lead to the right decision. This is why some teams over-index on tools, models, or dashboards. They're solving a technical problem inside a misdiagnosed frame. The result is a sophisticated answer to the wrong question. **The real danger isn't just using the wrong frame; it's not realizing you're in one, and that there are alternatives.** ## **Why Multi-Frame Thinking Matters in Leadership** Many leadership misfires stem not from poor execution, but poor framing. This includes misreading situations, misjudging the nature of problems, or mistaking symptoms for causes. Essentially, it's **a failure in sensemaking rather than a skill gap.** ### **Fixed frames become invisible blinders** Frames help leaders simplify complexity. But every frame is a reduction. It highlights some dynamics while muting others. A [structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/) makes hierarchy visible but downplays power plays. A [human resource frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/) explains motivation but can miss broken systems. A [political frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/) surfaces hidden agendas but can distort into cynicism. And [symbolic framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/) taps into culture and meaning, but can drift into theatrics if ungrounded. If you’re locked into one, you’re not just limited, you’re blind. The real danger of a dominant frame is that it feels like *reality*. Once a frame is in place, it becomes self-sealing. You stop noticing what it leaves out. You interpret disconfirming data as noise or outliers. And you defend the frame rather than update it. Gary Klein calls this **frame-preserving behavior**. Instead of questioning the frame, we distort perception of events to keep our mental model intact. It’s not irrational, just protective. But it comes at a cost; you stop seeing what’s actually happening. In medicine, this shows up as **diagnostic closure**: the tendency to latch onto an early diagnosis and ignore later signs that contradict it. In leadership, it shows up when a team keeps trying to “execute better” without realizing they’re solving the wrong problem. ### **Complex problems require multi-frame navigation** Multi-frame thinking helps leaders surface the invisible, revealing the deeper structure behind noise. It helps them hold multiple, conflicting explanations in tension long enough to [avoid premature closure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). That matters because most **real-world problems are messy**. They are: - Multi-causal: Where structural flaws, misaligned incentives, cognitive biases, and historical baggage create [tangled webs of causation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). - Ambiguous: Where success metrics aren’t obvious and every path has trade-offs. - Dynamic: What worked last quarter destabilizes the system this quarter - Socially constructed: Meaning depends on who’s looking and from where These aren’t problems you “solve” so much as problems you “navigate.” And **effective navigation demands multi-frame thinking.** ### **Perspective is leverage** In complex systems, perspective is invaluable. Those who can reframe the conversation change the available options. They widen the solution set not by being clever, but by seeing differently. It's the difference between restructuring reporting lines (structural) and noticing people are competing for the CEO's attention (political). Between calling someone 'resistant to change' (structural) and seeing they're mourning the loss of their expertise (human resource). [Double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) — the ability to question your governing assumptions — relies on this kind of frame-switching. Without it, it’s easy to get trapped in single-loop spirals of tweaking tactics without shifting strategy. ### **Framing is upstream of action** Decisions are downstream of interpretation. Before choosing a path forward, you’ve already chosen — consciously or not — how to see the situation. [A leader’s framing of an issue](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) shapes the questions asked, relevant stakeholders, and viable solutions. As Donald Schön put it, > When we set a problem, we select what we will treat as the ‘things’ of the situation…we frame the context in which we will choose goals and means. This is how leadership gains upstream leverage. The real differentiator is the ability to notice and shift the operating frame. **Action flows from interpretation. Better frames lead to better decisions.** ### **Clarity starts with frame awareness** Misunderstandings in organizations often aren’t due to lack of data, but mismatched frames. One team sees a quality issue, another a branding risk, while a third sees a cost problem. Everyone’s solving for something different because they’re interpreting reality through different lenses. Effective leaders don’t just push their preferred frame harder. They learn to listen across frames. They recognize when they’re having a **disagreement of substance versus a disagreement of perspective**. In doing so, they gain interpretive leverage: the power to translate, reframe, and broker shared understanding across silos. ### **Misalignment often indicates a frame conflict** Intractable conflicts persist not because people refuse to compromise, but because they can't agree on what's at stake. In the Israel–Palestine conflict, both sides have compelling stories about the same piece of land, but they're telling different kinds of stories. One is a tale of ancestral return. The other is a tale of unjust displacement. It's not a debate over facts but a conflict of frames. The same dynamic plays out in boardrooms and team meetings. When teams disagree, it's tempting to assume one side lacks the facts. But often, the deeper issue is they're not solving for the same thing. A political operator may see a decision as one of coalition-building and influence. A structural thinker may see it as a question of process design. They're not resisting each other's ideas; they're operating in different interpretive universes. This is why more information doesn't resolve the conflict. It's not a matter of data—it's a matter of perspective. Those who can reframe — offer a new lens that sidesteps the stuck storyline — become unsticking agents. They move people, from entrenched opposition to possibility, by changing the frames of interpretation. ### **Ambiguity requires agility with frames** The more complex the environment, the more inadequate any single frame becomes. **Rigid framing creates brittle leadership.** You force-fit every situation into your preferred mental model and miss what doesn’t fit. But fluid framing makes space for discovery. It allows you to ask, “What else could this be?” In ambiguous, high-stakes settings, the most useful skill isn’t having the right answer. It’s knowing how to toggle between frames to find a more useful question. ### **Framing is a leadership act** It’s easy to treat framing as an internal mental exercise. But the best leaders do more than that. They frame for others. They shape how their teams, organizations, and stakeholders interpret events. Leaders help people navigate ambiguity by naming what’s happening in a way that feels coherent, values-aligned, and action-generating. **They offer language and logic that transforms disorientation into direction.** That’s how framing becomes a public act of leadership sensemaking. ## **Multi-Frame Thinking as Sensemaking** Leaders don't just need multiple frames, they also need the judgment to navigate between them. This is where multi-frame thinking becomes sensemaking: the ongoing process of reading situations, choosing interpretive lenses, and adapting as reality unfolds. But this skill comes with built-in tensions that leaders must learn to manage. ### **Analysis vs. action** The biggest risk of multi-frame thinking is getting stuck in interpretive loops, endlessly reframing without acting. But expert performers learn to use frame-switching as a rapid diagnostic tool, not an endless search for perfect clarity. Gary Klein's research showed that expert performers don't always have more information, but better frames. They recognize situation patterns faster and improvise effectively. As Weick described, in moments when normal order collapses, **the difference isn't who's smartest, but who can generate enough interpretive coherence to act.** > "People discover what they think by looking at what they say, how they act, and what the situation seems to require." > —Karl Weick > "How can I know what I think until I see what I say?" > —E.M. Forster (quoted in Weick) **Action precedes clarity, not the other way around.** Leaders don't wait for perfect understanding, they act to gain it. They're constantly rebuilding their mental map as they go, shaping the story in real-time through choices and interpretations. This is leadership as active sensemaking: [learning by doing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/), adapting on the fly. ### **Frame quality and the trap of sophistication** Not all frames are created equal. Some illuminate more than they obscure, some lead to action while others create paralysis. The skill isn't in having multiple frames, it's in recognizing which ones generate insight and which ones are mental decoration. The sophistication trap is real: leaders who use frame-switching to avoid hard choices rather than illuminate them. You'll hear phrases like ***"Well, it depends on how you frame it"*** offered as a way to dissolve disagreement without resolution. This is dangerous when leaders use it to avoid uncomfortable tradeoffs. **Reframing isn't a substitute for hard choices; it's meant to illuminate what those choices are.** As Schön suggested, good frames help see more, not less, and lead to richer action, not paralysis. A skilled leader must know how to *choose* them, not just *toggle* between them. ### **The politics of framing** Frame conflicts aren't just intellectual disagreements, they're contests for interpretive authority. The frame that wins shapes budgets, priorities, and careers. This is why reframing can feel threatening even when it's useful. In that sense, it's a [form of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/). People don't resist change, they resist having their frame displaced. This is especially true when a new frame threatens status, undermines identity, or exposes hidden tradeoffs. The leader's task is recognizing this political weight and knowing when to introduce a new lens and bring others along. ## **From Certainty to Frame Consciousness** In most organizations, leadership is still seen as a function of decisiveness, clarity, and vision. But there's a paradox: **the better you get at something, the narrower your interpretive range becomes.** What starts as competence crystallizes into cognitive rigidity. The patterns that once served you begin to constrain you. Multi-frame thinking is a deliberate countermeasure to maintain[ cognitive flexibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/) while deepening domain knowledge. In Eastern philosophy, the ability to hold complexity without needing to resolve it is associated with wisdom. Keats called it [negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). Aristotle called it *phronesis:* practical wisdom that operates in the space between rules and improvisation. In modern organizations, we might call it **strategic phronesis**: the cultivated capacity to read a situation, frame it with discernment, and act with grounded flexibility. This is how you stretch your interpretive repertoire so you're not trapped in a single reading of reality. But it requires the willingness to hold your expertise lightly. The best leaders develop what we might call **frame consciousness**: the ability to notice when they're locked into a particular lens and the discipline to question its usefulness. The most powerful shift a leader can make isn't always to provide a better answer. Sometimes, it's to ask a better question, from a better frame. **If you aren't changing the frame, are you really leading?** ## Related Reading [Metaphors of Organization: Beyond the MachineEffective leadership hinges on the ability to view organizational challenges from multiple perspectives. Gareth Morgan’s eight metaphors of organization gives leaders a versatile set of lenses to examine challenges. In this piece, I introduce each of the organizational metaphors, their significance, and how to use them for strategic reflection. Why![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-56.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Metaphors-of-Organization---Morgan-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/metaphors-of-organization/) [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-57.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Negative-Capability-Balance-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) [Cognitive Flexibility: Rewiring How Leaders RespondWhy do some people thrive in complexity while others buckle under pressure? A key factor is the level of cognitive flexibility. In this piece, I examine what cognitive flexibility means, why it’s critical to leadership, and strategies for building it. A World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report ranked![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-58.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Cognitive-Flexiblity-in-Leadership.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/) [Sources of Power in OrganizationsWhat makes some folks and certain teams more powerful than others in organizations? What is the source of their power? In contrast, why do others despite having competence and positional authority are ineffective? This is one of a series on power in organizations. I focus on Gareth Morgan’s classic![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-59.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Sources-of-Power---I.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/) [The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological SafetyFraming is a key skill to create psychological safety and improve performance. But most leaders are unaware or don’t know how to get better at it.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-60.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-6)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) ## **Sources** 1. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). [Reframing Organizations](https://amzn.to/47cBchs?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2014). [How Great Leaders Think](https://amzn.to/46ISFhv?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Schön, D. A. (1983). [The Reflective Practitioner.](https://amzn.to/4mjMEMt?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Weick, K. E. (1995). [Sensemaking in Organizations](https://amzn.to/47dUJOz?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Klein, G. (1998). [Sources of Power](https://amzn.to/3Ua4Gov?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Macdonald, H. (2018). Truth: A User’s Guide. 7. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). [Organizational Learning](https://amzn.to/4fkMtOL?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 8. Snowden, D., & Boone, M. E. (2007). [A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making](https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making?ref=leadingsapiens.com). Harvard Business Review. 9. Senge, P. M. (1990). [The Fifth Discipline](https://amzn.to/3HhO4bz?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Leadership Myths that Persist URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/ Last updated: 2026-02-08T02:26:38.000Z *Why do organizations repeat the same leadership mistakes despite research showing they don't work? A key reason is pervasive leadership myths.* *When Boeing's board asked CEO Dave Calhoun to step down, it followed a familiar script. New leader, fresh start, problems solved. It was supposed to restore confidence. But the assumption — that company issues stem from the person at the top — reveals something deeper about how we think about leadership.* *This assumption persists not because it's true, but *because it's psychologically irresistible*. Leadership myths survive not on evidence, but because they offer simple explanations for complex outcomes and make us feel like someone is in control.* *It feels like logic, but it's actually mythology. These leadership myths don't just distort judgment; they erode trust and set up leaders and organizations for failure.* *The most dangerous part is we don't call them myths. They masquerade as best practices, conventional wisdom, and common sense.* --- ## The Attribution Myth (leaders cause results) This is the myth we most want to believe: if something goes spectacularly right—or disastrously wrong—it’s because of the leader. It’s clean, satisfying, and emotionally appealing. But as General Stanley McChrystal argues in [*Leaders: Myth and Reality*](https://amzn.to/4osNh8C?ref=leadingsapiens.com), this logic rarely matches reality. He calls it the attribution myth: our tendency to assign outcomes to a single leader, ignoring the web of circumstances, systems, and collective efforts involved. McChrystal’s central insight is that we confuse leadership with causation. If someone presided over success, we assume they caused it. But that’s post hoc reasoning, not [causality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). We want to believe that someone was in charge, deserving credit or blame. It gives us closure. But it’s often a fiction. This isn’t harmless. In organizations, the attribution myth simplifies what should be a deeper diagnostic. When a team wins a big client or ships a product on time, the leader is celebrated. When a project fails, the same individual may be quietly replaced. But that lens blocks better questions: *What conditions enabled the success? What invisible collective efforts contributed to it? What systemic issues were ignored in the failure?* The attribution myth feeds unrealistic expectations. It pressures leaders to over-control, over-own, and over-perform, because the narrative says it’s all on them. It also stupefies organizational memory. We forget the role of timing, policy changes, competitor missteps, or collective decisions. We cling to the image of the singular leader steering the ship, even when the tides influenced the outcome more than the captain. Trust in leadership erodes when this myth breaks. When success doesn’t repeat, or when a supposedly brilliant leader stumbles, people feel betrayed. Not because the leader lied, but because the story we told about them was a lie. We set them up as the author of results, then punish them when reality reasserts its complexity. To lead well and build healthy organizations, the attribution myth needs to be retired. They have to stop treating leadership as a solitary act. The real work is collective, contextual, and interdependent. Anything less is just a better-written fairy tale. ## The Formulaic Myth (leadership can be codified) A persistent myth in modern leadership is that it can be broken down into a repeatable formula, a set of principles or behaviors, that if followed will predictably produce great outcomes. McChrystal calls this the formulaic myth. It’s the belief that leadership can be **codified, decontextualized, and transferred wholesale** from one situation to another. This myth feeds our need for certainty. It reassures us that if we find the right model, checklist, or personality profile, we can manufacture good leadership at scale. That’s why bookstores are full of leadership secrets from warriors, presidents, and CEOs. We take isolated stories and treat them like templates, often ignoring their actual complexity. Leadership development becomes about ticking boxes: presence, communication, decisiveness, authenticity. Managers follow frameworks or off-the-shelf trainings that promise to mold someone into a 'strategic communicator' or 'servant leader.' Although reassuringly structured, these programs reinforce imitation and posture instead of inquiry and presence. Real leadership rarely fits into templates. It's not a clean sequence but iterative, relational, and [context-sensitive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). In practice, formulaic thinking creates fragile leaders. People who’ve mastered the language and posture of leadership but haven’t learned to read context, adapt their stance, or [navigate paradox](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). When the situation changes, and it always does, they cling to the script even when it no longer fits. It creates a false meritocracy. [Those who match the formula](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) — extroverted, verbally polished, confident under pressure — rise quickly, not because they’re better leaders but because they fit the costume. Leadership becomes a performance rather than a responsibility. What organizations need is not a formula but a set of practices. One that is alive to feedback, sensitive to the system, and built on evolving relationships. Leadership isn't a thing you acquire but a thing you do, repeatedly, in changing circumstances. ## The Results Myth (good results = good leadership) This myth uses outcomes to measure leadership effectiveness. If the numbers are good, the leader must be good. It's seductive because it appears objective. Success is success, right? But the results myth conflates correlation with causation differently than attribution. While attribution assumes leaders cause outcomes, **the results myth works backward by using outcomes to evaluate leadership quality after the fact.** Good results become retroactive proof of good leadership, regardless of what drove those results. Organizations that buy into the results myth mistake lucky timing for skillful leadership. What other factors were at play? Market timing, favorable conditions, inherited momentum, or lucky breaks can all masquerade as effectiveness. When things are going well, the myth kicks in hardest. The real problem is that it skips critical reflection by creating false positives. Leaders presiding over a good cycle are seen as visionaries. The organization then tries to replicate what they did even if those actions were peripheral to the actual outcome. Meanwhile, teams facing real constraints or ambiguous challenges are seen as underperforming, even if the work was more skillful. This myth also invites complacency. Success insulates leaders from scrutiny, discourages dissent, and inhibits learning. People don’t challenge the leader’s assumptions or decisions because the scoreboard looks good. But as seen in countless corporate flameouts, **success is often the worst time to stop asking questions. That’s when feedback disappears and invisible risk accumulates.** To break the results myth, separate outcome from process. Organizations need evaluation systems that value *how* results were achieved, not just *what* was achieved. Was the team set up for long-term success? Were tradeoffs acknowledged? Did we learn anything repeatable or just get lucky? Effective leadership can’t be measured solely by good outcomes. It must be measured by the quality of decisions, the integrity of process, and the system’s long-term health. Otherwise, we’re not evaluating leadership, just betting on a hot streak. ## The Hierarchy Myth (leadership comes from above) This myth is so embedded in organizational life that we barely notice it. The leader is the face on the strategy deck, the voice in the all-hands meeting, and the name on every major decision. It’s easy to assume that leadership flows from the top down. But this assumption collapses under scrutiny. Much of what passes for leadership in organizations doesn’t come from the top. It happens in peer interactions, cross-functional problem-solving, and informal coalitions. These are essential but rarely seen as leadership. Because the myth tells you to look upward. The idea of a singular leader misrepresents how complex systems function. Most organizational challenges today don’t yield to top-down directives. They require distributed ownership and iterative adaptation. That work is messy, collaborative, and often invisible. And it doesn’t show up on an org chart. The danger lies not in hierarchy itself, but the assumption that authority equals insight. When the myth is in play, those lower in the structure defer rather than contribute. Risk is avoided rather than shared, and responsibility is offloaded upward. Soon, the organization becomes reliant on a narrow band of people to think and initiate. This places an unsustainable burden on the top person, who is expected to be visionary, decisive, and omniscient. But no one sees clearly from a distance. The [farther you are from the front lines](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/), the more abstract your understanding. If people stop speaking up or surfacing concerns because they assume leadership belongs elsewhere, the organization loses its edge. We need to stop equating leadership with role and start recognizing it as a function. Leadership is what happens when someone steps in to clarify, connect, or mobilize others, regardless of title. The real question isn’t who the leader is. It’s whether leadership is happening where it’s needed. ## The Born-Leader Myth This is the oldest and most persistent leadership myth. It's the idea that some people are born to lead, while others are not. That leadership is an innate trait, like height or eye color. It's a belief baked into everyday language: "natural leader," "born for this," "has it in their blood." It's embedded in how organizations assess talent. The myth endures because it’s intuitive. We see someone who speaks confidently or handles pressure well, and we assume those traits have always been there. But that intuition is shaped more by our default mental models than actual evidence. Researchers call these "[implicit leadership theories](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/)": unconscious templates of what a leader looks and sounds like, often skewed toward charisma, extroversion, dominance, and certainty. We overvalue early bloomers and undervalue those who develop through experience, [reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/), and deliberate practice. Talent development gets distorted. High-potential lists skew toward those with polished traits. Mentorship opportunities go to those who 'look the part.' What looks like innate leadership is often the result of exposure, [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/), and practice. What looks like hesitation or quietude is often the early stage of a different kind of leadership emerging, rooted in observation and considered action. Organizations that cling to the born-leader myth end up narrowing their leadership pipeline. They build echo chambers around a particular style and miss out on the diverse approaches that complex systems require. To move beyond this myth, we need to treat leadership as a developmental process, not a personal trait. That means designing systems that surface emerging leadership in all its forms. It means training leaders to recognize potential not just in finished products, but in early signals. It means understanding that enduring leadership grows quietly, shaped by practice, reflection, and context. --- Leadership myths persist because they're easier than the truth. The truth is that leadership in complex systems is messy, collective, and often invisible. It happens in the spaces between formal authority and actual influence. It emerges from relationships, context, and countless small decisions made by people throughout an organization. Ironically, clinging to these myths makes leadership harder, not easier. We set up leaders for impossible expectations and organizations for systematic disappointment. We create cycles where "heroic" individuals burn out, teams become dependent instead of capable, and real leadership goes unrecognized and undeveloped. Breaking free from these myths is about developing a mature relationship with uncertainty, complexity, and collective action. It's about systems that can adapt, learn, and [respond without requiring a singular genius at the helm](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/). In increasing complexity, organizations that thrive will be those that acknowledge the [mundane reality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) of how change happens and build their leadership development around that truth instead of the myths that make us feel better. Next, I'll explore what real leadership looks like when we stop pretending it's something it's not. ## **Sources and further reading** 1. McChrystal, Stanley, et al.[ Leaders: Myth and Reality.](https://amzn.to/4osNh8C?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Pfeffer, Jeffrey. [Leadership BS: Fixing Workplaces and Careers One Truth at a Time.](https://amzn.to/4lRP0Cq?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Eagly, Alice H., & Carli, Linda L. [Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About How Women Become Leaders.](https://amzn.to/4od3e2r?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Center for Creative Leadership. **“High-Potential Talent: A View from Inside the Leadership Pipeline”** [The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the MundaneExcellence is more mundane than we think. Understanding its nuances increases our likelihood of success. Not doing so sets us up for failure.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-32.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project_-454045-.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) [Project Aristotle: Implications and ChallengesProject Aristotle was a multi-year research initiative by Google to understand what made teams effective. Some of its findings, psychological safety in particular, were counterintuitive. It changed how companies viewed teams and performance. Yet, a decade later, implementation remains challenging. I examine common challenges leaders face in applying psychological safety![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-33.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Google-Project-Aristotle.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/) [How Implicit Leadership Theory Affects CareersWhat makes someone “leadership material”? This often depends on who’s making the call and what their Implicit Leadership Theory is - we all have one.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-34.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/How-ILT-Affects-Careers-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) ### Belief Triggers — Why Smart People Fail to Change URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/belief-triggers-marshall-goldsmith/ Last updated: 2025-08-05T20:17:02.000Z *When it comes to change that sticks, willpower is overrated. So are tactics and techniques. In fact, most of our efforts fail, not due to lack of determination, but something more simpler, but also more insidious.* *Marshall Goldsmith, one of the world's most respected executive coaches, spent decades studying why smart, determined people still fail at change. His finding? The culprit isn't usually lack of effort or knowledge.* *Instead, it's our default notions about change.* *In his classic* [*Triggers*](https://amzn.to/4m3egWg?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, Goldsmith calls these belief triggers.* *These are simple, reasonable-sounding assumptions that sound like common sense.* *"Once I understand something, I'll do it." "This time will be different." "I have the willpower to resist temptation."* *It's precisely their sound logic that makes them dangerous. Like invisible malware running in the background*, *they silently determine our fate long before we begin*. *In this edition, I examine the 15 triggers Goldsmith identifies and the link to systems thinking.* --- ## Why call them “belief triggers”? *"Belief"* because it feels true. These aren't delusional thoughts but mental defaults. They sound reasonable, even wise, shaping how we interpret effort, success, feedback, and setbacks. *"Triggers"* because they set off predictable reactions. When we try to change something, these beliefs start firing: - Rationalizations (*“Just this once…”*) - Miscalibrated optimism (*“This time will be different…”*) - False closure (*“I already know this”*) Our seemingly innocuous assumptions preload failure into the system, setting the conditions for it. What follows are the most common belief triggers. The headings are beliefs followed by what it triggers (within brackets). ### 1\. If I understand, I’ll do \[confusion\] **Confuses intellectual grasp with actual change in behavior.** We assume that knowing is enough. That once we grasp an idea logically and intellectually, it will translate into action. But that’s not how behavior change works. Understanding something is like reading about swimming. It gives us the illusion of competence, but doesn’t prepare us for the water. [Real learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) requires trying, stumbling, and adjusting. Until we’ve enacted something in real conditions, we haven’t actually learned it. Just named it. As obvious as it is in swimming (physical reality), when it comes to behavior change (mental reality), we forget about this basic fact. This belief also shuts down learning. We think "I already know this" and stop listening. A more useful lens is: *"Have I implemented this consistently, under real-world conditions, long enough for it to become second nature?"* ### 2\. I have willpower and won’t give in to temptation \[overconfidence\] **Overestimates consistency under duress.** We make plans when we feel motivated. But execution happens later, when we're busy, distracted, and depleted. That's where most plans fall apart. This belief assumes a steady reservoir of willpower. But research consistently shows that self-control fluctuates. When we hit decision fatigue, our practiced behavior takes over, not our promises. Design beats discipline. High performers don’t rely on grit alone. They create external structures, friction-reducing routines, and environments that make the right behavior easier and the wrong one harder. ### 3\. Today is a special day \[inconsistency\] **Grants self-permission to break the rules** “Just this once” starts most [derailments](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). When we give ourselves a pass due to stress, celebration, crisis, or simply a deviation from routine, we reinforce a deeper pattern of inconsistency. The problem isn’t an exception or two. It’s the accumulation of exceptions that starts to define the new norm. Consistency dies by a thousand cuts. When every day gets rationalized as “special,” we become someone who can’t trust themselves to follow through. ### 4\. At least I’m better than... \[immunity\] **Justifies stagnation by downward comparison** When we don’t meet our own standards, we look for others worse off and use them as a yardstick. If we’re doing better than *them*, maybe we’re not doing so badly after all. It’s a subtle form of self-protection. But downward comparison is a trap. It prevents growth by shifting the focus away from personal benchmarks onto relative mediocrity. Over time, it lowers our [standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). Meaningful progress has to be anchored in who we're becoming, not who we're outperforming. ### 5\. I shouldn’t need help and structure \[exceptionalism\] **Romanticizes self-reliance at the expense of effectiveness.** This belief is common among high achievers. It’s the idea that if something is worth doing, you should be able to do it, unaided. That needing structure means you’re weak and accountability is for amateurs. But if the pros surround themselves with coaches, systems, and constraints, why wouldn’t we? External structure doesn’t mean you’re broken. It means we’re optimizing for reality. In that sense, [humility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) is the key to change, not heroics. ### 6\. I won’t get tired and my enthusiasm won’t fade \[depletion\] **Fails to account for the inevitability of depletion** We plan from a place of energy. But change happens in the trenches when we're exhausted, unmotivated, and pulled in multiple directions. The assumption is that motivation will remain stable, which it won’t. When it dips (as it inevitably will), we abandon our efforts if our plans are built on the expectation of perfect enthusiasm. Design with energy variability in mind. Flexibility, fallback modes, and pacing aren’t a lack of ambition but good engineering. ### 7\. I have all the time in the world \[procrastination\] **Delays action with a false sense of abundance.** This is subtle. We don’t say “I’ll never do this.” Instead, it is, “Just not now.” But later is a moving target. The perfect time never arrives. We tell ourselves that a future version of us, a less busy and more focused one, will handle it. But that future self never shows up. When everything is optional, nothing sticks. Change requires urgency, not the frenzied kind but of sustained focus. ### 8\. I won’t get distracted and nothing unexpected will occur \[unrealistic expectations\] **Plans as if life will cooperate.** We act as if the path ahead will be smooth, the environment predictable, and our attention intact. But life doesn't run on our calendar. Goldsmith calls this the **"*high probability of low-probability events*."** Any one particular disruption may be unlikely, but some kind of disruption is highly probable. If you plan for perfect conditions, you’ll fail under real ones. The ability to bend keeps us from breaking. ### 9\. An epiphany will suddenly change my life \[magical thinking\] **→ Waits for lightning instead of building a fire** We love the idea of turning points, a single insight that shifts everything. It makes for great stories. But[ real change is iterative, not cinematic](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/#movie-time-versus-human-time). Even when insight strikes, it still needs to be enacted, tested, revised, and maintained. Waiting for the perfect realization is a subtle form of avoidance. It postpones the hard work of doing. Progress relies more on repetition than revelation. ### 10\. My change will be permanent \[false permanence\] **Treats transformation as a one-and-done event.** We like to believe that once we make a breakthrough, we’ll stay changed. That once we become a “disciplined person,” we’ll never need to think about it again. But maintenance *is* the work. Habits atrophy, and contexts shift. The forces that pulled you off track in the past don’t disappear just because you’ve had a good week. Change is an infinite game, less like flipping a switch and more like tending a fire. ### 11\. Solving old problems won’t bring new ones \[misunderstanding future challenges\] **Assumes life gets simpler with progress.** Every solved problem creates the conditions for a more complex one. That’s not a failure of the process. It *is* the process. Got promoted? Now you deal with politics. Built confidence? Now you have to manage expectations. Lost weight? Now you have to sustain it. Mature change efforts don’t assume that success leads to eternal peace. Instead, it assumes that growth brings new complexity. So we better expect it. ### 12\. My efforts will be fairly rewarded \[resentment\] **Expects a just world, gets disillusionment instead.** This is the [fairness fallacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/#2-demands-for-fairness-and-entitlement): the belief that hard work will be recognized and reciprocated in the way we want. But organizations and life don’t work that way. By tying the value of our effort to external acknowledgment, we set ourselves up for resentment. Not because it isn’t worthy, but because we handed over the scorecard. Work toward your goals, but the effort needs to be its own reward. At the very least, [diversify your sources of validation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#keep-a-balanced-portfolio). ### 13\. No one is paying attention to me \[isolation\] **Underestimates visibility and ripple effects.** In change, especially subtle change that’s slow to realize, it’s easy to assume no one is noticing. Often, they don’t at first. But in leadership, even [small behaviors send signals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/). People may not mention it, but they’re watching your consistency, reactivity, and tone. Quiet change is still contagious. Ironically, it’s often your worst moments, not your best, that are remembered. ### 14\. If I change, I’m being inauthentic \[stubbornness\] **Confuses comfort with integrity.** We equate what’s familiar with what’s “real.” But much of what we call authenticity is just habit with a justification attached. It isn’t about staying the same but aligning your behavior with what you value. Trying something new will always feel awkward. That’s not inauthenticity but growing pains. New behavior becomes authentic through repetition, not ideology. ### 15\. I have the wisdom to assess my own behavior \[impaired objectivity\] **Relies on self-assessment while ignoring self-deception.** We all think we’re the exception and that we see ourselves clearly. But studies show otherwise. We overrate our strengths, underestimate [blind spots](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/#every-strength-casts-a-shadow), and [rationalize our failures](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/). Real self-awareness requires mirrors, not just introspection, but also clear [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/). If you’re serious about change, outsource some of your self-perception. You can’t audit your own blind spot. ## In closing As the [systems thinking iceberg](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) shows, visible change is at the “events” level, tactics and techniques are at the “structures” level, while working with your belief triggers is at the much deeper (more effective) levels of "models and stance". That’s why Goldsmith focuses on belief triggers before tactics. ![Systems Thinking Iceberg](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/07/2.png) Staying alert to them is a high ROI activity. The power of belief triggers lies in their partial truth. Each contains a kernel of wisdom that makes it resistant to examination. Of course, understanding helps change, and of course, willpower matters. But these fragments of truth mask the fact that real, lasting change is an imperfect process. One that emerges from the messy intersection of intention and circumstance, of our internal will and external reality. Long-term change is an adaptive challenge that requires us to evolve how we relate to change itself. ### Please Exceed your Authority URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/exceed-your-authority/ Last updated: 2025-09-22T20:28:14.000Z *"I don't want to step on anyone's toes." This is a common and reasonable stance in organizational life. But this mostly logical approach often does more damage than good.* *If “that’s not my job” tops the list of career-limiting phrases, *an overcautious respect for boundaries* is equally limiting. It's *particularly damaging if you’re the conscientious type who knows what you’re doing.** *Impact often lies in the gray zone between clear authority and clear overreach. Visible constraints like hierarchies, roles, and processes are actually easier to navigate than the* [*invisible ones we create for ourselves*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-building-the-box-of-limitations/)*.* *There's an art to *exceeding your authority in ways that build trust, but it feels dangerous*. The skill is in thoughtfully testing and expanding the boundaries of our perceived authority.* *In today's piece, I explore how to master this critical balance. In my follow-up, I'll share a framework that goes deeper into this nuance.* --- ## When silence talks Imagine you're in a meeting where everyone's skirting around an issue. You understand exactly what's happening, but an internal filter kicks in. You wonder: ***Am I the right person to bring this up?* So you stay silent.** These moments of hesitation are defining twice over: first in our immediate impact, and second, more lastingly, in how others perceive us. While these moments seem to be about risk, potentially leading to embarrassment or appearing overly ambitious, **they're actually about legitimacy and leadership.** You're not worried about being wrong. You're concerned about **violating some implicit boundary between *contribution* and *overreach*.** But where did this boundary come from? Who drew it? And what would happen if you crossed it thoughtfully? ## Zones of authority While boundaries of authority may seem abstract, they exist in clear patterns across organizations. Picture them as three circles: your formal authority in the center, a danger zone of clear overreach at the outer edge, and between them, **a rich but fuzzy middle zone of potential impact**. \[1\] Most conscientious professionals understand their formal authority well and recognize clear danger zones. But, **this binary view misses the critical middle ground** where leadership is often required. ![Zones of authority. ](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/05/Zone-of-Authority-1.png) Adapted from Heifetz, Linsky, Grashow \[1\] It's in the fuzzy zone in between where the greatest opportunities for impact often lie. It's neither clearly within nor outside your authority, but a space where your engagement can add unexpected value. **It's how roles naturally evolve, and where future responsibilities are born.** The challenge is learning to navigate this middle zone wisely. In those moments of hesitation — when you wonder if it's your place to speak up — you're likely standing at the edge of this zone. Leading in the gray zone means testing boundaries and creating possibilities. **Recognizing that there is in fact a third fuzzy zone increases freedom both literally and metaphorically.** ## **Obedient contributors** Most high performers build their careers on a strong sense of responsibility. We meet expectations, don’t overstep, and know how to be useful without making ourselves central. In early career, being a reliable executor is an asset. You build your reputation through consistent delivery, minimal drama, and staying in your lane. **You're trusted because you execute without making waves.** But as your role's profile increases, the nature of the work fundamentally shifts. Ambiguity increases, contradictions multiply, and just execution isn't enough. It demands a kind of judgment that requires going beyond the clear boundaries of your position. You must be comfortable operating at the edges of your formal authority, using influence and discernment instead of pure execution. > The exercise of [adaptive leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) is dangerous in part because you always dance on the edge of your scope of authority, at least with respect to some of your authorizers — whether they are your superiors, peers, subordinates, or people outside your organization. **You push the limits of what others think you ought to be doing.** > > — Heifetz, Grashow, Linsky in [Practice of Adaptive Leadership](https://amzn.to/4kdpfeJ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) And **this is where obedient contributors begin to falter** due to over-reliance on inherited instincts: - wait to be asked - don’t speak unless it’s your area - avoid controversial topics unless someone else raises it first These are leftovers from earlier stages of professional identity. But left unchallenged, **they can turn reliability into irrelevance.** People trust you to implement, but not for direction. Someone they like, but don’t follow. ## **Conscious challengers** The move from contributor to challenger isn’t about being louder or bolder. It’s a subtle shift in **how you relate to authority**, both your own and others’. Conscious challengers don’t ask for permission. But they also don’t force their way in. They’ve developed **an *internal sense of legitimacy*** – the capacity to hold your own perspective as valid, **even when it’s not yet recognized by the group.** You learn to shape conversations. The impact is not from volume but orientation. You: - Ask the unasked question. - Offer reframing that resets the discussion. - Avoid rushing to resolution. You act **not from certainty but responsibility**. Speaking up not because you’re the smartest person in the room but because waiting for someone else is no longer an option. **This turning point less about rash boldness and more like** [**considered courage**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/)**.** It’s becoming what Robert Quinn calls **self-authoring**. You become someone who can state what's required – without permission and without apology. ## **Rewriting the script** Much of **what limits us isn’t formal policy. It’s accumulated social conditioning.** It’s the scripts we’ve internalized over years of trying to stay useful, professional, and promotable. - *“Don’t challenge leadership.”* - *“Stay in your lane.”* - *“Don’t question an already decided matter.”* - *“Don’t point out a problem without a solution.”* - *“Don’t be the person who makes things awkward.”* These aren’t written down, but enforced everywhere through micro-reactions, career folklore, and social cues. The hard part is these aren't irrational. They’re functional and helped you survive earlier seasons of your career. But their usefulness declines as your scope increases. **What once kept you safe now makes you ineffective**. So the work is not to abandon caution but to *interrogate the script*. Ask: - *“What has helped me survive early career but now keeps me small?”* - *“Who taught me that, and do I still need it?”* - *Does it still fit my current role or the one I’m growing into?* - *“Where am I still waiting for permission, when the system needs me to show up?”* Until we update the script, **we’ll keep limiting ourselves even in situations that are waiting for us to step in**. ## **Making the shift** The transformation doesn't happen through sudden changes but consistent, low-risk experimentation. You don’t need to confront the senior VP or dismantle groupthink on day one. Just take one step closer to the line than usual: - Approach risk as curiosity. - Float a hunch instead of locking it into a fully formed position. - Make an observation instead of declaring a judgment. None of these require formal authority. With repetition, tolerance increases, legitimacy expands and your voice gains weight. Not because you now talk more, but because you speak from a place that’s real. ## **Your role in the system** As Heifetz noted, going from obedient contributor to conscious challenger is learning to operate effectively at the edges of your role, where formal authority ends but responsibility continues. With this shift, your role in the system changes. Now you’re not just a contributor, but also a reference point. - They seek your framing, not because of seniority, but clarity. - You’re involved in decisions, not because you insist, but because you see what others miss. - Others take cues from you not because you have positional power, but [referent power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/). When you stop waiting for permission and start moving from internal legitimacy, you create something valuable: the capacity to see what needs to be done and help others see it as well. Consider these practical starting points: - *What do I see that others are missing?* - *What conversation is needed that no one is initiating?* - *Where can I contribute more if I stopped waiting for permission?* - *Whose permission am I waiting for?* - *What edge of authority am I not exploring?* - ***Where am I being invited to lead but haven’t yet accepted the role?*** This isn't about becoming someone else but bringing more of your insight and capability to the work that matters. Authority isn't just handed down. It's also earned by consistently engaging with what the work really needs – not just what your role allows. ## Sources 1. [The Practice of Adaptive Leadership](https://amzn.to/4kdpfeJ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Ron Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, Marty Linsky ### Leonardo’s Code: A Blueprint for Timeless Work URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leonardo-da-vinci-isaacson/ Last updated: 2025-05-31T13:42:34.000Z *Modern organizations worship at the altar of efficiency, focus, and relentless execution. We follow suit at the personal level as well by trying to optimize everything to the hilt.* *While mostly helpful, this often misses the point.* *The same organizations that tout “innovation” also create environments that stifle it. Productivity systems won’t help you discern what’s worth producing to begin with.* *While reading Walter Isaacson’s* [*biography of Leonardo da Vinci*](https://amzn.to/3GnbDiq?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, what I found most compelling was that the quintessential Renaissance man broke every one of so-called “best practices”.* *He left masterpieces unfinished, filled notebooks with "useless" observations and let his mind wander down endless paths of inquiry.* *In fact in a moment of self-doubt he wrote:* > *"Tell me if anything was ever done,"* > *"Tell me. Tell me. Tell me if ever I did a thing. . . . Tell me if anything was ever made."* *Yet this seemingly scattered approach produced history's greatest polymath and an equally prolific body of work often centuries ahead of its time.* *Isaacson summarized Leonardo’s approach that’s a useful counter to many modern day orthodoxies. His methods fundamentally challenge what we often take for granted as common sense.* *Let’s examine a few.* --- ### Pursuing useless knowledge > *Seek knowledge for its own sake*. Not all knowledge needs to be useful. Sometimes it should be pursued for pure pleasure. Leonardo did not need to know how heart valves work to paint the *Mona Lisa*, nor did he need to figure out how fossils got to the top of mountains to produce *Virgin of the Rocks*. By allowing himself to be driven by pure curiosity, he got to explore more horizons and see more connections than anyone else of his era. He studied things for which there was no immediate application. These were not distractions but more like deposits. Over time, they created a mental topography capable of generating ideas on multiple levels, across frames. The [interconnected nature of complexity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) means we don’t always know what ultimately leads to what. Except we always operate as if it's otherwise, carefully choosing and deciding. Some of the best outcomes in our lives, and companies, happen despite of, not because of, planning. We don’t plan for enough [obliquity](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/feynman-obliquity). Steve Jobs once dismissed the [iPhone as a dumb idea](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/lsw31-iphone-was-once-a-dumb-idea). ### Willingness to stay naive > *Retain a childlike sense of wonder*. At a certain point in life, most of us quit puzzling over everyday phenomena. We might savor the beauty of a blue sky, but we no longer bother to wonder why it is that color. Leonardo did…. We should be careful to never outgrow our wonder years, or to let our children do so. Societal norms equate maturity with narrowed focus. But Leonardo shows how maintaining childlike wonder can sustain professional longevity. This is especially relevant in later stages of careers. We turn into cynics who know all the ways something won’t work. [Sophistication is overrated](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/), even stifling. Cultivated naiveté on the other hand is an advantage. However, it takes conscious effort to resist the promise of cynical practicality. Real professionals work hard to remain [deliberate amateurs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-amateur/). ### Fallacy of the big picture > Start with the details. In his notebook, Leonardo shared a trick for observing something carefully: Do it in steps, starting with each detail. A page of a book, he noted, cannot be absorbed in one stare; you need to go word by word. > > “If you wish to have a sound knowledge of the forms of objects, begin with the details of them, and do not go on to the second step until you have the first well fixed in memory.” Leaders commonly advocate “big picture thinking,” overlooking the fact that often the so-called big picture is built on a bedrock of neglected details. Leonardo’s emphasis on granular details exposes this fallacy. Genuine strategic acumen is derived from an intense, even **obsessive, familiarity with minutiae**. Clarity actually increases when attention to detail deepens, challenging the conventional glorification of abstract, simplified visions. Related: [How leaders botch strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-mistakes-okr-strategy/). ### Foolish ambitions > See things unseen. Leonardo’s primary activity in many of his formative years was conjuring up pageants, performances, and plays. He mixed theatrical ingenuity with fantasy. This gave him a combinatory creativity. He could see birds in flight and also angels, lions roaring and also dragons. Most of us use our imaginations to **ruminate rather than create** the future we want. The former comes naturally. The latter has to be developed intentionally. Seeing angels in birds and monsters in lions isn’t fantasy. It’s imposing structure on potential. Most things worth building start as fragile intuitions. You either learn to hold them long enough for them to take shape, or you default to what’s already well-trodden. Unfortunately, the default is neither noteworthy nor novel. If we only pursue ideas that are already clear and proven we'll always be following the herd, not leading. ### Inefficient obsessions > *Go down rabbit holes.* He filled the opening pages of one of his notebooks with 169 attempts to square a circle. In eight pages of his Codex Leicester, he recorded 730 findings about the flow of water; in another notebook, he listed sixty-seven words that describe different types of moving water. … He drilled down for the pure joy of geeking out. He didn’t skim the surface of a topic. He exhausted it. Not because he needed all the data, but because fluency comes from depth. This kind of obsessive recursion isn’t excess. It’s a cognitive infrastructure that allows for fast, intuitive action later. But only if you’ve gone deep enough. Given enough structure, **inefficiency can help competence, not undermine it.** ### Distracted wandering > The greatest rap on Leonardo was that these passionate pursuits caused him to wander off on tangents, literally in the case of his math inquiries. It “has left posterity the poorer,” Kenneth Clark lamented. But in fact, Leonardo’s willingness to pursue whatever shiny subject caught his eye made his mind richer and filled with more connections. What might be labeled today as **attention deficit was Leonardo’s strength.** Modernity prizes focus, but it can also turn into fixation. Meaningful creativity requires the intentional disruption of conventional focus. Intellectual drift is often when dissimilar ideas collide and reconfigure, creating unexpected juxtapositions ### Skilful procrastination > While painting *The Last Supper*, Leonardo would sometimes stare at the work for an hour, finally make one small stroke, and then leave. He told Duke Ludovico that creativity requires time for ideas to marinate and intuitions to gel. “Men of lofty genius sometimes accomplish the most when they work least,” he explained, “for their minds are occupied with their ideas and the perfection of their conceptions, to which they afterwards give form.” > > Most of us don’t need advice to procrastinate; we do it naturally. But **procrastinating like Leonardo requires work**: it involves gathering all the possible facts and ideas, and only after that allowing the collection to simmer. **“Slack” and “waste” are not the same thing**, and you’d be surprised how many managers don’t get this even at the highest levels. Leaders fear indecision. But structured delay is a sophisticated decision-making mechanism rather than a flaw. Patience in decision-making allows ideas to mature and reveals deeper insights. You are not avoiding; you’re incubating. ### Defending perfectionism > *Let the perfect be the enemy of the good.* When Leonardo could not make the perspective in the *Battle of Anghiari* or the interaction in the *Adoration of the Magi* work perfectly, he abandoned them rather than produce a work that was merely good enough. He carried around masterpieces such as his *Saint Anne* and the *Mona Lisa* to the end, knowing there would always be a new stroke he could add. > > Likewise, Steve Jobs was such a perfectionist that he held up shipping the original Macintosh until his team could make the circuit boards inside look beautiful, even though no one would ever see them. Both he and Leonardo knew that real artists care about the beauty even of the parts unseen. > > Eventually, Jobs embraced a countermaxim, “Real artists ship,” which means that sometimes you ought to deliver a product even when there are still improvements that could be made. That is a good rule for daily life. But there are times when it’s nice to be like Leonardo and not let go of something until it’s perfect. **“Perfect is the enemy of good” simplifies complex decision-making.** Leonardo shows a relentless fidelity to personal standards and aspirations. His refusal to compromise his vision highlights the fact that sometimes perfectionism is precisely what differentiates true mastery from mere competence. The skill lies in recognizing when compromising for expediency undermines what you stand for. ### Dumb goals > Let your reach exceed your grasp. Imagine, as he did, how you would build a human-powered flying machine or divert a river. Even try to devise a perpetual-motion machine or square a circle using only a ruler and a compass. There are some problems we will never solve. Learn why. The “realistic” in the R of SMART goals while practical is also restrictive, [even dumb](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/), when used without discretion. **When you try something just out of reach, you reveal the limits of your current model.** That tension creates movement, even when the project itself doesn’t ship. ### The value of fantasy > Indulge fantasy. His giant crossbow? The turtle-like tanks? His plan for an ideal city? The man-powered mechanisms to flap a flying machine? Just as Leonardo blurred the lines between science and art, he did so between reality and fantasy. It may not have produced flying machines, but it allowed his imagination to soar. Fantasy is dismissed as frivolous in serious business contexts. But **thinking absurdly sharpens what's possible**. It detaches the present from its default constraints and exposes previously hidden assumptions. ### Customers aren’t always right > Create for yourself, not just patrons. No matter how hard the rich and powerful marchesa Isabella d’Este begged, Leonardo would not paint her portrait. But he did begin one of a silk-merchant’s wife named Lisa. He did it because he wanted to, and he kept working on it for the rest of his life, never delivering it to the silk merchant. Too much customer-centricity sometimes misses the point. Lasting impact often arises **from deeply personal investment in work, not solely from external demands.** Sometimes your internal compass has to take precedence over market demands. ### Solitary geniuses collaborate > Genius is often considered the purview of loners who retreat to their garrets and are struck by creative lightning. Like many myths, that of the lone genius has some truth to it. But there’s usually more to the story. > > The Madonnas and drapery studies produced in Verrocchio’s studio, and the versions of *Virgin of the Rocks*and *Madonna of the Yarnwinder* and other paintings from Leonardo’s studio, were created in such a collaborative manner that it is hard to tell whose hand made which strokes. *Vitruvian Man* was produced after sharing ideas and sketches with friends. … > > Genius starts with individual brilliance. It requires singular vision. But executing it often entails working with others. Innovation is a team sport. Creativity is a collaborative endeavor. Leadership mythology, and especially the [myths around creativity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/), often glorifies solitary genius. But Leonardo reveals collaboration as intellectual humility. Great leadership hinges less on individual brilliance and more on orchestrating collective genius. Great teams aren’t unified by agreement but through mutual fascination. ### The real value of lists > Make lists. And be sure to put odd things on them. Leonardo’s to-do lists may have been the greatest testaments to **pure curiosity** the world has ever seen. His lists weren’t for managing time but for cataloguing curiosity. They weren’t about productivity, but discovery. Naming what you don’t understand changes how you see. It rearranges your mental inventory. Rather than mere tasks, **lists can be a deliberate shaping and curating of your mental landscapes and possibilities**. If your lists don’t inspire, perhaps that’a signal. ### Unanswered questions > Be curious, relentlessly curious. … **his distinguishing and most inspiring trait was his intense curiosity**. He wanted to know what causes people to yawn, how they walk on ice in Flanders, methods for squaring a circle, what makes the aortic valve close, how light is processed in the eye and what that means for the perspective in a painting. … Leo didn’t ask questions to close them. Instead, he asked them to stay in tension with what he didn’t yet understand. **That kind of questioning doesn’t lead to clean answers.** It leads to better pattern recognition, more unexpected angles, and a resistance to premature answers. Fast closure doesn’t build the muscle for real insight. ### Observation as a practice > Observe. Leonardo’s greatest skill was his acute ability to observe things. It was the talent that empowered his curiosity, and vice versa. It was not some magical gift but a product of his own effort. When he visited the moats surrounding Sforza Castle, he looked at the four-wing dragonflies and noticed how the wing pairs alternate in motion. When he walked around town, he observed how the facial expressions of people relate to their emotions, and he discerned how light bounces off differing surfaces. … He treated perception like a craft. Not something you’re born with, but something you work on. **The byproduct of this kind of trained observation is not mere data, but judgement and discernment.** ### Hyper promiscuity > Avoid silos. At the end of many of his product presentations, Jobs displayed a slide of a sign that showed the intersection of “Liberal Arts” and “Technology” streets. He knew that at such crossroads lay creativity. > > Leonardo had a free-range mind that merrily wandered across all the disciplines of the arts, sciences, engineering, and humanities. His knowledge of how light strikes the retina helped inform the perspective in *The Last Supper*, and on a page of anatomical drawings depicting the dissection of lips he drew the smile that would reappear in the *Mona Lisa*. > > He knew that art was a science and that science was an art…. Reality doesn’t respect categories. Siloed thinking cripples creativity. As another great [Vincent van Gogh advised](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#cross-pollinate), knowing only one thing is stultifying. Leonardo’s expansive cross-disciplinary explorations show that innovation happens at the intersection of varied fields and interests. In our modern hyper-specialized professional environments, **cross-domain fluency is underutilized** as a competitive advantage, both in organizations and careers. --- Issacson closes his section with the following: > *Be open to mystery*. Not everything needs sharp lines. We crave clarity but Leonardo’s embrace of mystery shows tolerance of ambiguity as an essential skill of mastery. **It’s a deliberate resistance to over-simplification.** Rather than eliminate uncertainty, we have to learn to dance with it and see what emerges. ### Work is Not School: Surviving Institutional Stupidity URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:44:33.000Z For 16+ years, we master the rules of school. Study hard, get good grades, follow the formula and ultimately merit wins. Then we enter the workforce and none of it works quite like we thought. This becomes painfully obvious as you rise higher in the org. Even seasoned veterans forget this. Recently, a director-level client hit a minor career bump and spiraled into crisis mode, their expectations still anchored in what I call "school rules". **Organizations don't run purely on merit or even clear criteria. Although they claim otherwise using buzzwords like “merit” and “data”.** That’s only one part of the story, and also what’s visible. The other part, often more consequential, runs on flawed psychology, imperfect decisions, and competing interests. You can call it **organizational absurdities. Or more bluntly, institutional stupidity.** What follows is a reality check. It’s a “letter to frustrated high-performers” who keep bumping up against these unwritten rules of work. Consider it your guide to staying sane while playing the long game. - [If you have to, blame stupidity not malice](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#if-you-have-to-blame-stupidity-not-malice) - [Organizations are anything but meritocracies](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#organizations-are-anything-but-meritocracies) - [Perception matters as much as performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#perception-matters-as-much-as-performance) - [Don’t waste time fighting for “objective fairness.”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#don%E2%80%99t-waste-time-fighting-for-%E2%80%9Cobjective-fairness%E2%80%9D) - [Positioning what you offer](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#positioning-what-you-offer) - [Mind the gap: your standards vs their’s](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#mind-the-gap-your-standards-vs-their%E2%80%99s) - [Higher you go, more it’s an inverted funnel](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#higher-you-go-more-it%E2%80%99s-an-inverted-funnel) - [Know which game you’re choosing to play](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#know-which-game-you%E2%80%99re-choosing-to-play) - [Watching your circle of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#watching-your-circle-of-control) - [Keep a balanced portfolio](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/#keep-a-balanced-portfolio) 💡 **Before diving in, a quick note: This piece deliberately spotlights the subjective aspects of organizational life. While companies strive for objectivity in all areas, there's an overlooked undercurrent of subjectivity that significantly impacts work, and careers.* **By highlighting this less-discussed dimension, I hope to provide a more complete picture and prevent unnecessary frustration. You won’t avoid it completely, but at least you’ll be better equipped.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## **If you have to, blame stupidity not malice** Most of what we chalk up to “politics” or “backstabbing”, aka bad intent, is often better explained by stupidity, inertia, bad incentives, fragmented attention, and misaligned maps of reality. People are juggling too much, thinking too little, and rarely stepping back to ask, “What actually makes sense here?” When you assume stupidity instead of malice, you stay above the fray, stop taking slights personally, or turning misjudgments into betrayals. This way we retain agency and choice. **Assuming malice turns you into a cynic. In contrast, assuming stupidity keeps you curious.** Instead of fighting ghosts, you study the system and ask better questions: - What pressures is that person responding to? - What game are they trying to win? - What am I assuming as rational that’s not? No one is out to get you; they’re just out to get through the week. The shift from malice to stupidity gives you just enough distance to be curious instead of reactive. ## **Organizations are anything but meritocracies** Managers will claim they are, and we want to believe them. But the reality is that the best don’t always rise. At least not as easily or automatically as we think they should. Sometimes they do. But often, what gets rewarded isn’t performance but proximity to power, timing, perception, and political usefulness. This doesn’t mean performance doesn’t matter. **It means performance is necessary but not sufficient.** It is the entry ticket that gets you through the door, but does not guarantee a seat at the table. **Assuming that excellence is obvious is the fatal error of the conscientious expert.** Although it creates value, performance doesn’t automatically generate visibility, influence, or narrative. And those are the currencies that get traded when decisions are made by humans. Merit matters, but it needs a stage and a spotlight. It doesn’t mean becoming a shameless self-promoter. Rather, **your work needs a distribution strategy.** ## **Perception matters as much as performance** In school, everyone was evaluated against an objective criteria by someone paid to assess fairly. In organizations, no such thing exists. **Instead, perception *is* the “data”.**And this data is constructed often haphazardly by busy people working off limited inputs. You have to manage the story by[ shaping impressions intentionally](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/). Not only does perception matter as much as performance but [who’s doing the perceiving](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/) matters even more. Not all perceivers are created equal. A peer may love your work but they might not be a critical node in the web of influence. Who gets consulted? Do they know what you’ve built, and have they heard your name in relevant contexts? **It’s not just “do great work.”; it’s also “do the work that’s perceived as valuable.”** This means translating your work’s significance up the chain and shape its interpretation. If not, others will do it for you and they may not be generous, or even accurate. For more, see my last two articles: [Schrodinger’s Cat at Work Part I](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/) and [Schrodinger’s Cat at Work Part II](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-building-the-box-of-limitations/). ## **Don’t waste time fighting for “objective fairness.”** On paper, organizations love metrics: KPIs, OKRs, dashboards. They create the appearance of detached objectivity. Meanwhile, subjective decisions are constantly happening behind the scenes. The decisions about who to trust, or who gets a shot are made through informal reputations and shared stories about your value. Then the “data” is used to justify them in retrospect. Rather than rant against the system, **get good at reading the underlying subjective logic**: - Who does this person trust, and why? - What do they consider strategic vs tactical? - What would make them feel safe betting on me? Subjectivity isn’t the enemy. It’s the underlying physics of it. ## **Positioning what you offer** You may have had the right message but at the wrong moment, or in the wrong wrapper. Positioning is the context around your contributions: *Why now? Why you? Why this way?* A good idea, or stellar performance, poorly positioned can seem irrelevant. In contrast, a mediocre one nicely positioned is deemed visionary. It’s not just *what* you say but also *when*, *how*, and *through whom* you say it. Persistence matters as well. **Think in campaigns, not just one-time efforts.** In my piece on [effective conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/) I wrote: > *It's the series of messages in different forms that over time makes the difference. More akin to waves shaping the shoreline rather than the occasional once in a lifetime tsunami.* What messages are you sending, are they varied, and are you doing it consistently? **This is as true for marketing products as it is for positioning yourself inside organizations.** ## Mind the gap: your standards vs their’s Another obvious but forgotten reality of organizational life: **Not everyone operates by the same playbook.** You prioritize substance and direct contribution, while others focus on visibility and relationship-building in ways that are uncomfortable to you. It’s that colleague who excels at positioning routine work as “strategic”, or the peer who builds influence through cultivating key relationships. And yes, these approaches do yield results. But this doesn’t mean dismissing it as pure politics or simply abandoning your principles. It means understanding the landscape you're operating in. You can’t effectively participate in a game you refuse to see clearly. You're not at a disadvantage because you choose to act with integrity. It’s because you fail to recognize that influence flows through multiple channels and others are willing to play differently. **The key is not to match their behavior but to factor it in**. Instead of expecting fairness, **anticipate asymmetry**. And then get creative about how you play. Being ethical **doesn’t mean being passive but tactically awake.** ## **Higher you go, more it’s an inverted funnel** Perhaps the most obvious point but also **easy to forget especially if your career has been on autopilot so far.** There’s a bottleneck up top: fewer seats, more ambiguity, less structure and high subjectivity. It’s not just hard to get in but even harder to stay clear on what “good” even looks like. This means you can do everything right and still get passed over. **That’s not a verdict on your worth or ability, just geometry.** It also means that staying the course when things don’t go your way isn’t just a virtue but a practice. To play the long game, you have to keep showing up even after crushing disappointment without getting cynical of the process. Put differently, **you need high levels of** [**frustration tolerance**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/)**.** Cliched? Yes, very much so, but also uncommon. It means if you can pull it off, it’s a [source of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/). ## **Know which game you’re choosing to play** There is no one game being played. There are multiple, overlapping games with different scoring systems. Some are playing to build long-term credibility; others for short-term visibility. You can’t play them all and neither should you try. **The real problem is we slide into playing someone else's game without realizing it.** We adopt the norms and metrics of others without checking if that’s the game we actually want to play, let alone win. So we end up optimizing for a role we don’t respect, or chasing promotions that hollow us out. Whatever you’re doing, own it outright. Not just the upside but also the downside. If you're focused on building something lasting like developing others, or robust systems, you need to accept that visible status markers (titles, promotions, recognition) might not happen right away. The danger isn't which path you pick, whether it's chasing promotions or maintaining your autonomy. **The real disaster is to sleepwalk down a path while pretending you had no choice in the matter.** ## Watching your circle of control An easy way to burn out is to focus relentlessly on **things you care about but cannot actually influence**. Over time, especially in large organizations, it's tempting to attribute everything to forces outside yourself. This induces [organizational helplessness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/#locus-of-control-and-learned-helplessness-in-organizations). A sense that nothing you do matters unless someone above says so. Fight that, not with bluster, but with deliberate ownership of [the space you control and influence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/). While experienced professionals often have more influence than they think, it's distributed differently than they expect. The key is maintaining [an internal locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) which includes your positioning, relationships, and what you are building. ## **Keep a balanced portfolio** This is a well-understood concept in investing but often missing in the context of long careers. If all your identity is wrapped up in organizational validation, you're fragile. This means setbacks don't just rattle your job, it rattles your sense of self. Many mid-career professionals learn this the hard way. To state the obvious: you are not your title, or your most recent performance review. **The anti-dote is diversification not of money, but meaning.** Rebalancing here means investing in other sources of connection and community. This includes: - Developing a craft that exists beyond a given employer. - Investing in communities that outlast org charts. - Projects, relationships, and sources of learning that replenish. You are building [adaptive capacity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-capacity/). A balanced portfolio also helps to play the long game with more [psychological courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) because your whole life isn't riding on the next promotion cycle or external validation. ## **In closing** By recognizing the subjective currents that shape work environments, we can operate within them more skillfully. This isn't cynicism or gaming the system. Rather, it's developing a nuanced understanding of how organizations actually function. This stance equips us to make more intentional choices about how to engage, contribute, and create meaning. As ideal as it sounds, the goal isn't to eliminate organizational absurdities, but to work effectively within and around them. By staying in the game, you find ways to gradually improve the system from within. Organizations are ultimately human constructs. **Imperfect, but not immutable.** ## Related reading - [Frustration tolerance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/) [Frustration Tolerance: An Essential for Surviving Large OrgsIn leadership and life, ambitions often outpace our ability to consistently execute on them. A hidden hurdle that trips up many is their level of “frustration tolerance.” This is particularly true in large organizations that are literally designed to frustrate ambitions and agendas. In this piece, I unpack the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-93.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/High-Frustration-Tolerance.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/) - [Negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-94.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Negative-Capability-Balance-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) - [Circle of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) [Circle of Control, Influence, and Acceptance: Where to Focus Your EnergyHow do effective leaders maintain their composure when everything seems out of control? They’re adept at discerning what they can control vs what they can’t, and what they can influence. The circle of control, influence, and concerns (acceptance) framework or CIA — is a “leadership triage” tool that helps![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-95.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Circle-of-Control--Influence--Concerns--Acceptance--CIA--1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) - [Locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) [Locus of Control: A Leadership PerspectiveLocus of control refers to how we view circumstances in terms of the amount of control we have over situations and the experiences that affect us. I look at locus of control specifically in the context of leadership and management: how locus of control impacts leadership performance, and how it![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-96.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Locus-of-control---internal-vs-external-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) - [Cognitive distortions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) [Cognitive Distortions that Undermine Clear ThinkingLeaders are paid to think clearly. And a big impediment to clear thinking is what CBT/REBT calls Cognitive Distortions: errors in thinking or thinking traps we commonly fall for. Most high-performers are not pathological, but instead fall for them when upset or in high-stress situations. In this post, I![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-97.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Cognitive-Distortions--lr-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) ### The Leadership Shadow: When Strengths Backfire URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/ Last updated: 2025-08-26T14:33:58.000Z *It's easy to assume that leaders derail due to obvious flaws like poor judgment, unchecked ego, toxic behavior. But that's not usually the case.* ***Many derail because they lean too hard on the very strengths that got them there.*** *Like a rope fraying one thread at a time, this happens slowly and invisibly.* *They overuse a trusted way of leading until they can’t see what they've lost, and become narrower, less adaptable, and more disconnected. Leadership, given enough time, casts a shadow that colors how others see you, and ultimately, how you see yourself.* *Understanding your leadership shadow is essential for survival. This piece maps that hidden territory.* --- ## From managerial roles to leadership shadows Henry Mintzberg famously mapped out [ten managerial roles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/)—everything from figurehead to negotiator to disturbance handler—based on close observation of how executives actually spend their time. It was one of the first attempts to ground leadership in what leaders do, not just what they intend. However, Mintzberg's observations didn't fully capture what happens beneath the surface. This is where Erik de Haan and Anthony Kasozi pick up the thread in [*The Leadership Shadow: How to Recognize and Avoid Derailment, Hubris and Overdrive*](https://amzn.to/41LFVnj?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* They highlight how: 1. Roles not only organize behavior, they also shape [identity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/). 2. Every leadership function privileges some part of you and suppresses something else. 3. Leadership roles often distort who you become. Every time you emphasize one aspect of yourself to meet leadership demands — decisiveness, vision, steadiness — another part gets pushed aside. Over time, this distortion hardens and conflates the role you play with who you are. What you regularly express is only half the story. The other half—the parts you've unconsciously put away—becomes your shadow that quietly builds in the background. The result isn't immediately obvious. You're still hitting targets and respected. But underneath, the very things that made you successful start limiting you. While Mintzberg showed the visible architecture of managerial work, De Haan and Kasozi reveal what's underneath that structure: **emotional cost, cognitive drift, and identity creep that comes with being "the leader."** ## **Three core modes of leading** De Haan and Kasozi distill leadership into three core functions, or “modes of contribution” along with the illusions (shadow effects) these create. These are patterns that emerge based on how you habitually lead: 1\. **Doing (Supporting):** You make things happen, facilitate, decide, allocate, and push forward. 2\. **Thinking (Inspiring):** You set direction, generate insight, synthesize complexity, articulate what’s next. 3\. **Feeling (Containing):** You absorb emotional strain, hold space, offer empathy, and steady the group. Each of these are vital and none is superior. But when one becomes your dominant posture, it starts to distort. Not how you perform, but what you no longer perceive. ## **Every strength casts a shadow** Leadership doesn’t just bring your strengths into the light. It also casts parts of you into the shadow. Here’s how each function creates its own blind spot: ### **1\. Doing → Illusion of Omnipotence** If your strength is action, decisiveness, and delivery, you begin to see yourself as **the one who *makes things happen*.** And when that’s reinforced enough times, it becomes difficult to admit when you can’t. You suppress your own needs for support, collaboration, or pause, and instinctively fill gaps before others can step in. You become the leader who always carries the load — and quietly resents others for not doing the same. Over time, this creates a kind of functional isolation. **People expect you to act, not ask. And you expect the same of yourself.** This is the illusion of omnipotence, not out of arrogance, but **over-functioning.** It's t**he belief that your value lies in what you *do*, and if you stop doing, you stop leading.** ### **2\. Thinking → Illusion of Infallibility** If your primary strength is sensemaking — connecting dots, spotting trends, offering insight — you may start to unconsciously identify with your ideas. You the one with the plan and who offers clarity. But clarity can become rigidity. You stop noticing when your framing is incomplete. You explain instead of listening, and analyze when someone needed empathy. Thinking sharpens, but curiosity dulls. Illusion of infallibility doesn’t mean you think you’re always right. It means you’ve stopped noticing the moments when you’re not. **You've become immune to correction** because others have learned that disagreement rarely changes your mind. ### **3\. Feeling → Illusion of Invulnerability** If your default mode is emotional containment — absorbing others’ distress, staying calm in crisis, showing empathy — people see you as a source of steadiness. You’re the one who holds the space. But if you over-identify with this role, you begin to ignore your own needs. You become so used to listening that you stop expressing. Others feel safe with you but rarely intimate. You start to believe you don’t get rattled. And when you do, you hide it even from yourself. With time, you flatten emotionally as a way for self-protection. This is the **illusion of invulnerability: the unspoken belief that you don’t need care, because you’re the one giving it.** ## **Why** this matters [Derailment rarely announces itself ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/)and isn’t typically caused by dramatic flaws. It’s caused by **unexamined loyalty to a single way of leading**. It builds through overuse, distortion, and self-narrowing, because you haven’t adjusted the role you’ve been living in. - The doer burns out, surrounded by passive teams. - The thinker loses influence, dismissed as detached or arrogant. - The feeler disappears into quiet resentment, wondering why no one checks in on them. **Most leaders don’t burn out from weakness but from unexamined strength.** The damage manifests as disconnection — from your full range of abilities, diverse perspectives, and evolving team needs. As others adapt to your blind spots, [feedback diminishes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/#honest-feedback-is-a-rarity) and presence becomes rigid. This is why the shadow matters. Not as a psychological metaphor, but as **operational reality**. Ignoring vulnerability or [doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) doesn't just limit personal growth; it constrains your entire leadership field. Examining these dynamics is a vital way to sustain leadership effectiveness and prevent the invisible drift toward [derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). By recognizing these patterns early, leaders can reclaim their full range and maintain the flexibility essential for long-term success. ## **What to do about it** You don’t need a psychological deep dive to work with this. Just stop assuming that your best mode is the only one. Three simple steps can help surface the shadow: ### **1\. Name your dominant mode** - Which of the three functions — doing, thinking, or feeling — do you rely on most? What do others instinctively come to you for? - Then ask: What don’t they come to me for? What do I avoid? What situations do I feel ill-equipped to handle? - That’s your edge. And also your shadow. ### **2\. Track what irritates you** - Irritation is often unacknowledged projection. The behaviors that bother you in others — neediness, indecision, emotionality — often point to parts of yourself you’ve disowned. - What we can’t stand is often what we fear becoming. ### **3\. Loosen the identity grip** on your primary mode The most insidious trap isn’t over-functioning but too much self-identifying with the function. - “I’m the one who gets things done.” - “I’m the one who sees the big picture.” - “I’m the one who stays grounded.” These are roles. Not realities. The longer you believe them, the less room you have to grow. The goal isn’t balance but integration. [Leadership range comes not from *adding skills*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/), but from reclaiming the parts you’ve stopped allowing. ## **In closing** Mintzberg showed us the architecture of what leaders do. De Haan and Kasozi invite us to ask what those roles *do to us*. This is a deeper aspect of leadership which goes beyond execution by staying aware of the costs in order to stay in the [long game](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/long-term-thinking-careers-practice-art/). You don’t need to do less of what you’re great at. You just need to notice how it's changing you. The longer you lead, the more you need to ask: **What has my role made me forget about myself?** ## Related reading - [Leadership Derailment: How Good Managers Go Bad](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/) [Leadership Derailment: How Good Managers Go BadThe executive stared out the window, shell-shocked and feeling blindsided. Her boss had just asked for her resignation. How did it come to this? This scene plays out in organizations more often than we think. Leadership derailment — when a once-promising leader stumbles and falls — isn’t limited to the C-suite. It![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-38.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leadership-Derailment.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/) - [Negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-27.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Negative-Capability-Balance-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) - [Mintzberg's managerial roles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/) [Mintzberg’s Managerial Roles: The Multifaceted Nature of LeadershipHenry Mintzberg was one of the first to identify a comprehensive set of managerial roles that captured the reality of managerial work. Later, he updated this original list into an overall management model. In this piece, I examine the importance of Mintzberg’s managerial roles and management model, and how![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-28.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Mintzberg---Managerial-Roles-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/) - [The Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-29.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) - [Cognitive distortions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) [Cognitive Distortions that Undermine Clear ThinkingLeaders are paid to think clearly. And a big impediment to clear thinking is what CBT/REBT calls Cognitive Distortions: errors in thinking or thinking traps we commonly fall for. Most high-performers are not pathological, but instead fall for them when upset or in high-stress situations. In this post, I![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-30.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Cognitive-Distortions--lr.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) - [Coercive power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) [Coercive Power: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern LeadershipUnderstanding different types of power is crucial for effective leadership. Coercive power is a controversial yet sometimes necessary and effective tool. I delve into the nuances of coercive power, its applications, why leaders shouldn’t avoid it, and Elon Musk as an example of coercive leadership. What is Coercive Power![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-31.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Coercive-Power-in-Leadership.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) ## Sources and references 1. De Haan, E., & Kasozi, A. (2014). [*The Leadership Shadow: How to Recognize and Avoid Derailment, Hubris and Overdrive*](https://amzn.to/41LFVnj?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Lombardo, Michael M., et al. “Explanations of Success and Derailment in Upper-Level Management Positions.” *Journal of Business and Psychology*. *JSTOR*, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25092138. 3. McCall, M. W., Jr., & Lombardo, M. M. (1983). *Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed* (Technical Report No. 21). Center for Creative Leadership. [https://doi.org/10.35613/ccl.1983.1083](https://doi.org/10.35613/ccl.1983.1083?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. [Development Dimensions International. "Global Leadership Forecast."](https://www.ddiworld.com/glf?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. [Development Dimensions International. "Leadership Transitions Report."](https://www.ddiworld.com/research/leadership-transitions-report?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Open Quadrant of the Johari Window: Beyond Transparency in Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/ Last updated: 2026-04-02T18:12:55.000Z *"Radical transparency" is often touted as a leadership virtue. So why do leaders still struggle with openness? Using the *Johari Window's Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena)*, I examine the complexities of leadership transparency and a nuanced approach to mastering openness in leadership.* *Through the lens of Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena) in the Johari Window, we'll explore strategies to:* 1. *Navigate the fine line between authenticity and oversharing.* 2. *Use thoughtful vulnerability as a leadership enabler.* --- Imagine a CEO standing before her team, ready to announce a major pivot that could make or break the company. The room is thick with tension. She takes a deep breath and says, *"I'm going to be completely transparent with you..."* **But should she?** Welcome to the paradox of Quadrant 1 — the deceptively simple “Open Area” or “Arena” that trips up even the most seasoned leaders. While often misunderstood as mere transparency, true openness is both nuanced and purposeful. 💡 **This article draws on Joseph Luft’s insightful but mostly forgotten masterpiece:* ***Of Human Interaction** *. He was one of the originators of the Johari Window model. See sources for references.* ## Quadrant 1/Open Area of the Johari Window [The Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) is a tool for understanding self-awareness and interpersonal relationships. It consists of four quadrants: 1. Open Area (Quadrant 1): Known to self and others 2. Blind Area: Unknown to self but known to others 3. Hidden Area: Known to self but unknown to others 4. Unknown Area: Unknown to self and others Quadrant 1 — the focus of this piece — represents the information, behaviors, and characteristics known to both the individual and others. In leadership, this "Open Area" is crucial for building trust and clear communication. However, effectively managing this quadrant is far more complex than simply "being transparent." If you’re not already familiar with the tool, my article below will help: [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-24.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) ## **The nature of quadrant 1** Quadrant 1's size influences a leader's [cognitive flexibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/) and relational effectiveness. Limited openness leads to defensive behaviors and team friction that impair empathy and trust. In contrast, expansive openness enhances flexibility and emotional agility, building authentic connections and influence. A large Quadrant 1 or Open Arena equips leaders to handle the intricacies of team and stakeholder relationships, especially during organizational stress or transition. ![The Johari Window quadrants](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/03/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants-1.png) ### Don’t just share it, frame it. Quadrant 1 is often oversimplified as sharing and transparency. However, it’s fundamentally about establishing shared reality — a common interpretative space between leader and team, not merely openness for its own sake. **How do you create alignment between your intentions and others' perceptions?** Merely exposing intentions isn’t enough. Effective openness involves creating a reliable shared context. For instance, clearly articulating the rationale behind strategic decisions doesn’t just inform your team; it provides a coherent frame to interpret future behaviors, minimizing misalignment or confusion. To create true understanding, [build context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/): - Explain the 'why' behind the decision. - Share your reasoning process. - Highlight key factors influencing the choice. - Address concerns proactively. By [framing information carefully](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/), you transform anxiety into engagement and alignment. ### Adapting your approach Openness isn't one-size-fits-all. The size and quality of your open quadrant vary depending on the audience, context, and the maturity of relationships. **Match your level of openness to the team's readiness and context:** - New team or crisis: Focus on clear direction and expectations - Established relationships: Gradually share more vulnerabilities and uncertainties More openness isn't always better. Sometimes, temporarily withholding information (like during a restructuring) prevents unnecessary panic. The key is to develop situational awareness and make thoughtful decisions about what to share and when. Openness that motivates senior team members might overwhelm newer employees, creating unnecessary anxiety. Effective leaders use nuanced judgment, calibrating it not by rigid rules but by [sensitivity to context and relationships](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/relationship-level-of-communication/). Given its importance, **how can you increase your quadrant 1/open area?** Two primary mechanisms help: - Increasing [disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) - Increasing [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) and [reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) Let’s examine these closely. ![Goal of coaching is to increase your Open Quadrant or Arena](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/03/5---Johari-Window--goal-of-coaching.png) ## Mastering disclosure Every interaction shapes others’ perceptions of you. How can you make them work in your favor? In Quadrant 1 interactions are shaped by the difference between intentional openness and accidental self-disclosure. You must consciously manage both to maximize effectiveness. ### Purposeful disclosure [Effective self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) involves selectively sharing information from hidden areas (Quadrant 3) into the open area. Your openness sets the tone. Acknowledging a personal struggle or uncertainty about a project can build psychological safety by normalizing fallibility. A precise, intentional revelation — like discussing past mistakes to encourage calculated risk-taking — can meaningfully shift team behavior. When you choose to be open, make it count: - Share with a clear purpose. - Focus on relevant information that builds trust or solves problems. - Avoid dumping unrelated anxieties or doubts. More on **effective self-disclosure:** [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-25.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) ### Managing unintended signals Accidental disclosures—such as shifts in tone, body language, or hesitation— unintentionally reveal anxieties or [doubts](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/). Even slight signals, like momentary frustration during meetings, can discourage honest feedback. The leader’s challenge is twofold: developing heightened self-awareness to recognize these accidental signals in real-time and consciously mitigating their unintended effects. Develop self-awareness to catch these moments: - Pay attention to your non-verbal cues. - Ask trusted colleagues for feedback on your unconscious habits. - Practice mindfulness to stay present in interactions. When you catch yourself sending the wrong signal, address it immediately. ## Awareness and curiosity Quadrant 1 leverages a uniquely human capacity: reflective self-awareness combined with intentional curiosity. Thus, effective openness relies on a deep understanding of yourself and genuine interest in others. These qualities are crucial for expanding and managing your Open Area. Self-awareness allows leaders to understand what to share and why, while curiosity drives them to seek new information and perspectives which expands their Open Area. ### Reflection: your strategic advantage Unlike animals driven primarily by instinct, we humans can deliberately redirect our attention, exploring nuances of our actions and experiences from multiple angles. Leaders who cultivate this reflective habit recognize subtle cues others miss, allowing them to adjust strategies rapidly. Consciously reflecting on team dynamics after a challenging meeting helps identify underlying issues early, preventing conflicts before they escalate. Make [reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) a habit: - Keep a leadership journal. - Schedule regular peer feedback sessions. - Use structured self-assessment tools. - [Set aside time weekly to reflect](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) on your interactions and decisions. These practices will help you uncover blind spots and refine your self-awareness. ### Curiosity: the key to adaptability People vary in their natural openness to experience and reflection. Those who maintain broad curiosity throughout their careers develop adaptability, thriving amid complexity and uncertainty. In contrast, those who prematurely narrow their openness — due to past successes or fear of exposure — develop rigid habits and [mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) that reduce adaptability, diminishing their effectiveness. Curiosity is essential for expanding one's Open Area. By seeking new information and perspectives, leaders can bring more knowledge into their shared space, enhancing their ability to genuinely connect. Develop a habit of noticing subtle cues: - Watch for shifts in team energy during meetings. - Watch for hesitations or unasked questions. - Investigate these signals to uncover hidden concerns or opportunities. Effective leaders never stop being curious. They: - Seek new perspectives - Challenge their assumptions regularly. - Stay open to [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/), even after success. Sustained openness builds greater adaptability and resilience. ## **The paradox of openness** Leaders face the paradox of balancing authenticity with the impulse to mask vulnerability. Genuine authenticity doesn’t mean full transparency; rather, it demands subtlety and sophisticated judgment. ### **Beyond simplistic authenticity** Authenticity isn’t raw exposure. It means purposefully sharing genuine experiences or feelings that enhance trust and connection without triggering unnecessary concerns. For instance, you may share uncertainties about external market conditions but withhold personal anxieties that can undermine team confidence. Effective leaders carefully weigh the impact of disclosures, understanding that misplaced openness can burden or mislead teams. Authenticity in leadership means: - Sharing vulnerabilities purposefully, not indiscriminately. - Balancing openness about challenges with clear plans to address them. - Building trust through carefully chosen moments of transparency. Avoid oversharing. Ask yourself: - Will this information provide clarity or motivation? - Is this the right time and context for this disclosure? - Am I sharing to truly benefit the team, or for personal reasons? ### Thoughtful vulnerability Intentionally revealing vulnerabilities deepens relational trust, signaling confidence rather than weakness. Leaders adept at vulnerability recognize when openness serves a greater purpose. The difference between thoughtful vulnerability and damaging exposure lies in the intentionality and specificity of disclosure, highlighting the critical role of discernment in leadership. Vulnerability, when judicious, can transform your leadership: - Share past challenges and how you overcame them. - Admit current growth areas. - Use your experiences to encourage and inspire others. Timing is crucial. Share vulnerabilities: - When you have a clear purpose. - After developing strong relationships. - Alongside strategies for overcoming challenges. ## Expanding quadrant 1 (open area) Expanding this quadrant is crucial for a leader’s growth, but not always easy or automatic. It’s achieved through deliberate reflection, active feedback, and challenging self-exposure. Leaders often face internal and external barriers to increasing their openness. Understanding these challenges is the first step. A primary barrier is what Thorstein Veblen called **“trained incapacity.”** > The greatest single source for acquiring more openness is in the matrix of relationships to oneself and to others. Because each of us has, through experience, acquired some "trained incapacity" in functioning in this matrix, I believe that there is a genuine need to find interpersonal experiences which lead to more openness to the world. > > — Joseph Luft \[1\] Leaders develop habitual patterns — routines, assumptions, and mental shortcuts —that once helped but now inhibit growth. These unconsciously limit openness, turning strengths into rigid blind spots. Reliance on past successful methods — like micromanagement under stress — can solidify into inflexible leadership styles. To grow, leaders must challenge the habits and beliefs that brought them initial success. Watch out for: - Habits that once worked but now limit you. - Resistance to new ideas or approaches. - Difficulty adapting to change. These could indicate that your past successes are holding you back. ### **Practices for expansion** Breaking habitual blindness demands intentional practices — like structured reflection or feedback sessions — to consistently challenge ingrained assumptions. Leaders who routinely invite discomfort through controlled challenges, such as seeking contrary opinions or working outside their expertise, can expand their openness, discovering blind spots. To expand your Open Area: - Engage in regular structured reflection. - Seek diverse perspectives and feedback. - Challenge your assumptions through coaching. - Experiment with new approaches. Push yourself out of your comfort zone: - Take on unfamiliar roles or projects. - Engage with people who challenge your viewpoints. - Seek out experiences that force you to adapt. Exposure to novelty will keep you growing and adapting as a leader. Over time, your "Open Area" in the Johari Window will expand, allowing for more effective communication, stronger relationships, and ultimately, more impactful leadership. ## **Quadrant 1 as a leadership competency** Quadrant 1 isn’t a passive state or a straightforward ideal — it’s an essential competency demanding cultivation, continuous self-awareness, and judgment. Leaders who develop this quadrant build adaptive capacity and deepen relational trust. Rather than mere transparency, it’s about leadership maturity: the art of managing openness with clarity, purpose, and depth. ## Related reading [Four Levels of CommunicationWhy is it that the most critical information is often the very thing that remains unsaid? Leaders tend to operate under the illusion that communication is a simple, linear process of “telling”—setting direction, articulating values, and dispensing expertise. Or at best an “exchange”. Yet, the higher they rise in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-170.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Johari-Window---Levels-of-Communication-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/four-levels-of-communication/) [Open Quadrant of the Johari Window: Beyond Transparency in Leadership“Radical transparency” is often touted as a leadership virtue. So why do leaders still struggle with openness? Using the Johari Window’s Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena), I examine the complexities of leadership transparency and a nuanced approach to mastering openness in leadership. Through the lens of Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena) in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-171.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) ## Sources 1. Of human interaction by Joseph Luft. 2. Hanson, P. (1973). **The Johari window: A model for soliciting and giving feedback.** 3. Luft, Joseph, & Ingham, Harry, (1961). **The Johari Window: A Graphic Model of Awareness in Interpersonal Relations.** 4. [The New Johari Window](https://library.psychology.edu/the-new-johari-window-2-models-of-interpersonal-awareness/3/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by William Bergquist ### Schrodinger’s Cat at Work II: Building the Box of Limitations URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-building-the-box-of-limitations/ Last updated: 2025-03-21T14:17:40.000Z "I'm just not strategic enough for that role," Joe told me, shaking his head. With fifteen years of stellar technical leadership and a track record of flawless execution, he seemed like an obvious candidate for the open VP position. But he wouldn't even consider applying. He disqualified himself before anyone else could. **What fascinated me wasn't Joe's self-assessment. It was the certainty of his conviction.** In my coaching work, I've found that the hardest limitations to overcome aren't the external barriers we face. Instead, they're often ones we architect ourselves, albeit unknowingly. It’s a case of Schrödinger’s Cat but in reverse: instead of being trapped by an external observer, we become both the cat and the box-builder, actively creating our own containment. My last newsletter showed [how leaders shape organizational reality through observation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/), and the implications on perception of performance. Today, we examine something more insidious: **how the cat creates its own box irrespective of the observer’s actions.** We actively create the conditions for a certain kind of observation to take place —sometimes in our favor but often one that works against us. When was the last time you said *"I'm just not good at..."* or *"People like me don't..."*? Where did these indisputable facts come from? What made Joe so certain about his lack of strategic ability? The answer might surprise you. --- ## The logic of our boxes > *The range of what we see and do* > *Is limited by what we fail to notice.* > *And because we fail to notice* > *That we fail to notice*, > *There is little we can do* > *To change* > *Until we notice* > *How failing to notice* > *Shapes our thoughts and deeds.* > > *— R. D. Laing* In Schrödinger’s classic formulation, the cat is passive and at the mercy of the observer. However, lived reality is different. We (the cats) have an entirely different class of boxes we put ourselves into regardless of the environment (organizations) and the observers(leaders). Examples of these “boxes” include: - "I'm better at execution than strategy." - "I lack the natural charisma that leaders need." - "My analytical approach stops me from being inspiring." - "I'm too direct/honest for organizational politics." - "People from my technical background don't reach the C-suite." - "I need more credentials/experience before I can lead at that level." What’s interesting is that on the surface they feel intuitive and seem to follow logically from our experiences. This is especially true if you are the thoughtful, conscientious type. So what’s wrong with this? As it turns out, our “proof” is often built on shaky premises. The primary mechanism that leads to the convincing sounding “proof” is what organizational theorist Karl Weick calls **“enactment of limitations”\*\*\*\*.** ## What exactly is enactment? Enactment is the active process through which we create and shape our environment through our actions and interpretations. It’s fundamental to how we as individuals, and also entire organizations, construct reality. What makes enactment distinct is that **it's not just about responding to the environment - it's about creating that environment through our own actions**. When we act, we create "ecological changes" that then constrain or enable our subsequent choices. These actions don't happen in isolation; they create tangible changes that shape what is possible next. Here’s a simple example from Weick: > If I wander into a strange gathering with a chip on my shoulder and people are gruff with me and I leave in a huff, my actions are intertwined with those of the people milling around when I walked in. It remains for the selection activity to untangle how much hostility I generated and how much hostility was there already. > > Are they to blame for the rude reception, am I, are we both, or are neither? He emphasizes two key forms: - The bracketing of experience - where we isolate and pay attention to only certain aspects of our environment. - The creation of change - where our actions produce environmental shifts that then influence future actions. The key thrust is that **we aren't passive recipients** of our environment - **we are active participants in creating the very conditions that then come to shape us.** Our actions and the system's response form an ongoing, interactive cycle. ## Enactment of limitations The notion of “self-limiting beliefs” is common in our culture. And the usual explanation tends to be psychological. But this is often not actionable and only half-true. How did these so-called “beliefs” come about? A more useful approach is to interpret them as stemming from a “lack of testing” or, more bluntly, “inaction”. In his classic, [The Social Psychology of Organizing](https://amzn.to/4bEUWux?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Weick puts it this way: > Perceptions of personal "limitations," … turn out to be **a failure to act rather than a failure while acting**. > > Limitations are deceptive conclusions but, unfortunately, people don't realize this. What they don't realize is that **limitations are based on presumptions rather than action**. Knowledge of limitations is **not based on tests of skills but rather on an avoidance of testing**. > > On the basis of avoided tests, people conclude that constraints exist in the environment and that limits exist in their repertoire of responses. Inaction is justified by the implantation, in fantasy, of constraints and barriers that make action "impossible." These constraints, barriers, prohibitions then become prominent "things" in the environment. They also become self-imposed restrictions on the options that managers consider and exercise when confronted with problems. > > … > > Enormous amount of talk, socializing, consensus- building, and vicarious learning that goes on among managers often results in pluralistic ignorance … about the environment. Stunted enactment is the reason. > > Each person watches someone else avoid certain procedures, goals, activities, … and concludes that this avoidance is motivated by “real" noxiants in the environment. The observer profits from that “lesson" by himself then avoiding those acts and their presumed consequences. > > As this sequence of events continues to be repeated, managers conclude **that they know more and more about something that none of them has actually experienced firsthand.** This impression of knowing becomes strengthened because everyone seems to be seeing and avoiding the same things. And if everyone seems to agree on something, then it must exist and be true. > > If people want to change their environment, they need to change themselves and their actions—not someone else. Repeated failures of organizations to solve their problems are partially explained by **their failure to understand their own prominence in their own environments**. > > Problems that never get solved, never get solved because managers keep tinkering with everything *but* what they do. Not only do we actively construct these limitations ourselves, but they are built on ***avoidance* *of* action rather than *evidence from* action.** Joe's belief about lacking strategic capability wasn't based on a string of actual failed attempts at strategic work. Instead, he had systematically avoided strategic responsibilities throughout his career, interpreting his successful focus on execution as evidence of where his "natural" abilities lay. ## Breaking the boxes Building awareness of our role in this mechanism is a powerful tool for development. **Instead of seeing limitations as *facts*, we can treat them as *untested hypotheses*.** There’s a lot to gain from a willingness to test conventional wisdom and developing what I call a [*cultivated naïveté*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/). It shifts the question **from "What are my limitations?" to "What assumptions am I avoiding testing?"** For Joe, this meant starting small. He volunteered to lead a strategic planning session for his team; something he would have instinctively avoided before. To his surprise, his deep technical knowledge provided unique insights into future opportunities. While the experience didn't prove he was "strategic," it sure challenged his assumption that he couldn't be. Here are some of my observations “from the field”: ### **We are not passive recipients of ability.** Capability is an ongoing dynamic, negotiable construct. Growth is not just about acquiring new skills (external) but also about identifying and negotiating internal barriers, or what I call the [subtractive approach to mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/). ### **Limitations aren’t just mental; they’re performances in physical reality.** From an enactment perspective, we don’t just *think* our limitations - we *act* them out consistently. The ultimate challenge then is not to become limitless, but to become *a conscious architect of constraints*. Rather than treating them as “beliefs”, treat them as hypotheses to be tested. This makes every boundary a potential doorway to previously unavailable action sets. ### **Expertise, while great, also breeds limitations.** The more knowledgeable we become in a domain, the more likely we are to develop sophisticated reasons why certain things cannot be done. Experts are often more constrained by their understanding than novices are by their ignorance. In this way, success and knowledge become stronger limitations than failure and ignorance. ### **Avoidance rewires agency.** Enacted limitations don’t just confine present choices — they recursively shape future capacity for action. The longer they persist, the more ingrained they become. We no longer see them as negotiable but as fixed features of reality. This shift affects how we engage with risk and if we even examine, let alone challenge, accepted norms. ### **The smarter you are, the better you are at constructing a convincing case for inaction.** The more conscientious and smart you are, the better you are at rationalizing limitations, giving them a kind of intellectual solidity. We justify limitations by framing avoidance as “prudence” or “strategy.” Or we justify our reluctance to change by claiming we’re being “true to ourselves” aka “authentic.” However, this is often post-hoc justification for discomfort avoidance, or a lack of [frustration tolerance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/), rather than real foresight. ## The way forward Breaking through the architecture of limitations isn't just about awareness of self-imposed constraints. The real opportunity lies in actively testing them. This doesn't mean ignoring real limitations or attempting everything. Rather, it means becoming ***a conscious architect of constraints*** \- thoughtfully choosing which boundaries to accept and which to challenge. The next time you catch yourself saying "I'm just not good at x," ask: ***Is this a well-tested fact or a correct-sounding but ultimately untested presumption?*** The answer might surprise you. More importantly, testing it might surprise you even more. ### Schrödinger’s Cat at Work: When Performance and Perception Collide URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/ Last updated: 2025-03-10T22:31:50.000Z “You’ve lost your edge,” the new VP declared. Just eight months ago, the same contrarian thinking had earned my client the company’s innovation award. Same brain, same approach, different verdict. What changed? I’ve been on both ends of **the performance/perception spectrum** myself. One year I was the golden child who could do no wrong. The next, under different leadership, those same approaches made me “difficult.” Same work, different interpretations. Corporate success operates more like quantum physics than we want to admit —**the observer shapes the reality being observed.** What does this mean for leaders? Flipping the script — how does your organization and leadership perceive you? This is the first in a multi-part series. In today’s edition, I examine how leadership observation shapes organizational reality — like opening (or not opening) the quantum box of Schrödinger’s Cat. In Part 2, we will see how the cat, rather than being passive, actively creates its own “organizational box.” In follow-up editions, we’ll look at strategies for tackling these conundrums. --- In [*Leadership and the New Science*](https://amzn.to/41nPur1?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Margaret Wheatley writes: > Schrodinger’s cat is a classic thought problem in quantum physics. Physicist Erwin Schrödinger constructed the problem in 1935 …. We cannot know what is happening to something if we are not looking at it, and, stranger yet, nothing *does* happen to it until we observe it. … > > The problem of the cat has not yet been resolved, but here is the thought experiment. A live cat is placed in a box. The box has solid walls, so no one outside the box can see into it. This is a crucial factor, since the thought experiment explores the role of the observer in evoking reality. Inside the box, a device will trigger the release of either poison or food; the probability of either occurrence is 50/50\. Time passes. The trigger goes off, unobserved. The cat meets its fate. > > Or does it? > > Just as an electron is *both* a wave and a particle until our observation causes it to collapse as *either* a particle or wave, Schrödinger argues that the cat is both alive *and* dead until the moment we observe it. Inside the box, **when no one is watching, the cat exists only as a probability wave**. It is possible to calculate mathematically (as a Schrödinger wave function) all of the cat’s possible states. But it is impossible to say that the cat is living or dead until we observe it. It is the act of observation that determines the collapse of the cat’s wave function and makes it either dead or alive. **Before we peer in, the cat exists as probabilities. Our curiosity kills the cat. Or brings it back.** > > … > > I realized **I had been living in a Schrödinger’s cat world in every organization I had ever been in.** Each of these organizations had myriad boxes, drawn in endless renderings of organizational charts. **Within each of those boxes lay a “cat,” a human being**, rich in potential, whose **fate was determined, always and irrevocably, by the act of observation.** > > It is common to speak of self-fulfilling prophecies and the impact these have on people’s behavior. If a manager is told that a new trainee is particularly gifted, that manager will see genius emerging from the trainee’s mouth even in obscure statements. But if the manager is told that his or her new hire is a bit slow on the uptake, the manager will interpret a brilliant idea as a sure sign of sloppy thinking or obfuscation. > > From studies on the impact of opportunity in organizations… we know that **the “anointed” in organizations**, those high flyers who move quickly through the ranks, are given at least some of their wings through our desire to observe them as winners. We endow their ideas and words with more credibility. We entrust them with more resources and better assignments. We have already decided that they will succeed, so we continually observe them with the expectation that they will confirm our beliefs. > > Others in organizations go unobserved, forever invisible, bundles of potential that no one bothers to look at. Or they receive summary glances, are observed to be “dead,” and are thereafter locked into jobs that provide them with no opportunity to display any new potential. In the quantum world, **what you see is what you get.** In human organizations, we play with Schrödinger’s cat daily, determining the fate of all of us—our quality of aliveness or deadness—by what we decide to observe in one another. So it is not only quantum physicists who have to deal with the enigmas of observation. The observation problem is as real for us as it is for them. > > Schrodinger’s cat and the problem of observation pad quietly around our organizations in many forms. … **Every time we go to measure something, we interfere.** A quantum wave function builds and builds in possibilities until the moment of measurement, when its future collapses into only one aspect. Which aspect of that wave function comes forth is largely determined by ***what*** we decide to measure. > > **For leaders, being alert to the** observation **dilemma is critically important.** Management is addicted to numbers, taking frequent pulses of the organization in surveys, monthly progress checks, quarterly reports, yearly evaluations. It is important to stay aware to the realization that **no form of measurement is neutral.Every act of measurement loses more information than it gains.** > > So how can we ensure that we obtain sound information to make intelligent decisions? How can we know what is the right information to look for? How can we remain open to the information we lost when we went looking for the information we got? > > We don’t often allow these questions to surface in organizations. We tend to focus on a few key indicators, or the opinions of those we trust. **We worry more about the accuracy of the small bits of information we have and how best to analyze them than about the huge amounts of information we lose.** Even when we attempt to look for data that are new and different, we still act as though that data exists “out there” and that we just have to find the appropriate lens or expert to get it. Wheatley penned these lines in 1992 when complexity science was still “new.” Thirty years later, despite work becoming exponentially more complex, most organizations still cling to linear, predictable, “if-then” leadership approaches. **We've traded mechanical watches for smart ones, but our mental models remain stubbornly Newtonian**: organizations as simple machines rather than living systems. Consider the daily challenges we face both as leaders and followers. ### **(1) Perception defines who is “alive”.** People are placed in “boxes”—roles, reputations, and assumptions defining their perceived value. Some are actively observed and nurtured, while others remain unseen, like unmeasured quantum states. The choice of whom to watch, invest in, and include in key conversations determines who thrives and who “dies.” When only the usual suspects receive attention, fresh ideas and unconventional talent remain untapped. Over time, **this selective observation turns into a culture where certain roles, units, and personality types are valued** while others fade into oblivion. Invisibility is also self-reinforcing; no attention means no proof of excellence, leading to even more invisibility. ### **(2) Observation actively shapes reality.** Just as an unobserved quantum particle exists in multiple states, people and teams exist in multiple potential versions until leadership collapses them into a single identity. When leaders see someone as a “high performer,” they direct resources, attention, and opportunities toward them, reinforcing that reality. Conversely, those who remain unobserved stagnate—not due to lack of potential, but because no one has evoked it. **Leaders define what is considered “real” and valuable.** Strategic focus comes at a cost—some things will be left unexamined, unmeasured, and undervalued. **Every measurement eliminates more than it captures**, creating blind spots in decision-making. The danger is failing to acknowledge the consequences of what’s not being seen. ### **(3) Measurement changes the game itself.** Performance evaluations and metrics don’t reflect reality as much as they alter it. Measurement is interference. **As smart humans, when we know we’re being measured, we alter our behavior.** This means no assessment tool is purely objective; it always introduces distortion. The more an organization relies on measurement alone, the more it risks optimizing for what can be measured rather than what truly matters. Over time, you end up [running an organization by numbers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-danger-of-processes-becoming-proxies) that only hint at the bigger picture. Or worse, hide the real picture. ### **(4) Leadership is about holding tension.** Newtonian thinking pushes us toward certainty, predictability, and singular truths. Systems thinking, by contrast, demands comfort with uncertainty and ambiguity. **Effective leaders don’t rush to collapse possibilities;** they hold the tension of multiple potential futures, allowing the path to evolve rather than forcing premature conclusions. [Keats’ “negative capability”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) captures this notion well. ### **(5) Evoking, not just controlling.** Leadership is often seen as [directing and controlling](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/), but it’s also about evoking and releasing potential. Effective leaders don’t necessarily impose order on chaos but instead enable the conditions for patterns to emerge. **Just as particles behave differently under observation, people and teams respond to leadership differently** — shaping their performance based on expectations, support, and reinforcement. This means a key question for leaders is: **"How am I contributing to this particular problem?"** ### **(6) Participative intelligence** The universe’s participative nature shows that reality is co-created, not dictated. In organizations, breakthroughs happen from broad participation, not top-down control. When only a select few interpret data and make decisions, they collapse possibilities into a narrow reality. In contrast, **expanding participation in decision-making preserves the system’s complexity,** increasing robustness. Companies often approach strategy like a blueprint—fixed, linear, and predictive. However, systems are inherently uncertain, and outcomes are shaped by interaction. Strategy is a living, participatory process, continuously shaped by those engaging with it rather than a static plan imposed from above. Thomas Friedman called this tension [Carlson’s law](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/): > *Innovation that happens from the *top down* tends to be *orderly but dumb*.* > > *Innovation that happens from the *bottom up* tends to be *chaotic but smart*.* --- ## **Rethinking leadership** Schrödinger’s cat reminds us that we’re not separate from what we observe—we’re an integral part of it. We think we’re just *seeing* what’s out there, but in fact we’re *co-creating* it by choosing how, when, and what we observe. **Observation isn’t passive or neutral. It actively sculpts reality** and is generative. Leaders decide who thrives, who remains hidden, what counts as success, and which realities become “official.” Thus effective leadership is also about **staying open to “rich small data” that traditional metrics and big data miss.** In Part 2, I'll show how the cat, rather than being passive, actively creates its own "organizational box." ## Related reading - [Circular Causality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) - [Small Wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) - [The Systems Iceberg](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) - [Implicit leadership theories (ILT)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) - [Fundamental attribution error](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/) ### Frustration Tolerance: An Essential for Surviving Large Orgs URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:51:49.000Z *In leadership and life, ambitions often outpace our ability to consistently execute on them.* *A* *hidden hurdle that trips up many is their level of “frustration tolerance.” This is particularly true in large organizations that are literally designed to frustrate ambitions and agendas.* *In this piece, I unpack the critical yet under-explored construct of frustration tolerance, its effects on organizational life, and role in effective leadership.* --- Organizations are complex systems with numerous moving parts, conflicting interests, and unpredictable humans. We keep forgetting this to our detriment. Consider a newly appointed exec with a mandate for change. Their initial optimism often collides with an unseen barrier, not external market forces or competition, but internal friction inherent to large organizations. This friction — stemming from conflicting interests, established processes, and human systems — becomes a litmus test of leadership efficacy. From years of observing corporate ecosystems, I have realized that **frustration tolerance is a key differentiator between those who create impact and those whose ambitions falter** against the headwinds of organizational complexity. Frustration tolerance is more than patience. It's almost a requirement for navigating the convoluted workings of corporate structures without losing sight of objectives. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is low frustration tolerance? When you first read the definition of low frustration tolerance, it’s easy to dismiss that we don’t in fact fall for it. CBC’s (Cognitive Behavioral Coaching) definition of frustration tolerance takes it to the extremes for valid reasons. I contend it affects people at a much subtler level in the workplace, primarily due to day-to-day frictions of organizational life that accumulate over time. If not alert to it, it can take a real toll, leading to career [derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). To begin with, what is frustration? William Knaus explains: > Psychologists …define frustration as a condition that exists when a goal “suffers interference.” > > Frustration involves goal blockage or thwarting, followed by dissatisfaction. Few can avoid feeling frustrated over events such as walking to one’s motor vehicle and seeing an unexpected flat tire. Learning can involve frustration when we go over the same territory, and progress seems stalled. > > Frustration is a natural, primary, affective response to a perceived barrier. > > …This reaction to a barrier is often colored and shaped by the language we use to describe experience. Frustrations can erupt when we face a disparity between what we tell ourselves what we wanted, and what is... > > Frustration resides on a continuum. The process involves sensations of discomfort that can range from barely perceptible to powerful. If sufficiently intense, frustration can disrupt memory functions and result in disorganized thinking and behaving. Frustration tolerance is your capacity to navigate and endure challenging situations, setbacks, and organizational complexities without succumbing to negative emotions or counterproductive behaviors. People with high frustration tolerance can endure discomfort to achieve their goals, viewing it as inevitable and manageable. On the other hand, those with low frustration tolerance see difficulties as unbearable and give up easily. They prioritize immediate comfort over long-term goals. Explaining low frustration tolerance, Albert Ellis writes: > …a major reason that people perpetuate their psychological problems is that they adhere to a **philosophy of low frustration tolerance** (LFT). Such people believe that they *must* be comfortable and thus do not work to effect change because such work involves experiencing discomfort. > > They are short-range hedonists in that they are motivated to avoid short-term discomfort, even though accepting and working against their temporary uncomfortable feelings would probably help them to reach their long-range goals. … They **prefer to remain with their "comfortable discomfort" rather than face the change-related discomfort** that they believe they must not experience. … > > Another prevalent form of LFT is **"anxiety about anxiety."** Here, individuals believe that they *must not* be anxious and thus do not expose themselves to anxiety-provoking situations because they might become anxious if they did so—an experience they would rate as "awful." As such, they perpetuate their problems and overly restrict their lives to avoid experiencing anxiety. Ellis’ conception of low frustration tolerance includes: - Viewing difficulties and setbacks as catastrophic and unbearable. - Giving up quickly on challenging tasks. - Prioritizing short-term pleasure over long-term goals. - Using maladaptive coping mechanisms like procrastination and avoidance. He emphasizes that frustration is a natural part of life, but our beliefs about it determine our emotional responses. The key is avoiding what he calls [cognitive distortions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/). High frustration tolerance individuals understand that not getting what they want isn’t the end of the world, while those with low frustration tolerance catastrophize and demand that things should be different. ## Frustration tolerance in leadership In organizational leadership, frustration tolerance is crucial. Leaders with high frustration tolerance can navigate bureaucratic hurdles, interpersonal conflicts, and slow progress without losing sight of their objectives. In contrast, those with low frustration tolerance may: - Abandon initiatives prematurely. - React disproportionately to setbacks. - Create a tense work environment due to their inability to manage their own frustrations effectively. While we generally don't expect workplaces to be effortless, there's often a disconnect between our expectations and reality. Recognizing and accepting this discrepancy is key to developing frustration tolerance. In the professional world, there's a tendency to expect: - More order than chaos - More rationality than irrationality - More efficiency than inefficiency However, the reality of organizational friction contradicts these expectations. Workplace frustration stems from various sources: - Bureaucratic processes - Conflicting priorities - Limited resources - Interpersonal conflicts These are seen as impediments rather than inherent aspects of organizational life. This misalignment leads to a "meta-frustration" – frustration about being frustrated – which creates a cycle of negativity where we become increasingly intolerant of "normal" workplace challenges. As Lao Tzu noted, > He who thinks everything easy will end by finding everything difficult. This kind of meta-frustration impacts your ability to navigate organizational complexities. If left unchecked, it leads to decreased productivity, job dissatisfaction, and burnout. ## What causes low frustration tolerance? Understanding the root causes of low frustration tolerance helps with identifying triggers and developing strategies to overcome it. The CBC approach identifies four main types of irrational beliefs (IB) that create low frustration tolerance. IBs are **rigid, absolute, and often unrealistic demands** about how life or organizations "should" be, how others "must" behave, and how one "must" perform. When these demands are unmet, we experience excessive frustration, emotional distress, and engage in maladaptive behaviors. 💡 **Note that these thoughts are often not explicitly stated but nevertheless underlie actions and responses, albeit subtly.* ### **1\. Demands for comfort and ease** Discomfort intolerance revolves around the belief that life "should" be easy, comfortable, and free of hassles, effort, and inconvenience. In organizations, this manifests as: - *"This process shouldn't be so convoluted."* - *"Why can't people just do their jobs without constant oversight?"* - *"Meetings should be quick and efficient, not drawn-out discussions."* This demand for comfort leads to avoiding challenging tasks, procrastination, and difficulty persisting in the face of obstacles. The illusion of effortless success can cause leaders to delegate difficult tasks or avoid confronting underperforming team members. High performers might focus solely on tasks they excel at, limiting their growth and skill development. ### **2\. Demands for fairness and entitlement** This distorted sense of justice centers on the belief that we are entitled to certain outcomes and that others "must" treat us fairly. In the workplace, this might look like: - *"I deserve a promotion after all my hard work."* - *"My ideas should be given more weight in meetings."* - *"It's not fair that others get more recognition than me.*" Entitlement leads to resentment, interpersonal conflicts, and a victim mentality. Leaders might demand special treatment or resist feedback, while high-performers may feel owed certain rewards or engage in cutthroat competition, undermining teamwork. ### **3\. Demands for achievement and perfectionism** Achievement frustration involves setting unrealistically [high standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) and demanding perfect or near-perfect performance. This might show up as: - *"My presentation must be flawless, or I'll be seen as incompetent."* - *"If I don't meet this deadline perfectly, I'm a failure."* - *"Any mistake in my work is unacceptable."* This demand for perfection leads to procrastination, excessive self-criticism, and difficulty completing tasks. Perfectionistic leaders might set impossibly high standards, leading to burnout and stifling innovation. High performers driven by perfectionism can become workaholics or struggle to delegate tasks. ### **4\. Demands for emotional control and certainty** Emotional intolerance revolves around the belief that we "must not" experience negative emotions and that these are intolerable. This might sound like: - *"I can't handle the uncertainty of this project's outcome."* - *"Feeling anxious about this presentation is unacceptable."* - *"I must always appear calm and in control at work."* The **facade of stoicism** that many leaders create can be particularly damaging by creating a culture where vulnerability is seen as weakness. High-performers might internalize stress and avoid seeking support, leading to burnout. ## Reframing organizational friction High frustration tolerance won’t eliminate workplace challenges, but it will equip you to approach them constructively. It’s like learning to navigate a bustling city. At first, the traffic, noise, and crowds seem like overwhelming obstacles. But over time, you see these elements as essential aspects of urban life. Organizational friction isn't just a roadblock to be overcome; it's the texture of the corporate landscape. Just as a seasoned city dweller learns to weave through busy streets and finds shortcuts, those with high frustration tolerance don't just endure organizational complexity; they learn to harness it. Friction is what allows you to walk without slipping or to strike a match. In organizations, that same friction — the push and pull of diverse opinions, the resistance of established processes, and the heat generated by competing priorities — creates the spark of innovation and the traction for change. By reframing **organizational friction as an essential feature of the corporate ecosystem**, you develop the [cognitive flexibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/) to thrive in complexity and keep playing [the long game](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/long-term-thinking-careers-practice-art/). ## Further reading In my newsletter I examined frustration tolerance in the realm of personal goals. My new resolution: be willing to tolerate more frustration. [How Much Frustration Can You Tolerate? | LSW#60The unsung superpower we miss![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/https-3A-2F-2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com-2Fpublic-2Fimages-2F103b9a02-d090-4636-aba7-33da2c70083a-2Fapple-touch-icon-180x180-4.png)The Leading Sapiens WeeklySheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/https-3A-2F-2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com-2Fpublic-2Fimages-2F629b7f72-89ac-410c-a7b5-9bd699e2bb9c_760x549-1.png)](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/how-much-frustration-can-you-tolerate) ## Sources 1. Knaus, W. J. Frustration Tolerance Training for Children. 2. Ellis, A., & Dryden, W. (2007). [The Practice of Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy.](https://amzn.to/3WrLzbf?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Harrington, N. (2005). Frustration Intolerance as a Multidimensional Concept. Journal of Rational-Emotive and Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. 4. Ellis, A. (2005). [The Myth of Self-esteem.](https://amzn.to/40HcRws?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. Neenan, M. (2009). [Developing Resilience: A Cognitive-Behavioural Approach](https://amzn.to/3WqxjPW?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Grieger, R. (2007). [The Use of REBT Principles and Practices in Leadership Training and Development](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225606323%5FThe%5Fuse%5Fof%5FREBT%5Fprinciples%5Fand%5Fpractices%5Fin%5Fleadership%5Ftraining%5Fand%5Fdevelopment?ref=leadingsapiens.com). Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior Therapy. ### Self Efficacy: A Better Construct than Confidence URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:35:12.000Z *Confidence is overrated. A more effective, scientifically-grounded approach to improve performance is self-efficacy.* *We often hear about the importance of confidence. "Believe in yourself," the advice goes. Although intuitive, it's not as helpful. What exactly is confidence? Is it innate? Can you work at it? *Self-efficacy is a more precise way of understanding confidence.** *Imagine having not just the belief that you can succeed, but a deep-seated conviction based on experience, knowledge, and self-awareness. That's self-efficacy. It's the difference between saying "I think I can handle this challenge" and knowing "I have the skills and experience to navigate this situation effectively."* *I’ve found self-efficacy more helpful than the often vague notion of “confidence”. More importantly,* ***it provides ways to build it systematically.*** *In this article, I explore:* - *The criticality of self-efficacy, and its key elements* - *Its role in leadership* - *How to systematically build self-efficacy* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 --- ## What is Self Efficacy? Self-efficacy, as defined by Albert Bandura, is the belief in your ability to organize and carry out the actions needed to reach a specific goal. It's the "can-do" cognition—the internal conviction that you can deal with whatever situation comes your way. > Self-efficacy is concerned not with the number of skills you have, but with **what you believe you can do with what you have**...\[10\] To emphasize, it's worth repeating: it's not a measure of your skills, but instead your belief about what you can produce with those skills. Think of it like a conductor: your skills are the musicians, but self-efficacy is the conductor who organizes and improvises with those musicians to create a performance. Unlike self-esteem, which reflects self-worth, or confidence, which is general and context-free, **self-efficacy is precise**. You may be confident leading a team, but lack self-efficacy in navigating a financial crisis. This nuance is critical because self-efficacy directly impacts how leaders approach challenges, influencing whether they engage or retreat, persevere or abandon, and ultimately succeed or fail. **A key attribute of self-efficacy is malleability.** It’s a dynamic belief system that evolves with experiences, feedback, and reflection. This means you can actively develop it over time, turning it into a resource that grows stronger with use. Unlike static traits like temperament or personality, **self-efficacy thrives on intentional practice,** making it an ideal focus for leadership development. > People’s beliefs about their abilities have a profound effect on those abilities. **Ability is not a fixed property; there is a huge variability in how you perform.** > > — Albert Bandura ### Self-efficacy is not confidence or self-esteem Self-efficacy differs from confidence in several ways: 1. Specificity: Unlike broad self-confidence, self-efficacy is task and context-specific. You might have high self-efficacy for strategic planning but lower for public speaking. 2. Basis in experience: While confidence can be baseless, self-efficacy is typically grounded in past experiences and achievements. 3. Impact on behavior: High self-efficacy leads to approaching challenges as opportunities to master, not threats to avoid. Understanding and developing self-efficacy offers a more nuanced approach to leadership development than simply trying to boost general confidence. ## Criticality of Self-Efficacy When I first read Bandura's work on self-efficacy I was struck with the sheer impact it had on all aspects of work and life. Consider the following observations from Bandura. ### The foundation of action Self-efficacy is the engine of agency—our ability to intentionally make things happen. > Among the mechanisms of self-regulation none is more central or pervasive than beliefs of personal efficacy. It is the foundation because it dictates whether we even try to act in the first place. **Without a belief in our own power to produce results, we simply have no reason to start.** As Bandura observes, > Unless people believe they can produce desired outcomes and forestall undesired ones by their actions they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties. You can provide a team with the most brilliant strategy in the world, but if they doubt their operative capability, that strategy isn’t going anywhere. ### Bridging the gap between knowing and doing We assume that with the right knowledge and skills, performance naturally follows. Yet, we’ve all seen talented people fail to act even when they know exactly what to do. Self-efficacy is the critical bridge over this gap. It adds a ["performative self" to the "decisional self"](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/performative-self-bandura/). While the decisional self is an architect—weighing options and choosing a destination—it is often "left stranded in thought"without the performative self’s conviction to execute the plan. Self-efficacy is what mediates the relationship between what we know and what we actually achieve. ### Shaping life paths Perhaps the most profound impact of self-efficacy is **how it serves as a filter for reality**. It doesn’t just influence how we perform; it dictates the "slate of options" we even bother to consider. If we judges ourselves inefficacious in certain domains, we don’t just decide against those paths, we effectively delete them from our field of vision. Consequently, self-efficacy is pivotal in how career paths and life trajectories are formed, often **becoming more influential than actual talent**. ### Resilience under fire In volatile environments, the impact of self-efficacy is most visible when things go wrong. For someone with low efficacy, a setback is a verdict—a sign of personal deficiency that justifies giving up. But for those with a robust belief in their capabilities, obstacles are merely "challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided". Highly efficacious individuals: - Redouble their efforts when faced with failure rather than slackening them. - Maintain a task-oriented focus instead of dwelling on personal inadequacies. - Recover their sense of efficacy quickly after a disappointment, treating the experience as data rather than a verdict on their worth. ### Regulating the internal environment Finally, self-efficacy is critical because it regulates our internal state. It’s a powerful buffer against stress, anxiety, and depression. When we believe we can exercise control over potential threats, we remain unperturbed. But, when we feel under- equipped, heart rate accelerates and blood pressure rises at the first sign of a challenge. High performers have learned to interpret this biological arousal not as a sign of vulnerability, but as an "energizing facilitator". By mastering "thought control efficacy," they keep their minds clear and their actions precise when the stakes are highest. ## **The Four Sources of Self-Efficacy** Bandura identified four primary sources of self-efficacy. Think of it as a **psychological battery charged by four distinct sources**: 1. Mastery experiences. 2. Vicarious learning (people like me). 3. Social persuasion (feedback). 4. Psychological and physiological states. These sources are interconnected and collectively shape our belief system. ### **1\. Mastery experiences** Personal achievements gained through effort and persistence — or mastery experiences — are the most potent source of self-efficacy. Success in a challenging task provides evidence of our capabilities, reinforcing the belief that we can handle future challenges. > Enactive attainments provide the most influential source of efficacy information because it can be based on authentic mastery experiences**.** \[10\] Successfully navigating a high-stakes negotiation builds confidence for future ones. This belief is further solidified if it required overcoming significant obstacles, as **the effort required to succeed amplifies the sense of mastery**. **Easy wins, while gratifying, don’t offer the same enduring reinforcement.** To put it succinctly: do hard things and earn it. Seek opportunities for meaningful achievement and tackle complex challenges to build robust self-efficacy. However, mastery experiences are a double-edged sword. Just as success strengthens self-efficacy, repeated failure undermines it. Learn to frame failures as temporary setbacks and learning opportunities, not indicators of incompetence. [Reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) is key: analyzing what went wrong and identifying lessons ensures negative experiences contribute to long-term growth. More on [mastery experiences.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/confidence-comes-from-evidence/) ### **2\. Vicarious learning (role models)** **Observing others succeed — especially those similar to ourselves** — boosts self-efficacy. Vicarious learning is especially relevant in leadership, where mentorship, modeling, and storytelling are pivotal. When you see a peer navigate a complex challenge, it provides a blueprint for action. The implied message is, **“If they can do it, so can I.”** Relatable role models are more effective than distant success figures. An emerging leader is more likely to draw inspiration from a direct manager than an abstract case study of a Fortune 500 CEO. Organizations can amplify this effect by highlighting internal success stories. Narratives of leaders who overcame adversity or achieved milestones create a culture of possibility. Role-playing exercises and peer learning enhance vicarious learning by offering firsthand exposure to effective behaviors. ### **3\. Social persuasion (feedback)** Encouragement and [constructive feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) from others — what Bandura calls social persuasion — significantly influence self-efficacy, especially when coming from trusted and credible sources. Unlike empty praise, effective feedback is specific, actionable, and grounded in reality. Instead of saying, *“You’re a great leader,”* a mentor might say, *“The way you handled that conflict showed good emotional intelligence. You turned a divisive situation into a collaborative effort.”* Such feedback not only reinforces a leader’s belief but also provides clarity on what behaviors to replicate or modify. However, feedback has limits. It’s most effective when paired with evidence from mastery experiences or vicarious learning. **Encouragement alone can’t create self-efficacy without action or observation.** Leaders must also learn to filter feedback, distinguishing between constructive guidance and unhelpful criticism. ### **4\. Psychological and physiological states** We interpret our physical and emotional states as indicators of our readiness or ability to perform. But this interpretation process varies significantly between individuals. A racing heart before a public speech, for example, can be **seen as a sign of nervousness or as a surge of energy and focus**. Learning to manage and reframe these internal signals is essential for building self-efficacy. Practices like meditation and exercise help regulate emotional states, ensuring you approach challenges with calm and control. Additionally, creating routines that promote rest and recovery lays a strong foundation for maintaining high self-efficacy in high-pressure environments. ## **Self-efficacy: a cornerstone of effective leadership** Leadership is inherently uncertain and complex. You must make decisions with incomplete information, manage conflicts, and inspire others during turbulent times. Research shows that self-efficacy contributes to effective leadership in several ways: 1. Setting and achieving ambitious [goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) 2. Demonstrating resilience in adversity 3. Inspiring and empowering others 4. Making effective decisions and solving problems 5. Creating a positive and supportive work environment 6. Managing stress and promoting well-being Research also shows a strong relationship between self-efficacy, resilience, and success. Self-efficacy drives resilience and success, while experiences of resilience and success enhance self-efficacy, creating a powerful upward spiral. Thus self-efficacy serves as an anchor, enabling you to maintain clarity and agency amidst chaos. It’s not just a psychological boost; it’s the engine driving action, resilience, and sustained performance. Without it, even competent leaders can falter under pressure. ## **Strategies for building self-efficacy** Given the research findings on self-efficacy, - Leadership development programs should prioritize mastery experiences over theoretical knowledge. - Mentorship should focus on modeling context-specific behaviors rather than general advice. - Feedback systems should be redesigned to reinforce task-specific capabilities rather than broad personality assessments. What follows are ways to systematically increase self-efficacy. [Work with a coach](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/), peer, or mentor to practice these consistently over the long-term. ### **1\. Engineer mastery experiences** - **Gradual exposure**. Introduce yourself to challenges incrementally. For instance, someone anxious about public speaking might start by presenting to small, familiar groups before addressing larger audiences. - **Use a** [**small wins approach**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/)**.** Begin with “low-risk, high-reward” tasks to create early wins, which serve as proof of capability. A new leader might lead a short-term project or facilitate a meeting before taking on larger responsibilities. Highlight the progression of difficulty to make growth tangible, including dashboards and tracking tools for skill development. - **Reflect and debrief on wins and losses.** Use [structured retrospectives](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) to extract lessons. Questions like *“What went well? What could be improved? What skills were key to success?”* help identify replicable strategies and areas for growth. Document these [reflections](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) to build a personal “playbook.” Use tools like [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) and [the Ladder of Inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) to identify your blindspots. - **Utilize failure scaffolding.** Create environments where the downside of failure is minimized (e.g., simulations, pilot projects, coaching). Focus on experimenting with new behaviors. Gradually increase the complexity of challenges. ### **2\. Emphasize vicarious learning** - **Choose role models wisely**. Select mentors or role models with relatable paths or struggles. **An introverted leader observing another introvert excel in public speaking builds both belief and strategy for improvement**. This increases the transferability of skills. - **Shadowing other leaders**. Find opportunities to observe seasoned individuals. Watching how they handle ambiguity, resolve conflicts, or inspire teams offers a practical education. Pair observation with follow-up discussions to unpack insights. - **Reverse mentoring**. Senior leaders can learn from younger team members adept at navigating emerging technologies or new approaches. This expands the leader’s toolkit while showing that learning is a continuous, reciprocal process. - **Parallel task practice**. Create low-stakes environments to practice critical skills, like mock negotiations or decision-making scenarios. Feedback loops ensure skill refinement before real-world application. They're also a key aspect of [double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/). ### **3\. Enhance social persuasion (feedback)** - **Targeted feedback**. For effective [constructive feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/), tie it to observable behaviors and outcomes (e.g., *“Your ability to synthesize diverse perspectives in the meeting helped drive alignment”*). **Specificity strengthens belief in repeatable capabilities.** - **Normalize developmental feedback**. Shift the narrative to emphasize growth over judgment. Use language that frames challenges as opportunities (e.g., *“This is an area where you’re gaining strength”* instead of *“This is a weakness”*). - **Leverage group affirmation**. Spotlight team achievements in forums for peer recognition. This reinforces mutual confidence and collective efficacy. ### **4\. Optimize physiological and emotional states** - **Reframe stress**. Use analogies to reinterpret signals. For example, *“Like an athlete before a game, my body is gearing up for peak performance”*. Learn to link physiological arousal to readiness instead of fear. - **Micro-recovery rituals**. Develop recovery practices tailored to your needs, like quick breathing exercises or a short walk before high-pressure moments. Well-practiced rituals create a buffer against burnout and maintain focus. - **Create psychological safety**. Build trust by increasing your [self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/). Admitting mistakes and uncertainties as a leader within reason. When team members feel safe, they model this behavior, reinforcing a culture of learning and experimentation. ### **5\. Practice cognitive flexibility** - **Cognitive reframing**. Learn to shift negative thoughts by challenging their validity and replacing them with action-oriented alternatives. For instance, *“I failed”* becomes *“This setback taught me X, which I’ll use next time.”* Stay alert to [cognitive distortions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) that can derail you, and build your [cognitive flexibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/). - **Narrative rewriting**. Revisit your own journey to identify inflection points where resilience and capability emerged from challenging assignments. Retelling these stories strengthens belief in your ability to handle future challenges. - **Future anchoring**. Connect current actions to future impacts. For instance, by seeking feedback from diverse team members today, you’re developing inclusive leadership skills crucial for leading cross-functional projects next year. This broadens your perspective, linking today’s effort to long-term gains. ## Self-efficacy goes beyond the simplistic notion of "confidence" in leadership discourse. It's a nuanced, context-specific framework for developing leadership capabilities. It challenges the assumption that effective leadership stems from innate traits or charisma. Instead, **it posits that** [**leadership effectiveness**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/) **can be cultivated through deliberate practice and reflection.** Self-efficacy views leadership not from a position of unwavering confidence, but as a journey of continuous self-discovery and deliberate skill-building. ## Related Reading on Self Efficacy and Confidence [Evidence: How Real Confidence Is BuiltIf you follow sports, you probably heard the news of Sabastian Sawe’s superhuman feat of becoming the first person ever to run a sub 2-hour marathon. Following the win, Sawe’s coach sent a note to Brad Stulberg that ended saying: “Confidence is based on evidence” has been a guiding![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-249.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Confidence-is-built-on-evidence.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/confidence-comes-from-evidence/) [Decisional Self vs Performative Self: Why Decisions Don’t Translate into ActionsMost of us have facets of our lives where things are just not up to the mark. We’d like things to be different, but somehow it hasn’t panned out. And equally likely, we already know what needs to be done and how to go about it. Yet, we![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-193.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Decisional-Self-vs-Performative-Self.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/performative-self-bandura/) [Do Leaders Have to Be Confident?What’s the role of confidence in leadership? Is it a requirement for being an effective leader? How confident are you about your confidence? Confidence, on sale Looking at the brochure of one leadership program, it seems confidence is necessary to be an effective leader and that all successful leaders are![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-105.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leadership-confidence---3-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-106.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Negative-Capability-Balance-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) [Donald Schon on The Paradox of Real LearningOften in leadership coaching, clients are asked to “try on” a new behavior just as they would try on new clothes at the store so they get a “feel” for it. The pushback often comes in the form of “but I don’t know how to do that”. We’ve all been![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-107.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Schon-Paradox-of-Learning2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) [There’s no need to eliminate or even overcome self-doubt.Self-doubt is not an impediment to be eliminated as is commonly thought of. It’s a condition of the game and can even be a positive indicator.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-108.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Doubt--Dunning-Kruger-Imposter-Syndrome.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) ## Sources 1. Bandura, A. (1997). [*Self-efficacy: The exercise of control*](https://amzn.to/4fIdone?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Luthans, F. (2010). [*Organizational Behavior: An Evidence-Based Approach*.](https://amzn.to/414BHqI?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., & Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: Measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. *Personnel Psychology*, *60*(3), 541–572. 4. Clough, P., & Strycharczyk, D. (2012). [*Developing Mental Toughness: Improving performance, wellbeing and positive behaviour*](https://amzn.to/3ZsS3az?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Ferrari, M., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). [*Self-awareness: Its nature and development*.](https://amzn.to/3Opj1L5?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. Heifetz, R. A., & Laurie, D. L. (2001). [*The Work of Leadership*. HBR.](https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 7. Kayes, A., & Kayes, D. C. (2011). [*The Learning Advantage: Six Practices of Learning-Directed Leadership*.](https://amzn.to/3ZsSuld?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 8. Kilburg, R. R. (1991). [Executive wisdom.](https://amzn.to/3V6vRS7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 9. Peltier, B. (2010). [*The Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory and Application*.](https://amzn.to/3B8SKxh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 10. Bandura, A. (2009). [Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness](https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394320769.ch6?ref=leadingsapiens.com). In Handbook of Principles of Organizational Behavior. ### Cognitive Flexibility: Rewiring How Leaders Respond URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-flexibility/ Last updated: 2026-02-17T22:05:56.000Z *Why do some people thrive in complexity while others buckle under pressure? A key factor is the level of cognitive flexibility. In this piece, I examine what cognitive flexibility means, why it’s critical to leadership, and strategies for building it.* --- A World Economic Forum's Future of Jobs Report ranked cognitive flexibility among the top 10 skills critical for professional success. In a study of global executives during the COVID-19 crisis, leaders with higher cognitive flexibility were more effective at navigating uncertainty and rapid organizational change. Despite its importance, cognitive flexibility – the ability to adapt and shift perspectives in response to changing situations – remains an undervalued leadership capability. In my work with leaders, what many describe as 'being overwhelmed' or 'not having enough time' often masks a deeper issue - underdeveloped cognitive flexibility. While traditional stress management techniques have their place, they often treat the symptoms rather than the root cause. Strengthening cognitive flexibility helps you navigate complexity without feeling overwhelmed. Instead of being paralyzed by competing demands, you can shift mental gears smoothly, seeing multiple paths forward where others see obstacles. It's the difference between coping with stress and fundamentally changing how you respond to challenges. ## What is Cognitive Flexibility? A primary aim of [**leadership coaching**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/) is to develop your cognitive flexibility. Like a mental gymnast, someone with high cognitive flexibility can move between different ways of thinking, see situations from multiple angles, and adjust their approach as circumstances change. Cognitive flexibility includes: 1\. **Perspective shifting**: Viewing situations from different angles, understanding others' positions during disagreements, and considering various solutions to complex problems. 2\. **Adaptive thinking**: Adjusting approaches based on context and deploying diverse strategies as situations change while remaining receptive to new information. 3\. **Cognitive inhibition**: Suppressing automatic and habitual responses to respond thoughtfully rather than reverting to ingrained patterns and mental shortcuts. 4\. **Mental agility**: Simultaneously handling and manipulating different ideas. For example, balancing competing demands and switching between short and long-term perspectives. 5\. **Cognitive reappraisal**: The technique of reframing situations, framing challenges as learning opportunities, and adapting novel perspectives to enhance understanding. 6. **Divergent thinking**: Generating unique ideas and approaching challenges creatively. 7\. **Emotional regulation**: A degree of comfort with uncertainty. This helps regulate emotions for clearer thinking and better decision-making under pressure. In practice, cognitive flexibility is both a mindset and a set of behaviors. ## The critical role of cognitive flexibility in leadership Leadership today demands more than traditional management skills. It requires a nimble mind capable of adapting to rapid changes, balancing competing priorities, and making decisions with incomplete information. Cognitive flexibility plays a crucial role in how leaders respond to the intense pressures of their roles. Without cognitive flexibility, these pressures can lead to overwhelm, poor decision-making, and burnout. ### Why cognitive flexibility matters in leadership 1. Navigating complexity: Leaders with high cognitive flexibility can more effectively manage their role’s complexities. They can see multiple perspectives, consider various solutions, and adapt their approach as situations evolve. 2. Decision-making: Leaders often need to make quick decisions. Cognitive flexibility allows you to rapidly process new information, consider alternative viewpoints, and make informed choices. 3. Fostering learning and psychological safety: By being open to new ideas and approaches, cognitively flexible leaders help drive innovation. They're more likely to encourage creative thinking and embrace novel solutions. 4. Building resilience: Leaders who reframe challenges and adapt their thinking are better equipped to handle setbacks. This resilience is crucial for long-term success and preventing burnout. 5. Improving relationships: Cognitive flexibility helps to understand and empathize with diverse perspectives, crucial for effective team management and conflict resolution. ### Impact of cognitive flexibility on leadership effectiveness Research shows that leaders with higher cognitive flexibility are more effective in key areas: - Managing change: They're better able to guide their teams through organizational changes and market shifts. - Thinking strategically: They can balance short-term needs with long-term vision, adapting strategies as needed. - Crisis leadership: During unexpected challenges, they can quickly adjust plans and maintain team morale. - Stakeholder management: They're better at managing diverse stakeholder expectations and finding mutually beneficial solutions. Developing cognitive flexibility is not just about managing stress; it's about fundamentally changing how you interact with the complex demands of leadership. ## Strategies for building cognitive flexibility What follows are some key frameworks and strategies to build cognitive flexibility in leadership. Many challenge the conventional understanding of effective leadership and offer alternate approaches better suited to complex environments. Each idea links to a longer piece that delves further into each framework. ### Bolman Deal 4 frames The [Bolman-Deal 4 frame model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) of leadership examines organizations from four distinct lenses: [structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/), [symbolic frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/), [political frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/), and the [human resource frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/). Each frame highlights different aspects and reveals a unique way to analyze and address challenges. They offer a multidimensional approach to view your challenges differently. [Bolman Deal Four Frames Model of LeadershipOrganizational life can be a confusing muddle, especially if you are trying to get better at playing the game. Take the leadership genre for example. You might come across books that cover any of the following: power, building better teams, culture, emotional intelligence, war and strategy, psychology, authentic leadership, biographies![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-7.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Bolman-Deal-4-Frames-Model-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) ### **Advocacy and inquiry** [Advocacy and inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) represent the dual sides of effective communication — asserting your perspective while also genuinely understanding others. Mastering this balance is crucial to productive dialogue that advances understanding and better decision-making. [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-8.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) ### The value of being naive Approaching challenges with a sense of [cultivated naiveté](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) can unlock innovative thinking that experts overlook. Adopting and maintaining a fresh, beginner's mindset is a powerful tool in leadership and can lead to more creative problem-solving. [The Case for Naive Leaders over Clever, Sophisticated OnesNaïveté is considered a liability. But is it really? We’ve been oversold on the merits of sophistication and cleverness, meanwhile missing out on the benefits of a considered approach to naiveness.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-9.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Cultivated-Na-vet--1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) ### Humble inquiry Effective leaders ask questions — not just to gather information, but to foster trust and engagement. A great start is [Edgar Schein’s framework of humble inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/). It means genuinely valuing others’ input and building collaborative relationships rather than transactional. [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-10.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) ### Systems thinking iceberg The [iceberg model from systems thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) helps uncover organizational issues. This tool helps leaders move beyond immediate events to identify patterns, structures, and mental models that shape outcomes. [The Systems Thinking IcebergThe systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on our radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-11.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/2-1-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) ### Locus of control Understanding whether control is internally or externally driven – [locus of control ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/)– impacts your leadership style. Leaders who believe they can influence outcomes tend to be more proactive and effective. Related ideas are the [circle of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) and the [Stoic dichotomy of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dichotomy-of-control-stoicism-leadership/). [Locus of Control: A Leadership PerspectiveLocus of control refers to how we view circumstances in terms of the amount of control we have over situations and the experiences that affect us. I look at locus of control specifically in the context of leadership and management: how locus of control impacts leadership performance, and how it![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-12.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Locus-of-control---internal-vs-external-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) ### **Mintzberg's managerial roles** [Mintzberg’s management framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/) identifies the different roles a leader must navigate — informational, interpersonal, and decisional. Recognition and awareness of these different roles enables cognitive flexibility. It is essential to effectively switch between them based on situational demands. [Mintzberg’s Managerial Roles: The Multifaceted Nature of LeadershipHenry Mintzberg was one of the first to identify a comprehensive set of managerial roles that captured the reality of managerial work. Later, he updated this original list into an overall management model. In this piece, I examine the importance of Mintzberg’s managerial roles and management model, and how![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-13.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Mintzberg---Managerial-Roles-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/) ### **Organizational metaphors** Varying [organizational metaphors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/metaphors-of-organization/) can provide fresh insights into organizational behavior. Viewing an organization as a machine, a culture, or a political system offers unique perspectives for solving challenges. Gareth Morgan identified eight types of organizations, each with its own unique set of characteristics. [Metaphors of Organization: Beyond the MachineEffective leadership hinges on the ability to view organizational challenges from multiple perspectives. Gareth Morgan’s eight metaphors of organization gives leaders a versatile set of lenses to examine challenges. In this piece, I introduce each of the organizational metaphors, their significance, and how to use them for strategic reflection. Morgan’![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-14.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Metaphors-of-Organization---Morgan.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/metaphors-of-organization/) ### **Aristotle’s ethos, pathos, and logos** A common mistake by leaders is to focus too much on logic (logos) and forget the other equally important aspects of credibility(ethos) and [emotional engagement (pathos)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pathos-in-leadership/). You have to balance all three – [ethos, pathos, and logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) – based on the context. At the same time, you won’t get far without enough ethos to ground you. [Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Modern LeadershipThe framework of ethos, pathos, and logos was developed in the 4th century BC by Aristotle. It’s a simple but also robust model for effective persuasion and communication that has withstood the test of time. And yet most leaders are either unaware or it, or don’t really know![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-15.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Ethos--Logos--Pathos---1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) ### **Ladder of inference** The [Ladder of Inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) shows the different steps (often invisible) in how we reach conclusions. By slowing down your decision-making process, this tool helps identify bias and enables a more objective understanding. [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-16.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) ### **Double-loop learning** [Double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) encourages leaders to question underlying assumptions, rather than just fixing immediate problems. This deeper reflection is crucial for lasting improvement and [adaptive leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/). [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-17.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) ### **Negative capability** Keats first coined the term [negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) in 1817\. It’s perhaps much more applicable now. Effective leadership involves grappling with uncertainty and resisting the urge for quick answers. Negative capability is about embracing ambiguity and leading with patience and curiosity. [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-18.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Negative-Capability-Balance.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) ### **Unlearning mental models** Mental models shape our worldview and decision-making. Instead of learning new ones as is commonly advised, consider the opposite tact of [“unlearning” unhelpful mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/). You’re already using them, consciously or not. [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be half-baked, often useless in practice. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-19.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) ### Mastering context Cognitive flexibility comes from understanding and mastering [the role of context in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). It’s an effective way to increase your available set of actions. It’s also very different from the traditional command and control view of leadership. [The importance of mastering context in effective leadershipContext is a powerful tool in leadership but goes underutilized and misunderstood - a deep dive into why mastering context is essential to effective leadership.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-20.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1024px-Van_Gogh_from_Space.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) ### **Leaders as gardeners** If you think of leadership as an all-knowing chess master, complexity will do you in. This is what 4-star General Stan McChrystal discovered in the Iraq War. In contrast, he proposes the alternate approach of [leaders as gardeners](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/). ### **Leadership as a decision** first, skill second Effective leadership is often about first making the decision to be so. [The skill follows the decision](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/). Understanding this simple nuance can improve your cognitive flexibility. [Leadership as More a Decision than Skill or AbilityThe default way of looking at leadership ability is in terms of skill, style, or talent, which in turn drives actions and behaviors. But skills and talents are not sufficient for effective leadership. There’s another simpler but necessary step — the decision to lead. In this view, leadership is a![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-21.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Leadership-as-a-decision-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/) ### **Reflection in leadership** The [practice of reflection ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/)helps leaders gain insights from their experiences, refine strategies, and grow in self-awareness. Deliberate, skilled reflection can enhance your leadership capacity and enable continuous development. ### Types of goals Although objectives and goals are standard in organizational life, most leaders don’t thoroughly understand the different types and their effects on performance. Knowing the [nuances of goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) can improve their effectiveness. ### Problem framing, not just problem solving Defining the right problem to solve is more important than rushing into solutions. [Problem framing, or what Donald Schon calls problem-setting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/), is a crucial precursor to effective problem-solving. It directs efforts where they matter most. ### **Inherent management** paradoxes [Leadership requires embracing paradoxes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/), not necessarily solving them. Whether balancing control with autonomy or innovation with efficiency, the ability to navigate these contradictions is crucial. The trick is to recognize these before getting sucked into the tendency to try and solve them away or worse seeing them as obstacles. ## Sources 1. World Economic Forum. (2020). The Future of Jobs Report 2020\. [https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF\_Future\_of\_Jobs\_2020.pdf](https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF%5FFuture%5Fof%5FJobs%5F2020.pdf?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Zegarra-Saldaña, P., & Ramos-Galarza, C. (2020). Executive functions and cognitive flexibility in managers during the COVID-19 health emergency. [http://dx.doi.org/10.33210/ca.v9i2.290](http://dx.doi.org/10.33210/ca.v9i2.290?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Scott, W. G. (2015). Cognitive flexibility: Theoretical perspectives and changes in different contexts. *International Journal of Cognitive, Educational and Psychological Sciences*. 4. Martin, J. A., & Rubin, R. B. (1995). A link between cognitive flexibility and leadership effectiveness. *Leadership & Organisational Development Journal*. 5. Sheridan, J. E., & Kahn, A. E. (2020). Towards a deeper understanding of cognitive flexibility's impact on leadership. *Journal of Applied Behavioral Science*. 6. Nematbakhsh, M., & Sabzevari, S. (2021). The impact of cognitive flexibility on leadership effectiveness. *Leadership & Organization Development Journal*. 7. Cook, K. S., & Jager, J. (2021). Flexibility, leadership, and management: How adaptable leaders drive organizational resilience. *Journal of Organizational Change Management*. ### Impression Management: How Effective Leaders Balance Perception and Reality URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/ Last updated: 2025-10-16T14:49:17.000Z *Is leadership about substance or perception? The truth is, it's both. You must not only be effective; you must also* **appear** *effective.* *Impression management — first introduced by Erving Goffman — has been widely studied and researched. And it's especially relevant to leadership. In this piece, I dig into Goffman’s framework and its implications for modern leadership.* --- In the summer of 1940, as bombs fell on London, Winston Churchill was often seen walking through rubble-strewn streets, cigar in hand, chatting with rescue workers and comforting survivors. This wasn't just bravery; it was a masterclass in leadership impression management. Churchill understood that in times of crisis, a leader's perceived demeanor is as crucial as their decisions. Today, while the stakes may not be as high, the principle remains: effective leadership is not just about making the right calls, but also about how you're perceived. ## What is impression management? Impression management is the process by which we attempt to influence others' perceptions of us. Goffman's "dramaturgical perspective" likens social interactions to theatrical performances, where individuals play roles and use scripts within specific settings to convey desired impressions. As Shakespeare said: > All the world’s a stage, and all the men and women are merely players. They have their exits and entrances, and one man in his time plays many parts. Goffman's framework involves the "front stage" and "back stage": - On the front stage, you perform for your audience. You project confidence, capability, and alignment with expected traits. - The back stage is where you prepare, rehearse, and refine these performances. It ensures your public presentation aligns with your goals. > *Within the walls of a social establishment we find a team of performers who cooperate to present to an audience a given definition of the situation. This will include the conception of own team and of audience and assumptions concerning the ethos that is to be *maintained by rules of politeness and decorum*. We often find a division into back region, where the performance of a routine is prepared, and front region, where the performance is presented.* > > *— Erving Goffman \[1\]* As a leader, you're constantly moving between these spaces, adapting your performance to different contexts and audiences. Effective **impression management isn't about deception. It's about clarity and intentionality** in communication. You're not creating a false image, but rather ensuring your true capabilities, values, and intentions are accurately perceived. In organizations, impression management means: - Deliberate choices in behavior and communication that shape others' perceptions. - A tool for navigating complex political landscapes. - A means of establishing and maintaining your leadership identity. - A way to align your abilities and intentions with others' expectations. The key is to view impression management not as a superficial act, but as a fundamental leadership skill. It's about bridging the gap between your internal reality and others' perception. When done authentically, it enhances your ability to influence, build trust, and lead effectively. Consciously approaching it ensures the image you project aligns with your leadership goals. ## The necessity of impression management in leadership > A status, a position, a social place is not a material thing, to be possessed and then displayed; it is a pattern of ap­propriate conduct, coherent, embellished, and well articu­lated. Performed with ease or clumsiness, awareness or not, guile or good faith, it is none the less something that must be enacted and portrayed, something that must be realized. > > — Erving Goffman \[1\] The stage metaphor is perhaps nowhere more true than in leadership. As a leader, you must manage how different groups perceive you — from direct reports and peers to external stakeholders. This involves controlling both the performance and the environment. It includes [setting the stage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) through communication, tailoring demeanor based on context, and adjusting behavior in real-time based on feedback. It’s easy to dismiss impression management as manipulation. But the reality is that you’re already engaging in it. Ever rehearsed what to say in an important meeting? Did you choose your outfit carefully for an interview? You were practicing impression management. The real question is whether it’s by design or an accident. Here are four key reasons why impression management is fundamental to effective leadership: ### 1\. It aligns with how people judge leaders Research on [Implicit Leadership Theories](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) (ILTs) reveals that people carry deep-seated beliefs about what makes an effective leader. These preconceptions are shaped by culture, social experiences, and personal history. By understanding and responding to these expectations, you bridge the gap between your capabilities and others’ perceptions. ### 2\. It's a fundamental skill This isn't just theory; the research is clear. Leaders who master impression management consistently demonstrate: - Higher job performance ratings - Increased motivation - Stronger "organizational citizenship" behaviors - Enhanced social competence Think of impression management as a meta-skill that helps you navigate complex organizational landscapes. ### 3\. It shapes your leadership identity When you consistently present yourself in a particular way, you initiate a transformation process. What begins as conscious impression management evolves into authentic self-development. The "performance" becomes real as you embody the behaviors you initially had to think about. This is how the "facade" becomes the "self." You're not just acting — you're actively sculpting who you are. Through the reciprocal [relationship between action and identity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/), you intentionally grow into the leader you aspire to be. ### 4\. It's central to leadership Leadership is inherently performative. You're evaluated not just on what you do, but also how you present it. Different audiences and situations demand different approaches. The key is ensuring your performance remains grounded in authenticity: - Understand your audience. - [Consider the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). - Clarify your message. - Tailor your approach while staying true to values. When done right, impression management creates alignment between your beliefs and behaviors, bridging the gap between intention and impact. ## Techniques of impression management Leaders can deploy impression management in various ways. Let’s examine some of them. 💡 Some of these will sound superficial. Remember, you’re already engaging in impression management whether you realize it or not. Internal alignment is what differentiates whether you come across as phony or genuine, rather than the actions themselves. ### 1\. **Leading by example** Demonstrate discipline and commitment by being visibly involved in important projects or tasks. This includes taking on high-stakes responsibilities, working alongside your team during critical periods, and handling difficult assignments. Take the lead in crisis situations, or volunteer to tackle challenges that others avoid. By "walking the talk," you exemplify the behaviors and values you want your team to adopt. ### 2\. **Self-promotion** Highlight your successes to demonstrate your competency without seeming boastful. Self-promotion helps others recognize your value, especially in large organizations where individual contributions are not always clear. Share milestones in meetings as collective achievements. Focus on how your contributions positively impact the organization rather than on personal accolades. ### 3\. **Self-disclosure** Share personal experiences, especially moments of failure or growth, to make yourself relatable. When the team faces setbacks, share a similar past experience and what you learned. This signals that fallibility and failure are part of growth, reducing the fear of mistakes. [Self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) is a very underrated skill in effective leadership. The [Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) is an effective tool to help leaders understand what and how much to disclose. ### 4\. Maintaining “face” During conflict or delivering critical feedback, help others maintain their dignity. Ensure your own image is intact while also protecting the "face" of others involved. In public criticism or disagreement, reframe negative comments to preserve the respect and status of those involved. For example, *"I understand your perspective, and I think we're both aiming for the best outcome here, just in different ways. Let's find a compromise."* This helps de-escalate tensions while preserving relationships. For a range of “recipes” using the [ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/), check out my piece on [ground rules for effective meetings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/). ### 5\. **Modesty to enhance relatability** [Practice humility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) to soften your image and make yourself more approachable, especially when leading new teams or during success that could create distance. After a significant win, downplay individual praise and instead focus on the team's contributions. A statement like *"I couldn't have done this without everyone's hard work"* acknowledges collective effort and strengthens morale, showing you value everyone's input. ### 6\. **Emotional regulation for consistency** Manage your emotions to project the appropriate tone — calm, confident, empathetic, or enthusiastic — depending on the situation. During high-stress moments, like a crisis, project calmness and confidence. Even if internally uncertain, your external composure reassures others and helps them feel secure. In routine interactions, practice empathy to enhance connection. ### 7\. **Reframing situations** Use [framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) and reframing to shape how situations are interpreted. This changes how your team responds and shifts focus toward desired outcomes. If a project faces setbacks, frame it as a learning opportunity rather than a failure. This turns a negative situation into an empowering narrative. ### 8\. **Political skill** Political skill involves being socially astute, building networks, and using influence without appearing manipulative. Use this skill to manage how you’re perceived across different stakeholder groups. During negotiations, be attentive to each party’s concerns and adjust your messaging to their needs. Skilled leaders can make others feel valued and understood while guiding them toward collective goals. Political skill includes: - Building coalitions across levels - Managing competing interests without appearing biased - Creating mutually beneficial situations that benefit multiple stakeholders - Developing relationships while maintaining professional boundaries **The key is to practice these skills without appearing calculating.** When done well, political skill makes organizations run smoothly while creating positive relationships. ### 9\. **Acknowledge mistakes** When mistakes happen, own up to them promptly and reframe them as learning moments. This demonstrates accountability and resilience. If you made a wrong call, admit it before others do. Frame it as, *“I misjudged that situation, and here’s what I learned.”* This keeps your credibility intact while showing growth, making you appear strong and trustworthy in the face of setbacks. ### 10\. **Balance with psychological safety** Balance impression management with [psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) to ensure team members feel comfortable taking risks without fear of judgment. Display fallibility in measured ways and encourage others to do the same. Share your mistakes and lessons learned. This signals that managing impressions doesn’t mean pretending to be infallible and encourages others to speak up without fear of damaging their image. ### 11\. **Use humor** Humor is effective in making you approachable, reducing social distance, and diffusing tension. However, it must be appropriate and situational. Use light humor to ease tense meetings. Self-deprecating humor softens your image, provided it doesn’t undermine your authority. Joking about an innocuous personal quirk can make you relatable while maintaining respect. --- When Churchill walked through London's bomb-damaged streets, he wasn't just showing up; he was exercising [visible leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). Through deliberate impression management, he turned fear into resilience. Impression management is an effective tool for shaping the organizational climate. How you present yourself [cascades through the organization](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/), influencing everything from communication patterns to team dynamics. When aligned with values, it's a force multiplier. As you refine your leadership, consider not just what you do but how you’re perceived. Align impression management with your values, and let your performance be both strategic and genuinely you. ## Related Reading [Schrödinger’s Cat at Work: When Performance and Perception Collide“You’ve lost your edge,” the new VP declared. Just eight months ago, the same contrarian thinking had earned my client the company’s innovation award. Same brain, same approach, different verdict. What changed? I’ve been on both ends of the performance/perception spectrum myself. One year I was![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-98.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Schrodinger-s-Cat.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/) [Schrodinger’s Cat at Work II: Building the Box of Limitations“I’m just not strategic enough for that role,” Joe told me, shaking his head. With fifteen years of stellar technical leadership and a track record of flawless execution, he seemed like an obvious candidate for the open VP position. But he wouldn’t even consider applying. He disqualified himself before anyone![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-99.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Schrodinger-s-Cat-Part-II.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-building-the-box-of-limitations/) [Work is Not School: Surviving Institutional StupidityFor 16+ years, we master the rules of school. Study hard, get good grades, follow the formula and ultimately merit wins. Then we enter the workforce and none of it works quite like we thought. This becomes painfully obvious as you rise higher in the org. Even seasoned veterans forget![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-100.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Surviving-Institutional-Stupidity.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/) ## Sources 1. Goffman, E. (1959).[ The presentation of self in everyday life](https://amzn.to/4eqi7Zc?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. DuBrin, A. J. (2011). [Impression management in the workplace: Research, theory, and practice](https://amzn.to/3YIfnjX?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Klein, S. M., & Ritti, R. R. (1984). Understanding organizational behavior. 4. Pfeffer, J. (1992). [Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations](https://amzn.to/3UMRQNR?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Stacey, R. D. (2005). [Complexity and the experience of managing in the public sector.](https://amzn.to/4fIHarl?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. Lord, R. G., & Maher, K. J. (1991).[ Leadership and information processing: Linking perceptions and performance.](https://amzn.to/4fLkwP1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Fundamental Attribution Error: Why It’s Always Someone Else’s Fault URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/ Last updated: 2026-04-15T22:13:18.000Z *Training in biases is standard fare these days. However, I see managers regularly fall for one particular bias: the fundamental attribution error. Unlike other biases, FAE directly affects several aspects of leadership.* *In this piece, I dive into what fundamental attribution error is, how it trips up leaders, and ways to counter its effects.* --- Imagine being trained for years to investigate aviation accidents objectively. You have sophisticated tools, protocols, and black box data at your disposal. Yet 90% of the time, your first instinct is still to blame the pilot. As one investigator noted: > When you see an incident, your brain just seems to scream out: ‘What the hell was the pilot thinking!’ It is a knee-jerk response. It takes real discipline to probe the black box data without prejudging the issue. \[2\] **If highly trained investigators struggle with this instinct to blame the individual, what chance do leaders and managers have?** This tendency – to focus on personal characteristics while downplaying situational factors – is called the fundamental attribution error (FAE). You see it everywhere, from the playground to the boardroom. **CEOs attribute record profits to their brilliant "strategy" while blaming poor performance on "challenging market conditions."** Managers praise high-performing teams for their work ethic while dismissing struggling ones as unmotivated. The list of cognitive biases is endless – confirmation bias, anchoring bias, survivorship bias... the human mind is a minefield of errors. While understanding these is useful, most have limited practical impact on day-to-day leadership and management. But FAE deserves special attention. Consider Scott Snook’s reflection on his analysis of a friendly fire tragedy: > I could have asked, “why did they *decide* to shoot?” > > However, such a framing puts us squarely on a path that leads straight back to the individual decision maker, away from potentially powerful contextual features …. > > “Why did they decide to shoot?” quickly becomes “Why did they make the *wrong* decision?” Hence, the attribution falls squarely onto the shoulders of the decision maker and away from potent situation factors that influence action. > > Framing the individual-level puzzle as **a question of meaning rather than deciding** shifts the emphasis away from individual decision makers toward a point somewhere “out there” where context and individual action overlap. . . . > > Such a **reframing — from decision making to sense-making** — opened *my* eyes to the possibility that, given the circumstances, even *I* could have made the same “dumb mistake.” This disturbing revelation …underscores the importance of initially framing such senseless tragedies as **“good people struggling to make sense,” rather than as “bad ones making poor decisions”.** \[1\] This reframing is crucial for leaders as well. Attributing failures solely to individual choices ignores systemic factors that shape behavior. Poor performance might stem from unclear objectives, resource constraints, or organizational barriers rather than lack of effort. Recognizing FAE's influence means asking "What circumstances led to this outcome?" instead of "Who's to blame?" ## What is the Fundamental Attribution Error? The fundamental attribution error (FAE) is our **tendency to overemphasize internal, personal characteristics and downplay external, situational influences when interpreting others' behavior**. It's the mental shortcut that assumes someone is lazy when they miss a deadline, rather than considering possible workload overload, unclear instructions, or conflicting demands. When others fall short, we're quick to blame character: "they're lazy," "they lack drive," "they're not cut out for this." When we ourselves stumble, we readily point to circumstances: "I had impossible deadlines," "the brief wasn't clear," "I didn't have the resources." This blind spot works in reverse too. When others succeed, we attribute it to favorable circumstances - "better opportunities," "the right connections," "luck." But our own victories we chalk up to inherent talents and hard work. Psychologists Lee Ross and Edward Jones documented this phenomenon showing how **we see others’ actions as a reflection of their character rather than a reaction to context**. We lack access to others’ internal states—we don’t fully understand their pressures, motives, or contexts—while our own situational factors are vividly apparent to us. As a result, we misjudge others while always cutting ourselves slack. This asymmetry between our self-perception and how we see others is deeply ingrained. It's seductive because it protects our ego while simplifying a complex world. It's easier to label someone as "incompetent" than to untangle the situational forces, organizational tensions, and systemic pressures that shape their behavior. Malcolm Gladwell writes: > When we perceive the actions and intentions of others, we tend to make mistakes. We see things that aren’t there and we make predictions that we ought not to make: **we privilege the “person” and we discount the influence of the “situation.”** … > > I found this idea so disturbing and subversive that I think I have been wrestling with it ever since. Just the other day, for example, I gave a short talk at a gathering of sports-types on one of my favorite topics – professional quarterbacks. I argued that the idea that quarterbacks can be ranked – that there is such a thing as a good quarterback and a not so good quarterback and that we can say, with certainty, that, say Peyton Manning is x number of points better than Brett Farve – is nonsense. > > **A quarterback’s performance is inextricably tied up in his situation**: in the quality of the players around him, his coaches, the skills of his receivers, the plays call for him – and on and on – and in trying to extract some notion of quarterback quality from that jumble of factors we are making an error. \[3\] FAE simplifies complex social information, but it comes at a cost, especially in leadership. It distorts performance evaluations, affects talent development, and impacts psychological safety. ## Why do we fall for the fundamental attribution error? FAE's deceptiveness lies in its simplicity. It gives a neat explanation for complex events: **They failed because they're incompetent. I failed because I had no choice.** Fundamental attribution error occurs due to a range of factors: ### **The spotlight effect** In social interactions, the individual is more vivid and attention-grabbing than the situational backdrop. This makes it easier to attribute behavior to personal traits rather than the environment. When a team member underperforms in a meeting, the manager blames a lack of preparation (a personal trait) instead of considering whether the agenda was unclear, or other pressing commitments that diluted their focus. ### **Snap judgments** Our brain’s need for quick judgments under pressure makes it easier to default to dispositional explanations. Kahneman’s System 1 thinking — fast, automatic, and intuitive — aligns closely with how FAE operates. System 1 is quick to label behaviors with trait-based judgments, requiring less cognitive effort than processing complex situational factors. This is particularly strong in situations that require swift decisions with limited information. FAE allows rapid interpretation, but the resulting judgments can be incomplete and misguided. ### **The self-made myth** In the West, there’s a strong emphasis on individual responsibility and autonomy. These norms make dispositional attributions more intuitive and socially reinforced. This makes leaders in individualistic cultures more prone to FAE, attributing failures and successes to personal capabilities rather than team dynamics or structural factors. ### **Assuming intent** FAE implies that behavior is inherently intentional. When observing others, we **assume that actions reflect a deliberate choice rather than a constrained response to situational factors**. If a manager sees someone decline to take initiative, they might assume a lack of motivation rather than a lack of psychological safety or clear direction from leadership. ### **The trap of character labels** FAE leads to viewing personal traits as stable and enduring, while situational factors are seen as temporary or peripheral. This leads to “trait permanence,” where people believe personality traits consistently drive behavior across contexts. In reality, it is contingent on the environment, incentives, pressures, and available resources, which leaders often overlook. ## How fundamental attribution error affects leaders FAE ripples through many aspects of leadership. It impacts three critical areas: decision-making, team culture, and organizational effectiveness. ### Decision-Making **Performance evaluations.** This is where FAE perhaps does the most direct damage. When evaluating performance, we attribute poor outcomes to individual shortcomings—lack of motivation, talent, or focus—overlooking systemic factors. This creates a double bind: not only do we misdiagnose the problem, but subsequent actions (like performance improvement plans) fail to address the real barriers to success. The solution isn't just better evaluation forms. It's developing 360-degree systems that explicitly consider context: Were people set up for success? Did they have the right resources and support? Did they receive clear instructions? For a deeper dive into biases in performance appraisals: [Most performance reviews are biased](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/biases-performance-reviews) [Most Performance Reviews are Biased | LSW#38...and how to counter them![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F103b9a02-d090-4636-aba7-33da2c70083a%2Fapple-touch-icon-180x180.png)The Leading Sapiens WeeklySheril Mathews![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1200,h_600,c_fill,f_jpg,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa3985228-034b-4849-919c-0e0621ee927a_1080x1350.png)](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/biases-performance-reviews) **Managing during a crisis**. Crises amplify FAE because stress increases reliance on mental shortcuts. Under pressure, the impulse to find a culprit overwhelms the need to understand systemic failures. In the Columbia Shuttle Disaster, initial reactions focused on individual decisions, missing deeper cultural issues that silenced dissent and neglected critical communication channels. **Flawed decisions.** When leaders attribute outcomes to individual actions, they miss systemic patterns that could inform decisions. A manager sees a missed deadline and implements stricter monitoring, when the real issue might be workload imbalance or unclear priorities. Misattribution leads to solutions that treat [symptoms rather than causes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/). ### Team culture **Psychological safety**. FAE is kryptonite to [psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/). When people believe their mistakes will be attributed to personal failings instead of learning opportunities, they stop taking risks, sharing ideas, or admitting errors. This creates a vicious cycle: reduced psychological safety leads to less openness, which reinforces attributional biases. **Misinterpreting conflict.** When conflicts arise, FAE makes you focus on personality clashes rather than structural tensions. Two team members might appear to have "communication issues" when the real problem is competing incentives or unclear role boundaries. Focusing on interpersonal solutions (like communication training) while ignoring systemic causes ensures that conflicts recur. **Resistance to change.** When change initiatives fail, FAE tempts you to blame "resistant" employees instead of examining the management approach. This leads to pushing harder rather than understanding deeper: Why does this change feel threatening? What factors are creating resistance? ### Organizational effectiveness **Capability traps.** FAE creates and perpetuates capability traps — situations where teams fail to develop because they're stuck reacting to symptoms instead of addressing root causes. When leaders blame individuals for performance issues while ignoring structural barriers, they create a downward spiral: increased pressure leads to more shortcuts, further degrading capabilities. **The myth of leadership.** FAE reinforces the "heroic leadership" myth — the belief that success stems primarily from individual leaders rather than systemic factors. This not only creates unrealistic expectations but also blinds you to the interdependencies that actually drive performance. Misattributing outcomes to individual leaders means missed opportunities to build robust systems and processes that could sustain success beyond any single person's tenure. ## The inseparability of person and situation Before exploring solutions, we need to confront an uncomfortable truth: the very way we think about person versus situation might be fundamentally flawed. Researchers discuss FAE as if person and situation are clearly separable; as if we could neatly divide the world into "dispositional" and "situational factors." But this distinction is an illusion, particularly in leadership contexts. Consider a high-performing executive who consistently delivers results. Is their success due to innate capabilities (person) or the accumulated advantages of education, network, and opportunities (situation)? Their current performance shapes future situations: track record opens doors, creating new opportunities and building capabilities. **Person shapes situation shapes person in an endless loop.** This creates what systems thinkers call "[circular causality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/)" which challenges simplistic assumptions about leadership and performance. This means: - Your "personality" might just be the crystallized history of your experiences. - "Strong culture" may just be creating situations that force certain behaviors. - When we praise someone's "leadership qualities," we might really be praising the [institutional structures](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/#3-structures) that enabled those qualities to emerge. ## How to counter fundamental attribution error Given this complexity, how can you move beyond fundamental attribution error to make better decisions and build stronger organizations? ### 1\. Reframe your questions Instead of asking "Who's at fault?" ask: - What circumstances led to this outcome? - What systemic pressures might be influencing behavior? - How is organizational structure contributing to this situation? ### 2\. Design for success - Focus on [creating enabling environments rather than "natural talents"](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/) - Build systems and processes that encourage desired behaviors. - Design roles and responsibilities with [high standards but also clear expectations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) ### 3\. Develop systemic evaluation methods - Implement 360-degree feedback that explicitly considers contextual factors. - Create performance metrics that capture both individual and systemic influences. - Use after-action reviews that examine the full spectrum of contributing factors. ### 4\. Build psychological safety - Normalize discussion of situational pressures. - Encourage open dialogue about systemic challenges. - Create forums for people to safely surface organizational barriers. ### 5\. Practice anti-heroic leadership - Publicly acknowledge the role of timing, teamwork, and circumstances in successes. - Share stories that highlight systemic factors in both victories and setbacks. - Model fallibility by discussing your own challenges and practicing sensible [self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/). ## Wrapping up Like aviation investigators resisting the instinct to blame the pilot, leaders must consciously resist fundamental attribution error. The cost of failing to do so is steep. When you think "What's wrong with these people?", remember: even expert accident investigators have to fight the same instinct. The solution isn't about eliminating FAE, but developing a new reflex: when making quick personality-based judgments, pause and ask what situational or systemic factors are at play. This shift - from judging character to [understanding context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) \- opens up new possibilities for action. ## Sources 1. Weick, K. E. (2009). [Making Sense of the Organization, Volume 2: The Impermanent Organization.](https://amzn.to/3NP4rfk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Syed, M. (2015). [Black Box Thinking](https://amzn.to/4ftR1Bw?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Malcolm Gladwell in Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (2011). [The Person and the Situation](https://amzn.to/3AuOV5d?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Snook, S. A. (2002). [Friendly Fire: The Accidental Shootdown of U.S. Black Hawks over Northern Iraq](https://amzn.to/3YpRkX3?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Kahneman, D. (2011). [Thinking, Fast and Slow](https://amzn.to/3YuPTq5?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). [The Fearless Organization](https://amzn.to/4fKiwH9?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 7. Ross, L. (1977). [The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process.](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601%2808%2960357-3?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 8. Jones, E. E., & Harris, V. A. (1967). [The attribution of attitudes.](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/0022-1031%2867%2990034-0?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood Dynamic URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:35:54.000Z *The term “psychological safety” is often misleading. When managers hear safety, many dismiss it as a soft style that implies complacency. Meanwhile, psychology implies too much mumbo jumbo. High-profile figures like Elon Musk advocating for a “hardcore” style perpetuate this misconception. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between high standards and psychological safety.* *In this piece, I unpack the confusion surrounding psychological safety and why you need both psychological safety and high standards to achieve high performance.* --- In his biography of Elon Musk, Walter Isaacson cites an exchange that’s telling. The backdrop is the initial days after Musk took over Twitter. > Between Twitterland and the Muskverse was a radical divergence in outlook that reflected two different mindsets about the American workplace. Twitter prided itself on being a friendly place where coddling was considered a virtue. “We were definitely very high-empathy, very caring about inclusion and diversity; everyone needs to feel safe here,” says Leslie Berland, who was chief marketing and people officer until she was fired by Musk. The company had instituted a permanent work-from-home option and allowed a mental “day of rest” each month. One of the commonly used buzzwords at the company was “psychological safety.” Care was taken not to discomfort. > > **Musk let loose a bitter laugh when he heard the phrase “psychological safety.”** It made him recoil. He considered it to be the enemy of urgency, progress, orbital velocity. His preferred buzzword was “hardcore.” Discomfort, he believed, was a good thing. It was a weapon against the scourge of complacency. Vacations, flower-smelling, work-life balance, and days of “mental rest” were not his thing. Let that sink in. > > … > > Musk had wrought one of the greatest shifts in corporate culture ever. Twitter had gone from being among the most nurturing workplaces, replete with free artisanal meals and yoga studios and paid rest days and concern for “psychological safety,” to the other extreme. He did it not only for cost reasons. **He preferred a scrappy, hard-driven environment where rabid warriors felt psychological danger rather than comfort.** \[1\] Amy Edmondson of Harvard, the leading researcher in psychological safety, defines it as the belief that you won't be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. It encourages intelligent risk-taking by reducing interpersonal anxiety. Hundreds of studies, including [Google’s Project Aristotle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/), show that psychological safety is essential for high performance in the modern workplace. Given its importance, you’d think managers would actively work to enable it. Yet, in practice, these findings often fall on deaf ears. Why is this so? In my experience, there are **two main confusions that muddle the message:** “comfort” and “safe spaces.” Let’s examine the two. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Psychological safety is not “comfort” In Isaacson’s exchange, psychological safety is conflated with “coddling” and “not to discomfort”. Meanwhile, “hardcore” is considered the opposite. The implied message? **"Psych safety is for losers; we are hardcore here".** Musk's disdain for the term "safety" stems from its association with a lack of urgency, complacency, and laziness. For him, discomfort drives productivity, where fear and stress combat complacency and push people toward "orbital velocity." From his perspective, psychological safety is the opposite of high performance. It hinders accountability and the "hardcore" mindset required for rapid innovation. Comfort is anathema to performance, and psychological safety is about free artisanal meals and a lax work attitude. Musk isn’t alone in making this mistake. As a manager, when I myself came across the concept in 2018 I dismissed it as “soft” and another management fad destined to die. Edmondson herself acknowledges the problem with terminology: > **The term implies to people a sense of coziness** — “Oh, everything’s going to be great” — and that we’re all going to be nice to each other. That’s not what it’s really about. It’s about candor, about being direct, taking risks, and being willing to say, “I screwed that up.” It’s being willing to ask for help when you’re in over your head. \[2\] Maybe that’s why she called her 2018 book “Fearless Organization” instead of “The Psychologically Safe Organization.” She clarifies: > Psychological safety is not an “anything goes” environment where people are not expected to adhere to high standards or meet deadlines. It is not about becoming “comfortable” at work. > > This is particularly important to understand because many managers appreciate the appeal of error-reporting, help-seeking, and other proactive behavior to help their organizations learn. At the same time, they implicitly equate psychological safety with relaxing performance standards – that is, with an inability to, in their words, “hold people accountable.” This conveys a misunderstanding of the nature of the phenomenon. \[4\] ![Psychological Safety is not about comfort.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/10/Psychological-Safety-is-Not-Comfort.png) > Such a climate does not, however, deny failure and whitewash poor results but examines them to see how they can be eliminated or reduced. The reinforcement that comes initially from others and later from oneself is the knowledge that one has made a genuine attempt and that failure occurred only because one's goals were beyond one's current abilities. **Failure to perform beyond one's limits is not the same as failure to perform what one is capable of performing.** > > — Chris Argyris, Donald Schon, Theory in Practice Let’s look at the next culprit. ## It’s not about “safe spaces” either Another term that adds to the confusion is 'safe spaces.' Although sounding similar, they serve different purposes and come from different contexts. Even experienced practitioners get these two mixed up. Safe spaces originated in social movements and are designed to be environments free of conflict. They're found in educational settings or communities dealing with sensitive issues, where the goal is to protect individuals from potentially harmful situations. Discomfort is intentionally minimized, and clear boundaries are set from the outset. Meanwhile, psychological safety emerged in the context of organizations and team dynamics. It focuses on creating environments where people feel safe to speak up, make mistakes, and take risks, especially in challenging, high-stakes situations. **Unlike safe spaces, psychological safety doesn't aim to eliminate discomfort.** Instead, **it ensures discomfort is productive** — an essential part of learning and growth. Safe spaces are about protection from external judgment by removing threats or negative stimuli. In contrast, psychological safety encourages risk-taking for group performance and learning. This distinction is crucial. Equating psychological safety with safe spaces creates the misconception that it means avoiding accountability or difficult feedback. In reality, it is compatible with[ high standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) and challenging expectations. The **role of leadership also differs**. In safe spaces, leaders act as guardians, setting and enforcing norms to protect members. In psychologically safe workplaces, they model fallibility, ensure open dialogue, practice [humble inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/), and [frame failures as learning opportunities](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/). A psychologically safe workplace isn't devoid of challenge or discomfort; it ensures that discomfort is generative, not destructive. ## What Psychological Safety really is Psychological safety isn't about avoiding discomfort; it's about ensuring that discomfort — what Musk calls "hardcore"— fosters growth, intelligent risk-taking, and learning. He is half-right: there's no growth without discomfort. But for people to embrace it productively, you need psychological safety. This means creating an environment where people feel secure enough to fully engage, experiment, make mistakes, and challenge themselves and their leaders. Contrary to misconceptions, psychological safety enables — not hinders — the "discomfort" and "hardcore" approach that Musk advocates. It's not about removing accountability or avoiding challenges, but supporting people to confidently face them head-on. To use one of Edmondson's analogies: **psychological safety is like removing the brakes that keep a car from moving, while high standards act as the steering mechanism**. Without it, even with high standards, you risk chaos—team members may be too afraid to accelerate, or if they do, they might crash due to uncertainty. While discomfort is indeed a powerful catalyst, it's an error to assume stress and fear are the only ways to generate urgency. High standards are most effective when people feel supported in reaching them. Without psychological safety, innovation suffers as people avoid exposing their vulnerabilities or lack of skills, fearing ridicule and punishment. High-performance teams understand that excellence requires iterative failures. They don't demand perfection; instead, they encourage trial, error, and adjustment. In this environment, **failure isn't just tolerated; it's an integral part of the process**. Expectations remain high, and people work hard. However, the crucial difference is that it's safe to fail and learn, driving both individual and organizational growth. ## The 4 organizational archetypes Elon Musk's management of Twitter is an extreme example of [coercive power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/). He let go 75% of the workforce to ensure only the "hardcore" survived. The idea was that discomfort would push the remaining employees to innovate and execute faster, which, to some extent, did happen. Twitter continued to operate, albeit in a diminished form, and introduced new features with a much smaller staff. High pressure and discomfort can indeed lead to bursts of productivity, especially in a crisis where the stakes are high and the need for immediate action is clear. However, sustained pressure without psychological safety leads to burnout, reduced creativity, and reluctance to take risks. People focus on avoiding failure rather than striving for excellence. This anxiety undermines the creativity that companies like Twitter need to thrive. This interplay between high standards and psychological safety is depicted by Edmondson’s 4 organizational archetypes: ![Psychological safety and high standards.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/10/Psychological-safety-and-High-Standards--2-1.png) ### **High Safety, Low Standards (Comfort Zone)** This is the version of psychological safety Musk imagined — one where no one is pushed to excel. Teams enjoy a collegial atmosphere and are comfortable but lack challenge. While this might seem pleasant on the surface, it's not conducive to learning, innovation, or high engagement. Without a compelling reason to push boundaries, teams don't grow or achieve significant results. It’s a breeding ground for complacency. There’s a lack of healthy conflict or debate, with people agreeing too readily to maintain the status quo. Without a pressing need to improve or take risks, innovation stagnates. The desire for harmony overrides critical thinking, leading to groupthink. This results in a decline in competitive edge and market relevance. ### **Low Safety, High Standards (Anxiety Zone)** This quadrant epitomizes Musk's "hardcore" management. It's a common pitfall in modern workplaces, where leaders demand excellence but fail to cultivate psychological safety. The result is an anxiety-inducing environment that undermines the very performance it seeks to enhance. There’s often a veneer of productivity masking deeper issues. Teams may seem to be highly productive, but there's increasing signs of burnout – absenteeism, declining work quality, and a blame culture. Information is hoarded for job security instead of shared for collective benefit. Teams retreat to the status quo, paralyzed by the fear of failure. Crucial questions remain unvoiced, stifling quality and ingenuity. The organization inadvertently cultivates a risk-averse workforce, favoring "safe" decisions over potentially transformative ones. People work hard, but primarily out of fear. While it may yield short-term results, it limits an organization's capacity for breakthroughs and sustained growth. ### **High Safety, High Standards (Learning Zone)** This is the sweet spot where psychological safety and high standards coexist. In this quadrant, people feel empowered to take calculated risks, voice unconventional ideas, and own up to mistakes without fear of repercussions. It balances both comfort and challenge. Ideas are challenged respectfully, regardless of the source. Feedback flows freely and constructively in all directions, regardless of hierarchy. Teams feel secure enough to push boundaries and tackle complex problems, knowing they have support. Failures aren't career-ending; they're viewed as learning opportunities. Cross-functional collaboration happens organically, as people seek diverse viewpoints to solve problems. Innovation thrives because people feel safe to experiment. They're not paralyzed by fear of failure but energized by the possibility of breakthrough. This creates a dynamic, engaged workforce pushing the envelope. ### **Low Safety, Low Standards (Apathy Zone)** Without safety or standards, people do the bare minimum to stay employed. Team members may engage in “presenteeism” or “quiet quitting” - showing up physically but not mentally. They likely prioritize self-protection over extra effort, leading to unproductive behaviors and conflicts. This is common in large, bureaucratic organizations where people have figured out how to do their jobs with minimal effort. In these places, mediocrity takes root along with passive-aggressive behavior, office politics, and a lack of initiative. There’s also high turnover rates and strong resistance to change. [People develop learned helplessness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/#locus-of-control-and-learned-helplessness-in-organizations), believing their efforts won't matter. It creates a destructive cycle where low expectations lead to low performance, reinforcing apathy. ## The paradox of “hard” and “soft” > Psychological safety and accountability are not two ends of a continuum, but rather two distinct attributes of a work environment. \[3\] The dichotomy of either psychological safety or high standards is a classic case of “either/or” thinking. Effective leadership requires an “and” approach: integrating both psychological safety and high standards to create places where people can take risks and be challenged simultaneously. > A **culture that makes it safe to talk about failure can coexist with high standards**… This is as true in families as it is at work. Psychological safety isn’t synonymous with “anything goes.” > > A workplace can be psychologically safe and still expect people to do excellent work or meet deadlines. A family can be psychologically safe and still expect everyone to wash dishes and take out the trash. It’s possible to create an environment where candor and openness seem feasible: an honest, challenging, collaborative environment. I’d go so far as to say that insisting on high standards without psychological safety is a recipe for failure— and not the good kind. \[5\] Psychological safety and high standards are **complementary, not contradictory**. The job of leadership is to both challenge and support. It allows people to fully commit to high standards because they trust they won't be penalized for mistakes or deviations during the learning process. Jim Collins calls this leadership dynamic “the paradox of hard and soft”: > A good leader doesn’t *demand* high performance (demanding implies that people are basically lazy and are inclined to withhold their best effort—that it must be extracted out of them, like pulling teeth). No, a good leader offers people the opportunity to test themselves, to grow, and to do their best work. > > There is no shortage of people interested in doing something in which they can take pride. But there is a vast shortage of leaders who provide the stimulation of stiff challenge and high standards, combined with the uncompromising belief that seemingly ordinary people can do extraordinary things. > > … > > Leaders who build great companies master the paradox of hard and soft. They hold people to incredibly high standards of performance (hard) yet they go to great lengths to build people up—to make them feel good about themselves and about what they are capable of achieving (soft). \[6\] As leaders, the challenge is to create an environment for team members feel secure enough while pushing to meet ambitious goals. It's not about implementing policies, but about modeling and reinforcing behaviors that support both safety and excellence. Pay attention to subtle indicators. Are team members engaging in candid discussions about failures? Do they proactively seek feedback? These signs can help you gauge if you're in a "Learning Zone" or "Anxiety Zone". The goal isn't to eliminate discomfort, but to ensure it serves a productive purpose. Mastering this balance sets the stage for excellence. ## Further reading [Project Aristotle: Implications and ChallengesProject Aristotle was a multi-year research initiative by Google to understand what made teams effective. Some of its findings, psychological safety in particular, were counterintuitive. It changed how companies viewed teams and performance. Yet, a decade later, implementation remains challenging. I examine common challenges leaders face in applying psychological safety![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/09/Google-Project-Aristotle.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/) [The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological SafetyFraming is a key skill to create psychological safety and improve performance. But most leaders are unaware or don’t know how to get better at it.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=MnwxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDE5fHxibHVlfGVufDB8fHx8MTY1Mzc1MTg2NA&ixlib=rb-1.2.1&q=80&w=2000)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/10/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/10/Self-Disclosure.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/05/1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) [Setting high standards and clear expectations in leadershipSetting high standards is well understood. But a critical step often gets left out. Bezos captured this key idea in his 2017 shareholder letter.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Setting-High-Standards--Four-Quadrants.excalidraw-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) ## Sources 1. Isaacson, W. (2023).[ Elon Musk](https://amzn.to/3UiCQ9V?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Edmondson, A. C. (2024). Interview. In [Harvard Business Review, Psychological Safety (Emotional Intelligence Series)](https://amzn.to/3C147aU?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Edmondson, A. C. (2012). [Teaming](https://amzn.to/40lJQXw?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). [The Fearless Organization](https://amzn.to/40j27EV?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Edmondson, A. C. (2023). [Right Kind of Wrong](https://amzn.to/48jsY5P?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Collins, J. (2020). [Beyond Entrepreneurship 2.0](https://amzn.to/4dVCld2?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 7. Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). [Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness](https://amzn.to/3UpMec9?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 8. Duhigg, C. (2016). [What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 9. Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). [Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct](https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 10. Edmondson, A. (1999). [Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams](https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341%5FReadings/Group%5FPerformance/Edmondson%20Psychological%20safety.pdf?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Mintzberg’s Managerial Roles: The Multifaceted Nature of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/ Last updated: 2026-03-06T01:12:08.000Z *Henry Mintzberg was one of the first to identify a comprehensive set of managerial roles that captured the reality of managerial work. Later, he updated this original list into an overall management model.* *In this piece, I examine the importance of *Mintzberg’s managerial roles and management model*, and how leaders can use it for reflective practice and personal growth.* --- Leadership and management literature often feature simplistic "recipes" for success. If you've felt that popular advice doesn't capture the full scope of your daily responsibilities, you're not alone. Many of these recipes address one or two aspects while ignoring others. They rely on broad concepts like "be a good communicator" or "make strategic decisions." This is convenient for the author but not for the practicing manager who is left guessing about many other critical aspects. The notable exception is Henry Mintzberg’s research on the true nature of managerial work. His model provides a granularity that’s missing in leadership discussions. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Why study Mintzberg's roles? Imagine a novice carpenter who only knows a hammer as 'that hitting thing.' They might drive nails, but will be lost when faced with the nuanced tasks of finishing or restoration. Just as a master understands subtle differences in tools and techniques, effective managers need a rich vocabulary to distinguish and apply various principles of leadership. Mintzberg's research offers a comprehensive toolbox, providing the in-depth understanding often missing in leadership discourse. By breaking down managerial roles into concrete categories, it helps pinpoint areas for improvement and develop targeted skills. This awareness is crucial: how can you enhance aspects you're not aware of? True leadership is developed “on the job,” but there are fundamental concepts every manager should grasp. Many believe an MBA suffices, but **these programs focus more on running a business than operating effectively within one.** Mintzberg’s work bridges this gap, offering a detailed blueprint to understand the intricate details of management, rather than just the broad strokes. The true value of the framework isn't its accuracy, but how it illuminates the various "hats" you wear daily. It helps identify habitual tendencies and provides depth for ongoing development. Leadership is a craft to be honed over a lifetime, and Mintzberg's model is a framework to revisit throughout your career. At first glance, this model might seem complex. However, this intricacy is intentional and necessary, reflecting the multifaceted nature of leadership and management. As you revisit this piece, you'll see patterns and connections you initially missed. I've included a reflection exercise at the end to help apply these concepts to your leadership journey. 💡 This piece draws heavily on Mintzberg's 2009 book **Managing*. It's truly one of a kind and essential reading for any manager. For a breezier version, check out the 2013 one called **Simply Managing*. Links in the sources section. ## Mintzberg’s original 10 managerial roles Mintzberg’s original 1973 list had ten roles in the **interpersonal, informational, and decisional** categories. ### **Interpersonal roles** These roles involve interacting with others and are essential for building relationships, leading teams, and representing the organization. 1. **Figurehead**: As a [symbolic leader](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/), you perform ceremonial duties and represent your organization in formal activities (e.g., signing documents, attending events). This role shows how visible leadership can set the tone for culture and values. 2. **Leader**: You’re responsible for motivating and managing your team, providing guidance, support, and feedback. This role focuses on direct influence with subordinates, shaping their development and performance. 3. **Liaison**: Here, you build and maintain a network of contacts inside and outside your organization. It reflects your ability to leverage relationships for information, resources, and opportunities, making you a connector. ### **Informational roles** Managers must collect, process, and disseminate information, making them a critical node in communication networks. 1. **Monitor**: You continuously seek and gather information from internal and external sources, staying aware of industry trends, team progress, and organizational currents. This ensures you have the situational awareness to respond effectively. 2. **Disseminator**: Once you have relevant information, you must communicate it to your team or key stakeholders. As a disseminator, you filter and decide what information is most important to share. 3. **Spokesperson**: In this role, you represent and speak for your organization to outsiders. In public presentations, media engagements, or stakeholder meetings, you communicate organizational goals, policies, and achievements. ### **Decisional roles** Managers make important decisions that affect their teams, projects, and the organization’s strategic direction. 1. **Entrepreneur**: As a change agent, you initiate and lead new projects, innovations, and strategies to improve your organization's performance or respond to challenges. This role emphasizes forward-thinking and the drive for continuous improvement. 2. **Disturbance Handler**: When crises or conflicts arise, you step in to resolve problems, manage team disputes, respond to external threats, or handle unexpected operational issues. Your ability to stabilize situations is crucial. 3. **Resource Allocator**: You decide how to best use organizational resources, including time, budgets, and human capital. It involves setting priorities and making trade-offs to ensure projects are adequately resourced and aligned with strategic goals. 4. **Negotiator**: Whether negotiating with external partners, suppliers, or internal teams, you represent the organization's interests to reach agreements that benefit the business. This role involves balancing different perspectives, needs, and resources to achieve favorable outcomes. While a great starting point for increasing granularity, Mintzberg recognized the need for refinement and expansion. The original roles, although comprehensive, didn't fully capture the nuances of modern management. > All of this material together seemed to cover the things that managers do, but it did not amount to much of a theory, or a model, to help managers understand their work. \[2\] Later, he updated this list into a more comprehensive model capturing the complexity of managerial roles. The revised framework incorporates new ones and provides a more holistic view of managerial work. ![Henry Mintzberg's Managerial Roles](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/10/Mintzberg---Managerial-Roles-1.png) ## Mintzberg’s Model of Managing His management model portrays managers as intermediaries between their unit and the external world. In the updated framework, the original roles are not distinct compartments but activities in constant interplay. Your role as a manager extends beyond direct action. You're often one or two steps removed, guiding others through information and motivation. ![Henry Mintzberg's Model of Managing](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/10/Mintzberg---Model-of-Managing.png) The model has **three interconnected planes: information, people, and action**, with each operating on internal and external dimensions. \[2\] - Information plane - Communicating (Internal + external) - Controlling (internal) - People plane - Leading (internal) - Linking (external) - Action Plane - Doing (Internal) - Dealing (External) Notice how "leading" is only one of six operating modes. Beyond these roles, [you're responsible for framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) \- [setting the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) and strategy for your team. This framing isn't just about your actions; it's what preoccupies your thoughts. Your mental frame becomes the lens through which your team views their work. Equally critical is scheduling. Your calendar choices aren't just about managing time; they signal priorities to your team. When you allocate your time, you're directing their focus as well. The challenge? Balancing these roles and responsibilities. It's about dividing your work into manageable pieces, then using your framework to integrate them into a coherent whole. Let’s take a closer look at what each plane entails. ## Managing *through* information The information plane in Mintzberg's framework positions the manager as the central hub of a unit. This role has evolved from the traditional Monitor, Disseminator, and Spokesperson functions, highlighting the importance of information management in modern leadership. This plane involves two key roles: communicating and controlling. ### Communicating In the communicating role, you're a conduit for information flow. You'll spend significant time - often up to half - gathering and disseminating information. This makes you the **nerve center** of your unit, with a broad understanding of all operations. As the nerve center, you’re constantly monitoring internal operations and external events, disseminating crucial data to your team, and representing your unit externally. Your information advantage lies not in documented facts, but in current, often “verbal, visual, and visceral” knowledge. ### Controlling In the controlling role, you use information to direct your team's behavior. This encompasses activities like designing systems, delegating tasks, authorizing decisions, allocating resources, and setting targets. Each action is a form of decision-making and a mechanism of control. ### Keys to effective management - Recognize your unique position as your unit’s information hub. Your ability to connect disparate information can provide valuable insights that others might miss. - Be mindful of different forms of decision-making as control mechanisms. From system design to target-setting, each approach has its place, but over-reliance on any single method can be detrimental. - Challenge yourself to move beyond the information plane. While data and targets are important, they shouldn't come at the cost of [neglecting direct engagement with your team](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) and hands-on involvement in critical activities. ## Managing *with* people In Mintzberg's updated framework, the traditional roles of Leader, Figurehead, and Liaison evolve into two interconnected concepts: leading inside your unit and linking to external stakeholders. > The leading role can certainly make a difference. But it is no more the be-all and end-all of managing than is controlling or decision making. In fact, I believe **we need to see leadership as a necessary component of management.** \[2\] ### Leading When managing with people, you're closer to action without directly engaging in it. It requires a different mindset than managing through information. Instead of guiding people towards predetermined ends, you're encouraging them to pursue their natural goals. As a leader, your main challenge is to shift from an "I" to a "we" mentality. Formal authority has limits, and your success is tied to the performance of others. Instead of focusing on **empowerment**, which can reinforce subordination, concentrate on **engagement** – **working alongside your team, not dictating to them.** The leader role involves: 1. Energizing people: Inspire and motivate your team to perform at their best. 2. Facilitating development: Provide opportunities and support for personal and professional growth. 3. Building cohesive teams: Create a collaborative, supportive environment. 4. Shaping culture: Be the energy center of your unit, influence decisions and set the tone. ### Linking While internal leadership is crucial, your role extends beyond your immediate team. Linking to people outside your unit is equally important for effective management. This external-facing role involves: 1. Network building: Establish and maintain relationships with key stakeholders. 2. Official representation: Be the face of your unit in formal settings. 3. Championing needs: Advocate for your team's interests and requirements. 4. Influence management: Transmit external influences internally while acting as a gatekeeper and buffer. Effective boundary management requires a balance. Protect your unit from unnecessary external pressures while remaining responsive to important outside influences. Sometimes, you must be assertive in advocating for your team's needs. ### Keys to effective management 1. *Embrace engagement over empowerment.* True empowerment comes from within. Your role is to create an environment that enables engagement and intrinsic motivation. 2. *Become a cultural catalyst.* Understand that your presence and actions shape your team's spirit. Be intentional about the culture you're cultivating. 3. *Master the art of influence flow.* In your linking role, view yourself not just as a [conduit for information and influence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/), but as a valve controlling what passes through and how. This requires discernment about what to share, when, and how. ## Managing action In Mintzberg's updated framework, the Action Plane integrates the roles of Entrepreneur, Disturbance Handler, Resource Allocator, and Negotiator. It emphasizes that effective management involves strategic thinking and being an agent of action. The Action Plane comprises two primary modes: Doing (Internal) and Dealing (External). ### Doing As a manager, your role extends beyond information processing and people management. You're expected to be a doer, actively engaging in your organization's work. This doesn't mean you're constantly executing tasks, but rather closely involved in making things happen. Your internal "doing" role manifests in two essential ways: 1. *Proactively managing projects.* Participating in projects demonstrates leadership and provides insights for strategy development. Don't shy away from getting your hands dirty. It's through these tangible experiences that you truly learn and shape effective strategies. 2. *Reactively handling disturbances.* Your involvement in addressing unexpected challenges is necessary due to your unique position. You possess the formal authority, comprehensive information, or specific expertise to address certain issues effectively. An effective organization isn't just one that avoids problems, but one that adeptly handles unexpected challenges. ### Dealing Externally, your role involves dealing – building coalitions and conducting negotiations. Your position as a figurehead, information hub, and [authority figure ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/)makes you uniquely suited for these tasks. Whether securing contracts or managing partnerships, your involvement is crucial in closing deals and advancing the organization. ### Keys to effective management > Too much micromanaging? > > **Macroleading may well be the bigger problem today.** Managers who don’t do and deal can become incapable of making sensible decisions and robust strategies. We no more need managers who never do and deal than we need managers who only do and deal. \[2\] 1. *Embrace hands-on involvement.* Reject the notion that managers should be detached decision-makers. Your active participation is crucial for learning, strategy development, and effective leadership. 2. *Reframe disturbances as opportunities.* View unexpected challenges not just as problems to avoid, but as chances to demonstrate your organization's resilience and adaptability. 3. *Leverage your unique position.* Recognize that as a manager, you're often the best person to handle certain projects, disturbances, or negotiations. Don't hesitate to step in when your specific skills or authority are needed. ## Balancing the roles Mintzberg emphasizes a well-rounded approach to management, cautioning against focusing on one aspect at the expense of others. > Thinking is heavy—too much of it can wear a manager down—while acting is light—too much of that and the manager cannot stay put. > > By the same token, too much leading can result in a job free of content—aimless, frameless, and actionless—while too much linking can produce a job detached from its internal roots—public relations instead of tangible connections. The manager who only communicates never gets anything done, while the manager who only “does” ends up doing it all alone. And the manager who only controls risks controlling an empty shell of “yes” men and women. > > We don’t need **people-oriented, information-oriented, or action-oriented** managers; we need managers who operate on **all three planes**. Only together do all these roles on all three planes provide the balance that is essential to the practice of managing. \[2\] Resist the temptation to overemphasize one aspect of your role. Focusing solely on action, analysis, or leadership can lead to an imbalanced approach that can prove detrimental. Instead, strive for a well-rounded practice that incorporates all elements. In practice, these roles blend seamlessly. It's crucial to understand each component, but don't expect to execute them in isolation. Aim for a dynamic balance, adapting your approach as situations demand. Recognize that your job will have specific needs, and you'll gravitate towards certain roles. The key is to maintain awareness of all aspects and adjust your focus as necessary. This dynamic balance distinguishes effective managers. ### Keys to effective management - Avoid the trap of becoming a one-dimensional manager. Your effectiveness lies in navigating different roles and planes. - Embrace the blending of roles in your daily practice. This integration is not a flaw but a feature of effective management. - View your management style as an evolving balance. Be prepared to shift your focus as circumstances change and new challenges arise. - Prioritize on-the-job learning and reflection. While theoretical knowledge is valuable, true competence comes from practical experience and [thoughtful reflection on that experience](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). ## Leadership reflection using Mintzberg's roles Mintzberg's framework of managerial roles is a powerful lens for self-assessment and growth. Use it regularly during your quarterly and yearly reviews, or when you receive challenging feedback. It can highlight areas where you might be struggling and guide your development. **Begin with a role inventory.** List out which roles you feel most confident in and those you struggle with. This first step helps to understand your strengths and areas for improvement. Then, **assess how you're balancing time** across the three planes (Information, People, and Action). Use examples from your daily routine to identify any over- or under-investment in areas. To deepen understanding, engage in these reflective practices: 1. Journaling: Keep a written record of your engagement in each role. Note the challenges you faced and how effectively you managed each task. Over time, this will reveal patterns. 2. Daily reflection: 1. Which of Mintzberg's roles did I engage in today? 2. Did I spend enough time on the People Plane to nurture my team? 3. Where did I feel most challenged, and which role was it connected to? 4. Which roles do I naturally gravitate toward? Where do I feel out of my depth? 5. What feedback suggests I need to work on a specific role? 6. How do I handle disturbances? Do they drain my focus, or do I turn them into opportunities? 3. Time tracking: For a week, categorize your daily tasks according to Mintzberg's roles. This exercise will help you identify imbalances and areas needing adjustment. Use these insights to work on less-developed roles. Set specific goals, like dedicating 30 minutes daily to monitor industry trends (enhancing the Monitor role) or scheduling weekly one-on-one meetings with team members (improving the Leader role). To support your growth, identify a mentor or peer for feedback as you improve specific roles. Establish monthly and quarterly checkpoints to evaluate progress, reflect on improvements, and adjust your plan. Remember to leverage your strengths while addressing gaps. If you excel in roles like Leader or Entrepreneur, consider how to use them to elevate team performance. For weaker roles, seek practical ways to enhance them. If you need to develop your Monitor role, focus on boosting your situational awareness. For Resource Allocation, consider more strategic planning approaches. Lastly, strive to integrate the planes and roles. **Effective leaders don't operate in silos; they blend roles which increases effectiveness.** For example, being a good Monitor can make you a more informed Leader. Look for real-world situations where you can blend these roles to improve both individual performance and team outcomes. For example, lead a team meeting (People Plane) while gathering information (Information Plane) and planning next steps (Action Plane). Role-playing with a coach can help you practice switching between roles fluidly in a safe environment. ## Wrapping up Mintzberg's framework shows the multifaceted nature of leadership that's overlooked in simplistic management advice. It challenges the notion that it's about mastering a single skill or trait. Instead, it shows management as a dynamic interplay of roles, each crucial in its own right. Reflecting on your leadership style might reveal that your preferred roles, while strengths, also create blind spots. It prompts you to expand beyond your default modes. If you're data-driven, it nudges you to engage more directly with your team. If you're action-oriented, it reminds you to step back and analyze information patterns. This role-shifting isn't about achieving perfect balance, but adapting to changing organizational needs. [**Effective leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/) **isn't all about direct action. It is also about creating the right conditions for others to act.** By understanding the full spectrum of roles, you can choose when to lead from the front, when to facilitate from behind, and when to connect from the side. ## Sources 1. Mintzberg, H. (1973). [The nature of managerial work](https://amzn.to/3zZI4k3?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Mintzberg, H. (2009). [Managing](https://amzn.to/3NpkArB?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Mintzberg, H. (2013). [Simply managing: What managers do — and can do better](https://amzn.to/3NqAodW?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Leading Loosely: Leadership in Loosely Coupled Systems URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-in-loosely-coupled-systems/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:48:44.000Z *This is part II of a series on loosely coupled systems. Building on Karl Weick's notion of* [*loose coupling*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/loose-coupling/) *introduced previously, I examine how leadership in these organizations differs from traditional command and control structures.* --- Chinese appliance manufacturer Haier pioneered a radical organizational model called RenDanHeYi, which loosely translates to 'employee-goal combination.' This model transforms the company into a network of thousands of micro-enterprises, each operating with high autonomy but aligned through market mechanisms. Employees become 'entrepreneurs' responsible for their own profits and losses, while still contributing to overall company goals. This ""loose" structure has allowed Haier to remain innovative and responsive in a rapidly changing market. It's a great example loose coupling applied at scale, challenging traditional notions of corporate hierarchy and control. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Loose leadership In today's organizations, complexity and fragmentation are the norm, making **loose-coupling a necessity rather than an anomaly**. The paradox of loosely coupled systems lies in their simultaneous fragility and resilience. These organizations, held together by tenuous connections, can appear chaotic and vulnerable. Yet, it's precisely their looseness that allows for adaptation and survival in turbulent environments. The question for leaders is: how do you nurture this balance? Leadership in loosely coupled systems isn't about relinquishing control, but reimagining it. It's a shift from direct intervention to strategic influence, [from commanding to cultivating](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/). Leading such organizations requires an approach that embraces their unique characteristics while maintaining coherence and direction. It recognizes that in complex organizations, **power flows through informal networks** and shared meanings rather than formal hierarchies. Contrary to what one might expect, despite looser structural control, **leadership becomes even more crucial** in loosely coupled systems. Leaders serve as connectors, aligning different parts of the organization through vision, shared values, and strategic interventions. They must rely on [symbolic leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/) — guiding through influence and culture rather than direct control or tight procedural integration. It requires them to be adept at creating a shared purpose across disparate, independent units. Leaders shouldn’t eliminate loose coupling within their organizations. Instead, by embracing it, they can create more adaptable and resilient entities while avoiding the pitfalls of excessive control, misalignment, and inefficiency. The challenge lies in knowing where and how to intervene, what to monitor, and how to coordinate efforts without stifling the flexibility that loose coupling affords. Let’s look at some of the fundamental ways “leading loosely” differs from the norm. ## 1\. Embrace fragmentation Accept fragmentation as a natural state in modern organizations. Instead of imposing uniformity, identify areas where autonomy thrives and tailor approaches accordingly. Look for pockets functioning semi-independently—teams creating unique solutions, departments using varied methods to achieve similar objectives, or geographic units adapting to local needs. **This isn't a problem; it's a characteristic** of a loosely coupled system. Focus on outcomes, not processes. By defining clear organizational goals while allowing teams the freedom to find their own path, leaders enable the system to adapt to local challenges while moving toward a shared vision. ## 2\. Balance autonomy with alignment Loose coupling requires autonomy, but it also demands strong alignment on values to be effective. Peter Senge's concept of "shared mental models" is crucial in loosely coupled systems. Without a common understanding of the organization's purpose and values, autonomy can lead to chaos. Strong, symbolic leadership and cultural cohesion are essential in loosely coupled systems. Without them, different parts of the organization will drift in conflicting directions. Balance autonomy with clear communication and shared values, ensuring all units align with the overarching mission. Develop and reinforce a set of [simple rules that guide decision-making](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#type-1-vs-type-2-decisions) across the organization. They should be broad enough for local adaptation but clear enough to ensure alignment. [French and Raven's bases of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/) take on new significance. Leaders must adeptly use softer forms of power. They must understand which types are effective in each context. In tight coupling, legitimate and [expert power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) are more effective. In loose coupling, [referent](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) and information power are paramount. ## 3\. Cultivate informal networks In loosely coupled systems, traditional feedback mechanisms are weak or delayed. In the absence of tight structural coupling, informal networks become critical. Identify and support informal networks using storytelling and cross-team dialogue for shared understanding. Create strong socialization processes to maintain alignment. Map the informal networks in your organization. Identify key connectors and information brokers. Support and **amplify these natural coordination mechanisms without formalizing them**. Monitor the quality of feedback loops within and across teams. Ensure insights from one part of the organization are shared with others and feedback mechanisms support learning. Build communities of practice or cross-departmental forums for informal knowledge sharing. Supplement formal performance reviews with dynamic feedback methods, like frequent one-on-one check-ins or cross-functional reviews. ## 4\. Practice restraint Instead of constant oversight, consider limited, strategic interventions. Identify [leverage points](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#8-small-changes-can-produce-big-results-but-the-areas-of-highest-leverage-are-often-the-least-obvious)—critical areas where minimal guidance can have a significant impact. Pinpoint junctures where coordination is crucial and connections between units are too loose (causing misalignment) or too tight (leading to rigidity). Shift from commanding to[ setting the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/), or leading with [context not control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) as Netflix puts it. Intervene when a unit's actions diverge from the broader strategy, while entrusting day-to-day decisions to local teams. Become adept at setting broad parameters and offering feedback, allowing each part of the organization to determine specifics. For major actions, ask: 1. Will this intervention amplify or dampen the system's natural tendencies? 2. What second and third-order effects might this create? 3. How will this affect the unit's adaptability? Regularly re-evaluate the degree of coupling in different organizational parts as external conditions change. A loosely coupled unit today might need tighter coupling in the future, or vice versa. ## 5\. Navigate the tension of tight and loose Recognize that tightly coupled and loosely coupled systems are not mutually exclusive but contextual tools. Organizations need both, depending on the task, environment, and growth stage. Tightly coupled systems excel in environments requiring efficiency and precision, while loosely coupled systems thrive in uncertain, ambiguous contexts. Create **localized autonomy at the edges with tight coupling at the center**. The organization's core — its strategic direction, shared values, and leadership vision — should be tightly coupled, acting as a guiding compass. Teams at the periphery, operating in rapidly changing environments, can be loosely coupled, with the autonomy to adapt and experiment. Identify which elements need tight coupling (e.g., core values, key performance indicators) and which benefit from loose coupling (e.g., local market strategies, innovation processes). ## 6\. Align feedback with coupling type Design feedback loops that match the system's coupling. In tightly coupled systems, implement direct and immediate feedback for efficiency. In loosely coupled environments, adopt slower, reflective cycles, focusing on bigger-picture outcomes rather than daily metrics. A multi-tiered feedback system can look like: 1. Rapid, local feedback for day-to-day operations - Daily stand-ups tailored to each unit's needs - Real-time, role-specific dashboards - Peer-to-peer feedback 1. Periodic cross-functional feedback for alignment - Quarterly cross-pollination sessions - "Perspectives exchange" instead of traditional 360s - Biannual strategic alignment surveys - Cross-functional project post-mortems 1. Long-term, systemic feedback for adaptability - Annual systems thinking workshops - External advisory board meetings - Yearly scenario planning exercises - Ecosystem feedback loops with key stakeholders Leading in loosely coupled systems requires a paradoxical blend of intentionality and letting go. It's akin to the Zen concept of "**effortless effort**." Leaders who navigate these systems with a light but deliberate touch will succeed in rapidly changing, uncertain environments. The most [effective leaders will be those who can hold paradoxes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/), embrace complexity, and shift their leadership style to meet the needs of both tightly and loosely coupled parts of their organization. --- ## Sources 1. [Shattering the status quo: A conversation with Haier’s Zhang Ruimin](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/shattering-the-status-quo-a-conversation-with-haiers-zhang-ruimin?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Weick, K. E. Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In Goodman, P. S. (1982). Change in organizations: New perspectives on theory, research, and practice. 3. Barrett, F. J. (2012). Yes to the mess: Surprising leadership lessons from jazz. 4. Netflix culture deck. 5. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization. Academy of Management Review 6. Weick, K. E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 7. Weick, K. E. Sensemaking in organizations. 8. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty. ### Loose Coupling: Rethinking Control in Organizations URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/loose-coupling/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:47:04.000Z *Traditional management emphasizes strict control, clear hierarchies, and uniform processes. This approach, rooted in industrial-era thinking, promises efficiency and predictability. However, *loose-coupling is a compelling alternative to traditional tightly-coupled approaches*.* *In this piece, I revisit *Karl Weick’s notion of loose-coupling* in organizations and its impact on control and flexibility. In part II, I examine* [*how leadership differs in loosely-coupled organizations*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-in-loosely-coupled-systems/)*.* --- One of Netflix’s operating mantras is “[highly aligned and loosely coupled.”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) What does it mean to be loosely coupled? First, let’s look at the opposite notion of tightly-coupled. ## Tightly coupled Every so often, **I hear managers claim some version of “I run a tight ship.”** This usually means they prefer strict control, clear lines of authority, direct oversight, and minimal deviation from established processes. Whether they realize it or not, they are advocating for a “tightly-coupled” system. It’s an operating style where: - Decisions are made centrally, with little room for real autonomy at lower levels. Legitimate and [coercive power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) are used effectively. - Parts of the system are expected to behave predictably, and deviations are addressed swiftly. There is clear accountability and immediate consequences for actions. - Efficiency and consistency are prioritized. Processes are followed closely, and uniformity enforced. - Feedback is immediate and direct. Leaders demand quick adjustments when things deviate from the expected course. Running a “tight ship” is a natural tendency for high-performing leaders. It’s not inherently wrong, but doing it exclusively is limiting in complex environments that require high levels of adaptability. It also comes at the cost of missing out on the advantages of what Karl Weick calls a “loosely coupled” system. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is loose coupling: bees vs flies One of the best explanations of a loosely coupled system is this experiment cited by Karl Weick: > *If you place in a bottle half a dozen bees and the same number of flies, and lay the bottle down horizontally, with its base to the window, you will find that the bees will persist, till they die of exhaustion or hunger, in their endeavor to discover an issue through the glass; while the flies, in less than two minutes, will all have sallied forth through the neck on the opposite side. ...* > > *It is their (the bees') love of light, *it is their very intelligence, that is their undoing in this experiment.** > > *They evidently imagine that the issue from every prison must be there where the light shines clearest; and they act in accordance, and *persist in too logical action*. To them glass is a supernatural mystery they never have met in nature; they have had no experience of this suddenly impenetrable atmosphere; and the *greater their intelligence, the more inadmissible, more incomprehensible, will the strange obstacle appear*.* > > *Whereas the feather-brained flies, careless of logic as of the enigma of crystal, disregarding the call of the light, flutter wildly hither and thither, and meeting here the good fortune that often waits on the simple, who find salvation there where the wiser will perish, necessarily end by discovering the friendly opening that restores their liberty to them. \[1\]* It illustrates the importance of experimentation and flexibility. Bees, with their strict adherence to logic, fail to adapt, while flies, who are less constrained, find the exit. It shows how sticking to one mode of thinking hinders change, whereas loose coupling encourages improvisation and multiple routes to success. Weick explains: > This episode speaks of experimentation, persistence, trial and error, risks, improvisation, the one best way, detours, confusion, rigidity, and randomness all in the service of coping with change. > > **Among the most striking contrasts are those between tightness and looseness.** There are differences in the degree to which means are tied to ends, actions are controlled by intentions, solutions are guided by imitation of one's neighbor, feedback controls search, prior acts determine subsequent acts, past experience constrains present activity, logic dominates exploration, and wisdom and intelligence affect coping behavior. > > In this example **loose ties provide the means for some actors to cope successfully with a serious change in their environment**. Each individual fly, being loosely tied to its neighbor and its own past, makes numerous idiosyncratic adaptations that eventually solve the problem of escape. Looseness is an asset in this particular instance, but precisely how and when looseness contributes to successful change and how change interventions must be modified to cope with the reality of looseness is not obvious. \[1\] He defines loose coupling using *“five adverbs that modify the relationship between any two components in a system” \[1\]:* > Loose coupling exists if A affects B > (1) suddenly (rather than continuously), > (2) occasionally (rather than constantly), > (3) negligibly (rather than significantly), > (4) indirectly (rather than directly), and > (5) eventually (rather than immediately). In loosely-coupled organizations, different units — individuals, teams, and departments — operate semi-independently and are weakly connected. Relationships are marked by weak, indirect, occasional, and delayed interactions. This allows each unit to adapt locally to environmental changes without full integration or coordination across the organization. Here’s **a process example of loose coupling:** > …Kip Hawley, the former head of the Transportation Security Administration, recounts an incident from earlier in his career when he was serving as vice president for reengineering at Union Pacific. No point was more critical to the railroad’s success than the Powder River Basin of Wyoming—Union Pacific transported coal from there to power plants throughout its system—and no point was more difficult to handle. > > *“Because on-time performance from this one spot was so valuable and important—a serious delay in delivery could black out the entire city of Atlanta—Union Pacific spent enormous resources trying to improve efficiency. We rushed high-priority coal cars to a continuous queue just outside the single-point entry to the basin. We advanced new empty cars right after the previous train moved out. But instead of maximizing efficiency we were actually overdoing it … As with brain surgery, there was no room for error.”* > > And error, of course, was exactly what happened, time and again. Finally, after reading James Gleick’s *Chaos*, Hawley writes that he had an epiphany. Instead of queuing up the high-priority cars so one delay was sure to affect all of them, the railroad would distribute them far more loosely throughout the system and flow them as needed. By easing up instead of further tightening down, Union Pacific increased its daily coal-car count by 30 percent. > > “**By accepting errors, we created a much more robust system**,” he writes. “Loosening our grip a bit made our whole system stronger and less vulnerable to a high-impact event like a broken locomotive or a landslide—errors that would be catastrophic in an over-regulated control environment.” \[2\] Weick and Orton put it more succinctly: > If there is responsiveness without distinctiveness, the system is tightly coupled. > If there is distinctiveness without responsiveness, the system is decoupled. > If there is both distinctiveness and responsiveness, the system is loosely coupled. \[4\] Loose coupling presents a puzzling paradox for leaders: How can less control lead to better outcomes? How can disconnected parts create a more cohesive whole? It contradicts traditional management wisdom, which prizes tight integration and close oversight. ## The versatility of loosely coupled systems Consider the differences between loosely coupled systems and traditional command-and-control, tightly coupled ones: ### 1\. **Loose coupling increases system resilience** Leaders often **mistake loose coupling for inefficiency**, but it enhances organizational resilience: - Protection from systemic collapse: Weick's disaster studies (e.g., Mann Gulch fire) show how tight coupling can be fatal when failures spread rapidly. In complex environments, the modularity of loose coupling increases resilience to disruptions. Semi-autonomous units prevent localized crises from cascading through the entire organization. - Adaptive flexibility: Tightly coupled systems respond faster to changes, but loose coupling offers better management of complexity. Units adapt to local contexts independently, preventing unnecessary large-scale changes and **reducing overreactions to temporary shifts**. Loose coupling trades immediate responsiveness for long-term adaptability, which is more valuable in complex, unpredictable environments. ### 2\. **Delayed feedback loops increase psychological safety** Tight coupling assumes that increased oversight and control enhance accountability and performance. However, this can also undermine psychological safety by intensifying surveillance, restricting autonomy, and creating fear of failure. In contrast, **loose coupling promotes behavioral discretion**. Teams operate autonomously without constant supervision, creating psychological safety by: - Reducing pressure from constant feedback - Mitigating fear of immediate consequences - Allowing localized failures as learning opportunities The **modularity of loose coupling creates a buffer that enables experimentation without risking system-wide repercussions**. Weick challenges the notion that constant, direct feedback is optimal for improvement. Instead, he argues that loose feedback loops — indirect, occasional, and delayed — cultivate autonomy and innovation. These spaced ones reduce fear of immediate retribution, encouraging risk-taking without being over-monitored. ### 3\. **Loose coupling doesn’t mean weak connections** Loose coupling is often misinterpreted as "weak" or "ineffective" coupling. However, in reality, it allows both independence and interdependence. Components maintain their autonomy while remaining responsive to organizational objectives. It doesn't sacrifice cohesion either. The system appears loosely connected, but shared values, focused attention, and leadership act as binding agents. They ensure responsiveness without compromising individual autonomy. ### 4\. I**nventiveness by slowing down feedback loops** Delayed feedback allows for more creativity and risk-taking. Teams are not constantly under pressure to produce immediate results, so they can explore more experimental solutions. This is true in environments where asynchronous communication between loosely coupled units allows more flexibility in problem-solving. ### 5\. **Acknowledging unpredictability** Traditional thinking equates system understanding with accurate prediction. However, in loosely coupled systems, **true understanding means recognizing the inherent unreliability of predictions**. It introduces delays, weak connections, and sporadic feedback, rendering conventional prediction ineffective. Leaders must embrace this unpredictability. Akin to weather forecasting — where understanding atmospheric patterns and potential disruptions matters more than the precise forecast itself — those in loosely coupled systems prioritize **understanding organizational failure points over attempting to control every outcome**. This enables better preparation for a range of scenarios, enhancing resilience and adaptability. ### 6\. **Change as continuous, not episodic** Organizational change is often seen as a large, disruptive event. But in loosely coupled systems, it is small-scale, continuous, and local. This makes change less visible but more constant and effective because it’s rooted in **ongoing adaptation instead of large-scale overhauls**. Leaders who expect grand, sweeping changes may miss the incremental yet persistent adaptations happening in loosely coupled systems. By encouraging small, continuous improvements, organizations can better adapt without needing large, disruptive interventions. ### 7\. **Adaptation is not adaptability** Tight coupling is often favored for quick adaptations through centralized control. However, **this approach trades long-term adaptability for short-term responsiveness**. In contrast, loosely coupled systems create enduring adaptability by allowing diverse, localized responses to external conditions. This challenges the notion that rapid, reactive adaptation is always optimal. While loose coupling may sacrifice immediate, large-scale changes, it ensures an organization's ability to navigate long-term uncertainties more effectively. ### 8\. **Less reliable feedback but more stable** In tightly coupled systems, feedback directly informs future actions. However, in loosely coupled systems, it is delayed, neutralized, or discredited. This unreliability of feedback can paradoxically lead to stability as individuals and subunits learn to function with minimal reliance on it. Thus feedback, a cornerstone of organizational learning, is less critical in loosely coupled systems. Stability can be maintained through reduced dependency, allowing units to avoid being overwhelmed by ambiguous or delayed information. ### 9\. **Ambivalence is not negative** Weick advocates for "**ambivalence as the optimal compromise**" – a balance of tight and loose coupling crucial for long-term organizational success. Organizations must simultaneously value and question their past experiences, using historical knowledge while recognizing its limitations in current contexts. Leaders must cultivate a culture that both learns from history and embraces reinvention. This paradoxical mindset is essential for navigating complexity where past solutions don’t apply to present challenges. This principle extends to organizational structure. **Successful entities tightly couple core elements (values, strategic goals) while loosely coupling others (operational processes, local decision-making).** This equilibrium provides stability and adaptability to address diverse challenges while preserving identity and purpose. ### 10\. **Consistency weakens systems** Consistency, often seen as a strength, can weaken loosely coupled systems. When rigidity sets in, loose coupling deteriorates into stagnation. Constant variables —unchanging elements — can lead to system decay by freezing other components in place. To combat this, leaders must proactively inject variability into ossified elements, ensuring the system's dynamism and adaptability. ### Wrapping up Ask: Are we creating organizational "bottles" that trap our teams in predictable, limiting patterns? Or are we creating environments where experimentation, local adaptation, and continuous learning thrive? While tight coupling has its place, particularly in stable environments or core functions, loose coupling offers advantages in managing complexity and uncertainty. In increasing complexity, balancing alignment with adaptability - "highly aligned and loosely coupled" - is a valuable organizational capability. By learning from both bees and flies, leaders can create systems that build on the strengths of both approaches. ## Sources 1. Weick, K. E. Management of organizational change among loosely coupled elements. In Goodman, P. S. (1982).[ Change in organizations: New perspectives on theory, research, and practice.](https://amzn.to/4fMkas0?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Barrett, F. J. (2012). [Yes to the mess: Surprising leadership lessons from jazz.](https://amzn.to/414Hv3t?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Netflix culture deck. 4. Orton, J. D., & Weick, K. E. (1990). [Loosely coupled systems: A reconceptualization](https://doi.org/10.2307/258154?ref=leadingsapiens.com). Academy of Management Review 5. Weick, K. E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly. 6. Weick, K. E. [Sensemaking in organizations.](https://amzn.to/4g8yKdj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 7. Weick, K. E., & Sutcliffe, K. M. [Managing the unexpected: Resilient performance in an age of uncertainty.](https://amzn.to/3Ouclv7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-04-15T22:18:52.000Z *In conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths.* *Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. *How much is too much?* And how can you ensure that opening up doesn’t undermine your authority? In this piece, I explore self-disclosure’s role in leadership, common mistakes to avoid, and using it appropriately.* --- “The most dangerous [leadership myth](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/) is that leaders are born,” quipped leadership guru [Warren Bennis](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/warren-bennis-self-invention-authenticity-leadership/). An equally dangerous myth is that they must always appear infallible. In my 25+ years in corporate America, I’ve seen countless “perfect” presentations. Yet, the most impactful moment was when a senior leader candidly shared her professional failure with the team. Whether she knew it or not, **she was leveraging the art of self-disclosure**. Consider a more dramatic example under more intense circumstances. In the brutal confines of the "Hanoi Hilton," Admiral James Stockdale faced an unprecedented leadership challenge. Captured in 1965 during the Vietnam War, he was the senior naval officer among the prisoners of war. Rather than project an image of invulnerability, **Stockdale made a counterintuitive choice:** he openly shared his pain, fears, and struggles with fellow inmates. By disclosing his vulnerability, he created a bond of trust and resilience among the POWs. He discussed the tortures he endured, moments of despair, and strategies for maintaining hope. This encouraged others to share their experiences, creating a support network that proved crucial for survival. Stockdale's counter-intuitive approach to leadership — later dubbed [the "Stockdale Paradox"](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stockdale-paradox/) — helped maintain morale and unity among the prisoners for over seven years. His self-disclosure in the most challenging circumstances is a powerful lesson for leaders: **showing fallibility can sometimes be the strongest form of leadership.** ## **What is self-disclosure** Self-disclosure is about sharing your thoughts, experiences, and vulnerabilities to others. In leadership, it’s about selectively sharing aspects to create connection, build trust, and ultimately enhance relationships. Rather than oversharing every personal detail, it’s about finding the right balance — being open enough to be relatable and trustworthy while maintaining the discretion and awareness necessary for leadership. Reed Hastings, co-founder and chairman of Netflix, put it this way: > Every time I feel I’ve made a mistake, I talk about it fully, publicly, and frequently. I quickly came to see the biggest advantage of **sunshining a leader’s errors** is to encourage everyone to think of making mistakes as normal. This in turn encourages employees to take risks when success is uncertain . . . which leads to greater innovation across the company. Self-disclosure builds trust, seeking help boosts learning, admitting mistakes fosters forgiveness, and broadcasting failures encourages your people to act courageously. > > …[Humility is important in a leader](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) and role model. When you succeed, speak about it softly or let others mention it for you. But when you make a mistake say it clearly and loudly, so that everyone can learn and profit from your errors. In other words, **“Whisper wins and shout mistakes.” \[2\]** Appropriate self-disclosure in leadership transforms relationships from transactional to meaningful. The key is [balancing openness with discretion](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/), considering timing and context. The hidden quadrant of [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) — a framework for understanding aspects of ourselves known only to us — can help in this assessment. Self-disclosure isn’t an isolated act. It’s a back-and-forth process of sharing information and inviting connection. This reciprocity builds trust, deepens relationships, and enhances both individual and collective effectiveness. ## Inauthenticity and lack of self-disclosure Authenticity has become a buzzword in leadership, yet many struggle to embody it genuinely. This begs the question: [Why do leaders come across as inauthentic](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/)? One reason is our tendency to protect ourselves. We fear vulnerability, believing that showing our true selves will lead to exploitation or loss of respect. I see this pattern often in my coaching practice. There are two typical types of leaders. **First are the infallible exemplars**. Many leaders believe they can't be authentic at work. They construct a persona of unwavering competence and confidence, rigidly separating their professional and personal lives. The focus is on sophistication and [avoiding looking naive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) or incompetent. With newer leaders, this might mean adhering strictly to scripted responses. For experienced ones, it manifests as an impenetrable facade of minimal self-disclosure. The result is that they are **too focused on “seeming like” rather than “being”** leaders. The constant guardedness takes a significant emotional and energy toll because maintaining a facade is exhausting. **The second type is the** **overzealous truth-teller.** Although less common, it is equally problematic because they lack filters, sharing indiscriminately without consideration for timing or context. In a misguided attempt at transparency and authenticity, these leaders fail to recognize the importance of boundaries and context in leadership communication. While presumably easier on the leader, it has a harmful effect on teams and how others perceive them. Both extremes stem from a misunderstanding of what true authenticity in leadership entails. **The antidote lies in mastering appropriate self-disclosure.** True authenticity isn't about being an open book. Effective leaders navigate the middle ground, sharing authentically but judiciously. They know when, how, and what to disclose to build trust and create a culture of openness without compromising effectiveness. What role does self-disclosure play in effective leadership, and how can you strike the right balance? ## **The role of self-disclosure in leadership** The most impactful self-disclosure often isn’t you, but instead creating space for others. It affects many aspects of leadership and acts as a catalyst for effectiveness. Let’s examine some crucial ones. ### **1\. Building trust and openness** Self-disclosure increases your perceived competence. It builds [trust, the foundation of effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/). By revealing vulnerabilities, leaders show they are not infallible, encouraging team members to open up and creating a cycle of transparency that strengthens cohesion. **Vulnerability doesn’t diminish authority;** it humanizes leaders, making them more relatable and approachable. It creates an environment where team members feel safe and voice concerns. Self-disclosure breaks down hierarchical barriers. Sharing challenges signals that you value authenticity over rigid authority, creating a more collaborative dynamic. ### **2\. Normalizing mistakes creates psychological safety** Self-disclosure is crucial for creating psychological safety, a key driver of high-performing teams as seen in [Google's Project Aristotle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/). It's the belief that you can speak up, admit mistakes, and voice concerns without fear of punishment or ridicule. Leaders who disclose their limitations or ask for help show it’s acceptable to not have all the answers. Admitting mistakes openly and sincerely alters team dynamics. It reinforces that no one is infallible and that it's a normal part of growth. This transparency reduces the stigma around failure. ### **3\. Modeling growth mindset** Self-disclosure models behavior that enables a growth mindset. It encourages teams to view failures not as a reflection of inadequacy but as an opportunity for learning and improvement. Strategic self-disclosure influences others’ perception of your leadership presence. It shifts you from a one-dimensional, authoritative figure to a human leader who is genuine, thoughtful, and evolving. It signals that openness isn’t weakness but a necessary ingredient for growth and collaboration. ### **4\. Fostering reciprocity and connection** Another significant aspect is the reciprocity of self-disclosure. It’s not a one-way process. When you open up, it triggers an exchange where people are more inclined to share their own stories, concerns, and insights. This reciprocal disclosure strengthens bonds and increases relational depth. Self-disclosure creates not just comfort, but also productive tension. It **acts as a bridge**, closing the emotional and psychological distance that exists between leaders and their teams. ## **Common mistakes in self-disclosure** Given its importance, many leaders try to leverage self-disclosure but end up causing more harm than good. Here are common stumbling blocks I’ve seen and how to avoid them. ### **1\. Oversharing or undersharing** While self-disclosure is powerful, it must be approached carefully. A common pitfall is overdoing it. Leaders who share too much, too soon, or too often come across as needy and lacking professional boundaries, making others uncomfortable. If you constantly share personal struggles you can be **perceived as overwhelmed or incapable**. This dilutes your authority and undermines your ability to lead decisively and inspire confidence. In contrast, those who disclose too little appear cold, distant, and unapproachable. They create a barrier to connection and make it harder for people to trust them or feel comfortable. Withholding hinders authentic connections. Striking the right balance is essential. Leaders should be mindful of how much they reveal, to whom, and in what context. The amount and depth of disclosure should suit the situation and audience. ### **2\. Inconsistent disclosure** Another pitfall is inconsistency. You disclose vulnerabilities in one situation but remain closed off or defensive in others sending mixed messages, eroding trust and creating uncertainty. Consistency is crucial for effective self-disclosure. It must be genuine and sustained for any lasting impact. ### **3\. Forced disclosure** Many fall into the trap of forcing or feigning self-disclosure. They do this through **contrived team-building exercises** or by demanding openness before establishing trust. Leaders who send their teams on mandatory retreats and expect deep revelations without first modeling vulnerability will find that people are reluctant to share. Forced disclosures feel inauthentic and backfire. The worst form is fabrication and inauthenticity. When leaders fabricate stories or try to present themselves in a better light, they risk being seen as disingenuous. Once detected, this leads to a complete breakdown of trust, as it contradicts the authenticity that effective self-disclosure seeks to establish. ### **4\. Misjudging context** Another mistake is failing to understand the cultural context of self-disclosure. Sharing personal vulnerabilities that resonate in one culture can backfire in another. In some cultures, leaders must maintain composure and avoid discussing personal shortcomings, as such admissions can undermine perceived competence. Misjudging these norms leads to negative outcomes and erodes the respect necessary for effective leadership. ## **A diagnostic for self-disclosure** To further understand the balance of self-disclosure and discretion, visualize this dynamic as a 2X2 matrix of 'disclosure' and 'discretion.' ![Self-disclosure in leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/10/Self-Disclosure-1.png) This creates four quadrants: 1. WISE (high disclosure, high discretion): In this quadrant, leaders reveal personal insights and weaknesses thoughtfully and selectively. This balance creates deep connections and trust while maintaining authority. 2. INNOCENT (high disclosure, low discretion): Leaders in this quadrant share openly without sufficient filters. This leads to loss of authority and makes others uncomfortable due to a lack of context or timing. 3. DETACHED (low disclosure, low discretion): Leaders here are reluctant to share, and when they do, it lacks relevance or consideration. This creates detachment, making it difficult to build trust. 4. CALCULATED(low disclosure, high discretion): Leaders in this quadrant are cautious and share very little. They maintain control, but this limits the depth of relationships, hindering genuine connection. Where do you lie on this matrix and how can you move towards strategic sharing? ## **Practicing self-disclosure** Given the challenges of balancing disclosure and discretion, use these nine questions to reflect on and guide your practice of self-disclosure. Do you have to use the questions each time? No. As with any skill, with practice it will become second nature. 1. What's my intention for disclosure? How does it align with my leadership goals and the current context? 2. Is the timing right, and will disclosure resonate with the current situation and shared understanding? 3. How will disclosure impact team dynamics and meet my team's leadership needs? 4. Am I building trust incrementally and encouraging reciprocity in my communication? 5. Can the receiver understand and validate what I'm sharing, ensuring clear communication? 6. Is the information level appropriate for my role? Have I considered the cultural and organizational context? 7. Does my disclosure balance vulnerability and authority? Is it a reasonable and manageable risk? 8. What have I learned from past disclosures, and how can I apply those lessons to this situation? 9. Is increased transparency necessary during this current crisis or conflict? These questions help you navigate the complexities of self-disclosure, ensuring openness is genuine and effective in enhancing your leadership presence. ## Wrapping up Self-disclosure requires finesse. When done well, it builds trust, creates deeper relationships, and a culture of psychological safety. However, it requires careful discernment. Reflecting on your own leadership journey, consider where you fall on the self-disclosure spectrum. How might shifts in your approach to self-disclosure transform your effectiveness and team culture? The goal is not perfection, but progress. Like Admiral Stockdale in his darkest hours, your willingness to be strategically vulnerable can unlock resilience in yourself and those you lead. ## Related Reading [Hope vs. Realism: The Stockdale ParadoxAre you an optimist or a pessimist? In the movie A House of Dynamite, an unidentified nuclear missile is inbound towards a major city in the United States. The defense systems designed to stop it have already failed once. Whatever happens next to millions of people hangs on whether the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-151.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Screenshot-2025-12-09-at-4.23.56---PM-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stockdale-paradox/) [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-152.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) ## Sources 1. Bennis, W. (1989). [On Becoming a Leader.](https://amzn.to/4f0QmXX?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Hastings, R. (2020). [No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention.](https://amzn.to/4eBT9ac?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Goffee, R., & Jones, G. (2006). [Why Should Anyone Be Led by You?: What It Takes To Be An Authentic Leader](https://amzn.to/3Nlx4kk?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Rosh, L., & Offermann, L. (2013). [Be Yourself, But Carefully](https://hbr.org/2013/10/be-yourself-but-carefully?ref=leadingsapiens.com). Harvard Business Review. 5. Luft, J. (1969). [Of Human Interaction](https://amzn.to/4dAfIuw?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Edmondson, A. (2018). [The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth.](https://amzn.to/4eAdexr?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 7. Stockdale, J. B. (1993). [Courage Under Fire: Testing Epictetus's Doctrines in a Laboratory of Human Behavior.](https://amzn.to/3Ur1F3V?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Metaphors of Organization: Beyond the Machine URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/metaphors-of-organization/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:28:03.000Z *Effective leadership hinges on the ability to view organizational challenges from multiple perspectives. Gareth Morgan's eight metaphors of organization gives leaders a versatile set of lenses to examine challenges. In this piece, I introduce each of the organizational metaphors, their significance, and how to use them for strategic reflection.* --- ## Why study metaphors of organization Morgan’s metaphors are not mere constructs but practical tools that enhance decision-making. Similar to Bolman and Deal’s [4-frame leadership model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/), the power lies in their diversity and applicability. By viewing organizational challenges through multiple lenses, leaders can develop nuanced strategies and uncover blind spots. Morgan explains: > Each metaphor opens a horizon of understanding and enacts a particular view of organizational reality. Just as Wittgenstein has shown that language is a social activity, I view metaphor as an active, constitutive force that leads us to enact the world in a particular manner. My view of metaphor as a way of being and acting in the world gives it an active quality. > > Metaphor makes meaning. It is in this sense that I regard the process of "reading" organizational life as embracing the idea of "authoring," … > > [Observation is never neutral](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/schrodingers-cat-at-work/). **It is always an active, constitutive force.** > > The general view of knowledge underpinning this book has a great deal in common with ideas underlying scientist Neils Bohr's "principle of complementarity" and Werner Heisenberg's "uncertainty principle." These emphasize how **we need different modes of explanation** that, while excluding each other, add to the richness and depth of understanding. Their true value emerges when you actively apply these varied perspectives to tackle concrete problems. Leaders should regularly ask themselves: "Which metaphor best explains my current challenge?" This helps avoid the trap of 'one-size-fits-all' thinking and develops multi-frame thinking and problem-solving. > The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. > > — F. Scott Fitzgerald 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## The 8 metaphors of organization ### **Organizations as machines** > …most organizations are bureaucratized in some degree, for the mechanistic mode of thought has shaped our most basic conceptions of what organization is all about. > > For example, when we talk about organization we usually have in mind a state of orderly relations between clearly defined parts that have some determinate order. Although the image may not be explicit, we are talking about a set of mechanical relations. We talk about organizations as if they were machines, and as a consequence we tend to expect them to operate as machines: in a routinized, efficient, reliable, and predictable way. > > …The problem is that the mechanical imagery tends to underplay the human aspects of organization and to overlook the fact that **the tasks facing organizations are often much more complex, uncertain, and difficult than those that can be performed by most machines**. \[1\] Is your pursuit of efficiency killing innovation? This metaphor views organizations as efficient systems where each part (or person) has a specific role, like cogs in a machine. It’s often associated with bureaucracy and hierarchical, command-and-control structures. The machine metaphor isn’t just about efficiency; it’s a specific way of viewing people and organizational life. It assumes predictability, reliability, and that people can be fine-tuned like mechanical parts. The mechanistic view, associated with Taylorism and factories, works in routine and stable environments. However, it can unravel in complex, volatile contexts. During peacetime, military organizations operate mechanistically, with clear hierarchies, standardized procedures, and strict discipline. However, in war or insurgency, this structure can break down. The Iraq War revealed [how rigid military structures failed](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/#the-leader-as-the-chess-master) to address the fluidity of modern warfare. Units had to abandon top-down command structures for more decentralized, flexible approaches. This metaphor urges leaders to ask, *Where is predictability necessary?* and *Where must flexibility reign?* Treat it as a starting point — not an end goal — recognizing that complexity requires organizations to adapt. In rigid environments (e.g., manufacturing), ensure systems are efficient. But where creativity and human engagement are essential (e.g., tech startups), let the machine metaphor dissolve. #### Reflection - Identify three processes. Then ask: Is this making us more efficient or more rigid? - To what extent does this situation require mechanical efficiency? - Are standardized processes crucial here? - Could over-emphasis on efficiency limit flexibility? ### **Organizations as organisms** > We find ourselves thinking about them as living systems, existing in a wider environment on which they depend for the satisfaction of various needs. And as we look around the organizational world we begin to see that it is possible to identify different species of organization in different kinds of environments. > > Just as we find polar bears in arctic regions, camels in deserts, and alligators in swamps, we notice that certain species of organization are better "adapted" to specific environmental conditions than others. We find that bureaucratic organizations tend to work most effectively in environments that are stable or protected in some way and that very different species are found in more competitive and turbulent regions, such as the environments of high-tech firms ... \[1\] Are you adapting to your environment or shaping it? Here, organizations are seen as living systems that adapt to their environments to survive and grow. This metaphor emphasizes change, responsiveness, and the organization’s need to align with its environment, like living organisms adapt to their ecosystems. Organizations, like organisms, are shaped by their environments. This raises a key question: Are they truly adaptive, or do they *appear* so while reinforcing the status quo? The metaphor assumes adaptability is natural, but in reality, organizational ‘adaptation’ can mask deep resistance to change. Kodak is a classic example. As the digital age emerged, it appeared adaptive, dabbling in digital photography. But the organization was locked into the mental model of film-based photography. The superficial adaptation wasn’t enough to overcome entrenched mental models. The organism metaphor is most useful when leaders ask: *Are we really adapting, or clinging to obsolete models under the guise of adaptation?* You must dig into underlying assumptions. #### Reflection - Draw your organization's 'evolutionary tree.' What adaptations have you made, and what's your next evolution? - How much adaptability is needed in this situation? - How significant are external environmental factors? - Are we evolving fast enough to meet changing demands? ### **Organizations as brains** > If one thinks about it, every aspect of organizational functioning depends on information processing of one form or another. Bureaucrats make decisions by processing information with reference to appropriate rules. Strategic managers make decisions by developing policies and plans that then provide a point of reference for the information processing and decision making of others. > > …Organizations are information systems. They are communication systems. And they are decision-making systems. We can thus go a long way toward understanding them as information processing brains! \[1\] Is your organization learning, or just accumulating information? In this metaphor, organizations are intelligent systems capable of learning and processing information. The focus is on organizational learning, problem-solving, and decision-making, resembling a brain's cognitive processes. It highlights the complexity of learning and decision-making in organizations, and also reveals a paradox: intelligence can lead to paralysis. Just as brains suffer from overthinking, they become overwhelmed by complexity, analysis paralysis, or a failure to act decisively. Distributed intelligence—an ideal many leaders strive for—is difficult to achieve because **most organizations are wired for control** rather than empowerment. The Toyota Production System (TPS) exemplifies this metaphor in its approach to continuous improvement. Toyota empowers employees at all levels to think, learn, and contribute to organizational intelligence. Any worker can pull the Andon cord to stop production if they spot a quality issue. This **distributed decision-making** mimics the brain's ability to process information and respond to stimuli at multiple levels. But it also reveals the challenges of this metaphor. During the 2009-2011 recall crisis, Toyota's decentralized structure led to slow response times and communication breakdowns. The very system that made it innovative and efficient also made it difficult to address large-scale, systemic issues quickly. The brain metaphor should prompt leaders to consider the tension between autonomy and coherence. They should ask: *How can we enable learning and creativity without descending into chaos?* How can we balance distributed intelligence with the need for swift, coordinated responses to major challenges? They must balance decentralized decision-making with clear priorities and alignment across the organization. #### Reflection - Map your organization's communication networks. [Where does information flow freely](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/), and where are the blockages? - Is this primarily a learning or information processing challenge? - How effectively is knowledge being distributed throughout the organization? - Are we facing information overload or analysis paralysis? ### **Organizations as cultures** > Shared values, shared beliefs, shared meaning, shared understanding, and shared sense making are all different ways of describing culture. In talking about culture we are really talking about **a process of reality construction** that allows people to see and understand particular events, actions, objects, utterances, or situations in distinctive ways. > > These patterns of understanding help us to cope with the situations being encountered and also provide a basis for making our own behavior sensible and meaningful. \[1\] Is your culture a competitive advantage or a straitjacket? This metaphor views organizations as social constructs formed by meanings, rituals, symbols, and values that shape behavior and identity. Culture is hailed as the glue that holds organizations together, but Morgan’s metaphor exposes a deeper, troubling reality: it is also a trap. The stories, rituals, and norms that unify a group can become the bars of a cage, preventing meaningful change. Culture operates like [a shadow system](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/)—what is left unsaid or unexamined is more powerful than explicit values. Enron had a culture of extreme risk-taking and high-stakes competition. Internally, it celebrated “outperformers,” driving a culture of ruthless ambition. That culture, unexamined and unchecked, led to the company’s collapse. It wasn’t just individual actors who were corrupt—the culture rewarded extreme behaviors. Leaders must not just craft culture; they must interrogate it. Instead of asking, *What are our values?* leaders should ask, *What behaviors do we actually reward?* Those who don’t challenge undesirable aspects of their culture will find it dictates behavior in uncontrollable ways. [Amazon’s leadership principles ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/)is a good example of shaping culture at the behavioral and tactical level. #### Reflection - Write your organization's 'origin story.' What myths are holding you back, and which are propelling you forward? - How significant are cultural factors here? - Are shared values helping or hindering? - Is there a gap between our claims and actual behaviors? ### **Organizations as Political Systems** > Most people working in an organization readily admit in private that they are surrounded by forms of "wheeling and dealing" through which different people attempt to advance specific interests. However, this kind of activity is rarely discussed in public. The idea that organizations are supposed to be rational enterprises in which their members seek common goals tends to discourage discussion of political motive. Politics, in short, is seen as a dirty word. > > This is unfortunate because it often prevents us from recognizing that politics and politicking may be an essential aspect of organizational life and not necessarily an optional and dysfunctional extra. In this regard, it is useful to remember that in its original meaning the idea of politics stems from the view that, where interests are divergent, society should provide a means of allowing individuals to reconcile their differences through consultation and negotiation. > > For example, in ancient Greece, Aristotle advocated politics as a means of reconciling the need for unity in the Greek polis (city-state) with the fact that the polis was an "aggregate of many members." Politics, for him, provided a means of creating order out of diversity while avoiding forms of totalitarian rule. \[1\] Are you playing politics, or is it playing you? The political metaphor confronts the fact that all organizations are arenas of power and influence, complete with alliances, conflicts, and competition. It focuses on how individuals and groups use power to achieve their goals. This is not just about overt struggles but also about subtle ways it operates. Politics isn’t always dirty; it’s necessary for survival. Leaders must understand they are always involved in it, whether they like it or not. For instance, a power vacuum can create chaos. When leaders abdicate their roles as power brokers, informal structures emerge to fill the gap, often creating silos and dysfunction. **The question is not *whether* to play, but *how* to play** ethically. Map out the informal power structures and engage strategically to align power with your organization’s goals. For a deeper dive into this metaphor, check out what creates [sources of power in organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/). Another useful framework is Bolman-Deal's [political frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/). #### Reflection - Sketch your organization's 'political map.' Where does power reside? - To what extent are power dynamics influencing this situation? - Are conflicting interests at play? - How can I align diverse stakeholder needs? ### **Organizations as psychic prisons** > Human beings have a knack for getting trapped in webs of their own creation. …This metaphor joins the idea that organizations are ultimately created and sustained by conscious and unconscious processes, with the notion that people can actually become imprisoned in or confined by the images, ideas, thoughts, and actions to which these processes give rise. > > The metaphor encourages us to understand that while organizations may be socially constructed realities, these constructions are often attributed an existence and power of their own that allow them to exercise a measure of control over their creators. \[1\] What unseen barriers are holding your organization captive? This is one of Morgan's more provocative metaphors. It suggests that organizations trap their members in certain ways of thinking, routines, and mental models, leading to self-limitation and dysfunction. It shows that we can become prisoners of our own beliefs and structures. Organizations unconsciously imprison themselves in narratives of their own making. These prisons are self-imposed, and breaking free requires confronting uncomfortable realities about the organization’s identity. IBM’s near-collapse in the 1990s was due to a psychic prison built around the idea that *hardware was king*. The company had built its identity around mainframes and was unwilling to embrace the shift to software and services. Only by confronting this entrenched belief and reinventing itself did IBM survive. > *In the end, my deepest culture-change goal was to induce IBMers to believe in themselves again — to believe that they had the ability to determine their own fate, and that they already knew what they needed to know. It was to shake them out of their depressed stupor, remind them of who they were —* **you’re IBM, damn it!** *— and get them to think and act collaboratively, as hungry, curious self-starters.* > > *— Lou Gerstner* Leaders should ask, *“What prisons have we built for ourselves?”* Whether it’s an attachment to a specific product line, business model, or management style, they must break free from limiting narratives. This means challenging the very assumptions that made the organization successful. #### Reflection - List your organization's 'unquestionable truths.' Now, critically examine them. - Are we constrained by our assumptions and past successes? - What "unquestionable truths" should we challenge? - How open am I to radically different perspectives? ### **Organizations as flux and transformation** > Imagine a whirlpool in a river. While possessing relatively constant form, it has no existence other than in the movement of the river. The analogy illustrates how an explicate order flows out of the implicate order in accordance with a coherent process of transformation. > > This theory, which has provided a means of resolving many problems in modern physics, has important consequences, for it suggests that in order to understand the secrets of the universe we have to understand the generative processes that link implicate and explicate orders. > > …remember the whirlpool. Think about what it might take to change its configuration. Because that's what the following ideas are ultimately about. They seek to explain the nature of organizational whirlpools. Why do they exist? How do they sustain themselves? What can be done to influence their course? \[1\] Are you surfing the waves of change, or being tossed about? This metaphor views organizations as constantly evolving entities emerging from complex, dynamic processes. It emphasizes change, unpredictability, and the continuous interplay of forces. It captures the inherent unpredictability of organizations. The key idea is that *order is emergent—arising* out of chaos rather than being imposed top-down. It’s not just about embracing change, but also understanding that attempts to control transformation can backfire. **Control, from this perspective, is an illusion**; leaders can only guide the conditions for change. The evolution of Netflix from a DVD rental company to a streaming giant was not the result of a single, top-down strategy but an emergent, responsive process. The company repeatedly tested and adjusted its approach in response to new technologies and consumer behaviors, embracing transformation at each step. Leaders should focus[ less on controlling change](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) and more on [creating the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). This means supporting a culture of experimentation, iteration, and failure. #### Reflection - Identify your organization's 'change catalysts' and 'stabilizing forces.' How can you balance them? - How much is continuous change a factor in this situation? - Am I trying to control change, or flow with it? - How can I create stability amid transformation? ### **Organizations as instruments of domination** > Throughout history, organization has been associated with processes of social domination where individuals or groups find ways of imposing their will on others. This becomes clearly evident when we trace the lineage of the modern organization from its roots in ancient society, through the growth and development of military enterprise and empire, to its role in the modern world. > > Consider, for example, the incredible feat of organization, planning, and control required to build the Great Pyramid at Giza. It is estimated that its construction involved work by perhaps 10,000 persons over a period of twenty years. The pyramid is built from over 2.3 million blocks of stone, each weighing two and one-half tons. These had to be quarried, cut to size, and transported over many miles, usually by the Nile river, when it was in flood. When we admire this and other pyramids today it is the incredible ingenuity and skill of the early Egyptians that strikes us from both an aesthetic and an organizational standpoint. From another standpoint, however, the pyramid is a metaphor of exploitation, symbolizing how the lives and hard labor of thousands of people were used to serve and glorify a privileged elite. \[1\] Is your [leadership liberating or oppressing?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/) The instrument of domination is probably the darkest of Morgan’s metaphors. It highlights the exploitation, control, and subjugation that can be inherent in organizational life. In this view, organizations are tools used to exert control for the benefit of a select few. Domination is often invisible—baked into systems, structures, and well-meaning initiatives. Leaders who fail to recognize this dynamic can unknowingly reinforce it under the guise of efficiency or performance. Amazon’s labor practices are a stark example of this metaphor. The company’s obsession with efficiency, tracking worker performance through algorithms, and pushing employees to their limits has sparked accusations of exploitation. The systems designed to maximize output become tools of oppression. Leaders must confront the uncomfortable truth that their decisions may reinforce systems of domination. Ethical leadership requires acknowledging these dynamics and actively working to create systems that prioritize human dignity over pure efficiency. #### Reflection - Revisit a recent decision. Who benefited? Who was disadvantaged? - Are there potential negative impacts on certain groups? - How equitable are our current approaches? - Am I reinforcing harmful power structures? ## Reflection exercise using the metaphors Consider a specific challenge you’re facing. Rate each metaphor’s relevance on a scale of 1-5 (1 = not relevant, 5 = extremely relevant). Then, answer the corresponding questions for each. Use the insights to inform your approach. ### Interpretation - High Scores (4-5): These metaphors are highly relevant to your situation. Focus on them when developing your strategy. - Medium Scores (2-3): These metaphors have some relevance. Consider how they might offer alternative viewpoints. - Low Scores (1): These metaphors are less relevant now, but keep them in mind as the situation evolves. ### Action Steps - Identify your top two scoring metaphors. These are your primary lenses for viewing the challenge. For each, list three specific actions you can take based on that perspective. - Look for tensions or contradictions between your top-scoring metaphors. How can you balance these perspectives? - Consider the low-scoring metaphors. Are you missing an angle by disregarding this perspective? ### Reflection on reflection - How does viewing your challenge through multiple metaphors change your understanding of it? - What new solutions or approaches have emerged? - Do you consistently score low on any metaphors? What does this reveal about your leadership style or culture? --- ## Sources 1. Morgan, G. (1997). [Images of Organization](https://amzn.to/3TPASOc?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Bolman, L.G., & Deal, T.E. (2017).[ Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership.](https://amzn.to/3Y80Grv?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Senge, P.M. (2006). [The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization](https://amzn.to/4h3y0HJ?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Schein, E.H. (2010). [Organizational Culture and Leadership.](https://amzn.to/3TQTHQY?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. Weick, K.E. (1995). [Sensemaking in Organizations.](https://amzn.to/3TSjCbh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. Argyris, C. (1990). [Overcoming Organizational Defenses: Facilitating Organizational Learning.](https://amzn.to/3Y91qN5?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological Safety URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:46:17.000Z *Humility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with* [*effective leadership*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/)*. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening.* *Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility and curiosity create psychological safety. In this post, I look at why humble inquiry matters in leadership, its key components, and how to develop it.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is humble inquiry Silence speaks volumes. People often choose to keep quiet about work problems, fearing it won't make a difference or backfire. This silence isn't just uncomfortable and inefficient — it can be hazardous. Why is this? There's too much advocacy and not enough inquiry. Leaders are traditionally seen as the bearers of knowledge, direction, and solutions — roles that inherently favor telling [(advocacy) over inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/). Most managers “know” the importance of questions and [active listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) from training or coaching. But the art of asking gets overshadowed by a dominant culture of telling. To change this, a good place to start is what Professor Emeritus at MIT Edgar Schein called “humble inquiry.” Schein researched organizations and human interactions for over 50 years. He defined humble inquiry as: > …the fine art of drawing someone out, of asking questions to which you do not already know the answer, of building a relationship based on curiosity and interest in the other person. Humble Inquiry reframes leadership as a continuous dialogue, where asking thoughtful, open-ended questions is the cornerstone of effective decision-making and relationship-building. When done with humility and intent, it's a foundational leadership tool that builds trust, creates psychological safety, and opens information channels. > Humility is not a peculiar habit of self-effacement, rather like having an inaudible voice, it is a selfless respect for reality . . . . > > — Iris Murdoch ## Why modern leadership requires humble inquiry As Schein put it, leaders are predisposed to telling rather than asking and thus most at need to learn Humble Inquiry: > I now realize that the issue of **asking versus telling is really a fundamental issue in human relations,** and that it applies to all of us all the time. What we choose to ask, when we ask, what our underlying attitude is as we ask—all are key to relationship building, to communication, and to task performance. > > …**it is leaders who will need Humble Inquiry most** because complex interdependent tasks will require building positive, trusting relationships with subordinates to facilitate good upward communication. And without good upward communication, organizations can be neither effective nor safe. \[1\] ### Asking as an antidote In disasters like airline crashes and chemical spills, the absence of upward communication is a recurring theme. Lower-ranking folks often had the critical knowledge to prevent failures but chose silence out of fear or frustration. **Power asymmetry breeds distance, and it’s the leader’s responsibility to bridge that gap** by inviting others into dialogue, especially those lower in the hierarchy. Humble Inquiry asks leaders to acknowledge they don’t know everything and, in doing so, create psychological safety for others to share crucial information. This runs counter to traditional leadership models that glorify certainty and control. Schein emphasizes vulnerability as a skill, not something to avoid. ### Going from transactional to relational Not all questions are created equal. Transactional ones — those asked with an expected answer already in mind — are shallow. Leaders might ask, "Can we meet this deadline?" knowing they expect the answer to be "yes." These questions reveal little about hidden challenges or untapped ideas. Humble Inquiry means asking questions with genuine curiosity, no pre-existing agenda, and an openness to unexpected answers. When you ask, "What are we missing?" or "What could go wrong here?" you signal that you are not merely seeking confirmation but are open to learning something new. This builds **relational depth**. ### More power you have, more you must ask By its very nature, leadership makes inquiry harder. Leaders are expected to be decisive and knowledgeable. This creates a paradox: the higher you rise in an organization, the more critical it becomes to ask questions, and yet the less likely you are to do so. In complexity, synthesizing diverse insights, not individual brilliance, drives success. The appearance of knowing is less important than tapping collective knowledge. Thus, **leadership is not about broadcasting wisdom but instead about orchestrating differing perspectives**. And this can only be achieved by asking questions that draw them out. ### Questions as radical In cultures that overvalue telling, humble inquiry by leaders is radical. By asking rather than telling, you disrupt the status quo. It shifts the power dynamics and balances the playing field, signaling that you want contributions from everyone. Asking encourages deeper thinking and ownership of contributions, and shifts the act of inquiry from passive information gathering to active leadership. ## How asking transforms leadership As basic as it sounds, Schein highlights how asking is transformative in relationships and leadership: 1. *Shifting power:* When leaders ask rather than tell, it shifts the power dynamics. Asking puts the other person in control, signaling that their knowledge or perspective is valued. This **act of temporary empowerment** is crucial for establishing an equitable relationship where all parties contribute meaningfully. 2. *Showing vulnerability:* By asking a question, leaders admit they don’t know something or need input from others. This feels risky. However, it creates a deeper connection because **it invites others to actively participate** in solving problems and providing insights. It signals humility and a willingness to learn, which builds trust. 3. *Building trust:* Relationships grow through successive cycles of asking and listening. Each time you ask a question, you invest attention in the other person. When they respond with something new or useful, it generates a positive exchange, strengthening the relationship. This process builds trust, as **both parties gain value from the exchange**: one by receiving information, the other by feeling heard and acknowledged. 4. *Balancing interactions:* In many cultures, particularly in hierarchical ones, telling (rather than asking) is more common. It implies superiority in knowledge or status, while asking acknowledges the other person’s contribution. Asking, rather than telling, helps avoid unintended offense or dismissal of another’s knowledge, creating a more balanced interaction. 5. *Investing attention:* Humble Inquiry requires an upfront investment of attention from the person asking. By asking a thoughtful question, the leader conveys, "I am prepared to listen to you." This **attentiveness invites the other to share information**, creating a trust cycle. The leader's willingness to genuinely listen and engage signals that they value the relationship, not just a transaction of information. 6. *Overcoming barriers:* Asking is effective in overcoming communication barriers like hierarchy, fear, and cultural differences. Subordinates hesitate to speak up, especially if they feel their input isn’t valued or fear repercussions. By asking questions, leaders break down these barriers, encourage open dialogue, and ensure important information reaches them. Telling places the other person in a passive role and can unintentionally degrade their status. In contrast, asking creates active engagement and shows respect for the other’s expertise. This **shift from an unconscious habit of telling to a cultivated practice of asking** creates the foundation for genuine, [trusting relationships](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/relationship-level-of-communication/). *So how can you improve at humble inquiry? Schein differentiates between different kinds of humility and inquiry that are the foundation of humble inquiry.* ## Three types of humility Leaders struggle with humble inquiry due to a limited understanding of humility itself. Many mistakenly view it as the antithesis of positional power, rather than recognizing it as a complementary strength. This misconception comes from **a lack of nuanced vocabulary around humility in leadership context**s. Schein outlines three types of humility, each with unique implications for leadership. The third type (here-and-now humility) is key to humble inquiry. > Humility, in the most general sense, refers to granting someone else a higher *status* than one claims for oneself. To be *humiliated* means to be publicly deprived of one’s claimed status, to lose face. It is unacceptable in all cultures to humiliate another person, but the rules for what constitutes humiliation vary among cultures due to differences in how status is granted. > > Therefore, to understand Humble Inquiry, we need to distinguish three kinds of humility based on three kinds of status… \[1\] ### 1\. **Basic humility** Rooted in traditional societies, this form of humility stems from status based on birth or social position. It's not chosen, but accepted or resented based on cultural norms. ### 2\. **Optional humility** More prevalent in achievement-oriented societies, this type arises from admiration or envy of others' accomplishments. It's a personal choice to grant higher status to someone based on their expertise or contributions. ### 3\. ***Here-and-now* humility** This form of humility, and the basis of Humble Inquiry, comes from a situational dependence on others. Amy Edmondson calls this **Situational Humility,** a key pillar in her psychological safety framework*.* > Here-and-now Humility is how I feel when I am dependent on you. My status is inferior to yours at this moment because you know something or can do something that I need in order to accomplish some task or goal that I have chosen. You have the power to help or hinder me in the achievement of goals that I have chosen and have committed to. > > I have to be humble because I am temporarily dependent on you. Here I also have a choice. I can either not commit to tasks that make me dependent on others, or I can deny the dependency, avoid feeling humble, fail to get what I need, and, thereby, fail to accomplish the task or unwittingly sabotage it. **Unfortunately people often would rather fail than to admit their dependency on someone else.** \[1\] In teams with high interdependence (e.g. doctors and nurses in the operating room), recognizing and accepting situational humility is vital for psychological safety. This humility, not rooted in fixed status, recognizes that in specific contexts we depend on others’ input, skills, or information to achieve our goals. It is dynamic as status shifts based on our immediate needs. Leaders resist here-and-now humility because it implies vulnerability and dependence—qualities that contradict conventional leadership ideals. This is especially challenging when we value self-sufficiency and knowledge. Situational humility empowers others to speak up, offer feedback, and share knowledge without fear of retribution or dismissal. This is crucial in high-stakes environments (e.g., medical teams, aviation, crisis management), where failure to communicate across hierarchical boundaries can lead to disastrous outcomes. ## The four forms of inquiry The way we ask questions reveals our underlying motives and attitudes, which either strengthen or weaken the relationships we are trying to build. > Inquiry, in this context, does imply that you ask questions. But not any old question. > > The dilemma in U.S. culture is that we don’t really distinguish what I am defining as Humble Inquiry carefully enough from ***leading* questions, *rhetorical* questions, *embarrassing* questions, or statements in the form of questions**—such as journalists seem to love— which are deliberately provocative and intended to put you down. > > If leaders, managers, and all kinds of professionals are to learn Humble Inquiry, **they will have to learn to differentiate carefully among the possible questions to ask and make choices** that build the relationship. \[1\] Schein identifies four forms: ### 1\. **Humble inquiry** Humble Inquiry is the foundation of trust-building. It is a way of asking that minimizes bias and preconceptions while maximizing curiosity. The goal is to discover what’s really on the other person’s mind without leading them toward a particular answer or agenda. The primary goal is to build trust, create a non-threatening environment, and enhance open communication. This way leaders can engage their teams without imposing their own views or judgments. > Whatever you do when you try to humbly inquire, try to minimize your own preconceptions, clear your mind at the beginning of the conversation, and maximize your listening as the conversation proceeds. > > In fact, the most important diagnostic that the other person will use to decide whether or not you are interested is not only what you ask but also how well you hear the response. Your attitude and motive will then reveal themselves in your further questions and responses as the conversation proceeds. > > ...Humble Inquiry does not influence either the content of what the other person has to say, nor the form in which it is said. \[1\] ### 2\. **Diagnostic inquiry** This inquiry involves steering the conversation by asking more focused questions. Your questions guide the person to think about particular aspects of a situation, such as feelings, motives, or actions. It influences their mental process, nudging them to reflect on things they may not have considered. It’s more directed but can still increase understanding if used carefully. Examples: - Questions that ask about how someone feels in response to an event (“How did you feel about that?”). - Questions about the reasons behind actions or emotions (“Why did that happen?”). - Questions that focus on what someone did or plans to do ( “What have you tried so far?”). - Questions that explore the broader context or reactions of others ( “What do you think others in the room were thinking?”). Diagnostic inquiry deepens understanding but also carries the risk of controlling the conversation too much. Balance it with listening to avoid dominating the conversation. ### 3\. **Confrontational inquiry** Confrontational inquiry involves inserting your own ideas into the conversation in the form of a question. It stems from curiosity but is more about your agenda and interests, less about exploration and more about challenging or confronting the other person’s views or actions. It’s **essentially a form of telling disguised as asking**, which causes the other person to become defensive and prevents open dialogue. Examples: “Did that not make you angry?” or “Why didn’t you say something?” They push the person toward a specific response or explanation. While confrontational inquiry sometimes helps surface issues, it works against building relationships based on trust. It’s about testing an idea or assumption rather than genuinely trying to understand. ### 4\. **Process-oriented inquiry** Process-oriented inquiry **moves away from “content”** and focuses on the dynamics of the conversation itself, aka **“context.”** It’s about inquiring into the dynamics of the interaction, such as asking how the conversation is going. This requires both parties to reflect on the interaction as it’s happening, which helps to reset or adjust the conversation if things are going off track. Examples: “What is happening here?” or “Have we gone too far?” Process-oriented Inquiry recalibrates the conversation if misunderstandings or emotional tension arise. It’s useful for navigating sensitive discussions and ensuring everyone is aligned. ## How can leaders develop humble inquiry To develop Humble Inquiry, Schein shares practical strategies for cultivating this attitude: ### **Manage the anxieties of learning** **Survival anxiety** occurs when we recognize that failing to adopt new behaviors (like Humble Inquiry) will put us at a disadvantage. **Learning anxiety** arises when we anticipate difficulties in learning new behaviors, fearing incompetence, judgment, or rejection. We resist change because learning anxiety outweighs survival anxiety. To enable change, leaders must decrease learning anxiety by creating a supportive environment. This helps overcome the discomfort of unlearning old habits of “telling” and embracing “asking.” ### **Slow down and vary the pace** Leaders must slow down to observe situations and relationships more carefully. In task-oriented cultures, pausing to take stock allows for thoughtful reflection and engagement in Humble Inquiry. A **relay race highlights the importance of varying pace**. Fast during individual tasks but slow and deliberate during relationship-building moments, like when “passing the baton.” Slowing down builds trust and improves communication, speeding up collaboration. ### **Reflect more** In a fast-paced, “Do and Tell” culture, reflection is critical. [Leaders must reflect](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) on their own thoughts, feelings, and relationships. Leaders should ask themselves Humble Inquiry questions: *What is happening here? What am I thinking and feeling? Who am I dependent on?* These questions help identify **when to ask rather than tell** and how to build relationships. ### **Become more mindful** Mindfulness is about being fully present and aware of a situation. It helps leaders notice things they might otherwise miss if they focus too much on immediate outcomes or tasks. A helpful question to develop mindfulness is: ***What else is happening?*** This encourages a broader view of the situation, essential for accurate assessment and inquiry. ### **Engage the artist within** Breaking out of habitual scripts requires creativity. Leaders can **learn from artists**, who expand their capacity to see, feel, and do more. Engaging in creative processes like theater or painting helps break patterns and develop new approaches. Innovation can occur in conversations as well. Leaders can cultivate their artistic sense by trying new ways to initiate dialogue. ### **Review behavior after events** [Regularly review and reflect](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) on your behavior after key events. Process reviews, also known as after-action reviews, common in military and healthcare, allow collective learning and open communication, even across hierarchies. During these reviews, the primary form of questioning should be Humble Inquiry to ensure all voices, regardless of rank, are heard and respected. > All of us find ourselves from time to time in situations that require innovation and some risk taking. Some of us are formal leaders; most of us just have leadership thrust upon us from time to time by the situations we find ourselves in. **The ultimate challenge is for you to discover that at those moments you should not succumb to telling, but to take charge with Humble Inquiry.** \[1\] Humble Inquiry challenges traditional notions of leadership. It offers a different path to effectiveness by emphasizing genuine curiosity and situational humility. Adopting this approach requires a shift in habitual ways of thinking and acting that can feel uncomfortable at first. It invites us to reconsider not just how we communicate, but how we approach leadership itself. ## Related Reading [Four Levels of CommunicationWhy is it that the most critical information is often the very thing that remains unsaid? Leaders tend to operate under the illusion that communication is a simple, linear process of “telling”—setting direction, articulating values, and dispensing expertise. Or at best an “exchange”. Yet, the higher they rise in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-161.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Johari-Window---Levels-of-Communication.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/four-levels-of-communication/) [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-162.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) [Assertive InquiryCan balancing advocacy with inquiry be implemented at an organizational level? Turns out, you can. Roger Martin is one of the world’s foremost experts on strategy and a former dean of the Rotman School of Management. He shares an example at P&G where giving equal importance to inquiry in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-163.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Assertive-Inquiry---Roger-Martin.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/assertive-inquiry/) [Active Listening: What It Originally MeantSensitive, active listening is exceedingly rare in our lives. We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding, true empathy. Yet listening, of this very special kind, is one of the most potent forces for change that I know. — Carl Rogers Listen, or your tongue will![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-234.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Active-Listening---Carl-Rogers-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) ## Sources 1. Schein, E. H. (2013). [Humble Inquiry: The Gentle Art of Asking Instead of Telling](https://amzn.to/3zxMajo?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). [The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth.](https://amzn.to/47OHFNP?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Schein, E. H., & Schein, P. A. (2018). [Humble Leadership: The Power of Relationships, Openness, and Trust.](https://amzn.to/4etJG4O?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Schein, E. H. (2016). [Humble Consulting: How to Provide Real Help Faster](https://amzn.to/4eqhlfC?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Schein, E. H. (2009). [Helping: How to Offer, Give, and Receive Help.](https://amzn.to/3TN1lw0?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Organizational Learning Disabilities: Responding as a Leader URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/organizational-learning-disabilities/ Last updated: 2025-09-10T22:13:27.000Z In coaching leaders across industries, I have observed a consistent pattern: highly capable individuals grappling with invisible organizational forces. These forces, some of which Peter Senge called 'organizational learning disabilities', remain as relevant today as when he first described them. Alongside the [laws of systems thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/), Senge identified seven learning disabilities in organizations. Similar to [cognitive distortions that derail thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/), my experience shows that these learning disabilities impact leaders at the individual level as well. They are byproducts of complexity, and you are likely operating in one yourself. \[1\] The crucial question is: **How can you, as a leader, better respond to these common organizational traps?** We’ll examine each of Senge’s organizational learning disabilities, along with practical strategies for navigating them effectively. ## 1\. “I am my position" > We are trained to be loyal to our jobs—so much so that we confuse them with our own identities…. > > When asked what they do for a living, most people describe the tasks they perform every day, not the *purpose* of the greater enterprise in which they take part. Most see themselves within a system over which they have little or no influence. They do their job, put in their time, and try to cope with the forces outside of their control. Consequently, they tend to see their responsibilities as limited to the boundaries of their position. > > …they have little sense of responsibility for the results produced when all positions interact. Moreover, when results are disappointing, it can be very difficult to know why. All you can do is assume that “someone screwed up. In leadership, it’s easy to confuse your *role* with your *identity.* This creates a narrow perspective that causes defensiveness, especially when your performance or position is questioned. #### **The antidote** Decouple your organizational role from your identity. - *“Complexify” yourself:* Increase your own complexity by diversifying your identities. Instead of being defined solely by your job title, cultivate other aspects—be a mentor, innovator, thinker, and pursue philosophy, art, and sports. This way, you won’t collapse when your role is under strain. **Self-complexity is a psychological buffer** against stress and burnout because it allows you to engage with the world from multiple perspectives. Ron Heifetz called this **“building a diverse portfolio.”** - *Practice role-switching:* Mentally "rotate" through different roles in the organization. Ask: "How would I approach this problem if I were in operations? Finance? Marketing?" This builds **cognitive empathy** and reduces over-identifying with your own position. A useful tool for this exercise is the [Bolman-Deal 4 frame model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) of leadership and organizations. Leaders often think **that more commitment to their role equals better performance**. However, they forget that flexibility increases resilience. By mentally and physically rotating roles, you increase adaptability, making it easier to see the whole system. ## 2\. “The enemy is out there” > There is in each of us a propensity to find someone or something outside ourselves to blame when things go wrong. Some organizations elevate this propensity to a commandment: “Thou shalt always find an external agent to blame.” > > Marketing blames manufacturing…Manufacturing blames engineering. Engineering blames marketing… > > The “enemy is out there” syndrome is actually a by-product of “I am my position,” and the nonsystemic ways of looking at the world that it fosters. When we focus only on our position, we do not see how our own actions extend beyond the boundary of that position. When those actions have consequences that come back to hurt us, we misperceive these new problems as externally caused. Like the person being chased by [his own shadow](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/), we cannot seem to shake them. Leaders who constantly blame external factors diminish their ability to address complex issues and reinforce their own blind spots. #### **The antidote** Adopt a practice that goes beyond merely adjusting your actions (single-loop learning) to questioning the underlying assumptions driving those actions. [Double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) is about reflecting on the mental models and beliefs that shape decisions and whether those assumptions are still valid. - *Reflect on assumptions:* Challenge your habitual responses. Ask: “What assumptions am I making about my team’s capacity or the pressures they face?” or “How are my expectations or decision-making processes contributing to this problem?” Develop a regular [leadership reflection practice](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). - *Test new mental models:* Experiment with alternative approaches based on revised assumptions. By deliberately experimenting with new models, you **learn to think in loops rather than lines**. - *Build feedback loops:* Actively seek feedback from others to understand your own role in challenges. Periodically reflect on your decisions and their consequences. Journaling as “record-keeping” is a powerful tool. Write down assumptions and revisit them to see how they played out. Another tool to get better at feedback is [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/). The key idea is to see the co-creation of challenges and realize that we’re part of the very system we are blaming. It’s surprising how often leaders think they’re solving problems but are actually perpetuating them by externalizing blame. ## 3\. The illusion of taking charge > Being “proactive” is in vogue. Managers frequently proclaim the need for taking charge in facing difficult problems. …In particular, being proactive is frequently seen as an antidote to being “reactive”—waiting until a situation gets out of hand before taking a step. > > But is taking aggressive action against an external enemy really synonymous with being proactive? … > > *All too often, proactiveness is reactiveness in disguise.* Whether in business or politics, if we simply become more aggressive fighting the “enemy out there,” we are reacting—regardless of what we call it. *True proactiveness comes from seeing how we contribute to our own problems.* The kind of “take-charge” or “being-in-charge” fallacy that Senge mentions leads to overconfidence and impulsive decision-making that causes [leadership derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/). #### **The antidote** *Cultivate reflective inquiry:* Build your inquiry and reflection abilities as a counter-balance to action. Instead of rushing to action or answers, develop a practice of pausing and questioning. When faced with a challenge: - Pause: Create space between stimulus and response. This break disrupts habitual reactions and allows for thoughtful consideration. - Inquire: Use the pause to ask probing questions: - What assumptions am I making that are wrong? - What systemic patterns are in effect here? - How is my initial reaction reinforcing existing problematic loops? - Reflect: Consider the insights gleaned from this inquiry. How do they change your perspective? - Act mindfully: Based on your reflection, choose a response that addresses deeper structures, not just surface-level symptoms. One of the hardest practices to adopt is this restraint — knowing when *not* to act. It challenges **the myth that more activity equals more leadership** and develops your [metacognition – the ability to think about your thinking](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/metacognition-leadership-career). ## 4\. The fixation on events > Conversations in organizations are dominated by concern with events: last month’s sales, the new budget cuts, last quarter’s earnings, who just got promoted or fired…and so on. > > …Focusing on events leads to “event” explanations: “The Dow Jones average dropped sixteen points today,” announces the newspaper, “because low fourth-quarter profits were announced yesterday.” Such explanations may be true, but they distract us from seeing the longer-term patterns of change that lie behind the events and from understanding the causes of those patterns. > > Our fixation on events is actually part of our evolutionary programming….The irony is that, today, the primary threats to our survival, both of our organizations and of our societies, come not from sudden events but from slow, gradual processes: the arms race, environmental decay…are all slow, gradual processes. We are evolutionarily wired to get swept up in the immediate, focusing on short-term events and crises. Systems thinking teaches that **events are surface phenomena**; the real drivers are the underlying structures and larger patterns. #### **The antidote** - *Develop long-term thinking:* Expand your time horizon and assess how current actions connect to long-term outcomes. Ask: “What will this decision look like in five years? Ten years? How does this trend fit into a longer trajectory?” By extending time awareness, you shift from reacting to events to understanding the structures and feedback loops driving them. - *Track patterns, not events:* Develop the habit of noticing and recording patterns instead of events. Instead of documenting "sales dropped this month," document "this is the third drop in sales in 18 months—what patterns are emerging?" This develops a long view that helps in recognizing slow-building systemic issues. The [systems-thinking iceberg](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) is an excellent tool to delve deeper into this. ## 5\. The boiled frog > Maladaptation to gradually building threats to survival is so pervasive in systems studies of corporate failure that it has given rise to the parable of the “boiled frog.” > > If you place a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will immediately try to scramble out. But if you place the frog in room temperature water, and don’t scare him, he’ll stay put. Now, if the pot sits on a heat source, and if you gradually turn up the temperature, something very interesting happens. As the temperature rises from 70 to 80 degrees F., the frog will do nothing. In fact, he will show every sign of enjoying himself. As the temperature gradually increases, the frog will become groggier and groggier, until he is unable to climb out of the pot. Though there is nothing restraining him, the frog will sit there and boil. Why? Because the frog’s internal apparatus for sensing threats to survival is geared to sudden changes in his environment, not to slow, gradual changes…. > > Learning to see slow, gradual processes requires slowing down our frenetic pace and paying attention to the subtle as well as the dramatic… The boiled frog analogy shows how we get desensitized to slow changes. Leaders, like the frog, grow numb to gradual declines in organizational health, culture, and market relevance. This happens when we concentrate too much on immediate pressures and overlook the gradual accumulation of risks. #### **The antidote** Build systems that counter this tendency: - *Feedback loops for early detection:* Implement systems for real-time, honest feedback from various organizational levels. These could be informal “check-in” meetings with cross-functional teams or formal early-warning dashboards for key metrics. The goal is to create a culture where small changes and concerns can be raised without penalty, so weak signals become visible early on. Another effective practice for maintaining awareness of operational realities is [MBWA or managing by wandering around](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). - *Connect insights across silos:* Leaders should build practices to regularly collect weak signals from across departments, looking for emerging patterns. This cross-functional input helps to see how small signals from one part of the system connect to larger shifts. Leaders often wait for obvious signals before acting. By the time the signal is clear, it’s too late. Training yourself to notice weak signals early is the difference between proactive adaptation and reactive crisis management. ## **6\. The delusion of learning from experience** > The most powerful learning comes from direct experience. Indeed, we learn eating, crawling, walking, and communicating through direct trial and error—through taking an action and seeing the consequences of that action; then taking a new and different action. > > But what happens when we can no longer observe the consequences of our actions? What happens if the primary consequences of our actions are in the distant future or in a distant part of the larger system within which we operate? > > We each have a “learning horizon,” a breadth of vision in time and space within which we assess our effectiveness. When our actions have consequences beyond our learning horizon, it becomes impossible to learn from direct experience. > > Herein lies the core learning dilemma that confronts organizations: *we learn best from experience but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions.* The most critical decisions made in organizations have systemwide consequences that stretch over years or decades. Direct experience fails to account for the complexity where cause and effect are separated by time and space. In such environments, relying on experience alone leads to misleading conclusions. #### **The antidote** - *Cultivate second-order thinking:* Develop mental models for delayed consequences of actions. Visualize how a decision today will ripple through the system in 12 months, even if the immediate feedback is positive. By rehearsing, you simulate future scenarios, stretching your capacity for second-order thinking—accounting for not just direct consequences but also for indirect, delayed outcomes. - *Conduct “pre-mortems”:* This method develops anticipatory thinking. Imagine a project or decision has failed in the future and work backwards to identify the causes. The pre-mortem is future-oriented and proactive, unlike a post-mortem (which analyzes past mistakes), forcing you to anticipate potential pitfalls and systemic disruptions. Most leaders think in linear cause-effect terms, but systems learning happens non-linearly. There’s often [circular causality, not linear](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). Those who learn to trace delayed, dispersed outcomes of their actions grow into more effective, systems-aware decision-makers. ## **7\. The myth of the management team** > All too often, teams in business tend to spend their time fighting for turf, avoiding anything that will make them look bad personally, and pretending that everyone is behind the team’s collective strategy—maintaining the appearance of a cohesive team. To keep up the image, they seek to squelch disagreement; people with serious reservations avoid stating them publicly, and joint decisions are watered-down compromises reflecting what everyone can live with, or else reflecting one person’s view foisted on the group. If there is disagreement, it’s usually expressed in a manner that lays blame, polarizes opinion, and fails to reveal the underlying differences in assumptions and experience in a way that the team as a whole could learn from. > > … most managers find collective inquiry inherently threatening. School trains us never to admit that we do not know the answer, and most corporations reinforce that lesson by rewarding the people who excel in advocating their views, not inquiring into complex issues. > > … Even if we feel uncertain or ignorant, we learn to protect ourselves from the pain of appearing uncertain or ignorant. That very process blocks out any new understandings which might threaten us. The consequence is what Argyris calls “skilled incompetence”—teams full of people who are incredibly proficient at keeping themselves from learning. Management teams often fall into the trap of groupthink and superficial consensus, where dissent is suppressed to preserve harmony. Everyone is trained to avoid appearing ignorant or uncertain, worsening the problem. #### **The antidote** - *Lead with vulnerability:* Admit when you don’t have all the answers, enabling an environment where uncertainty is not seen as a weakness but an opportunity for inquiry. Leaders who model this behavior create psychological safety for others to voice concerns, dissent, or conflicting ideas—leading to better decision-making. In systems thinking, **diversity of thought is critical for the system’s resilience**. Vulnerability allows this diversity to surface. - *Shift from control to facilitation:* Instead of controlling the discussion, become an enabler of emergent ideas. [Balance advocacy with inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/). Guide the team through collaborative inquiry and reflection, encouraging them to discover solutions as a group that no one could have arrived at alone. This democratizes decision-making and relies on the team’s collective intelligence. Showing vulnerability increases your credibility. It signals that you prioritize truth and collective learning over ego. This shifts team dynamics from skilled incompetence (as Chris Argyris called it) to a learning orientation. --- Senge's organizational learning disabilities are like strong currents shaping daily leadership challenges. Recognizing these patterns is the start; the real work is building the mental agility to navigate them. Your most potent tool is your capacity to see and influence the system. This requires a shift: 1. From reactive problem-solving to proactive pattern recognition. 2. From linear thinking to understanding feedback loops and delays. 3. From siloed decision-making to cross-functional inquiry. The goal isn't to eliminate learning disabilities, but to recognize and work with them. You're transitioning from a decision-maker to a system-shaper, from management to systems leadership. The practices I shared are the cognitive scaffolding to help make these shifts. ## Sources 1. Senge, P. M. (2006). The Fifth Discipline. 2. Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The Practice of [Adaptive Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/). 3. Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing Organizations. 4. Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Harvard Business Review. 5. Schön, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner. 6. Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization. 7. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. 8. Stacey, R. D. (2011). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. 9. Meadows, D. H. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. 10. Klein, G. (2013). Seeing What Others Don't. ### Project Aristotle: Implications and Challenges URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:22:58.000Z *Project Aristotle was a multi-year research initiative by Google to understand what made teams effective. Some of its findings, psychological safety in particular, were counterintuitive. It changed how companies viewed teams and performance.* *Yet, a decade later, implementation remains challenging.* *I examine common challenges leaders face in applying psychological safety and other findings in actual practice.* --- How would you assemble a “world’s best team”? What key factors should you consider? In 2012, Google went on a mission to build the perfect team. After studying 180+ teams over two years, they made an eye-opening discovery: **individual talent matters far less than we usually think.** 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Background of Project Aristotle With a nod to the Greek philosopher’s insight that “*The whole is greater than the sum of its parts*”, Project Aristotle sought to decode the mystery of why some teams consistently outperformed others. Based on research and analysis of over 180 teams, they analyzed variables related to team composition, including individual personalities, experience and education levels, cognitive abilities, and managerial styles. Initially, the results were baffling. Despite the volume of the data, it yielded little information on what differentiated groups. They weren't sure if they were asking the right questions. Eventually, they discovered ***norms* of people working together — unwritten rules and behavioral standards that establish expectations and govern interactions**. Norms are the fundamental reality that define how people actually behave as opposed to what they aspire to or what they say. They influence the levels of trust, vulnerability, and functioning of teams. Contrary to Google's initial hypothesis, **team composition turned out to be far less important than *how* the team worked together.** > We were pretty confident that we’d find the perfect mix of individual traits and skills necessary for a stellar team – take one Rhodes Scholar, two extroverts, one engineer who rocks at AngularJS and a PhD. Voila. Dream team assembled, right? > > **We were dead wrong. *Who* is on a team matters less than how the team members interact, structure their work, and view their contributions.** So much for that magical algorithm. > > — Julia Rozovsky Google identified **five key elements** (in order of importance) that set successful teams apart: 1. Psychological safety: *Can we take risks on this team without feeling insecure or embarrassed?* 2. Dependability: *Can we count on each other to do high-quality work on time?* 3. Structure and Clarity: *Are goals, roles and execution plans on our team clear?* 4. Meaning of work: *Are we working on something that's personally important for each of us?* 5. Impact of work: *Do we fundamentally believe that the work we’re doing matters?* Psychological safety — a shared belief that the team environment is safe for interpersonal risk-taking — was identified as the most critical. In teams with high psychological safety, people felt comfortable admitting mistakes, asking questions, challenging ideas, and raising concerns without fear of negative consequences. > *Psychological safety actually drives performance…when team members feel safe, they’re much more likely to ask for help. They’re much more likely to admit a mistake. They’re much more likely to try new roles and responsibilities, knowing that their team has their back—and, by doing this, they learn. And by learning, they become more effective.* > > — Julia Rozovsky ## Implications of Project Aristotle The findings changed how team effectiveness was commonly understood, shifting the focus from individual talent to **team dynamics** and **psychological safety**: - Assembling the best talent was less important than the team’s social and psychological conditions. - **Introversion, personality types, and seniority were less significant** than equal turn-taking in conversations and creating a safe space for everyone to speak. - It emphasized that encouraging interpersonal risk-taking (e.g., asking “dumb” questions or admitting ignorance) was critical to success. They emphasized leaders as facilitators of team dynamics, not just task managers. Leaders were responsible for: - Creating psychological safety by modeling fallibility, encouraging equal participation, and open communication. More on [how leaders can use framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/). - Ensuring clarity and structure by [setting clear goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) and ensuring every team member understands their role and contribution to the team’s success. - Creating meaning and impact by connecting individual tasks to the broader mission and vision. - Emphasizing trust, openness, and collaboration over traditional performance measures. After Project Aristotle, Google changed its management practices: - Trained managers to create psychologically safe environments by providing tools to encourage open dialogue and feedback. - Developed a self-assessment tool for teams to evaluate themselves based on the five key dynamics, helping to identify improvement areas. Research on psychological safety has been conclusive enough that in the 2019 DORA State of DevOps report it was prominently featured: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/09/Psychological-Safety-State-of-DevOps--1-1.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/09/Psychological-Safety-State-of-DevOps--2.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/09/Psychological-Safety-State-of-DevOps--3.png) ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/09/Psychological-Safety-State-of-DevOps--4.png) From the 2019 DORA State of DevOps The report stated: > *Our analysis found that this culture of psychological safety is predictive of software delivery performance, organizational performance, and productivity. Although Project Aristotle measured different outcomes, these results indicate that teams with a culture of trust and psychological safety, with meaningful work and clarity, see significant benefits outside of Google.* Given the importance of the findings, why are they still not the norm in most places? It turns out that **the central role of leaders and managers is a great opportunity but also a key challenge.** Implementation in practice is an entirely different matter. ## Challenges in implementation Let’s examine the challenges leaders face at the team and organizational level. ### Misconception of comfort [Many mistakenly assume that psychological safety means ensuring comfort](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/), which breeds complacency. But it is not about eliminating discomfort; rather, it creates a space where productive discomfort—challenging ideas, debating, and exploring uncertainties—thrives without fear of punishment or judgment. Research shows that psychological safety has to be combined with a learning orientation to avoid a stagnant, overly safe environment. [Leaders struggle because it feels paradoxical](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) to embrace discomfort while maintaining safety. They either prefer comfort or avoid conflict altogether. They want clarity, decisiveness, and actionable ideas —qualities that don’t align with the messiness of open-ended dialogue. This stifles the [constructive tension that leads to breakthroughs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/) and instead focuses on creating superficial agreement. Amy Edmondson writes: > Psychological safety is not an “anything goes” environment where people are not expected to adhere to [high standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) or meet deadlines. It is not about becoming “comfortable” at work. > > This is particularly important to understand because many managers appreciate the appeal of error-reporting, help-seeking, and other proactive behavior to help their organizations learn. At the same time, they implicitly equate psychological safety with relaxing performance standards – that is, with an inability to, in their words, “hold people accountable.” This conveys a misunderstanding of the nature of the phenomenon. Fear of conflict and time constraints make leaders default to [control-oriented leadership styles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/) instead of creating open, inclusive environments where everyone contributes. Edmondson’s research on learning from failure shows many teams hesitate to surface mistakes or challenge authority, even in supportive settings. ### **Siren call of talent** Most organizations still believe that assembling the best talent automatically results in high-performing teams. Managers prioritize resumes, past achievements, and technical skills as indicators of future success. Thus individual talent overshadows the subtler, harder-to-measure aspects of collaboration and norms​. **Prioritizing norms over individual excellence** is hard because it doesn’t align with how organizations are structured. Recruitment and performance evaluation processes prioritize individual capability, not collective behavior. Norms are viewed as "soft" while talent seems more tangible and measurable. **Managers believe that star performers drive success**, while norms feel abstract and harder to quantify. Managing relationships, building trust, and ensuring equal participation are treated as secondary to hard metrics like technical skills or sales targets. ### Challenge of constructive conflict Another misconception about psychological safety is that it requires teams to always be harmonious. Leaders avoid conflict due to fears it will harm relationships or impede progress. But healthy conflict is essential for growth. Psychological safety means dissent can happen without personal attacks. The best-performing teams engage in constructive disagreements and use it to channel conflict productively. Leaders struggle because they must facilitate difficult conversations instead of resolving or avoiding them. Encouraging dissent doesn't mean creating negativity but allowing differing perspectives to challenge dominant views without fear of retribution. ### **Tightrope of flexibility** Leaders feel they must choose between being rigid taskmasters or overly flexible coaches. However, this is a false dichotomy — you need both. Without clarity and accountability, teams become directionless; without autonomy, they feel micromanaged. Leaders must clearly define [performance expectations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) while allowing flexibility in how teams achieve those goals. The key lies in creating a structure where dependability is reinforced as a shared team norm. ### Mundanity of dependability Dependability isn’t glamorous. We assume that high-performance teams are driven by innovation, creativity, and vision, but consistent execution is often the winning difference. [Excellence is often mundane](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). It's the silent driver of success. The mistake is to focus on flashy initiatives while missing the importance of simply getting things done. Dependability means **not just setting deadlines but also norms of responsibility** where people hold each other accountable collaboratively rather than punitively. Leaders must assess and refine performance standards, ensuring expectations are transparent and achievable. ### Myth of infallibility Many leaders feel the need to project infallibility — the belief that they must always have the answers. Admitting uncertainty or a lack of knowledge can feel risky. However, Edmondson’s research shows that leaders who model vulnerability create a safe space for learning, where team members feel empowered to do the same. This shift is hard because it requires **unlearning traditional models of authority**. The idea that vulnerability increases your effectiveness feels counterintuitive, especially in places that reward perfectionism and penalize mistakes. A related idea is [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) – where specific [self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) and [seeking feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) increases your credibility. ### **Pressure of failure** The counterintuitive nature of the findings becomes more pronounced in high-risk, high-pressure environments like healthcare and aviation. Vulnerability and psychological safety feel risky because leaders mistakenly assume that fostering safety means lowering standards. But research from Edmondson’s work on the Columbia disaster shows that in high-risk settings, psychological safety allows teams to spot and address ambiguous threats before they escalate into disasters. Psychological safety enhances accountability and performance standards instead of reducing them. It creates a cycle of continuous learning, where risks are openly discussed rather than hidden. ### **Underestimating commitment** Leaders underestimate the difficulty of cultivating a true learning culture. They must balance risk-taking with accountability—two seemingly contradictory concepts. The nuance—that psychological safety alone isn’t enough—requires leaders to adopt an ongoing learning mindset, which is challenging to embed. It demands time, resources, and a shift away from traditional performance metrics. --- *Project Aristotle* offers a clear framework for building high-performing teams, but implementing the findings in practice is fraught with challenges. Leaders must be intentional in creating psychological safety, balancing it with accountability, and ensuring alignment on goals and roles. You have to let go of outdated assumptions about talent and authority and actively shape team norms. **The real work lies in persistent practice** — rituals, structures, and feedback loops that reinforce and enable the principles. Without it, you risk reverting to traditional modes of management, leading to a “same-old-same-old” dysfunctional culture. ## Related Reading on Psychological Safety [Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood DynamicThe term “psychological safety” is often misleading. When managers hear safety, many dismiss it as a soft style that implies complacency. Meanwhile, psychology implies too much mumbo jumbo. High-profile figures like Elon Musk advocating for a “hardcore” style perpetuate this misconception. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-115.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Psychological-safety-and-High-Standards--2-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) [The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological SafetyFraming is a key skill to create psychological safety and improve performance. But most leaders are unaware or don’t know how to get better at it.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-116.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Power-of-Framing-in-Psychological-Safety.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-117.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Fundamental Attribution Error: Why It’s Always Someone Else’s FaultTraining in biases is standard fare these days. However, I see managers regularly fall for one particular bias: the fundamental attribution error. Unlike other biases, FAE directly affects several aspects of leadership. In this piece, I dive into what fundamental attribution error is, how it trips up leaders, and ways![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-118.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Fundamental-attribution-error-1-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-119.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) ## Sources 1. Re:Work by Google 2. Edmondson, A. C., Roberto, M. A., Bohmer, R. M., Ferlins, E., & Feldman, L. R. *The Recovery Window: Organizational Learning Following Ambiguous Threats*. 3. Edmondson, A. C. [The Fearless Organization](https://amzn.to/3Usb2QR?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Sanner, B., & Bunderson, J. S. [“When Feeling Safe Isn’t Enough: Contextualizing Models of Safety and Learning in Teams](https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614565145?ref=leadingsapiens.com).” 5. *2019, 2023* [*State of DevOps Report*](https://cloud.google.com/devops/state-of-devops/?ref=leadingsapiens.com). DORA. 6. Edmondson, A. C. “[Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams](https://web.mit.edu/curhan/www/docs/Articles/15341%5FReadings/Group%5FPerformance/Edmondson%20Psychological%20safety.pdf?ref=leadingsapiens.com).” 7. Bohmer, R., Edmondson, A. C., & Roberto, M. A. “[Facing Ambiguous Threats](https://hbr.org/2006/11/facing-ambiguous-threats?ref=leadingsapiens.com).” *Harvard Business Review*. 8. Hackman, J. R. [*Leading Teams*](https://amzn.to/3C2xsSi?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 9. Duhigg, C. "[What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what-google-learned-from-its-quest-to-build-the-perfect-team.html?ref=leadingsapiens.com)." 10. Blomstrom, D. [People Before Tech](https://amzn.to/3A474a8?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Referent Power: The Subtle Tool of Effective Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:40:41.000Z *Traditional authority—titles, commands, and rewards—has lost its edge in the modern workplace. What compels people is trust, respect, and admiration. This is the essence of referent power—a subtle but effective form of power that inspires loyalty and performance without coercion. *It is effective but rare.* In this article, I explore how referent power differs from other* [*types of power*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/)*, why it is elusive, and practical strategies to build it.* --- Throughout history, some leaders ruled through fear, others through divine right. But the most effective ones led through respect and admiration. This enduring form of influence, what we now call referent power, is crucial in today's organizations. ## What is referent power Referent power comes from the personal qualities, respect, and admiration a leader inspires in others. Unlike reward or [coercive power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/), it's earned over time through actions that create loyalty and respect. Social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven identified it as one of six [types of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/) not tied to formal authority. Leaders with high referent power influence others because people want to be associated with them. Think of role model leaders whose presence draws others in. The **paradoxical nature of referent power is interesting:** it's both fragile and resilient. It hinges on the leader consistently maintaining trust and respect, yet when cultivated properly, it outlasts formal positions and creates enduring loyalty. This makes referent power a potent force in leadership. It shapes cultures and creates committed followership in ways other forms of power struggle to achieve. The delicate balance of referent power lies in its **reliance on perception and relationship**. Unlike formal authority, which remains unless removed, it dissipates quickly if a leader's actions undermine their admiration. This vulnerability is also its strength – it requires you to consistently embody the values and behaviors that inspired others. Let's examine what constitutes referent power. 💡 Many of the following elements will sound like virtues. But leaders must view them ****from the perspective of performance rather than ethics**. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ### Referent power is not charisma Referent power is conflated with natural charisma, but they differ significantly. Charisma is about the magnetic personality that draws people in based on charm, confidence, or eloquence. It's a superficial layer of influence—people are attracted to the persona. In contrast, referent power is deeper. It’s built on respect, trust, and connection. You can be charismatic but have no referent power. Meanwhile, you can lack charisma but still build substantial referent power through **consistent, value-driven behavior**. **Charisma attracts attention; referent power earns trust.** Charisma is inherent and instinctual, while referent power is deliberately cultivated over time. For leaders lacking charisma, **the good news is that referent power is built through actions, not personality**. Charisma cannot compete with those who are always where they say they’ll be and prioritize people’s success over their own visibility. ### Authenticity through consistency We are drawn to leaders whose actions consistently align with their words, both in public and private. Authenticity in leadership is about transparency and consistency in upholding values. **It's not necessarily about being true to oneself,** but about aligning with the values and expectations of the group or organization. When you demonstrate consistent behavior, decision-making, and communication, it reinforces dependability and trustworthiness. As people witness your authentic behavior over time, their confidence grows, strengthening the your referent power. ### Identification Identification is key to referent power—it occurs when others see themselves in the leader or align with the leader's values and beliefs. Those who excel at this power create a sense of **shared identity.** This makes referent power personal. When others identify with you the leader, they aren't just following orders—they are aligning with a larger purpose you represent. This shared identity creates deep commitment and loyalty. ### Trust and earned respect Unlike formal authority that demands respect based on position, referent power earns it through action. Trust and respect come from the leader consistently demonstrating care for the team's well-being and acting in the group's best interests, even when difficult. Leaders earn trust slowly through actions that show they are reliable, ethical, and caring. This includes how you handle challenges, interact with others, and make decisions. When people respect and trust you, they are more willing to follow you voluntarily, even without external incentives. ### Humility and vulnerability Leaders who admit mistakes, acknowledge uncertainty, and seek input demonstrate humility. This vulnerability humanizes the leader, making them relatable and approachable. Humility also includes empathy. By understanding and caring about people’s challenges, you create mutual respect and trust. When leaders show their human side, it encourages everyone to do the same, creating an environment of respect and [openness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/). This vulnerability creates psychological safety. ## Why is referent power rare Despite its effectiveness, referent power remains elusive. Leaders struggle with it because it demands **a unique combination of self-awareness and consistency** that's hard not just to cultivate but also maintain. Consider the common challenges leaders face: ### **1\. Time commitment** Referent power is rare because it requires a long-term investment without immediate returns. Building it is slow; trust, respect, and identification develop over time through consistent behavior and relationship-building. In contrast, [coercive power (punishment)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) or reward power (incentives) provide more immediate and tangible results. In high-pressure environments, it’s easy to default to quicker, more visible types of power. ### **2\. Emotional commitment** Referent power demands a high degree of emotional labor. Leaders must be attuned to people, practice empathy, and be aware of how their actions affect others. This requires self-awareness and resilience. Many leaders lack these skills or find it **exhausting to engage in the emotional labor required** to build strong relational bonds. It feels like an added burden for leaders who are already managing multiple priorities. ### **3\. Fragility** Leaders feel vulnerable using referent power because it exposes them to judgment and relies on personal integrity and consistency. A single breach of trust or perceived hypocrisy can cause referent power to evaporate. This fragility makes it difficult to sustain, especially for those working under intense scrutiny or in volatile environments. While it generates enduring loyalty, it requires constant vigilance, making it difficult to maintain. ### **4\. Lack of visibility** Unlike coercive, legitimate, or reward power, referent power operates more subtly. It’s not easily measured or immediately visible. Leaders using coercive or [legitimate power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/) are recognized for their authority because they enforce rules or make decisions. In contrast, referent power is **quieter, based on relational influence rather than outward authority, making it less visible and less rewarding** to the leader. This makes it less appealing to those accustomed to quick recognition. Shifting to a leadership style that emphasizes personal connection and trust-building can feel unfamiliar. If you equate leadership with positional power, you'll struggle to see its value. ### **6\. Fear of vulnerability** Referent power requires you to be vulnerable—to admit mistakes, ask for feedback, and be open about limitations. However, many equate vulnerability with weakness and are hesitant to show uncertainty or failure. This fear prevents you from building the trust and authenticity essential for referent power. **Leaders feel the need to appear infallible to maintain authority.** Admitting mistakes or seeking feedback feels like a loss of control, especially if you believe it will diminish others’ respect. Ironically, vulnerability is not a weakness but a key driver of building strong, trust-based relationships. ### **7\. Inconsistent actions** Consistency is crucial to building referent power, but many leaders struggle to maintain consistent behavior. Inconsistent actions and decisions that contradict stated values erode the trust and respect that underpin it. Maintaining consistent behavior in high-stress environments is difficult. Leaders face competing priorities, leading to **short-term compromises that undermine long-term credibility**. ### **8\. Low self-awareness** Referent power requires high self-awareness. Leaders must understand how their actions are perceived and recognize when their behavior aligns (or doesn’t) with their values. Those lacking self-awareness struggle to build referent power due to blind spots in relational and emotional dynamics. **Developing self-awareness isn’t easy, especially for leaders who have primarily focused on technical skills** or strategic decision-making throughout their careers. ## How to build referent power Leaders should proactively build their referent power by cultivating authentic relationships, aligning actions with values, and shaping perceptions. **They should do this not performatively,** but in ways that build trust, respect, and belonging. Here are practical ways to build it: 1. Build relational leadership: Form genuine, one-on-one connection by engaging with people's aspirations. Move beyond transactional interactions and schedule regular non-task-related conversations to build deeper relationships. 2. Quiet consistency: Be steady and reliable. **Consistency is a powerful alternative to charisma.** 3. Elevate others’ voices: Consistently lift up others, give credit, and help them shine. Be a vocal advocate. 4. Lead by example: Model desired behavior through quiet action, creating a gravitational pull that aligns with shared values. 5. Integrity is an asset: Practice visible integrity through small, everyday actions. Standing up for team members builds a reputation of reliability. 6. Strategic vulnerability: Share uncertainties or challenges to humanize yourself. This creates space for others to engage and contribute, building relational equity. It’s one method to expand the [open quadrant of the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/#4-panes-of-the-johari-window). It requires [a different kind of courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/). 7. Align public and private behavior: Ensure your actions match your words. This builds deep trust and solidifies referent power. 8. Practice active empathy: Get "in the trenches" with your team. Shared experiences and challenges create bonds that transform referent power into something enduring. Know [how they actually get work done](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/). 9. From control to influence: Reframe leadership as inspiration rather than direction. **Facilitate rather than dictate,** ask open-ended questions, and allow the team to find solutions. The leader’s job is to [set the right context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). [Leaders are gardeners](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/), not all-knowing chess masters. 10. Micro-actions of integrity: Focus on small, daily actions that reinforce your values. These accumulate to create a solid foundation of trust. 11. Develop self-awareness: Use 360-degree feedback tools focused on relational dynamics. Engage in [regular self-reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) to identify areas of improvement and adjust your approach. 12. Conduct leadership listening tours: Regularly meet one-on-one with team members at various levels to listen to their perspectives without offering solutions. This is the core idea behind [MBWA: managing by wandering around](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). --- Referent power presents unique challenges for leaders. Its reliance on [personal relationships](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/relationship-level-of-communication/), emotional labor, and consistent behavior can be daunting. However, its benefits make it worth pursuing. Leaders who recognize and overcome these obstacles can develop an effective and authentic leadership style. ## Sources 1. French, J., & Raven, B. [The bases of social power](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1960-06701-004?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Yukl, G. [Leadership in organizations](https://amzn.to/3XCGr3G?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Schein, E. H. [Organizational culture and leadership](https://amzn.to/3XJn6hh?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Goleman, D. [Leadership that gets results](https://amzn.to/3XIKueW?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Nye, J. S. [Soft power: The means to success in world politics](https://amzn.to/3XNeI02?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Kanter, R. M. [Men and women of the corporation](https://amzn.to/3N2G9xY?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 7. Bennis, W. [On becoming a leader](https://amzn.to/3Y0Cffy?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Expert Power — How Knowledge Becomes Influence URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:31:32.000Z *Expert power, one of six* [*key types of power,*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/) *allows leaders to shape decisions and influence outcomes through specialized knowledge. This makes expert power as influential as formal authority. It's a subtle but potent way to increase your power, regardless of your position on the org chart. In this article,* *I examine the intricacies of expert power and how to build it proactively.* --- When Francis Bacon declared 'knowledge is power' in 1597, he couldn't have imagined how prophetic those words would be in the 21st-century workplace. Imagine walking into a high-stakes meeting. The CEO is there, along with several VPs. But when a critical question arises, all eyes turn to Sarah, a mid-level engineer. Why? Because in that moment, her expert power outweighs everyone else's formal authority. As organizations become more tech-heavy and less hierarchical, expert power plays a central role. Individuals at all levels can harness their knowledge to influence outcomes, democratizing leadership. > In general, the faster the change in the know-how on which a business depends, the greater the divergence between knowledge and position power is likely to be. Since our business depends on what it knows to survive, we mix **‘knowledge-power people’ with ‘position-power people’** daily, so that together they make the decisions that will affect us for years to come. > > *— Andy Grove, former CEO of Intel* But this increasing reliance on expertise in modern organizations presents both opportunities and challenges. While specialized knowledge is more valued than ever, the proliferation of experts can dilute influence. In this landscape, those who systematically build and leverage their expert power stand out. By proactively developing and applying expertise, you can transform knowledge into a key differentiator and a [source of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/). 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is expert power In today's workplace, influencing others without formal authority is a critical skill. Expert power, derived from specialized knowledge or skills, is a powerful way to increase such influence. Expert power comes from recognized expertise in a particular area, unlike positional authority that comes from formal titles. It emerges when others value your expertise, seeking advice, guidance, or help with decisions. **In a knowledge-driven workplace, information is a valuable currency**, allowing those with insights to wield influence regardless of position on the org chart. It allows you to guide decisions and shape strategies based on your knowledge, which flattens organizational hierarchies, democratizing decision-making. This is particularly true in cross-functional teams, where expertise transcends formal hierarchies. The power of expertise grows when a person or group holds exclusive knowledge, **especially about handling uncertainty**. In professional organizations, it holds more sway than hierarchical authority. When facing complex problems, teams defer to those with specialized knowledge. This deference is amplified by social proof, where people look to others for cues in uncertain situations. As more people trust and rely on an expert's judgment, others are likely to follow. This creates **a self-reinforcing cycle where the expert's influence grows**, allowing them to guide group decisions without formal authority, based on the trust in their judgment. To illustrate how expert power operates in different contexts: - In tech companies, engineers significantly influence product development and corporate strategy through their technical expertise, especially on cutting-edge projects aligned with company goals. - Legal advisors in regulated industries shape corporate strategy through their in-depth understanding of regulations, despite lacking formal authority. Executives rely on legal teams for high-stakes decisions, making credibility and trust essential. From a leadership perspective, expert power is a form of social capital. The more relevant your expertise is to the company's goals, the more likely you are to be considered for future roles. This allows you to trade knowledge for influence and career advancement, creating **a pathway to leadership that doesn't rely solely on traditional hierarchical progression.** ## Components of expert power Expert power isn’t just about knowledge. It’s about how you apply it, how others perceive and trust you, and how you navigate organizational dynamics. Let’s look at its key components. ### **1\. Specialized knowledge** Expert power comes from deep, specialized knowledge that isn’t widely shared. Unlike general knowledge, it is specific and niche expertise that addresses organizational challenges. Knowing a lot about a broad topic isn’t enough. **Power comes from becoming the go-to expert in a critical subfield**. Specialization narrows your focus and intensifies your power within that domain. ### **2\. Relevance of expertise** Expert power is contextual—even highly specialized knowledge must be relevant to the organization’s strategic needs. Expertise not aligned with organizational priorities becomes redundant. Staying relevant isn’t just about staying current in your field—it’s about anticipating shifts and evolving your expertise to meet those needs. Align your expertise with upcoming challenges, like new regulatory changes or technological advancements, to enhance your influence. However, expert power can also lead to being typecast as a specialist, risking obsolescence, as new niches arise where novices can claim power. ### **3\. Credibility** Credibility is earned through consistent results and reliability. Your power depends on how well you translate specialized knowledge into measurable outcomes. Build credibility by delivering clear value through your expertise. Track and communicate the impact of your recommendations. This solidifies your position as not just knowledgeable, but actionably valuable. To maintain trust, be clear about the boundaries of your expertise. Saying **“I don’t know, but I can find out” is more powerful than offering an uninformed guess**. ### **4\. Problem-solving ability** Expert power isn’t just about knowledge; it’s about using it to solve complex problems that others can’t. This sounds obvious, but **being an expert doesn’t automatically mean knowing how to translate knowledge into solutions**. Problem-solving ability refers to your capacity to diagnose the right issues, create workable strategies, and implement solutions that are practical, efficient, and aligned with broader objectives. It’s easy to go [from an expert to a cynic](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) who knows why something won’t work but can’t find a solution. When expertise is turned into practical, effective solutions, your value increases significantly. Also important is the art of ["problem-setting" – defining the very problem you are solving](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/). ### **5\. Track record** Expert power comes from your track record—the consistent, measurable success of your past decisions and solutions. A proven track record provides evidence to convince others to trust your judgment in future decisions. Keep a record of your achievements and outcomes. This isn’t just about successful projects —it’s [how you frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) those successes. Ensure that it positions you as someone whose expertise advances company goals. When proposing new ideas, reference past successes that show your ability to solve similar problems. ## Pitfalls of Expert Power While effective, expert power comes with its own set of challenges. Understanding common pitfalls is key to actually leveraging expertise in leadership roles. They fall into three patterns from what I have seen: - Interpersonal challenges - Contextual challenges - Personal challenges ### (1) Interpersonal challenges #### The soft skills gap Experts underestimate the importance of soft skills, assuming "knowing" is enough to influence. However, the most effective ones blend knowledge with interpersonal skills to connect with and persuade diverse audiences. #### Trust and credibility Expert power isn't just about knowledge; **it's about being perceived as having valuable knowledge**. Trust-building is nuanced and doesn't always align with your technical capabilities alone. You must actively build and maintain trust through communication, humility, and transparency. #### Organizational dynamics Some managers feel threatened by influential experts without formal authority. Others resist or challenge expert power due to jealousy, fear of change, or feeling undervalued. This can lead to internal conflicts and reduce the effectiveness of your expertise. ### (2) Contextual challenges #### Relevance in a changing environment Expert power is context-dependent and relative. Expertise in one area or at a point in time doesn't always transfer to other domains or situations. As organizational needs shift, experts must adapt to maintain their influence. #### The collaboration paradox Expert power can drive innovation, but also hinder it. Experts may create silos by hoarding knowledge to maintain power, impeding collaboration and sharing. Conversely, true influence comes from being a **"knowledge broker"** who facilitates information exchange between people and departments. #### The half-life of expertise In fast-changing environments, knowledge quickly becomes outdated. This power relies on your ability to continually learn, adapt, and stay relevant. Failure to do so can rapidly diminish your influence, regardless of your track record. ### (3) Personal challenges #### The overconfidence trap A common pitfall of expert power is overconfidence. Experts can become so reliant on their knowledge that they ignore input from others, leading to blind spots. They struggle to explain concepts simply, hindering their influence. #### Vulnerability and uncertainty There's an assumption **that experts should be infallible and fully confident**. This makes it difficult to express uncertainty or seek feedback without fearing loss of credibility. In reality, you exert more influence by showing vulnerability and acknowledging the limits of your knowledge. #### Balancing depth and breadth Experts must maintain deep knowledge while developing a broad understanding of related fields. This balance is crucial for remaining relevant and avoiding the **"expert's dilemma"** of resisting new ideas that challenge established paradigms. ## Expert power as a foundation A common mistake I've seen is people **getting hung up on their lack of a fancy title or corner office, aka positional power**. They don't realize how much influence they can wield just by being really good at what they do. Your expert power is a versatile tool – it can open all sorts of doors. - Organizations value and promote people with critical knowledge and problem-solving abilities. Expertise accelerates career progression, **leading to formal authority** or [***legitimate power***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/). Once in leadership roles, you gain the authority to make decisions, allocate resources, and shape policies. - Expert power enhances [*referent power*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/), based on admiration and respect. People gravitate toward and identify with those who exhibit mastery. Combining expertise with strong interpersonal skills allows you to increase influence through personal appeal. - Expertise gets you involved in key projects and strategic partnerships, giving you access to valuable resources and networks, bolstering ***reward power***—the ability to offer incentives. Leaders can use these assets to reward team members, fostering loyalty and motivation. - Experts have access to cutting-edge developments and confidential insights, leading to ***informational power*** — controlling the flow and access to critical information. Strategically sharing or withholding information shapes organizational decisions. - While not directly associated with coercion, expert power impacts[***coercive power***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/)—the ability to enforce compliance. Experts design systems, set standards, or define best practices that others must follow. By establishing benchmarks and protocols, they set the criteria for performance and consequences. - Innovative ideas and insights captivate and inspire teams. In this way, **expertise contributes to *charismatic power***, where influence stems from perceived extraordinary qualities. ## How to build expert power Building and leveraging power based on expertise goes beyond accumulating knowledge. Here are pointers for increasing it systematically: ### **1\. Curate and update** Commit to a schedule for updating your expertise. For example, every quarter, audit your field for emerging research, technologies, or methodologies. Subscribe to specialized journals, attend industry conferences, or participate in advanced training. Develop expertise in high-value, **high-impact areas that are important but underserved** in your organization or field. The rise of complex problems requires interdisciplinary expertise. People who can bridge multiple domains possess a unique form of expert power that is increasingly valuable. ### **2\. Build "targeted" trust** Because expert power is context-specific, people trust your judgment on one topic but are skeptical of your views in another area. Therefore, building targeted **trust in key, relevant areas of expertise** is critical. Choose one or two niche areas and demonstrate authority in them. Publish focused articles or case studies, give talks, or lead initiatives that showcase your depth. Make your reputation synonymous with particular areas of expertise. ### **3\. Shape protocols** Expert power is solidified when you help **create the rules or frameworks others must follow**. It’s not just about solving problems but institutionalizing your knowledge into company standards. Propose and draft frameworks and best practices based on your expertise for organizational use. If you’re a project management expert, develop a standard project initiation template for all teams. Once your expertise shapes standard processes, your influence becomes a part of daily operations. **Embedding your expertise creates dependency**. People will reference and follow your frameworks, enhancing your power without formal authority. ### **4\. Ship “artifacts”** Publishing insights that address organizational or industry-wide challenges extends your expert power beyond immediate teams and departments. It showcases your expertise — you’re creating **tangible artifacts of your thinking**. Internal publications boost your power within the organization, influencing decision-making and policy. External publications showcase your expertise across the industry, leading to cross-industry recognition and strengthening your power. ### **5\. Influence decision-makers** Experts gain disproportionate influence when they provide insight during high-stakes situations where the cost of being wrong is high. The ability to **deliver clarity and guidance in moments of uncertainty** significantly increases expert power. Expert power reduces uncertainty during critical times. Be the voice of clarity during organizational crises. By transforming ambiguity into clarity, you reinforce your status as the go-to expert. The more you influence high-impact situations, the more your advice becomes indispensable. ### **6\. Utilize informal networks** Informal networks within an organization carry more influence than formal org charts. Expert power increases when it flows through informal relationships, instead of being confined to direct reports or assigned teams. Build informal alliances with stakeholders, influencers, and decision-makers across departments. Offer your expertise in advisory roles or informal consultations where no official hierarchy exists. Expert power doesn’t need formal channels to grow. You can subtly shape decisions and initiatives. By becoming an unofficial advisor, you expand your influence across the organization. ### **7\. Teach the next generation** An effective way to increase expert power is to help create more experts. By teaching and mentoring others, you demonstrate mastery and ensure your influence outlasts direct involvement. Lead specialized training sessions or workshops. By passing down knowledge, you create a knowledge ecosystem where people attribute their skills to you, extending your expert power. --- Building expert power requires intentional, proactive actions beyond simply being knowledgeable. It’s about positioning yourself as a strategic asset. Using these strategies, you can cultivate expert power that positions you as a trusted authority and thought-partner. ## Sources 1. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. 2. Raven, B. H. (1992). [A power/interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-01370-001?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Pfeffer, J. (1992). [*Managing with Power: Politics and Influence in Organizations*](https://amzn.to/462gAXT?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). [Selling issues to top management](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1993-47426-001?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Finkelstein, S. (1992). [Power in top management teams: Dimensions, measurement, and validation](https://doi.org/10.2307/256485?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Edmondson, A. C. (1999). [Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1999-03028-001?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 7. Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). [*The Wisdom of Teams*](https://amzn.to/4aHVmkJ?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Coercive Power: A Double-Edged Sword in Modern Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:37:28.000Z *Understanding* [*different types of power*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/) *is crucial for effective leadership. Coercive power is a controversial yet sometimes necessary and effective tool. I delve into the nuances of coercive power, its applications, why leaders shouldn’t avoid it, and Elon Musk as an example of coercive leadership.* --- ## What is Coercive Power Coercive power is the dark matter of leadership - invisible yet profoundly influential, shaping the very fabric of the organization. It is the leader’s ability to influence through the threat of punishment or negative consequences. Common examples include: - Threats of demotion or termination. - Withholding bonuses or promotions. - Negative performance reviews. - Assigning undesirable tasks or roles. While a potent form of power, its effectiveness and appropriateness in modern leadership are debatable. We typically respond in three ways under coercion: - Compliance: Following orders to avoid punishment. - Identification: Adopting behaviors to maintain a relationship with the power holder. - Internalization: Accepting and believing in the required behavior. While compliance yields quick results, identification and internalization produce more enduring changes. Coercive power rarely achieves deeper levels of acceptance. It may secure short-term compliance, but often undermines engagement and loyalty. Overuse of coercive tactics leads to decreased morale, increased turnover, stifled innovation, and ultimately a culture of fear and resentment. Leaders who rely on coercive power see their influence diminish over time. Indiscriminate use undermines the very authority it seeks to establish. Instead, effective leaders balance it with other types of power: - [Expert power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) based on knowledge and skills. - [Referent power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) based on personal relationships and charisma. - [Legitimate power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/) based on position and authority. - Reward power based on the ability to provide benefits. - Information power based on access to valuable information. These alternative types of power, coupled with a balanced approach, yields more sustainable results. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Leaders shouldn't dismiss coercive power Coercive power is particularly ineffective at: - Enabling creativity and innovation - Building enduring engagement - Encouraging open communication and feedback While the arguments against using coercive power are compelling, **dismissing it outright is a mistake. There are situations where coercive power is the most appropriate or only effective option.** For example: - Emergency situations requiring immediate action. - Addressing misconduct or ethical violations. - Maintaining order in high-stakes environments. - Pushing a major initiative vital to the organization’s future. - Enforcing non-negotiable rules or safety protocols. In these scenarios, coercive power is crucial for maintaining focus and ensuring alignment. These use-cases also highlight its paradoxes. Leaders avoid it because they do not understand them. ## Coercive power: paradoxes and nuances in leadership Understanding the complexities of coercive power can help you use it more effectively. Let's explore the nuances. ### Positive aspects - *Less is more*. The strongest coercive power often comes from not using it. Leaders who are known to have coercive abilities but rarely use them wield more influence than those who frequently employ coercion. The mere potential for coercion is a powerful tool, much like a deterrent in international relations. - *Constraints can be freeing*. In certain contexts, t**he absence of clear consequences is more stressful**. By providing clear consequences, judicious use of coercive power helps to create clarity. It reduces tension by providing clear boundaries. Constraints increase freedom by reducing complexity. I explored this in my piece on [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#1-stress-and-performance-are-linked). - *Authenticity.* Some degree of coercive power enhances a leader's perceived authenticity if it aligns with their style and organizational culture. - *Reinforcing trust.* Leaders must use coercive measures when necessary to maintain order and fairness. Increased use of coercive power decreases trust, but a lack of appropriate coercive power (e.g., not addressing bad behavior) erodes it. ### Negatives - *CEO disease.* Leaders who rely on coercive power often end up surrounding themselves with yes-men, distorting their perspective. This creates a false sense of success and prevents necessary adjustments. - *Misleading respect.* A leader using coercive power might gain fear-based respect but lose deeper admiration and trust. This dual nature of respect leads to confusion and misinterpretation of people's attitudes. - *The perception gap.* There's often a significant difference between how coercive leaders think they are and how others perceive them. This gap can lead to misunderstandings that worsen workplace issues. [The Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) is a useful tool to identify these blindspots. - *Vicious cycle of control.* People obey to avoid punishment, but their loyalty diminishes. Leaders who rely on coercion distrust their team, creating a cycle where increased attempts to control end up reducing real influence. - *The boomerang.* Using coercive power to quell resistance can backfire, amplifying the very behavior it aims to suppress. This is especially true when the use of power is perceived as unjust or disproportionate. Similar to the "Streisand effect," where attempts to suppress information lead to wider dissemination, coercive tactics can increase resistance or provoke sabotage. - *Innovation vs compliance.* When leaders use coercive power to drive results, it can stifle creativity and risk-taking. People in a coercive environment are unlikely to propose new ideas for fear of failure. Understanding these paradoxes and nuances can help leaders develop a more sophisticated approach to power and influence. The key is to use it judiciously while primarily relying on other [types of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/). ## Coercive power example: Elon Musk Some leaders are more inclined to use coercive power due to personality traits, highlighting the importance of self-awareness in leadership development. If not monitored and regulated, assertive leadership can turn into toxic behavior. A famous example of coercive power is Elon Musk who's known for using it particularly since his acquiring Twitter. In another article, I contrasted Musk's coercive management style with [Peter Drucker's principles for leading knowledge workers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/). Some examples of Musk using coercive power: - *Mass layoffs and ultimatums:* After acquiring Twitter, Musk laid off half the workforce. Then, he issued an ultimatum to remaining employees, demanding they commit to an "extremely hardcore" work culture or leave. This is a clear use of coercive power, threatening job loss to enforce compliance with his vision. - *Public criticism and firings:* Musk has publicly criticized and fired employees who disagreed with him or his policies. He fired Twitter's deputy general counsel, announcing it publicly on the platform. This public display of power serves as a warning to other employees. - *Return-to-office mandate:* Musk abruptly ended Twitter's work-from-home policy, demanding employees return to the office or leave. - *Employee surveillance:* Reports emerged that Musk monitored employees' Slack messages, creating a surveillance atmosphere and potential retribution for dissent. - *Changing policies overnight:* He has made sudden, unilateral changes to company policies and product features, often without consulting teams or considering consequences. This shows a coercive approach to decision-making. - *Pressure using impossible deadlines:* Musk is known for setting unrealistic deadlines for engineering teams, with implicit threats of consequences for failure. - *Public shaming:* When advertisers pulled out of Twitter due to content concerns, Musk publicly called them out, using public pressure as coercion. These examples demonstrate Musk's use of coercive power and also highlight its [paradoxes in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). His approach provides a real-world example of the immediate effectiveness and long-term drawbacks of relying heavily on coercive power in leadership. ## Takeaways for effective leadership Understanding and applying coercive power can enhance your leadership effectiveness. Here are some key takeaways: - Contrary to popular belief, if the use of coercive power aligns with a leader's established leadership style and organizational culture, it can enhance their authenticity. **It's about** [**congruence**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/)**, not constant congeniality.** - Just as financial advisors recommend a diversified portfolio, effective leaders must cultivate **a diverse "power portfolio."** Overreliance on coercive power is like putting all your eggs in a volatile basket. Instead, blend it with [expert](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/), [referent](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/), legitimate, and reward power for a more resilient leadership approach. - The most potent coercive power lies in its potential rather than its use. Like a well-maintained nuclear arsenal, the mere knowledge of its existence is a powerful deterrent. - Counterintuitively, a complete absence of coercive power erodes trust as much as its overuse. People expect leaders to address misconduct and maintain order. The key is finding the balance where it reinforces a fair and safe environment without breeding fear. - Clever use of time-bound coercive pressure, such as strict deadlines for brainstorming sessions, can spark creativity by introducing constructive constraints. - Consider coercive power as a slowly replenishing limited resource. Each use depletes your "coercion clock," and overuse can leave you powerless when it's truly necessary. Use it sparingly to maintain its effectiveness for critical situations. Remember, the goal isn’t to eliminate coercive power but to wield it wisely. If you must use it, check it against the 3 R’s: - *Rare:* Use it sparingly and only when necessary. - *Reasonable:* Ensure the level of coercion matches the situation. - *Reconciliatory:* Follow up with positive reinforcement or relationship-building actions. --- ## Sources 1. French, J. R. P., & Raven, B. (1959). [The bases of social power](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1960-06701-004?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Kelman, H. C. (1958). [Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change](https://doi.org/10.1177/002200275800200106?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Drucker, P. F. (1999). [Management challenges for the 21st century](https://amzn.to/3UqH3sg?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 4. Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window, a graphic model of interpersonal awareness. 5. Various tweets and public statements regarding Twitter/X policies and management decisions. 6. Goleman, D. (2000). [Leadership that gets results](https://hbr.org/2000/03/leadership-that-gets-results?ref=leadingsapiens.com). Harvard Business Review. 7. Cialdini, R. B. (2001). [Influence: Science and practice](https://amzn.to/3A49k16?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 8. Yukl, G. (2013). [Leadership in organizations](https://amzn.to/4hjHP49?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### The 6 Types of Power: A Guide for Leaders URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/types-of-power-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:18:29.000Z *Understanding and using power is key to effective leadership. The *French-Raven model of power bases* is a good primer on the different types of power. This post introduces this foundational framework of power and the 6 types: coercive, reward, legitimate, expert, referent, and information power.* --- In 1959, social psychologists John French and Bertram Raven changed our understanding of leadership forever. Their groundbreaking work on different types of power continues to shape how we understand power and influence in organizations today. French and Raven identified five core types of power: reward, coercive, legitimate, expert, and referent (charismatic). Later, a sixth type, informational, was added. These aren't just theoretical concepts. Consider the managers you've encountered: - The incentivizer: When a manager promises promotions or bonuses, they're tapping into ***reward power***. - The enforcer: If they threaten demotion or job loss, that's [*coercive power* ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/)at work. - The influencer: A leader who relies on relationships and charisma is exercising [*referent power*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/). - The authority figure: When someone makes decisions "because I'm the boss," that's [***legitimate power***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/) in action. - The subject matter expert: A manager who leverages their superior knowledge is using[ *expert power*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/). - The master communicator: The manager who skillfully shares knowledge and persuades through well-crafted messages is exercising **information power**. Understanding the underlying power dynamics helps to navigate workplace relationships more effectively and develop leadership capacity. The French-Raven model is a solid foundation for leaders to understand power. But before we start, why bother at all? 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Why should leaders study power? Power often has a negative connotation, leading many to ignore it. But those who grasp its subtleties can: - Navigate complex organizational structures more effectively. - Motivate and influence team members better. - Build stronger stakeholder relationships. - Make informed decisions. - Resolve conflicts more effectively. - Adapt their leadership style to different situations. Using **power doesn't make you Machiavellian.** In fact, it's the opposite – it makes you a more conscious, ethical leader because it helps you recognize and mitigate abuses of authority, creating a balanced work environment of trust and collaboration. Power is one of the [many paradoxes of leadership and management](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). As Raven noted from his research: > It is reasonable to conclude that a leader who is more aware, either formally or informally, of the various options in social power strategies will be more successful and effective. \[2\] It’s imperative for leaders to understand their own capabilities and limitations when dealing with others. **A thorough grasp of the interplay of power, influence, and authority is necessary groundwork for** [**effective leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/)**.** Let’s examine the six types of power. ## The six types of power ### Reward power This comes from the ability to offer something desirable, whether material or psychological, to induce compliance or action. In organizations, reward power is seen in promotions, bonuses, or informal rewards like praise and recognition. It is effective as long as people value the reward and believe the leader can deliver it. However, the power of rewards is not limitless. Overuse leads to diminishing returns as recipients begin to expect them or become motivated purely by extrinsic factors, undermining intrinsic motivation. The quality and consistency of the rewards also matter; a reward perceived as insufficient or inconsistent erodes trust and reduces the effectiveness of this power base. These nuances appear in [Herzberg’s hygiene vs motivation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/herzberg-hygiene-motivation-theory/) theory that differentiates between factors that prevent dissatisfaction (hygiene) and those that actively motivate (motivation). Reward power includes both, but is most effective when aligned with motivation factors. ### Coercive power This power relies on punishments or negative consequences.[ Coercive power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) is the most direct and explicit because it creates a clear link between non-compliance and punishment. Common forms include demotions, reprimands, or exclusion from group benefits. Coercive power can lead to immediate compliance, but its long-term effectiveness is limited. Over-reliance on coercion creates resentment, rebellion, or passive resistance. It requires constant monitoring, as compliance drops when surveillance is relaxed. In extreme cases, it damages relationships and trust, creating conflict and a toxic work environment. ### Legitimate power Often called “positional power,” [legitimate power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/) comes from your formal role and title. It’s grounded in the perception that the authority figure has the right to make demands and that others must comply due to their role. For example, a manager’s power over employees or a teacher’s authority in the classroom. Cultural and organizational norms strengthen legitimate power. In hierarchical organizations, people are socialized to respect the chain of command. However, the boundaries of the role limit it; authority figures who overstep risk losing their legitimacy. It's **more effective in formal settings**, while in informal groups, its influence varies. ### Expert power This type of power comes from the leader’s knowledge, skills, or expertise that others need or respect. [Expert power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/) is strong in situations where specialized knowledge is critical. A software developer with deep knowledge of a specific programming language holds expert power over colleagues unfamiliar with that language. Expert power leads to voluntary compliance, as others view the expert as a valuable resource. However, its effectiveness depends on perceived credibility and relevance of the expertise. If your knowledge is seen as outdated or unreliable, its power diminishes. It is also situation-specific; you may hold significant expert power in one context but very little in another. A leader’s perceived expertise helps legitimize their role. Group members are more likely to follow someone they deem competent. Conversely, a lack of expertise undermines the leader’s position. ### Referent power Also known as charisma,[ referent power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/referent-power-in-leadership/) is based on admiration for, or a desire to emulate someone. It is the sheer force of personality. This type of power is seen in charismatic leaders where people comply to align with the leader’s values, behaviors, and identity. Referent power is unique because it is deeply personal and involves emotional attachment. It creates strong, lasting influence, as followers internalize the leader’s values and behaviors. However, it is also fragile; a significant lapse in judgment or perceived betrayal can rapidly erode it. If people idealize the leader too much, losing sight of their own values, it creates unhealthy dynamics. ### Informational power Informational power involves using facts, logical arguments, or persuasive communication to influence others. Unlike the other bases, it is transient—it exists as long as the leader possesses exclusive or superior information. Once the information is shared or widely known, this power dissipates. It’s effective in situations requiring persuasion rather than coercion. In negotiations, providing clear, convincing information can shift the balance of power. However, its effectiveness depends on the information’s accuracy and relevance. Misleading or irrelevant information can backfire, damaging your credibility. ## Nuances of the types of power Understanding the six types of power is crucial. It's equally important to recognize the nuances in how they operate and interact. Here are a few: ### Personal vs positional Reward, coercive, and legitimate powers are categorized as "**position power**" since they come from your formal role in an organization and are exclusive to managerial positions. Conversely, expert and referent powers are classified as "**personal power**" because they derive from individual qualities and are available to anyone using these methods. ### Effective vs ineffective leaders In real-world scenarios, influence requires multiple power bases working together. An [effective leader ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/)might rely equally on legitimate position, expert knowledge, and personal appeal to sway followers based on the context. In contrast, ineffective ones rely heavily on only one or two approaches while neglecting others, lacking the broad repertoire of their more effective counterparts. Leaders with higher self-confidence are more likely to use informational and expert power, while those with lower[ self-efficacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) rely on coercive and legitimate power. Research shows that **insecure individuals overcompensate by using harsher strategies**. In contrast, those with greater self-assurance use more nuanced forms of power. Coercive power should be used minimally, but leaders must be willing to use it judiciously if necessary. ### Stage setting Raven highlighted the importance of stage-setting for successful influence. Strategies often fail when the audience isn’t psychologically or emotionally prepared. For instance, a physician might display their diplomas prominently to enhance expert power before making a recommendation to a patient. Other tactics include *ingratiation* (offering compliments or small favors) or *self-promotion* (emphasizing achievements to bolster expert power). By setting the stage effectively, [the leader creates a context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) to leverage their power base. A similar idea is [how framing increases psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/). ### Mode and tone The tone of power matters. An aggressive tone can weaken a persuasive argument, while a weak argument may gain power when delivered with care. Informational influence can encourage compliance or trigger resistance, depending on its presentation. If done in a helpful and cooperative tone, it inspires trust. Conversely, if it’s delivered harshly or accompanied by fear appeals, such as a doctor using graphic images to warn a patient about smoking, it generates anxiety and defensiveness rather than change. Aristotle’s [ethos, pathos, and logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) are essential in modern leadership. ### How power changes people A key element is the *“metamorphic effect,”* where both parties — leaders and teams — are transformed by the use of power. For example, leaders who frequently use coercion may begin to distrust their people, assuming compliance is due solely to their power rather than genuine alignment. This creates a destructive cycle where they become more reliant on coercive tactics, further alienating their teams. There is a significant difference in impact between [creative vs controlling leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/). ### How is power created Gareth Morgan's analysis of the [sources of power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/) focuses on *where* it comes from in an organizational context, while French and Raven's types focus on *how* leaders exercise it in different contexts. [Bolman and Deal's four frames model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) and in particular their [political frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/) is another effective method to understand the different perspectives. Leaders can significantly expand their influence using these complementary approaches. ## Reflection questions for leaders - What types of power do I have? List your current roles and responsibilities, identifying the types associated with each. - How adept am I in these power types? Rate yourself on a scale of 1-10 for each and identify improvement areas. - Do I use them all or rely more on one? Keep a journal for a week, noting which types of power you use in various situations. - Am I happy with my teams’ responses? Conduct feedback surveys or 1-on-1 conversations to gauge team perceptions. - What types of power should I work to accumulate? Create a development plan focusing on areas to build more power and influence. --- The French and Raven model of power bases provides a fundamental framework for understanding influence dynamics. The most successful leaders balance and adapt their use of power, considering short-term compliance and long-term relationship building. How will you use your understanding of power to become a more [effective leader](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/)? ## Related reading - Frances Frei’s [trust triangle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) in organizations - Using [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) to detect leadership blindspots - Keats’ [negative capability and leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) - [Why Netflix leads with context not control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) ## Sources 1. French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). [The bases of social power](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1960-06701-004?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Raven, B. H. (1993). [The bases of power: Origins and recent developments](https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1994-17397-001?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (Eds.). (2004).[ Encyclopedia of leadership (Vol. 1)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/). 4. Handy, C. B. (1993). [Understanding organizations](https://amzn.to/4aplEai?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. Johnson, C. E., & Hackman, M. Z. (2018). [Leadership: A communication perspective](https://amzn.to/4tsPOlF?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 6. Goethals, G. R., & Sorenson, G. J. (Eds.). (2006). [The quest for a general theory of leadership](https://amzn.to/4kp1vFG?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### The Symbolic Frame of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:33:41.000Z *Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s* [*four frames model*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) *of organizations* *and leadership is a versatile tool for managers. This article delves into the symbolic frame of their 4-frame model — its assumptions, dimensions, examples, tensions, and what makes leaders effective in the symbolic aspect.* *These insights are from my notes on "Reframing Organizations" and "How Great Leaders Think."* *I use* [*multi-frame thinking*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) *in my coaching and created this series to benefit others.* *Their body of work is* *essential reading for leaders and managers.* *Links to sources and other posts in this series are at the bottom.* --- In a world obsessed with measurable outcomes, the most effective leaders deal in the immeasurable: symbols, myths, and meaning. That’s the thrust of the Bolman-Deal symbolic frame of leadership. For many readers, this may read a little woo-woo and too “soft” for their taste. But that’s exactly the point. The symbolic and political frames suffer from unnecessary stereotypes. Most leaders are typically strong in the [structural](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/) and [human resource frames](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/), while the symbolic and [political frames](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/) are neglected and underutilized. ## What is the symbolic frame The symbolic frame explores how myths and symbols help people find meaning in a chaotic and ambiguous world. It focuses on the ceremonial and mythological aspects of organizations. Symbols help interpret work’s meaning, offering clarity and direction in uncertain situations. The leader’s role: - Symbolic leaders inspire by creating a unique organizational identity. - They harness traditions and values to build a cohesive culture. - Strategies include using dramatic symbols, articulating visions, and being energetically visible. - They involve rituals, slogans, stories, and awards to foster a sense of mission and excitement. Symbols, values, rituals, and myths shape organizational identity and provide a sense of purpose. Leaders who recognize this create a strong culture. Successful leaders use symbols effectively to inspire and unify their teams, ensuring the organization’s goals resonate with its members. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Assumptions of the symbolic frame The symbolic frame integrates ideas from organization theory, sociology, political science, and even magic and NLP. Notable influences include anthropological work on symbols and business literature applying cultural concepts to organizations. The primary assumptions of this frame are: - *Meaning over events.* The significance of situations is derived from their meaning, not just from what happens. - *Multiple interpretations.* Events and actions can be interpreted in various ways as people experience them differently. - *Role of symbols.* In uncertain and ambiguous contexts, they help resolve confusion, provide direction, and instill hope. - *Expressive importance.* Events are significant more for their symbolism than for their actual outcomes, creating a tapestry of myths, heroes, rituals, and stories. - *Cultural cohesion.* An organization's culture acts as a binding force that unites people to achieve collective goals. > The symbolic frame sees life as allegorical, mystical, and more serendipitous than linear. **Organizations are like constantly changing, organic pinball machines.** Issues, actors, decisions, and policies carom through an elastic labyrinth of cushions, barriers, and traps. Managers turning to Peter Drucker’s *Managing for the Future* (1993) might do better to seek advice from Lewis Carroll’s (1871) *Through the Looking Glass*. > > — Lee Bolman, Terrence Deal ## Dimensions of the symbolic frame The symbolic perspective challenges the belief that team building is solely about structuring the right people. True high performance stems from the team's spirit. Excluding play, ritual, ceremony, and myth would damage teamwork instead of fostering it. Contemporary organizations face a crisis of meaning, making it essential to address deeper issues of purpose. While managers must manage budgets and respond to practical constraints, leaders achieve lasting success by viewing team building as a spiritual endeavor. This involves seeking inner spirit and fostering a community of shared faith and culture. High performance arises when a team discovers its essence, moving beyond rationality to a heartfelt effort. > Important tenets of the symbolic frame that are broadly applicable to creating and maintaining cohesive groups and teams: > > - How someone becomes a group member is important. > - Diversity supports a team’s competitive advantage. > - Example, not command, holds a team together. > - A specialized language fosters cohesion and commitment. > - Stories carry history and values and reinforce group identity. > - Humor and play reduce tension and encourage creativity. > - Ritual and ceremony lift spirits and reinforce values. > - Informal cultural players contribute disproportionately to their formal roles. > - Soul is the secret of success. > > — Lee Bolman, Terrence Deal ## Examples of the symbolic frame Below are what can be called the usual “office fare.” But when done effectively and coupled with the other frames, these can significantly alter outcomes. - *Organizational rituals and ceremonies:* These include annual company retreats, award ceremonies, or even regular team meetings with a specific format. - *Corporate slogans:* Nike's "Just Do It" and Apple's "Think Different" are powerful symbols that encapsulate company values and inspire employees and customers. - *Company branding:* These visual symbols represent the organization's identity and values. - *Office layout:* The physical environment can be symbolic. For example, open-plan offices symbolize transparency and collaboration. - *Leadership actions:* In 2008, Howard Schultz's return to Starbucks symbolized commitment and renewal. When the company faced declining sales and a diluted brand identity, he stepped back into the CEO role he had left years earlier. His return wasn't just about management; it was a symbolic gesture signaling a recommitment to the company's core values and culture. - *Storytelling:* Stories of the company's history or founder's journey to inspire employees and reinforce organizational values. - *Vision statements:* Bill Gates and Microsoft's original mission was to put "a computer on every desk and in every home," defining a clear, transformative objective. - *Dress codes:* Formal or casual, how people dress in an organization symbolizes its culture and values. - *Company traditions:* Annual events, team-building activities, and new employee onboarding serve as symbols. - *Use of language:* Specialized jargon or terminology unique to the organization creates a sense of belonging and shared identity. These examples illustrate how the symbolic frame operates in all aspects of organizational life, from visual elements to behaviors and traditions. ## Tensions in the symbolic frame Leaders often overdo this frame and fail to followup with actions. That’s why many “analytical” ones avoid it. But it’s a missed opportunity. - *Authenticity vs. symbolism:* There’s a fine line between using symbols effectively and being perceived as inauthentic. Leaders need to ensure their use of symbolism doesn’t seem manipulative or insincere. - *Tradition vs. innovation:* While rituals and traditions provide stability and identity, they can stifle innovation and adaptability. Balancing reverence for the past with openness to change is crucial. - *Uniformity vs. diversity:* Cultivating a strong organizational culture can create pressure towards conformity. Leaders must find ways to celebrate diversity of thought and background while maintaining a cohesive culture. - *Inspiration vs. reality:* Symbolic leaders use grand narratives and visions to inspire their teams. However, there's a risk of disconnect from employees' daily experiences, leading to disillusionment. - *Emotion vs. rationality:* The symbolic frame emphasizes emotional connections and myth-making. However, leaders must also make rational decisions. Balancing emotional leadership with practical, evidence-based management is challenging. - *Visibility vs. substance:* High-profile actions and dramatic gestures are powerful symbols, but they need to be supported by substantive actions. Empty ones erode trust and credibility. ## Effective leaders in the symbolic frame The symbolic frame of leadership portrays organizations as theater and temple, where leaders use symbols, actions, and words to create meaning and purpose. - Theater: Organizations provide a stage for actors (employees) to perform their roles and [communicate the right impression](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/). - Temple: Organizations are communities bonded by shared beliefs, traditions, myths, rituals, ceremonies, and leaders who embody the group’s aspirations. The essence of symbolic leadership consists of: - Shared values: Effective leadership aligns with the deepest values and concerns of the followers. - Personal blend: Leaders use personal history, poetry, passion, and courage to articulate and shape direction. - Story selection: Choosing the right stories to express a collective quest enhances connection and engagement. ### Key practices of symbolic leaders *Symbolic leaders lead by example*. They create action by diving into challenges, demonstrating commitment and courage. This visible engagement inspires and reassures others. Ann Mulcahy saved Xerox by being a tireless, visible cheerleader during a crisis. *They use symbols to capture attention*. Leaders use dramatic actions to increase visibility and signal change. Personal touches and dramatic acts can re-engage staff and signal new directions. *Symbolic leaders frame experience*. Leaders provide hopeful and meaningful interpretations of events, helping followers in uncertain situations by fostering a sense of purpose and reassurance. Prime examples are JFK’s challenge to the nation and Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. *Symbolic leaders communicate a vision*. Leaders use persuasive images to create and share compelling, hopeful visions for the future. Vision is crucial during times of pain, confusion, and despair. Trump's "Make America Great Again" slogan resonated despite few policy specifics. *Symbolic leaders tell stories*. Effective leaders embed their vision in mythical narratives that resonate with followers’ experiences and values. Successful stories engage people by outlining a noble past, a troubled present, and a hopeful future. Politicians excessively use this tactic. Thus, symbolic leadership focuses on storytelling, vision communication, framing experiences, and leading by example to create a cohesive and motivated community. --- The symbolic frame isn't a "soft" skill—it's the hardest of all. Unlike other frames dealing with tangible leadership aspects like structures and processes, the symbolic frame requires navigating the intangibles of meaning, culture, and identity. This frame requires leaders to develop emotional intelligence, cultural awareness, and [effective communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). It's about understanding and shaping the organization's narrative and values. By using the symbolic frame, leaders can create unity and purpose in their teams. While it presents its own challenges, mastering this frame can lead to a more cohesive and motivated organization. ## Related reading This is one in a series of posts on the Bolman-Deal 4 frames model. Here are the others in this series: - [Bolman-Deal 4 frames of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) - [Structural frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/) - [Human resource frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/) - [Political frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/) - [Multi-frame thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) ## Sources 1. [Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership](https://amzn.to/3FarEF7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 2. [How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing](https://amzn.to/3ZKHMFe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 3. [Wizard and the Warrior: Leading with Passion and Soul](https://amzn.to/3Tb74vi?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal ### The Human Resource Frame of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-02-25T18:57:16.000Z *Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s* [*four frames model of organizations*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) *and leadership is a versatile tool for managers. This article delves into the human resource frame of their 4-frame model: its assumptions, dimensions, examples, tensions, and what makes leaders effective in the human resource aspect.* *These insights come from my notes on "Reframing Organizations" and "How Great Leaders Think."* *I use* [*multi-frame thinking*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) *in my*[ *leadership coaching*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/savvy-sensemaker-leadership-coaching-program/) *and created this series to benefit others.* *Their body of work is* *essential reading for leaders and managers.* *Links to sources and other posts in this series are at the bottom.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 The relationship between organizations and people has evolved from the industrial revolution's 'cogs in the machine' mentality to today's focus on employee engagement. Bolman and Deal's human resource frame of leadership focuses on this often tense and intricate relationship. ## What is the human resource frame The human resource frame of leadership focuses on aligning organizational and employee needs. This frame is built on **the foundation that organizations and people are interdependent**, emphasizing that mutual benefit leads to excellence and fulfillment. Organizations crave the energy, effort, and talent people bring. In return, people seek tangible and intangible rewards from their workplace. When these needs align, it sparks organizational excellence and personal fulfillment. **Leaders embracing this frame act as facilitators**, empowering employees through support, [active listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/), and creating an inclusive environment. They recognize the importance of relationships and collaboration. These leaders adopt "high-involvement" strategies to cultivate an engaged workforce, moving away from outdated practices that stifle human beings. Neglecting the human resource frame results in a disengaged workforce and underperforming organization. While downsizing and outsourcing might offer short-term flexibility, they risk eroding the foundation of organizational strength – the loyalty and expertise of its workforce. Conversely, successfully applying this approach creates a cycle of meaningful work and organizational success, turning investment in people into a competitive advantage. ## Assumptions of the human resource frame Companies often see individuals as tools to achieve organizational goals. However, aligning individual and organizational needs harnesses talent and energy, benefiting the enterprise. The human resource frame prioritizes the latter. Its assumptions are: - *Service to human needs:* Organizations exist primarily to meet human needs, not the other way around. - *Mutual necessity:* Both people and organizations need each other. Organizations require ideas, energy, and talent, while individuals need careers, salaries, and opportunities. - *Consequences of poor fit:* When alignment between individuals and organizations is poor, either or both suffer. Individuals may feel exploited or may exploit the organization, leading to mutual detriment. - *Mutually beneficial fit:* A strong alignment benefits both parties. Individuals find meaningful work, and organizations gain the talent and energy necessary for success. Organizations and individuals have different but related concerns: > Organizations ask, “How do we find and retain people with the skills and attitudes to do the work?” > > Workers want to know, “How well will this place work for me?” > > These two questions are closely related, because “fit” is a function of at least three things: > (1) how well an organization responds to individual desires for useful work; > (2) how well jobs let employees express their skills and sense of self; and > (3) how well work fulfills individual financial and lifestyle needs. > > — Lee Bolman, Terrence Deal ## Dimensions of the human resource frame When operating from this lens, the focus is on: - *HR strategy:* Define and communicate the philosophy for managing people. Establish systems and practices to support this. - *Recruitment:* Focus on hiring the right individuals. Be clear about hiring needs and [being selective in recruitment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). - *Retention:* Compensate employees fairly and prioritize keeping talented ones. Ensure job security and promote from within. - *Investment:* Invest in employee growth and share the profits. - *Empowerment:* Enable employees to take initiative and make decisions. Encourage autonomy and participation. Allow job redesign to enhance engagement. Support self-managing teams. - *Diversity:* Promote a diverse workforce. Clearly articulate and follow the organization’s diversity philosophy and hold managers accountable for initiatives. Another lens for understanding these human resource frame challenges is [Herzberg’s hygiene vs motivation factors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/herzberg-hygiene-motivation-theory/). ## Examples of the human resource frame Famous examples of companies prioritizing the human resource frame include: - Google's "20% time" policy allowed employees to spend 20% of their work time on personal projects. This resulted in innovations like Gmail and Google News. - Costco offers above-average wages and comprehensive benefits, including health insurance for part-time workers. - Zappos empowers its customer service representatives to make decisions without managerial approval, even allowing them to send flowers to customers in certain situations. This showcases trust in employees and encouragement of autonomy. - Patagonia offers on-site childcare, flexible work hours, and encourages outdoor activities. This aligns with the human resource frame's focus on meeting individual needs and creating a fulfilling work environment. - Starbucks offers full tuition coverage for eligible employees to complete a bachelor's degree online. - Toyota's suggestion system encourages all employees to suggest improvements to the manufacturing process, demonstrating a commitment to participation and valuing their expertise. These examples showcase different aspects of the human resource frame, from empowerment and investment to compensation and work-life balance. ## Tensions of the human resource frame As with the other frames, there are inherent tensions in this approach: - *Investment vs. cost:* Organizations must invest in their people for long-term success, but during financial difficulties, this can be seen as a short-term cost. - *Empowerment vs. control:* While it is crucial to empower employees, organizations still need to maintain control and direction. - *Individual needs vs. organizational goals:* Balancing the needs and desires of individual employees with the broader goals of the organization is challenging. - *Flexibility vs. consistency:* Adapting to individual employee needs while maintaining consistent policies and practices. - *Retention vs. fresh perspectives:* Promoting from within and ensuring job security can conflict with the need for new ideas and external talent. - *Work-life balance vs. organizational demands:* Supporting employees' personal lives while meeting the organization's productivity needs. - *Diversity vs. cohesion:* Promoting diversity while maintaining a strong, unified organizational culture. - *Autonomy vs. teamwork:* Encouraging individual initiative while fostering collaborative team environments. - *Development vs. performance:* Balancing employee growth and learning with immediate performance demands. [Paradox is in the very nature of managerial and leadership work](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). ## Effective leaders in the human resource frame Leaders who excel in the human resource frame follow a consistent set of **people-centric principles**: ### *They communicate a strong belief in people*. They have an unwavering belief in people, often expressing this through a formal philosophy or credo. Herb Kelleher, co-founder of Southwest Airlines, believed that happy employees lead to happy customers. This belief is reflected in their core value: "Employees come first." Kelleher famously said: "You have to treat your employees like customers. When you treat them right, then they will treat your outside customers right." ### *They are visible and accessible*. Remember **"**[**management by wandering around**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/)**"**? Mary Barra, CEO of General Motors, embraced this approach throughout her career. Despite her high-level position, she regularly visits GM factories and dealerships, engaging directly with employees at all levels. In one instance, Barra spent time on the assembly line at GM's Orion plant, working alongside workers to [understand their day-to-day challenges](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/). ### *They empower others*. Employees are called "partners" or "associates," emphasizing their stake in the company's success. Ritz-Carlton empowers people through its "2,000 rule," allowing any employee, regardless of position, to spend up to $2,000 per guest, per incident, to resolve a customer issue or enhance a guest's experience without needing supervisor approval. This enables staff to make quick decisions in crucial moments, from replacing a damaged item to arranging special services. These leaders in effect understand what I call [the Human OS](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). --- In essence, leaders who focus on the human resource frame create an environment where employees feel valued, heard, and empowered to contribute meaningfully to the organization's success. The human resource frame reminds us that organizations are more than structures and strategies—they're communities of individuals. Effective leaders recognize that aligning organizational needs with employee aspirations isn't just good for morale—it's essential for long-term success. ## Related reading This is one in a series of posts on the Bolman-Deal 4 frames model. Here are the other ones in this series: - Overview of [Bolman-Deal 4 frames](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) of leadership - [Political frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/) - [Structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/) - [Symbolic frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/) - [Multi-frame thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) ## Sources 1. [Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership](https://amzn.to/3FarEF7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 2. [How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing](https://amzn.to/3ZKHMFe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 3. [Wizard and the Warrior: Leading with Passion and Soul](https://amzn.to/3Tb74vi?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal ### The Political Frame of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:37:02.000Z *Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s* [*four frames model of organizations*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) *and leadership is a versatile tool for managers. In this article, I delve deeper into the political frame of their 4-frame model: its assumptions, dimensions, examples, tensions, and what makes leaders effective in the political aspect.* *These insights are drawn from my notes on their books, "Reframing Organizations" and "How Great Leaders Think."* *I use* [*multi-frame thinking*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) *in my coaching and created this series to benefit others.* *Their body of work is* *essential reading for leaders and managers.* *Links to sources and other posts in this series are at the bottom.* --- Politics isn't dirty—it's essential for organizational success. Yet, many leaders shy away from it, missing out on a crucial aspect of effective leadership. Imagine you're a new manager tasked with leading a transformation project. You have the plan, skills, and determination. But as you begin, you encounter unexpected resistance, conflicting interests, and power struggles that catch you off-guard. Welcome to the political frame of leadership. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is the political frame The political frame views organizations through the lens of power dynamics and resource allocation. It sees the workplace as coalitions of individuals and groups with diverse interests competing for scarce resources, placing power and conflict at the center of decision-making. Politics is usually perceived negatively, but it is integral to decision-making in environments with scarce resources and divergent interests. Leaders cannot afford a negative view. Constructive politics is possible and necessary for running efficient organizations. From this lens: - Politics is the realistic process of making decisions and allocating resources. - Organizations are seen as alliances rather than unified entities with clear goals. - Power is central, with various groups vying for influence. Thus, conflict is a natural and inevitable part of organizational life. The role of leadership in the political frame is about: - Recognizing political reality and managing conflict productively. - Building a power base and using power carefully. - Creating arenas for negotiation and compromise between competing interests. - Balancing conflicting demands and creating forums for negotiation. - Articulating common interests to unite diverse groups. Some managers use intimidation and manipulation, which carry high risks. Savvy leaders use subtle, self-interest-based strategies to garner support and navigate politics without overt displays of power. By adopting a constructive political approach, leaders can manage conflicts, build coalitions, and set agendas that serve both individual and organizational goals. ## Assumptions of the political frame > The political frame views organizations as roiling arenas that host ongoing contests arising from individual and group interests. > > Five propositions summarize the perspective: > > (1) Organizations are coalitions of different individuals and interest groups. > (2) Coalition members have enduring differences in values, beliefs, information, interests, resources, and perceptions of reality. > (3) Most important decisions involve allocating scarce resources—deciding who gets what. > (4) Scarce resources and enduring differences put conflict at the center of day-to-day dynamics and make power the most important asset. > (5) Goals and decisions emerge from bargaining and negotiation among competing stakeholders jockeying for their respective interests. > > — Lee Bolman, Terrence Deal ## Dimensions of the political frame Given this perspective of organizations what are the different dimensions shaping the landscape? - *Power distribution:* Understanding who holds power, how it’s distributed, and who is influential in the organization. - *Conflict management:* Recognizing and navigating conflicts arising from competing interests and limited resources. - *Stakeholder analysis:* Identifying key stakeholders, their interests, and influence on organizational dynamics. - *Resource allocation:* Deciding how limited resources are distributed and who gets what. - *Negotiation and bargaining:* Engaging in bargaining and negotiation to reach decisions that accommodate different interests. - *Coalition building:* Forming alliances and coalitions to build support for initiatives and increase influence. - *Political skills:* Using subtle, self-interest-based strategies and diplomacy to gain support and navigate the political landscape. - *Perceptions and realities:* Acknowledging that individuals and groups perceive organizational realities differently, which shapes political dynamics. Check out my piece on sources of power for **a deeper dive into** [**what creates power in organizations**.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/) ## Examples of the political frame People who say they’d rather avoid organizational politics don’t realize its influence on every aspect of their work. Consider how politics and power show up: - *Resource allocation:* When an organization decides how to distribute limited resources (like budget, personnel, or equipment) among departments or projects. This includes layoffs and involves negotiation between stakeholders. - *Coalition building:* Leaders form alliances with different groups or individuals within the organization to gain support for initiatives or increase influence. - *Power struggles:* Situations where individuals or groups compete for influence or control over decision-making processes, involving formal authority or informal influence. - *Conflict resolution:* Leaders manage conflicts arising from competing interests of different groups. - *Stakeholder management:* Leaders identifying and managing relationships with key stakeholders. - *Agenda setting*: Leaders strategically deciding which issues to prioritize and [how to frame them](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) to gain support and influence outcomes. - *Decision-making*: Situations where leaders must decide in situations with divergent interests and perceptions of reality. Clearly, politics is an inevitable aspect of work life, especially in leadership. ## Tensions in the political frame Effective leaders recognize that tensions are inherent to the game and not problems that impede them. Here are some common ones from the political perspective: - *Conflict vs. Cooperation:* Conflict is a natural part of organizational life due to differing interests. A competitive political environment can hinder collaboration, yet it’s essential for success. - *Short-Term Gains vs. Long-Term Goals*: Political maneuvering can focus on achieving short-term benefits, undermining long-term strategic objectives and organizational sustainability. - *Authenticity vs. Facades:* Effective political leaders navigate a fine line between transparency and secrecy. Too much facade breeds mistrust, while total transparency weakens advantages. [Frances Frei’s Trust Triangle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) explains the challenges and how to overcome them using [Ethos, Pathos, and Logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/). - *Control vs. Empowerment:* While leaders need to maintain control to navigate politics effectively, they also need to empower others. Balancing these aspects can be challenging in politically charged environments. Here’s more on [creative vs controlling leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/). - *Self-Interest vs. Organizational Interest:* Leaders must manage the tension between pursuing their own interests and those of the organization. Aligning personal ambitions with organizational goals is a critical but challenging task. - *Mistrust vs. Trust-Building:* The political frame often involves mistrust among stakeholders. Leaders must work to build and maintain trust despite underlying tensions. There is a whole host of [paradoxes and dilemmas that leaders have to deal with](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). ## Effective leaders in the political frame According to Bolman and Deal, > The **manager as politician exercises four key skills**: > > (1) agenda-setting; > (2) mapping the political terrain; > (3) networking and building coalitions; and > (4) bargaining and negotiating. Leaders who are politically savvy excel at: 1. *Political leaders clarify what they want and what they can get*. They are realists, focused on attainable goals without being clouded by hope. 2. *Political leaders map the terrain—they assess the distribution of power and interests*. They identify key stakeholders and opponents, assess their power, and strategize accordingly. 3. *Political leaders build linkages to key stakeholders*. They establish relationships and networks through personal contact and face-to-face engagement. 4. *Political leaders persuade first, negotiate second, and coerce only if necessary*. They use power judiciously, starting with persuasion and negotiation. --- Politics doesn’t have to be dysfunctional or dirty. Effective organizations need politically savvy leaders who know how to use power wisely. Rather than viewing politics as a necessary evil, savvy leaders embrace it as a powerful tool for achieving organizational goals and creating a more dynamic, responsive workplace. ## Related reading This is one in a series of posts on the Bolman-Deal 4 frames model. Here are the other posts in this series: - [Bolman-Deal 4 frames model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) - [Structural frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/) - [Human resource frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/) - [Symbolic frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/) - [Multi-frame thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) ## Sources 1. [Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership](https://amzn.to/3FarEF7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 2. [How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing](https://amzn.to/3ZKHMFe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 3. [Wizard and the Warrior: Leading with Passion and Soul](https://amzn.to/3Tb74vi?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal ### The Structural Frame of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:42:11.000Z *The structural frame is one of Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal’s* [*four frames model* ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/)*of leadership* *and organizations. In this piece I delve deeper into the structural frame of leadership: what it entails, its assumptions, dimensions, examples, tensions, and what makes leaders effective in the structural aspect.* *These insights are drawn from my notes on their books, "Reframing Organizations" and "How Great Leaders Think."* *I frequently use* [*multi-frame thinking*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) *in my coaching and decided to create this series.* *Their body of work is* *essential reading for leaders and managers.* *Links to sources and other posts in this series are at the bottom of this post.* *On this page:* - [What is the structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#what-is-the-structural-frame) - [Assumptions of the structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#assumptions-of-the-structural-frame) - [Dimensions of the structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#dimensions-of-the-structural-frame) - [Examples of the structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#examples-of-the-structural-frame) - [Tensions in the structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#tensions-in-the-structural-frame) - [Attributes of effective structural leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#attributes-of-effective-structural-leaders) - [Preparation and expertise](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#preparation-and-expertise) - [Strategy, structure, and environment alignment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#strategy-structure-and-environment-alignment) - [Focus on implementation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#focus-on-implementation) - [Related reading](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#related-reading) - [Sources](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/#sources) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 Why do some organizations thrive in chaos while others crumble? Through the structural lens of Bolman and Deal's four-frame model, we explore how effective leadership is deeply intertwined with organizational design and structure. ## What is the structural frame When we think of an organization, the typical image is an org chart—a series of boxes and lines representing responsibilities and hierarchy, often shaped like a pyramid. This typical way of how we understand organizations reflects the structural view, but the structural lens goes much deeper into social architecture and its consequences. - Although often equated with bureaucracy, the structural frame includes both rigid hierarchies and freewheeling task forces. - Ignoring structure can lead to wasted resources on solving problems **incorrectly attributed to individual skills rather than organizational design**. Changing people without addressing structural issues often leads to recurring problems. - Organizations create specialized roles and units to divide work. Effective procedures are needed to integrate these specialized elements. - The right structure depends on factors like goals, strategy, technology, people, and environment. When done well it helps the organization achieve its goals and allows everyone to see their role in the larger system. The structural frame emphasizes the importance of a well-defined social architecture in achieving organizational effectiveness, with leaders playing a crucial role in designing and maintaining this structure. From a structural perspective then, the **role of the leader entails:** - Clear goals and relationships: Leaders must clarify goals, roles, and relationships to align with the business’s needs. - Avoiding confusion: Without a clear structure, people are uncertain about their roles, leading to confusion and frustration. - Logical focus: Leaders should focus on tasks, facts, and logic rather than personalities and emotions, as many issues arise from structural flaws. ## Assumptions of the structural frame The structural frame of leadership is built on a belief in rationality and the idea that well-defined roles and responsibilities ensure focused effort and minimize distractions. The premise is to direct people effectively, defining their jobs and how they collaborate. The six core assumptions of the structural frame are: 1. Goal orientation: Organizations aim to achieve established goals and devise strategies accordingly. 2. Efficiency through specialization: Specialization and proper division of labor enhance efficiency and performance. 3. Coordination and control: Appropriate forms of coordination and control ensure that the efforts of individuals and units align seamlessly. 4. Rationality: Organizations function best when rationality prevails over personal agendas and outside pressures. 5. Fit with circumstances: An effective structure aligns with the organization’s current strategy, technology, workforce, and environment. 6. Problem solving and restructuring: When structural flaws impact performance, problem-solving and restructuring are the preferred remedies. ## Dimensions of the structural frame Why do organizations pick a certain structure while others pick a different one? Here are some of the factors: - Size and age: Larger, older organizations evolve to be more complex and formal. - Core processes: Simple structures suit stable tasks, while complexity necessitates flexibility. - Environment: Stability favors simple structures; chaotic environments require adaptability. - Strategy and goals: Clear goals align with top-down structures; ambiguous ones benefit from decentralization. - Technology: Promotes flatter, flexible, and decentralized structures. - Workforce nature: Highly-educated professionals thrive on autonomy and discretion. ## Examples of the structural frame Here are some examples that illustrate the structural frame: - Military organizations: A clear chain of command, well-defined roles, and strict hierarchies enable rapid decision-making and coordinated action in high-stakes situations. - Hospital ER\*\*:\*\* Tightly defined roles (doctors, nurses, technicians) and procedures ensure efficient handling of emergencies, crucial for rapid care in life-or-death situations. - Assembly lines in manufacturing: Division of labor and specialization maximize efficiency and quality control in mass production environments. - Legal firms: A clear partnership structure and hierarchy, with defined roles for partners, associates, and support staff, prioritize career progression and the distribution of responsibilities and rewards. - Sports teams: Specific positions and roles for each player, coordinated by coaches and management, deploy specialized skills effectively in pursuit of team goals. These examples show how different organizations use structure to divide work, coordinate efforts, and achieve their goals. ## Tensions in the structural frame Navigating the complexities of authority, roles, and [relationships](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/relationship-level-of-communication/) inside organizations is a perennial challenge for managers. The trick is in **recognizing that these are in fact paradoxes and inherent in the nature of the game**. - *Differentiation vs. Integration.* Balancing the assignment of tasks and the synchronization of efforts is a classic dilemma. As firms grow in size and complexity, sophisticated coordination strategies become necessary to maintain focused operations. - *Gap vs. Overlap.* Unclear assignment of key responsibilities cause crucial tasks to fall through the cracks. Conversely, overlapping roles and activities leads to conflicts, wasted efforts, and redundancy. - *Underuse vs. Overload.* Insufficient workloads can lead to boredom and inefficiencies, while overwhelming tasks can swamp employees. - *Clarity vs. Creativity.* Uncertainty about roles leads employees to tailor their duties based on personal preferences, whereas overly defined responsibilities create rigidity. - *Autonomy vs. Interdependence.* Too much independence can isolate individuals. In contrast, excessive interdependence bogs down initiatives. - *Too Loose vs. Too Tight.* Organizations must balance holding entities together without stifling flexibility. **Netflix calls this dynamic “**[**high alignment and loose coupling**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/#3-balancing-high-alignment-and-loose-coupling)**”**. - *Goal-less vs. Goal-bound.* Lack of clear goals can lead to aimlessness, while outdated targets reduce relevance. - *Irresponsible vs. Unresponsive.* If individuals shirk responsibilities, performance declines. Conversely, strict adherence to rules can alienate stakeholders. These are only some of the [**many paradoxes that leaders face**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/)**.** ## Attributes of effective structural leaders Leaders who are adept at the structural frame combine deep industry knowledge, alignment of structure with strategy, robust implementation plans, and a culture of constant experimentation and adaptation. ### **Preparation and expertise** Structural leaders thoroughly understand their industry and organizational intricacies. Steve Jobs, for example, was known for his deep understanding of technology. He restructured Apple’s product lines, focusing on a few key products that emphasized UX and design aesthetics. In contrast, John Sculley, a marketing expert from Pepsi, initially focused on cost management and aggressive marketing, but struggled with maintaining Apple's innovative edge without deep technical expertise. ### Strategy, structure, and environment alignment Effective leaders align their organizational structure with strategy and market demands. Indra Nooyi of PepsiCo restructured the portfolio to include healthier food options, aligning the company’s strategy with the growing market demand for health-conscious products. Meanwhile, Bob Nardelli of Home Depot overdid centralized decision-making processes and operational controls, which alienated employees and customers by diminishing Home Depot’s customer service-focused strategy. ### Focus on implementation Leaders must anticipate resistance, provide adequate training, and foster political support and cultural understanding. Amazon’s Jeff Bezos focused heavily on implementation through rigorous operational excellence, continuous employee training, and maintaining a [high-performance culture](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). Carly Fiorina of HP however failed to effectively manage cultural integration and employee buy-in during HP’s merger with Compaq, leading to significant internal resistance and performance issues. --- Bolman-Deal’s structural frame of leadership emphasizes the critical role of designing and maintaining an effective organizational structure. Understanding and navigating the inherent tensions within the structural frame is key to achieving sustained leadership success. It’s a useful lens (and also a default one for many managers) but also not the only one. ## Related reading This is one in a series of posts on the Bolman-Deal 4 frames model. Here are the other posts in this series: - [Bolman-Deal 4 frames model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) - The [political frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/) - The [human resource frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/) - [The symbolic frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/) - [Multi-frame thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) ## Sources 1. [Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership](https://amzn.to/3FarEF7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 2. [How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing](https://amzn.to/3ZKHMFe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 3. [Wizard and the Warrior: Leading with Passion and Soul](https://amzn.to/3Tb74vi?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal ### Is it up to you? The Stoic Dichotomy of Control. URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dichotomy-of-control-stoicism-leadership/ Last updated: 2024-09-03T15:07:54.000Z *In today's business landscape, leaders often struggle with uncertainty and lack of control.* *The Stoic concept of "dichotomy of control" is a practical framework to address these challenges.* *When done consistently, this can help focus your energy effectively and make better decisions. I explore* **how the Stoic dichotomy of control applies to modern leadership*, along with* **strategies for improving personal effectiveness and organizational outcomes*.* --- For today's leaders, the illusion of control is constantly shattered by unexpected challenges. In a recent study, only 15% of business leaders felt very prepared to lead in a rapidly changing and uncertain environment. Surprisingly, ancient Stoic wisdom might hold the answer to modern business challenges. ## What is in our control > Some things are up to us and others are not. > > — Epictetus, Encheiridion Epictetus opens his classic with this iconic line. It is the basis of a fundamental Stoic precept - dichotomy of control- or “the stoic fork.” Of all the philosophical schools, Stoicism is probably the most directly relevant to the uncertainty and lack of control in the modern workplace, especially in leadership. The Stoics’ primary goal was to teach people how to stay calm and resolute amid overwhelming anxiety and uncertainty, and this was 2,000 years ago! It teaches to distinguish between our voluntary judgments and intentions, which we control, and external events and others' actions, which we don't. > We control our reasoned choice and all acts that depend on that moral will. What’s not under our control are the body and any of its parts, our possessions, parents, siblings, children, or country—anything with which we might associate. > > — Epictetus, Discourses Epictetus explains: > *Things in our control are opinion, intention, desire, objection, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, status, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.* > > *The things in our control are by nature free, unbounded and unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, constrained, not our own.* > > *—* Epictetus, Enchiridion He warns that focusing on things beyond our control leads to a greater sense of powerlessness: > If you regard that… which is not your own as being your own, you’ll have cause to lament, you’ll have a troubled mind, and you’ll find fault with both gods and human beings… Thus, according to Epictetus, the **"dichotomy of control"** underlines that we can fully control some things (like our opinions and intentions), while we cannot control others (like external events). But as William Irvine points out, the challenge lies in how we interpret "not in our control." It could mean a **complete lack of control** or **partial control**. If we only consider complete control versus no control, we oversimplify reality. **Many aspects of life fall into a gray area** where we have some, but not complete, control. For instance, winning a tennis match: practicing increases your chances, but victory isn't guaranteed.\[4\] To better reflect reality, Irvine proposes a *trichotomy* of control: - **Complete Control**: Things like our goals and values. Prioritize and focus on these. - **No Control**: Events like the sunrise. Avoid worrying about them. - **Partial Control**: Competitive outcomes, such as the result of a match. Internalize goals to manage effectively. A similar strand is found in Stephen Covey’s [circles of control, influence, and concerns](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/). Julian Rotter’s [locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) is also related to this 2,000-year-old Stoic idea. ## Implementing the dichotomy of control in leadership Why is this notion critical to modern leadership? How can leaders integrate it into their routine? Sooner or later, all competent leaders realize that they can only “control” so many things. In fact, as I noted in my [circle of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) piece, **the more responsibility you have, the less you directly control**. Recognizing this fact is the first step before advancing to the next level. The early part of their careers is often about control. But it’s also what they need to discard to be more effective. To thrive in increasing complexity, you need **a core set of simple algorithms that you operate with**. One of those is the Stoic dichotomy of control. **Bear in mind that 'simple' does not equate to 'simplistic' or 'easy'.** Here are practical ways to implement this principle: ### Goal internalization: Shifting focus to what we can control Goal internalization is a practice where you shift focus from external results to internal efforts and character. It's particularly useful for managing situations where we have some but not complete control. We **minimize negative emotions** associated with not achieving desired external outcomes by focusing on internal goals. For example, if your goal is to perform at your best in a tennis match (internal), losing the match won't disturb your tranquility as much compared to if your goal was to win (external). Instead of aiming solely for high salaries (external), focus on developing expertise and expanding knowledge (internal). Internal goals **keep us centered and reduce** [**performance anxiety**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#1-stress-and-performance-are-linked). For instance, concentrating on improving your skills can help you stay calm and play better, which also increases your chances of winning. If external outcomes aren't met, internal goals help in staying resolute. By valuing effort and personal growth over external success, we build **resilience against setbacks**. **Practical steps:** - Set internal objectives: Focus on controllable actions. For example, "Draft 500 words daily." - Track efforts, not just outcomes: Monitor progress using self-reflection and feedback. Emphasize [process goals over outcome goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/). - Cultivate a growth mindset: Value internal efforts regardless of external results. Celebrate milestones of consistent improvement. - Maintain consistency: Persist in pursuing internal goals despite external setbacks. Example: Authors resubmitting work despite rejections. ### The reserve clause: Preparing for uncertainty The Stoics recognized that a lack of control over outcomes and external circumstances stops many people from doing the very things that will move them forward. **How do you balance “certainty of purpose” (in our control) with “uncertainty of results” (not in our control)?** \[1\] Or as Epictetus put it, “*How can concern coexist with greatness of* *soul?”* To resolve this dilemma, the Stoics used a psychological strategy to interact with the world without compromising their control. They took actions with a 'reserve clause', **adding a caveat like "*fate permitting*" or "*God willing*."** This approach ensures we remain prepared for both success and failure with equanimity. The Stoic 'reserve clause' strategy minimizes emotional distress from failures by acknowledging the uncertainty and unpredictability of external events. Marcus Aurelius took this one step further by using the reserve clause to make the most of whatever might transpire, aka “serene acceptance” \[1\]: > *\[Marcus:\] But what if some other aspect of the activity is prevented?* > > *\[Sage:\] Well, yes, but if you adopt* **an attitude of serene acceptance** *with regard to such an obstacle, and if you know how to return prudently to that which you are able to do, then another action will replace it, and it will fit in with the harmonious life we are talking about.* > > *— Marcus Aurelius, Meditations* Acceptance is the strategy for the third circle in the [CIA model - circle of control, influence, and concerns (acceptance)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/). ### The here and now: Balancing future vision with present action Effective leaders balance future planning with present awareness. This [tension between long-term vision and immediate action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/) represents a fundamental [leadership paradox](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/), as Peter Drucker observed decades ago. While visionary thinking is crucial, it's important to recognize that the future remains unpredictable, no matter how much we try to control it. All we have to shape that future are our present actions in the present moment. > According to Hadot, attention to the present moment is, in some respects, the essence of the spiritual exercises found in Stoicism and other Hellenistic schools of philosophy. He says that by its very nature, remaining grounded in the here and now frees us from **the grip of unhealthy passions “which are always caused by the past or the future – two areas which do *not* depend on** **us.”** > > The present moment is where our [**locus of control**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) is situated, and by taking each moment one step at a time, each instant becomes more bearable. Moreover, attention to the present moment makes us more conscious of its value in relation to the whole of cosmic nature. > > — Donald Robertson \[2\] Leadership requires [understanding time differently](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). ## Questions for leadership reflection Here are questions you can incorporate in your monthly/quarterly review and overall leadership practice: - Am I effectively distinguishing between areas of complete, partial, and no control in my leadership responsibilities? Am I allocating my energy appropriately? - How can I shift my focus from external results to internal efforts and development? - Am I practicing the "reserve clause" in my decision-making? - How can I prepare for success and failure and maintain equanimity in the face of unexpected outcomes? - Am I balancing long-term vision with present-moment awareness and action? - How can I improve my process and approach instead of fixating on specific outcomes? - Am I setting a good example for my team by focusing on what's within our control? How am I fostering resilience in myself and my team? - How can I leverage my [circle of influence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/) to indirectly affect outcomes I can't control? - How can I practice "serene acceptance" of obstacles while working towards my goals? - How is my “[cognitive hygiene](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/)" to ensure clear thinking and decision-making? --- ## Further reading - Process over progress: [The mundanity of excellence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). - The mechanism and [psychology of small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). - Watch out for these [common cognitive distortions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) to maintain your mental hygiene. ## References 1. Robertson, Donald. [*Stoicism and the Art of Happiness*](https://amzn.to/3Xq4Bzt?ref=leadingsapiens.com), 2013. 2. Robertson, Donald. [*The Philosophy of Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT)*](https://amzn.to/3zaxLcr?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*: Stoic Philosophy as Rational and Cognitive Psychotherapy*, 2010. 3. Reynolds, Jonathan, Chris Houlder, Ben Goddard, and Tim Lewis. [*What Philosophy Can Teach You About Being a Better Leader*](https://amzn.to/4e3hNzK?ref=leadingsapiens.com), 2021. 4. Irvine, William B. [*A Guide to the Good Life: The Ancient Art of Stoic Joy*](https://amzn.to/4g1rSPH?ref=leadingsapiens.com), 2008. 5. Aurelius, Marcus. [*Meditations*, Translated by Gregory Hays](https://amzn.to/4gb9uDO?ref=leadingsapiens.com), 2003. 6. [Epictetus. *Enchiridion*: *The Handbook*](https://amzn.to/4e7F8QY?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Translated by Nicholas P. White, 1983. 7. [Epictetus. *Discourses, Fragments, Handbook*](https://amzn.to/3z23vk0?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Translated by Robin Hard, 2014. 8. Deloitte. (2021). "2021 Global Human Capital Trends" ### Circle of Control, Influence, and Acceptance: Where to Focus Your Energy URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/circle-of-control-influence-concerns/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:34:10.000Z *How do effective leaders maintain their composure when everything seems out of control? They’re adept at discerning what they can control vs what they can’t, and what they can influence. The circle of control, influence, and concerns (acceptance) framework or CIA — is a “leadership triage” tool that helps focus* *on what you can actually change, rather than wasting time and effort on things beyond our control.* --- ## The vagaries of modern leadership In my coaching practice, leaders (at all levels) often express a sense of helplessness. They might not put it that way, but it becomes evident from their words and actions. I’ve highlighted the psychological concept of [locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) and how leaders influence it. The question is **how do you move your locus of control from external to internal?** Same for your teams? Operating in uncertainty and a lack of control is inherent in leadership. The paradoxical nature of leadership means that the **higher you go, the less you directly control, but you’re directly responsible for more.** Maintaining your sanity, let alone effectiveness, requires high self-awareness and a relentless focus on what’s actually in your control. The Circle of Control, Influence, and Acceptance/Concerns (CIA) framework helps leaders stay grounded. Popularized by Stephen Covey in his 1989 classic "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People," this model is a go-to in my coaching sessions. > The problems we face fall in one of three areas: **direct control** (problems involving our own behavior); **indirect control** (problems involving other people's behavior); or **no control** (problems we can do nothing about, such as our past or situational realities). The proactive approach puts the first step in the solution of all three kinds of problems within our present Circle of Influence. > > Direct control problems are solved by working on our habits. They are obviously within our Circle of Influence. … > > Indirect control problems are solved by changing our methods of influence. > > *No control* problems involve taking the responsibility to change the line on the bottom of our face—to smile, to genuinely and peacefully accept these problems and learn to live with them, even though we don’t like them. In this way, we do not empower these problems to control us. > > — Stephen R. Covey The core idea goes back to the **ancient Stoic notion of “dichotomy of control” or “the Stoic fork.”** It’s not about gaining more control; it’s getting clear about what you truly control and influence, and where to direct your energy proactively. Mastering this **art of discernment** is relevant for leaders because: - By focusing on what you can control or influence, you maximize return on effort and minimize wasted energy. - Accepting what's beyond your control frees up mental energy and reduces anxiety. - Defining your spheres of control and influence leads to better strategic choices. - Recognizing the limits of your control increases resilience in the face of change. - People [copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/), which helps create a culture of proactivity and personal responsibility. Let’s examine each circle and how to implement them. ![Circle of Control, Circle of Influence, Circle of Concern and Acceptance. (CIA model)](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/08/Circle-of-Control--Influence--Concerns--Acceptance--CIA--1.png) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Circle of Control The smallest innermost circle contains things we have *direct* *control* over, such as our thoughts, attitudes, actions, and how we choose to respond. These include: - Your mindset and interpretation of situations. - The words we use. - Our decisions and choices. - Daily habits, work ethic, and interactions. - Skills you choose to learn and improve. - How you prioritize and allocate your time and energy. - Taking the smallest action that will move the needle. - Making and keeping commitments. ## Circle of Influence The middle circle includes things we can *influence* but not directly *control*. For example: - Your team's performance and motivation. You can influence it, but cannot directly control individual actions. - Same for relationships with peers and superiors. - You can influence culture but can't single-handedly change it. - Overall market direction. - Resource allocation in your department. - Implementation of new processes or technologies in your area. - You can influence customer satisfaction, but cannot control all factors affecting customer experience. ## Circle of Concern (Acceptance) This outermost circle of *concern* includes things we care about and that impact us but we can’t control or influence. Acceptance means taking responsibility while also acknowledging that there are people and situations we cannot change. By proactively choosing to accept, we disempower these factors from controlling us. **The porous boundary between our circles of influence and circle of concern/acceptance is where most of our problems originate.** This includes: - Outcomes and consequences of our actions. - External circumstances. - Company-wide strategic decisions by top management. - Market conditions affecting your industry. - Budget constraints imposed from above. - Organizational restructuring decisions. - Unexpected crises or external events. > …in choosing our response to circumstance, we powerfully affect our circumstance. When we change one part of the chemical formula, we change the nature of the results. > > — Stephen R. Covey Jeff Bezos’ dictum of “[disagree and commit](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-quality-and-velocity)” is a practical implementation of this idea. This is reflected in [Amazon’s leadership principle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/) of “[Have backbone, disagree and commit](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#13-have-backbone-disagree-and-commit)”. ## Example Imagine your company is preparing for a merger. **Circle of Control:** - Your preparation for the changes (updating skills, networking) - Managing your attitude towards the merger - How you communicate changes to your team **Circle of Influence:** - Team morale during the transition - The integration process between the two companies - Retaining key talent in your department **Circle of Acceptance:** - The final decision on whether the merger goes through - Choice of the new leadership team - Global economic factors influencing the merger By focusing on what you can control (your preparation, attitude) and what you can influence (team morale, integration process), you can navigate the uncertainty of the merger more effectively. At the same time, accepting what you can't change (the final merger decision) allows you to adapt more readily to whatever comes your way. **How do you differentiate between them?** It comes through practice. Covey gives some clues: > One way to determine which circle our concern is in is to distinguish between the **have's and the be's.** > > The Circle of Concern is filled with the have's"I'll be happy when I have my house paid off.""If only I had a boss who wasn't such a dictator.""If only I had a more patient husband.""If I had more obedient kids.""If I had my degree.""If I could just have more time to myself." > > The Circle of Influence is filled with the be's --I can be more patient, be wise, be loving. **It's the character focus.** > > — Stephen R. Covey ## Circle of Control as an ongoing reflection practice One way to improve is to **integrate this tool into your** [**regular reflection practice**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) or when working with a coach. - Periodically assess where you focus your actions and which concerns fall into each circle. This practice can provide clarity and direction. - Focus on actionable steps within your control while developing strategies to expand your influence. Practice mindfulness and acceptance for what lies beyond them. - When faced with a challenge, give yourself 24 hours to focus solely on your circles of control and influence before considering factors in your circle of acceptance/concern. - Identify one area in your circle of influence where you'd like to have more impact. Brainstorm actions within your control to expand your influence. - Choose one stressful item in your circle of acceptance. Practice mindfulness techniques to cultivate genuine acceptance of this uncontrollable factor. - Use this framework in your 1-on-1 conversations so your team starts implementing it too. ## Why is implementation so hard? The framework is simple but nevertheless effective. However, it’s not easy to master overnight. Our default ways of operating actively work against it. Common challenges include: - Our brains have [**cognitive distortions**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) that interfere with objective assessment. For example, the negativity bias causes us to focus disproportionately on problems and threats, which frequently lie in our circle of concern. To make things worse, they cloud our judgment on what is in fact within our control and influence. - Strong emotions, especially in high-stress situations, can cloud judgment and make it difficult to accurately categorize issues. - Worry is a psychological mechanism that gives a sense of control over the uncontrollable. Breaking this habit requires consistent effort and mindfulness. - Sometimes we mistakenly believe we have more control or influence than we actually do, leading to frustration and wasted effort. Conversely, we may not recognize the full extent of our influence, missing opportunities to effect change. - Genuinely accepting things beyond our control is psychologically challenging, especially for driven, results-oriented leaders. The desire to control everything perfectly can make it hard to let go of things in the circle of concern. - [Taking the time to reflect](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) and categorize issues [can feel like a luxury](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/#if-its-so-effective-why-isn%E2%80%99t-everyone-doing-it). To make it work, **practice relentlessly until it becomes second nature to how you respond**. This won’t happen quickly and will take diligent practice and commitment. **Additional pointers:** - By managing your circle of control, your influence will expand over time. Conversely, undue focus on the circle of concern without discernment leads to stuck patterns. - Even very [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) in your circle of control can have far-reaching impacts on your circle of influence and beyond. Don’t assume you can predict that beforehand. - Although counterintuitive, accepting what you can't control leads to greater influence and effectiveness. In the same vein, non-acceptance leads to wasted energy and unnecessary suffering. - Things **in your circle of *concern often* fall under someone else’s circle of *control***. Awareness of this fact increases your available actions. - Your ability to maintain clarity and focus during crises or uncertainty is a competitive advantage and an essential aspect of effective leadership. ## Circle of control and locus of control [Locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) refers to the degree to which people believe they have control over the outcome of events in their lives. Working with this framework **shifts the locus of control** in the following ways: - By focusing on the circle of control, leaders are reminded of their personal agency, which is the foundation of an internal locus of control. - The Circle of Influence encourages leaders to see how they can impact outcomes indirectly. This reframing shifts the perception **from "I can't control this" to "I can influence this,"** which is a more internal perspective. - Circle of Acceptance isn't about passive resignation. It's about **actively choosing to accept** what can't be changed, which is an internal locus behavior. --- Mastering the circles of control framework is an ongoing practice in your leadership journey. Each challenge presents an opportunity to refine your understanding and application of the principles. It requires consistent self-reflection and a commitment to growth. As you become adept at discerning what you can control, influence, or must accept, you'll find yourself better equipped to lead effectively. ## Related Reading - [Metacognition in leadership](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/metacognition-leadership-career) - [Changing mindset by taking action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/) - Role of [doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) and [confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) in leadership - [Leadership as choices and actions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/) ## Sources 1. Covey, Stephen R. (1989). [The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People](https://amzn.to/3Z3WUjO?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Conyers, M. A., & Wilson, D. L. (2015). [Positively Smarter: Science and Strategies for Increasing Happiness, Achievement, and Well-Being.](https://amzn.to/3XlRboe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). [The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications.](https://amzn.to/3MryJV2?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. Edmonstone, J. (2011). [Action Learning in Health Care: A Practical Handbook.](https://amzn.to/4e0vhMG?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. Achor, S. (2010). [The Happiness Advantage: How a Positive Brain Fuels Success in Work and Life.](https://amzn.to/4cO9Ltz?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### The Trust Triangle of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:20:17.000Z How can I be more trustworthy? How do I show up more authentically? Leaders at all levels grapple with this fundamental challenge of leadership. The answer lies in Aristotle's 2,000+ year old framework of [ethos, logos, and pathos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) or what Harvard prof Frances Frei and Anne Morris call **the Trust Triangle**. Calling trust the **"essential leadership capital"**, they write: > We think about trust as rare and precious, and yet it’s the basis for almost everything we do as civilized people. Trust is the reason we’re willing to exchange our hard-earned paychecks for goods and services, pledge our lives to another person in marriage, cast a ballot for someone who will represent our interests. We rely on laws and contracts as safety nets, but even those systems are ultimately built on trust in the institutions that enforce them. We don’t know that justice will be served if something goes wrong, but we have enough faith in the system to make deals with relative strangers. It’s not coincidental that trust ultimately found its way into the official US motto, “In God We Trust.” Even if trust in our earthly structures erodes, it’s so vital to the national project that we threw in a higher-order backstop. > > ...**trust is also the input that makes the leadership equation work.** If leadership is about empowering others, in your presence and your absence, then trust is the emotional framework that allows that service to be freely exchanged. **I’m willing to be led by you because I trust you.** I’m willing to give up some of my cherished autonomy and put my well-being in your hands because I trust you. In turn, you’re willing to rely on me because you trust me. You trust that I will make decisions that advance our shared mission, even when you’re not in the room. The more trust that accumulates between us, the better this works. > > **How do you build up stores of this essential leadership capital?** Here’s the basic formula: people tend to trust you when they think they are interacting with the real you (**authenticity**), when they have faith in your judgment and competence (**logic**), and when they believe that you care about them (**empathy**). ![The Trust Triangle: Authenticity, Empathy, Logic by Frances Frei, Anne Morris](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/08/Trust-Triangle--Ethos-Pathos-Logos-3.png) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Diagnosing your trust pitfalls Frei and Morriss highlight how **when there is a lack of trust it can often be traced back to a breakdown in one or more of the three factors** in the Aristotelian triad: > Did they think you might be putting your own interests first? Did the interaction feel all about you? That’s an ***empathy* block**. > > Did they question the rigor of your analysis or your ability to execute on an ambitious plan? That’s a ***logic* problem**. > > Or did they think you might be misrepresenting some part of your story, exaggerating the upside or downplaying the risks? That’s an ***authenticity* issue**. **Stumbling on Empathy:** > Your wobble may be **empathy if people often think you care more about yourself than about others.** ...this kind of signaling is a major barrier to empowerment leadership. If people think you’re primarily in it for you, then they’re far less willing to be led by you. > > Empathy wobbles are **common among people who are analytical and driven to learn.** > > ...We advise empathy wobblers to **pay close attention to their behavior in group settings, particularly when other people have the floor.** > > **...change your objective from getting what *you* need in the meeting to making sure everyone else gets what *they* need.** In other words, take radical responsibility for everyone else in the room. **Stumbling on Logic:** > Your wobble may be logic **if people don’t always have confidence in the rigor of your ideas—or full faith in your ability** to deliver on them. The good news is the problem is typically rooted in the *perception* of wobbly logic rather than the reality of it. > > ... For most logic wobblers, however, rigor isn’t the issue. **A more likely explanation for the breakdown in trust is that you’re not communicating your ideas effectively.** **Stumbling on Authenticity:** > You may have an authenticity wobble **if people feel they’re not getting access to the “real” you**, to a full and complete accounting of what you know, think, and feel. If the version of reality you present feels overly curated or strategic, an invisible wall can form between you and the people around you. > > We’re not talking about moments of prudent self-censorship, which sometimes can’t be divorced from a larger context of bias or low [psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/). Instead, we’re talking about **inauthenticity as a *strategy* for navigating the workplace.** While this approach may help you solve short-term problems, it puts an artificial cap on trust and, by extension, your ability to lead. If we sense you’re withholding the truth or concealing your authentic self, if we don’t know what your genuine beliefs and values are, then **we’re far less willing to make ourselves vulnerable to you in the ways that leadership demands**. As Virginia Satir put it: > To be trustable I don't need to be perfect, I need to be real. ## Showing up authentically As I noted in my piece on ethos, pathos, and logos, the [whole edifice crashes if there's not enough trust and credibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#balancing-ethos-pathos-and-logos). This makes [ethos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-building-trust-and-credibility/) the base of the inverted triangle: [![Balancing ethos, pathos, and logos.Ethos is the base of the triangle.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/08/Ethos--Logos--Pathos---2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#balancing-ethos-pathos-and-logos) Authenticity however is a [paradox in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and without easy answers. E.g. you want to develop your people, but you're also the one evaluating them. You care, but not at the price of the ultimate goal. Frei and Morriss give the following **pointers to increase your authenticity** so you show up as **a human leader and not a managerial automaton**: 1. **Regaining control from our primal brain:** The survival-oriented part of our brain is excellent at protection but shouldn't always be in charge. It often misjudges threats and focuses on short-term survival rather than long-term goals. Buddhism and modern mindfulness offer tools to help manage this part of our minds. It's worth exploring these practices. 2. **Authenticity triggers:** Uncover the people or things that bring out your true self. Whether it's a loved one, a passion, or a hobby, keep these reminders close, especially in situations where you might otherwise be inauthentic. Incorporating personal stories or passions into professional scenarios helps in coming across as genuine and relatable instead of a corporate automaton. 3. **Abandon the script:** Balance logic with authenticity. While being informed and articulate is valuable, trust is built when people can see the person behind the talking points. Practice being unscripted in low-risk settings, and gradually increase the stakes as you become more comfortable. I've explored this notion in my piece on [self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/). 4. **Share your “why”:** Communicate what drives you as a leader. Sharing your core motivations builds trust, as it prevents others from making their own, possibly incorrect, assumptions about your own motivations. 5. **Learn publicly:** Allow yourself to change your views based on new information and experiences, and do so openly. This shows authenticity and encourages others to keep an open mind as well. You are in effect [modeling the very behavior that you want your teams to embody](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/). 6. **Build a supportive team:** Authenticity thrives in a team environment. Surround yourself with friends and colleagues who help you stay true to yourself. Regularly spend time with this team to maintain your authenticity. 7. **Empower others:** Focus on [empowering others as a leader](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/). The more you shift the focus away from yourself, the more your authentic self can emerge, enabling [effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/). ## Trust issues in the organization Ethos, logos, and [pathos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pathos-in-leadership/), and by extension the trust triangle, is equally applicable at the organizational level. A lack of any of the essential elements leads to what Frei and Morriss call **"trust wobbles"** at the org level. They give a checklist of the **most common trust pitfalls in organizations** and what might be causing it: - **Aversion to making choices:** Trying to please everyone or aiming to excel in all areas often leads to mediocrity. Failing to make definitive choices may feel safer, but it increases the risk of underperformance. **Trust wobble: logic.** - **Reliance on heroic employees:** Too often, business models are designed for ideal employees, not the ones you actually have. If your operations depend on employees consistently exceeding expectations, you'll need to invest heavily in finding and compensating these rare individuals – a task most organizations struggle with. **Trust wobble: logic.** - **Shiny object syndrome:** The human tendency to chase new opportunities can endanger your business model. Lack of discipline in pursuing new ventures often leads to inflated expectations and neglect of more pressing priorities, increasing risks. **Trust wobble: logic.** - **Disengaged middle management:** Middle managers often understand the gap between a company's goals and reality but are frequently overlooked during major changes. This oversight hinders the organization's ability to navigate challenges. **Trust wobble: empathy.** - **Casual relationship with other people’s time:** Many organizations waste employees' time on outdated practices and inefficient processes, leading to significant opportunity costs. Leaders must treat employees' time as a strategic asset. **Trust wobble: empathy.** - **Comfort with collateral damage:** A culture that tolerates unintentional harm, justified by a "we tried our best" mentality, can become desensitized to the consequences. This attitude is unacceptable in other areas of business and shouldn't be tolerated when it affects people. **Trust wobble: empathy.** - **High incidence of the “Sunday scaries”:** Widespread anxiety about returning to work indicates a deeper organizational issue. This strain on employees reduces their ability to contribute fully and needs to be addressed at the organizational level. **Trust wobble: empathy.** - **People-pleasing in the boardroom:** The habit of telling decision-makers what they want to hear, rather than the full truth, undermines trust. Leaders need accurate information to solve problems, and withholding or massaging reality damages trust. **Trust wobble: authenticity.** - **Tolerance for misalignment:** Misalignment between different parts of the organization, especially between strategy and culture can create significant problems. For example, an innovative strategy won’t succeed in a culture that resists change. **Trust wobble: authenticity.** - **Delusions of meritocracy:** [Claiming to be a meritocracy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/) while consistently promoting the same types of people is misleading. If leadership doesn’t reflect the diversity of the broader workforce or customer base, the claim of meritocracy is false. **Trust wobble: authenticity.** --- While I've focused on Aristotle's framework in this post, both books (see sources) by Frei and Morriss are well worth the read in their entirety, and packed with practical insights that managers can implement right away. Highly recommended. ## Related reading - An in-depth look at [what ethos, pathos, logos means in modern leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) - [**Pathos and Modern Leadership** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pathos-in-leadership/) - [**How Aristotle defined Ethos**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-building-trust-and-credibility/) - [The Johari Window method for diagnosing leadership blindspots](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) - [Authentic leadership as knowing how your people get work done](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) - [Warren Bennis on authenticity in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/warren-bennis-self-invention-authenticity-leadership/) - [The role of time in authentic leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/) - [Leaders as gardeners](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/) - [What drives human beings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) - [Why we copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/) - [How framing creates psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) ## Sources 1. [Unleashed: The Unapologetic Leader’s Guide to Empowering Everyone Around You](https://amzn.to/3Xhaij6?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Frances Frei and Anne Morriss 2. [Move Fast & Fix Things: The Trusted Leader’s Guide to Solving Hard Problems ](https://amzn.to/47fz2vL?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Frances Frei and Anne Morriss 3. Frei and Morriss' [article in HBR](https://hbr.org/2020/05/begin-with-trust?ref=leadingsapiens.com) on the trust triangle. ### Sources of Power in Organizations URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:19:03.000Z *What makes some folks and certain teams more powerful than others in organizations? What is the source of their power? In contrast, why do others despite having competence and positional authority are ineffective? This is one of a series on power in organizations. I focus on Gareth Morgan’s classic political metaphor of organizations and his findings of 14 sources of power.* --- In my coaching work, it's common to work with leaders who have hit a ceiling of sorts and want to engineer that next breakthrough. Often the answers lie not necessarily in their individual performance but instead **how well they understand and navigate the environment in which they operate**. **Like fish in water, they often don't have perspective on the waters they're swimming in.** A challenging aspect, and also elusive, of these "choppy waters" is power. Understanding how power works inside organizations is a pre-requisite for effective leadership. Some are naturals at it while the majority of us have to work to get there. By their very nature, in mid-to-large organizations teams are vying for the same resources and attention. Leaders who are adept at navigating this terrain help not just themselves and their teams, but also the organization at large by getting more things done. In contrast, those who don’t understand the underlying power dynamics fail to make an impact. In this post I look at Gareth Morgan’s findings on sources of power from his seminal ***Images of Organization***. \[1\] Although Morgan identified 14 different sources, I’ve chosen to highlight 11 of the most common ones I've seen in my own practice. For an in-depth study, I highly recommend Chapter 6 of his classic, and from which this article draws heavily. By grasping these concepts, you'll be better equipped to navigate your organization's power structure and find ways to amplify your own influence. However, don't try to implement these all at the same time. Pick one that you're deficient in and work at it consistently. Revisit this piece as often as you like! Let's get started. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## (1) Formal Authority Also known as **positional authority**, this is the form of power most of us instantly recognize and usually think of, especially in the context of org charts. Max Weber identified three types of legitimate authority : 1. Charismatic Authority: Think of that inspiring leader who seems to have a magnetic personality. It’s the Steve Jobs-like figure who can rally an entire company around a vision. 2. Traditional Authority: It's the power held by those who embody traditional values or inherited status. E.g. the family business owner whose authority stems from being part of the founding family. 3. Bureaucratic Authority: This person's power comes from their official position and adherence to company policies. Formal authority however only works if people respect it. As Weber pointed out, legitimacy is crucial. Without it, even the fanciest job title becomes meaningless. While the org chart depicts a neat top-down structure, reality is more complex. Authority is delegated from the top. But it's legitimized from the bottom. People at lower levels of the organization have more power than you might think. They're the foundation of the power pyramid, and without their buy-in, the whole structure can crumble. Unions are a prime example of how power at the bottom can be channeled to challenge authority at the top. ## (2) Control of Resources At its core, this power boils down to two key factors: scarcity and dependence. Thus the resource power equation can be expressed as: **Scarcity + Dependence = Influence.** When an organization relies on a resource that's in limited supply, those who control that resource gain influence. It's a simple principle with far-reaching implications. Consider these examples of valuable resources: - Financial capital - Specialized skills or expertise - Cutting-edge tech - Access to key customers or suppliers - Crucial information or data Any of these can become a source of power if they're both scarce and essential to the organization's operations. While all resources can be powerful, money often takes center stage. But you don't need to control the entire budget to make waves. **Often, it's the ability to influence decisions at the margins that matters most.** Why? Because most organizational budgets are already committed to ongoing operations. The real power lies in controlling those extra funds that can spark new initiatives or shift the direction of existing projects. Imagine you're a middle manager with access to a small "slush fund." By strategically allocating these resources, you can: 1. Launch pilot projects 2. Support team members' professional development 3. Invest in tools or technologies that give your department an edge Suddenly, that modest sum becomes a powerful tool for shaping the future and building alliances. While financial resources often dominate discussions of organizational power, it's crucial to recognize that other resources can be just as influential. Consider the following: 1. [Expertise power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/expert-power/): In a tech company, the lead developer with unique knowledge of a proprietary codebase holds significant sway. 2. Information power: A market research analyst with exclusive access to customer insights becomes indispensable to product development teams. 3. Relationship power: An account manager with strong connections to a key client can influence decisions. 4. Emotional support power: A trusted advisor who provides valuable counsel to top executives can shape major strategic decisions. Some pointers: 1. Identify critical resources: Analyze the organization to determine which resources are most valuable and in shortest supply. 2. Develop unique skills: Invest in building expertise that aligns with the organization's future needs. 3. Cultivate key relationships: Network strategically to gain access to important information or decision-makers. 4. Create resource buffers: When possible, maintain a reserve of critical resources. 5. Leverage marginal control: Focus on influencing decisions about discretionary resources, even if they seem small. 6. Demonstrate value: Consistently show how your command of resources contributes to organizational success. ## (3) Use of organizational structure, rules, and regulations We’re taught to view organizational structures as purely rational tools designed to enhance performance. But they're often more political than we realize. E.g. a newly promoted VP immediately starts reshuffling the deck. On paper, it's all about improving efficiency. But look closer, and you'll see an orchestrated power play. The reshuffle weakens a GM’s position, consolidating the VP's control. Later, when the VP leaves, the GM uses further structural changes to regain lost power. > Organizational structure is frequently used as a political instrument. What appears to be a simple reorganization can often be a complex dance of power and influence. Most common structural changes include: 1. Differentiation vs integration 2. Centralization vs. decentralization 3. Matrix organization tensions Each of these often have agendas related to power, autonomy, and interdepartmental relationships. Some points to consider: 1. Learn to recognize when structural changes and new rules are politically motivated. 2. Study your company's structure and rules in depth. How can you use rules and structures to your advantage? Understanding the political side of organizational structure doesn't mean playing dirty. It's about being aware, strategic, and able to navigate organizational landscapes. ## (4) Control of Decision Processes Whether you're a team leader or a PM looking to make your mark, the ability to influence decision-making processes is a crucial source of power. There are three key elements of decision control: **premises, processes, and issues themselves.** **(1) Decision Premises** Imagine you're playing chess, but instead of moving pieces, you're subtly altering the board itself. That's what controlling decision premises is all about. It's about influencing the very foundations upon which decisions are made. - Control the agenda: Be proactive in setting meeting agendas and topics for discussion. - Guide attention: Steer conversations towards issues that support a given viewpoint. - Shape organizational culture: Influence the unspoken rules and "the way we do things around here." By shaping underlying factors, you're not just influencing a single decision – you're setting the stage for countless future decisions. **(2) Decision Processes** While controlling premises is often subtle, mastering decision-making processes is about orchestrating the "how," "who," and "when" of decision-making. - Choose the right forum: Decide whether a decision should be made in a committee, one-on-one, or through a formal report. - Set the timing: Determine when a decision will be made and in what order on the agenda. - Select participants: Influence who will be involved in the decision-making process. **(3) Influencing Issues and Objectives** Last but not least, controlling the very issues and objectives at hand is a potent way to shape decisions. This is where your ability to frame the conversation and set evaluation criteria comes into play. - Prepare compelling reports: Use data and analysis to support your preferred direction. - Emphasize key constraints: Highlight factors that naturally lead to your desired outcome. - Set the evaluation criteria: Influence how alternatives will be judged. > Eloquence, command of the facts, passionate commitment, or sheer tenacity or endurance can in the end win the day, adding to a person's power to influence the decisions with which he or she is involved. > > — Gareth Morgan By mastering the three elements of decision control, you can significantly increase your influence within an organization by guiding it towards better outcomes. ## (5) Control of knowledge and information We've all heard the phrase "knowledge is power," but in the corporate world, this takes on a whole new meaning. Information gatekeeping is like playing chess with a blindfold; while you struggle to make decisions based on limited visibility, those with full access to information hold a powerful advantage in shaping outcomes and strategies. These folks understand a fundamental truth: **if you control what people know, you control how they act.** How do they do it? 1. Filtering information: Deciding what data reaches which people. 2. Timing: Releasing information at strategic moments. 3. Interpreting data: Providing analysis that shapes perceptions. 4. Structuring communication channels: Influencing who talks to whom. They're able to define the organizational reality for others, creating a landscape where their interests are front and center. But it's not just individuals who wield this power. Often, it's baked into the very structure of the organization. E.g.: - Hierarchies: Information typically flows from top to bottom, giving those at the top an inherent advantage. - Departmental divisions: Silos can create information monopolies. - Centralized systems: Think of the traditional IT department controlling access to crucial data. But information control isn't just about gatekeeping. It's also about positioning yourself as indispensable: 1. Develop unique skills or knowledge 2. Limit access to crucial information 3. Become the go-to person for synthesizing complex data This creates what some call **"expert power."** And it's a force to be reckoned with. Of course, organizations aren't blind to these dynamics. Many take steps to break down information monopolies by cross-training and encouraging knowledge sharing to reduce reliance on individuals. Some takeaways: 1. Be aware of [information flows](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/) in your organization. 2. Question the "official" interpretations of data. 3. Seek out multiple sources of information. 4. Develop your own expertise, but also be willing to share it. 5. Push for more transparent systems. Next time you're in a meeting or reading a report, ask: who's shaping the information I'm seeing, and why? ## (6) Control of boundaries Boundary management is about controlling the flow of information and resources between different parts of an organization. It's like the bouncer deciding who gets in, who stays out, and what information passes through. How does boundary management work in practice? 1. Information control: By managing the flow of information, you can shape how others perceive reality. It's not about lying or hiding the truth, but instead about curating and contextualizing information. 2. Access management: Controlling who gets access to key decision-makers can significantly influence outcomes. 3. Resource allocation: By managing the distribution of resources across boundaries, you can create dependencies and leverage points. 4. Environmental scanning: Keeping an eye on what's happening outside your unit allows you to anticipate changes and respond proactively. Boundary management isn't just about accumulating personal power. When done right, it can be a force for good in an organization by: - Improving integration: By facilitating communication between different units, boundary managers help break down silos and improve overall organizational effectiveness. - Buffering: As managers, boundary management involves protecting your team from external pressures, allowing them to focus on their core tasks. - Enabling innovation: By bringing in fresh ideas from outside and connecting different parts of the organization, boundary managers can spark innovation. A few tips: 1. Build a wide network across different parts of your organization. 2. Pay attention to information flows - what's being said, and more importantly, what's not being said. 3. Look for opportunities to facilitate connections between different units or teams. 4. Be proactive in scanning your environment for changes that could impact your team or organization. **Effective boundary management is as much about building bridges as it is about controlling access.** It's about becoming **a valuable node** in your organization's network, someone who can connect the dots and facilitate positive outcomes. ## (7) Control of Technology Technology in the workplace is like a magnifying glass for power dynamics. It amplifies existing structures and can create entirely new ones. One of the ways it influences power is through the interdependence it creates. E.g. if process A must be completed as a requisite for process B, teams at each stage hold significant power. When organizations introduce new technologies, they often aim to increase efficiency or control. However, these changes can have unexpected effects on power structures. Technological changes are never neutral. They reshape the organizational landscape in ways that can be difficult to predict. Given the high stakes involved, it's no surprise that technological changes often become hotly contested issues. When managing these transitions: 1. Anticipate resistance: Understand that groups losing power will likely push back. 2. Involve stakeholders: Include those affected by the change in the planning process. 3. Consider unintended consequences: Think beyond the immediate goals of the change. 4. Provide training and support: Help people adapt to new systems and roles. 5. Be transparent: Clearly communicate the reasons for and impacts of the change. Understanding **the power implications of technology** is crucial. It's not just about mastering the latest tech; it's about recognizing how these tools reshape relationships and influence within your organization. So, the next time you encounter a new piece of technology, look beyond its features and functions. Ask: **How might this change the power dynamics? Who stands to gain or lose influence?** ## (8) Alliances and informal organization While skills and knowledge are undoubtedly important, the power of interpersonal connections in the workplace cannot be ignored. Workplaces are like complex ecosystems. While the formal organizational chart may show clear lines of authority, there's an entirely different network operating beneath the surface. > The informal organization is like the nervous system of a company. It's where information flows fastest, decisions are influenced, and real power often resides. Key components of this “informal organization” include: 1. Friends with power (not just positional) 2. Mentors and sponsors 3. Cultural or ethnic affiliations 4. Coalitions and alliances 5. Informal communication channels Within these networks, informal leaders often emerge as powerful influencers. These individuals may not have official titles, but they sure wield significant sway. Steps to build your own informal network and strategic alliances: 1. Identify key players: Map out who holds influence in your organization, both formal and informal. 2. Cultivate relationships: Attend social events, join professional groups, and seek out opportunities to connect. 3. Offer value: Look for ways to help others and build a reputation as a reliable and resourceful team member. 4. Bridge divides: Connect with people across departments and hierarchical levels to expand your influence. 5. Find common ground: Look for shared interests or goals, even among those who may seem like potential adversaries. 6. [Think long-term](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/long-term-thinking-careers-practice-art/) and be patient: Build relationships beyond immediate needs, focusing on mutual benefits over time. Recognize that coalition-building is often a long-term investment. ## (9) Symbolism and management of meaning Symbolic power is the ability to shape reality through the management of meaning. It's a skill that sets apart truly transformative leaders from those who simply occupy a position of authority. Three aspects that can elevate your leadership game are: **(1) Imagery and** [**framing**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) Imagine walking into a boardroom where the CEO consistently refers to the team as a "wolf pack" and the market as a "hunting ground." This isn't just colorful language—it's a deliberate use of imagery to shape how others perceive their roles and the company's mission. Successful leaders understand that words matter. They carefully choose metaphors, stories, and symbols that resonate with their team and align with organizational goals. By doing so, they're not just communicating—they're crafting a shared reality that drives motivation and performance. Pay attention to the images and language you use. Are they inspiring the right mindset? **(2) Organizational stagecraft** Ever noticed how some executives seem to command attention the moment they enter a room? That's no accident—it's organizational theater in action. Savvy leaders carefully curate their environment and appearance to reinforce their authority and influence. It's not about being inauthentic; it's about understanding that every interaction is an opportunity to communicate one's vision and values. **(3) Gamesmanship** In organizational politics, some leaders excel by treating it as a strategic game. Effective gamesmanship requires understanding the unwritten rules of your organization. It's about being politically savvy and strategic in your interactions. For example, a skilled organizational player might: - Build alliances with key stakeholders before important decisions - Use selective visibility to enhance their perceived importance - Master the art of timing when presenting ideas or concerns Mastering symbolic power is about more than just individual techniques—it's about integrating these elements into **a cohesive**[ **leadership style**.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/) [Reflecting on your own leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) style, consider: - How can you use imagery more effectively to communicate your vision? - What aspects of your "organizational stagecraft" need fine-tuning? - What unwritten rules can you leverage? ## (10) Ability to cope with uncertainty From market fluctuations to technological glitches, organizations face a myriad of unpredictable situations daily. Those who can effectively manage these uncertainties often become the most powerful players. Uncertainty in organizations typically comes in two flavors: 1. Environmental uncertainties: external factors like market trends, supply chain or financial fluctuations. 2. Operational uncertainties: internal issues such as equipment breakdowns or data errors. Those who can navigate these murky waters gain a significant advantage. Peter Drucker is supposed to have said, "The best way to predict the future is to create it." In the context of organizational uncertainty, **those who can "create" certainty out of chaos become indispensable.** The power of “uncertainty tamers” stems from two factors: 1. Irreplaceability: How difficult is it to find someone else with their skills? 2. Centrality: How crucial is their role to the organization's overall operations? The more irreplaceable and central they are, the more power they wield. While organizations strive to minimize uncertainties, those who benefit from them may actually work to maintain them. Organizations employ various strategies to reduce uncertainties: - Building up resource reserves - Implementing preventive measures - Training staff to handle contingencies However, as Murphy's Law states, "Anything that can go wrong, will go wrong." Some level of uncertainty will always remain. Some pointers: 1. Develop skills in managing uncertainty in your area of expertise 2. Stay alert to both environmental and operational uncertainties 3. Foster cross-unit relationships to better understand and manage interdependencies 4. Be transparent about uncertainties to build trust and avoid power plays When faced with an uncertain situation at work, ask yourself: "How can I turn this uncertainty into an opportunity?" **Can you and your team become the go-to problem solvers your organization can't live without?** ## (11) Power you already have This is perhaps the **most underrated and thus overlooked aspect of power**: you probably already have enough to make a dent. **The IOU economy.** Imagine you go out on a limb to support a colleague in a crucial project. Months later, when you need backing for your own initiative, that same colleague is more than happy to return the favor. This is the essence of the IOU economy in action. > Power used judiciously is like an investment. It often pays dividends when you need it most. Here's how you can start building your own power network: - Identify opportunities to help others without immediate expectation of return - Keep a mental (even physical) ledger of favors given and received - Learn to ask for support when you need it, referencing past assistance **The honeypot effect.** Have you noticed how successful folks seem to attract even more success? That's the honey pot effect in action. Your existing power acts like a magnet, drawing in others who want to get in on the action. To leverage the honey pot effect: - Showcase your achievements and influence (without bragging) - Create opportunities for others to align with your vision - Be generous with your support, creating a cycle of reciprocity **Success breeds success.** Remember the first time you achieved something you thought was impossible? That rush of accomplishment, that surge of confidence? That's the empowerment cycle kicking in. Some pointers: 1. Use your existing power strategically to build a network of support 2. Leverage your influence to attract more opportunities and allies 3. Build confidence through [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/), leading to bigger successes Remember, you might not recognize the power you already have. It's up to you to recognize it, nurture it, and use it to effect the change you want. --- Understanding and strategically applying the principles of power is a powerful tool in a leader's arsenal. By identifying critical sources of power and thoughtfully wielding your influence, you can enhance your leadership capacity. True organizational power isn't about domination or control—it's about creating value. Use your understanding of power wisely, and you'll find yourself at the center of your organization's most important initiatives and decisions. ## Related Reading - How leaders influence their team's [locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) and [context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). - [Small Wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) \- most folks fail to understand its nuances. - Henry Mintzberg on managing [the flow of information and influence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/) - [Language and leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). ## Sources 1. [Images of Organization](https://amzn.to/3XcVBNS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Gareth Morgan ### Assertive Inquiry URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/assertive-inquiry/ Last updated: 2024-08-16T19:30:14.000Z *Can* [*balancing advocacy with inquiry*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) *be implemented at an organizational level? Turns out, you can.* *Roger Martin is one of the world's foremost experts on strategy and a former dean of the Rotman School of Management. He shares an example at P&G where giving equal importance to inquiry in addition to the default mode of advocacy was a key driver in implementing new strategies and adopting the behaviors to support them.* *He calls it "assertive inquiry".* --- ## What is assertive inquiry In [The Opposable Mind](https://amzn.to/4dO0OBv?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Martin defines *Assertive Inquiry* as: > The third **important tool for the integrative thinker** is assertive inquiry. Integrative thinkers use it to explore opposing models, and in particular, models that oppose their own. > > When we interact with other people on the basis of a particular[ mental model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/), we usually try to defend that model against any challenges. Our energy goes into explaining our model to others and defending it from criticism. **Parrying critiques of our model gives us a deeper understanding of it, but it teaches us nothing about the models other people hold in their heads**. In fact, the defensive stance helps ensure that we never learn anything about models that might oppose our own. And that **keeps us from finding clues that might lead to a creative resolution** should our mental model come into conflict with someone else’s mental model. > > **The antidote to advocacy is inquiry**, which produces meaningful dialogue. When you use assertive inquiry to investigate someone else’s mental model, you find saliencies that wouldn’t have occurred to you and causal relationships you didn’t perceive. You may not want to adopt the mental model as your own, but even the least compelling model can provide clues to saliencies or causal relationships that will generate a creative resolution. > > **Assertive inquiry’s intent isn’t argumentative, and its method isn’t to ask leading questions** (“don’t you think that . . . ?”) or discourage challenge (“wouldn’t you agree that that . . . ?”). > > **Assertive inquiry involves a sincere search for another’s views** (“could you please help me understand how you came to believe that?”) and tries to fill in gaps of understanding (“could you clarify that point for me with an illustration or example?”). It seeks common ground between conflicting models (“how does what you are saying overlap, if at all, with what I suggested?”). > > **Assertive inquiry isn’t a form of challenge, but it is pointed**. It explicitly seeks to explore the underpinnings of your own model and that of another person. Its aim is to learn about the salient data and causal maps baked into another person’s model, then use the insight gained to fashion a creative resolution of the conflict between that person’s model and your own. > > **Assertive inquiry** **promotes generative reasoning and causal modeling**. It enables generative reasoning by breaking down conflicting models into pieces that can be recombined into something better than either of the two models that are in conflict. And **assertive inquiry produces more robust causal modeling by enlisting more minds** to explore and map the material and teleological links that undergird the conflicting models. Assertive inquiry is one way to get better at the ethos and pathos in the [Aristotelian triad of ethos, pathos, and logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/). For a more in-depth look at [what balancing advocacy and inquiry means](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/), check out this piece: [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/08/1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) ## Assertive inquiry at the org level In his strategy treatise [Playing to Win](https://amzn.to/3YHq3RF?ref=leadingsapiens.com) along with former P&G CEO A.G. Lafley, Martin highlights how assertive inquiry was implemented at the organizational level in what he calls "new norms for dialogue". This indeed is a new norm because in most workplaces, and especially amongst leaders, there's too much advocacy and not enough of inquiry. **Organizations are often gladiatorial battlefields** with persons and groups pitching for their own positions in a winner-take-all matchup. No wonder Martin calls inquiry as the "anti-dote" and outlines 3 key tools they used at P&G. He explains: > In any conversation, organizational or otherwise, people tend to overuse one particular rhetorical tool at the expense of all the others. **People’s default mode of communication tends to be advocacy**—argumentation in favor or their own conclusions and theories, statements about the truth of their own point of view. To create the kind of strategy dialogue we wanted at P&G, people had to shift from that approach to a very different one. > > The kind of dialogue we wanted to foster is called ***assertive inquiry***. Built on the work of organizational learning theorist Chris Argyris at Harvard Business School, this approach blends the **explicit expression of your own thinking (advocacy) with a sincere exploration of the thinking of others (inquiry)**. In other words, it means clearly articulating your own ideas and sharing the data and reasoning behind them, while genuinely inquiring into the thoughts and reasoning of your peers. > > To do this effectively, individuals need to embrace **a particular stance about their role in a discussion**. The stance we tried to instill at P&G was a reasonably straightforward but traditionally underused one: **“I have a view worth hearing, but I may be missing something.”** It sounds simple, but this stance has a dramatic effect on group behavior if everyone in the room holds it. Individuals try to explain their own thinking—because they do have a view worth hearing. So, they advocate as clearly as possible for their own perspective. But because they remain open to the possibility that they may be missing something, **two very important things happen.** > > One, they advocate their view as a possibility, not as the single right answer. Two, they listen carefully and ask questions about alternative views. Why? Because, **if they might be missing something, the best way to explore that possibility is to understand not what others see, but what they do not**. > > Contrast this to managers who come into the room with the objective of convincing others they are right. They will advocate their position in the strongest possible terms, seeking to convince others and to win the argument. They will be less inclined to listen, or they will listen with the intent of finding flaws in other arguments. **Such a stance is a recipe for discord and impasse**. > > We wanted to open dialogue and increase understanding through a [balance of advocacy and inquiry.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) > > This approach includes **three key tools:** > (1) **advocating your own position and then inviting responses** (e.g., “This is how I see the situation, and why; to what extent do you see it differently?”); > (2) **paraphrasing what you believe to be the other person’s view** and **inquiring as to the validity of your understanding** (e.g., “It sounds to me like your argument is this; to what extent does that capture your argument accurately?”); and > (3) **explaining a gap in your understanding of the other person’s views, and asking for more information** (e.g., “It sounds like you think this acquisition is a bad idea. I’m not sure I understand how you got there. Could you tell me more?”). > > These kinds of phrases, which blend advocacy and inquiry, can have a powerful effect on the group dynamic. While it may feel more forceful to advocate, **advocacy is actually a weaker move than balancing advocacy and inquiry**. Inquiry leads the other person to genuinely reflect and hear your advocacy rather than ignoring it and making their own advocacy in response. > > We actively fostered this approach to communication at P&G, encouraging dialogue in the strategy review sessions, in one-on-one meetings, and all the way to the boardroom. The goal was to **create a culture of inquiry that would surface productive tensions to inform smarter choices**. The explicit goal was to create strategists at all levels of the organization. ... > > Taking a group of individual high achievers and asking them to work together to craft strategy is no simple matter. Since strategic choice is a judgment call in which nobody can prove that a particular strategy is right or the best in advance, there is a fundamental challenge to coming to organizational decisions on strategy. Everyone selects and interprets data about the world and comes to a unique conclusion about the best course of action. Each person tends to embrace a single strategic choice as the right answer. That naturally leads to **the inclination to attack the supporting logic of opposing choices, creating entrenchment and extremism, rather than collaboration and deep consideration** of the ideas. > > To overcome this tendency, **P&G needed to create a culture of inquiry and norms of communication** that allowed individuals and teams to be more rather than less productive. ## Related reading - [Uncovering hidden mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be half-baked, often useless in practice. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) - [The Ladder of Inference model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - Implementing this approach along with the ladder of inference to run [more effective meetings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/). ## Sources 1. [The Opposable Mind ](https://amzn.to/4dO0OBv?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Roger Martin 2. [Playing to Win](https://amzn.to/3YHq3RF?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Roger Martin, AG Lafley ### Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Modern Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:32:03.000Z *The framework of *ethos, pathos, and logos* was developed in the 4th century BC by Aristotle. It’s a simple but also robust model for effective persuasion and communication that has withstood the test of time. And yet *most leaders are either unaware or it, or don’t really know it's importance* and sequence. In this piece, I examine what ethos, pathos, and logos are, why they’re critical to* [*effective leadership*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/)*, and *how to develop them*.* - [Aristotle’s Ethos, Pathos, and Logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#aristotle%E2%80%99s-ethos-pathos-and-logos) - [What is Ethos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#what-is-ethos) - [How to develop Ethos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#how-to-develop-ethos) - [What is Pathos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#what-is-pathos) - [How to develop Pathos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#how-to-develop-pathos) - [What is Logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#what-is-logos) - [How to develop Logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#how-to-develop-logos) - [Balancing Ethos, Pathos, and Logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#balancing-ethos-pathos-and-logos) - [Why Ethos, Pathos, and Logos matter in modern leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#why-ethos-pathos-and-logos-matter-in-modern-leadership) - [Related reading](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/#related-reading) --- ## Aristotle’s Ethos, Pathos, and Logos There are numerous articulations of the framework, but it’s best to start at the source. In his classic Rhetoric, Aristotle mentions three kinds of what he calls **“rhetorical influencing”** \[1,2\] and defines **the three essential elements of persuasive communication:** ethos (credibility), pathos (emotion), and logos (logic): > The first kind of persuasion, the ethos depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second the pathos on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third the logos on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself. He explains: > Persuasion is achieved by the **speaker’s personal character** when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible. We believe good men more fully and more readily than others: this is true generally whatever the question is, and absolutely true where exact certainty is impossible and opinions are divided. ... It is not true, as some writers assume in their treatises on rhetoric, that the personal goodness revealed by the speaker contributes nothing to his power of persuasion; on the contrary, his character may almost be called **the most effective means of persuasion** he possesses. > > Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, **when the speech stirs their emotions**. Our judgments when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile. It is towards producing these effects, as we maintain, that present-day writers on rhetoric direct the whole of their efforts. … > > Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the **persuasive arguments** suitable to the case in question. Aristotle taught this framework to Alexander the Great in the context of charisma, oratory, and communication. However, this is equally applicable to the wider domain of leadership. How so? Because **all three combine to what essentially adds up to trust in you and your leadership**. And without the key element of trust, effective leadership is almost impossible. Let’s examine closely what ethos, pathos, and logos are, how they relate to each other, and how you can build each aspect in your leadership. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is Ethos Ethos is the leader’s character, credibility, and authenticity. It’s your ability to convey integrity and goodwill, while also establishing authority and expertise in a domain. Ethos is communicated through tone, style, communication skills, and body language. How you deliver a message impacts how credible you come across. And this aspect of ethos is what often gets the most attention. **However, ethos is also about aspects that are built over time**: your reputation, consistency in words and actions, and the combination of trust and expertise. Ethos can be characterized as authenticity, trustworthiness, character, and credibility. These cannot be manufactured overnight, and **people “know when they see it”**. **It’s important to note the order in which Aristotle put the three**. He gives ethos the top priority and logic the last. This is interesting because many leaders rely too much on logic and so-called “data”, and don’t pay as much attention to pathos or ethos. In the section on balancing the three, I delve further into how ethos compares with pathos and logos. ### How to develop Ethos While most leaders intuitively understand the importance of ethos, it can also be the most elusive because many of its aspects require time. But done consistently, it’s very much doable. Here are some pointers to build your ethos (authenticity, credibility, character): - Establish common ground and understand where your team/audience are coming from. If they don’t think you actually get their challenges, you won’t appear credible and words will fall flat. This is the underlying notion behind the clichéd but always true line, **“People do not care how much you know until they know how much you care.”** - Have a track record of knowledge base and integrity in both words and actions. **Consistency in actions and messaging** helps builds trust over time. When you consistently follow up on promises and maintain a steady course, it creates a reliable and trustworthy image. People are more likely to believe and support leaders who are predictable in their values and behavior. - **Do the work** to build competence and experience in your domain. But you also have to “**show your work**”. Don’t assume your audience already knows. Sharing relevant experiences and highlighting your understanding of complex issues helps to establish authority and credibility. - Do the hard things, make tough decisions, and do what others won’t do out of fear. It's more existential and I call it "[**organizational courage**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/)". **If you don't step out of your comfort zone, why should your team?** - Encourage open exploration of ideas, including **letting others challenge your own notions**. - Have a clear recognition of where you are competent and where you need help. You don’t have to rest on your laurels, but also be aware of your strengths and achievements and stay open to keep learning. - Know [how your people actually get work done](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) instead of leading by proxy. - One way you can increase your ethos is [to balance advocacy with inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/). Many leaders are naturally prone to **too much advocacy, and not enough inquiry, which hurts their credibility**. Roger Martin calls this[ assertive inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/assertive-inquiry/). Building a reputation for being reliable, ethical, and effective takes time, but is a critical aspect of establishing long-term credibility. You also have to be mindful of how others see you. A useful tool to identify personal blindspots is [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/). More on [how Aristotle defined Ethos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-building-trust-and-credibility/). ## What is Pathos > The heart has its reasons which reason knows not of. > > — Blaise Pascal Pathos is the persuasive element that appeals to people’s emotions. It’s not your passion per se, but instead understanding and engaging that of your audience. Do they feel the same way you do about your topic? Do you know how they actually feel? It's your ability to create **a connection that goes beyond pure logic**. Pathos relies on mental images, relationships, and stories to appeal to people’s hearts rather than just their minds. It means understanding, aligning, and empathizing with emotions such as anger, fear, shame, pity, and even envy. It often provides the impetus for action and is **essential for inspiring movement on a large scale**. ### How to develop Pathos - Invest the time and effort required to really understand people’s feelings, desires, fears, attitudes, and values. Don’t rely on plain logic or dismiss it as “they need to grow up”, or that “it should be obvious”. - We human beings understand stories much more than facts and figures. It’s one reason **why politicians use and misuse them** extensively. - Understanding the situation from the other’s perspective while sounding straightforward is never easy. One tool to get better at this is [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). - Your own **personal stories and experiences** go a long way in how well people can relate and connect with you. Shared experiences are even better. - Understand [how to manage context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) and the use of [framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) to guide teams in the right direction without having to dictate or control. More on [pathos in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pathos-in-leadership/). ## What is Logos Logos relies on logic, reason, and clear articulation of ideas. It involves using logical arguments, data, consequences, and scientific proof to appeal to your audience's intellect. It means ensuring consistency in arguments, presenting clear claims, and providing supporting evidence. Logos is your rationale for taking action. It focuses on presenting facts and conveying them clearly, providing a rigorous case for your approach. ### How to develop Logos **Most modern-day leaders are already pretty good in this area, almost to a point of fault.** The problem lies in relying too much on logic and forgetting about the other two. Below are a couple of pointers that are often missed: - [Show your reasoning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/#4-explain-your-reasoning-and-intent) and how you reached your conclusions, instead of assuming that your audience is already up to speed. **The very act of showing your process increases credibility**. - Messages require repetition and variation over time before they sink in. A **one-time amazing speech is far less effective than a mediocre message done consistently and variedly**. ## Balancing Ethos, Pathos, and Logos Perhaps the most important, but also an often neglected aspect of Aristotle’s framework is what he put first and what was last. **He put Ethos at the forefront while logic came last.** > Character may almost be called the most effective means of persuasion. > — Aristotle With a solid base of credibility, you can tweak your message and approach based on your audience — **technical audiences will lean more towards analytical logic (logos) while broader audiences will need more emphasis on storytelling and emotions (pathos)**. But leaders have to be careful here — leaning too much on either pathos or logos hurts trustworthiness. Most importantly, the **effectiveness of both logos and pathos relies on a solid base of authenticity (ethos) of the leader**. We can visualize this framework **as an inverted triangle** with pathos and logos at either ends, and ethos forming the apex and base of the triangle. ![Ethos, Pathos, and Logos. Aristotle.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/08/Ethos--Logos--Pathos---2.png) To be effective, you need to have all three. However, I would argue that **no amount of pathos or logos can overcome a lack of ethos aka character and authenticity**. Thus, ethos anchors the triangle and why I’ve chosen to depict it that way. **When trust is lacking, the whole edifice becomes wobbly and untenable.** It’s no wonder that Aristotle deemed ethos the most important element of persuasion, and by extension of leadership. [Frances Frei and Anne Morriss call this the Trust Triangle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/trust-triangle-frei-morriss/) of leadership. ## Why Ethos, Pathos, and Logos matter in modern leadership Aristotle’s framework is over 2,000 years old, but perhaps much more relevant to modern-day managers. As noted earlier, most leaders by default are strong in the logic and analytical aspects. **What many lack is an equal grounding in the ethos and pathos aspects of their leadership.** Why does an over-emphasis on logic often fall short? - We are increasingly working in complexity where one person, even entire teams, don’t have all the answers. This means the leader’s ability to work with a wide range of stakeholders is key. It’s difficult to do that without having pathos and credibility. The same goes for drawing out the best from your teams. - Increasing ambiguity means there’s not always a clear pathway or solution to complex problems. How teams respond to a situation often depends on the [leader’s ability to create the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) within which teams take actions. Ethos, pathos, and logos is an essential framework to help create that context. - In increasingly flat and matrixed organizations, **positional authority can only go so far**. To be effective, you have to work across a wide range of positions regardless of authority, and frequently with a complete lack of it. - Leading in crisis by definition, requires a grounding in ethos and pathos, and not just logic. - [People copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/). Ethos reverberates throughout the org in everyone’s actions. - The combination of logos (providing rationale for change) and pathos (providing impetus for action) is crucial for successful change efforts, which often affects folks at an emotional level. Ethos, pathos, and logos are not just abstract concepts but essential tools for leaders. A strong foundation in all three aspects makes for resilient leadership that’s adaptive and responsive. When balanced well, **they help to build a solid base of trust that is the very foundation of** [**effective leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/)**.** ## Related reading - Leaders have a big impact on their team’s [locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/). Balancing ethos, pathos, and logos goes a long way in ensuring it’s going in the right direction. [Locus of Control: A Leadership PerspectiveLocus of control refers to how we view circumstances in terms of the amount of control we have over situations and the experiences that affect us. I look at locus of control specifically in the context of leadership and management: how locus of control impacts leadership performance, and how it![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/04/Locus-of-control---internal-vs-external.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/) - Balancing [advocacy with inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/): [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/05/1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) - Why [Netflix leads with context not control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/): [Why Netflix Leads with Context not ControlControl was the dominant management paradigm in early twentieth century industrial factories. A century later, in many modern workplaces it continues to be dominant and mostly goes unquestioned. Often we don’t even realize that this is the case. But in knowledge work, context is a far more effective and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Leading-through-Context-not-Control.excalidraw.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) - [Johari Window (for identifying blindspots in perceptions)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/): [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/1--Johari-Window---A-guide.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) - Challenges of [experts transitioning into leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/): [Challenges of Experts Transitioning into LeadershipTransitioning into leadership roles can be especially challenging for experts/specialists. The domains of competence framework explains why.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=MnwxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDE5fHxibHVlfGVufDB8fHx8MTY1Mzc1MTg2NA&ixlib=rb-1.2.1&q=80&w=2000)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/) ## Sources 1. [Rhetoric](https://amzn.to/3X2sqNw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Aristotle (W. Rhys Roberts, Trans.) 2. [The Nature of Leadership](https://amzn.to/4dL6zzS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) (editors John Antonakis, David V. Day) 3. [classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html](http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/rhetoric.1.i.html?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. [Resonate: Present Visual Stories that Transform Audiences](https://amzn.to/3X4Q6kj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Nancy Duarte 5. [Encyclopedia of Leadership](https://amzn.to/3SR8g6L?ref=leadingsapiens.com) (editors George R. Goethals, Georgia J. Sorenson, James MacGregor Burns) ### Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/ Last updated: 2026-02-25T19:02:19.000Z *Most advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to *balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry*. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical leadership skill of balancing advocacy and inquiry.* --- ## What is Advocacy Many of us are told to "be more assertive". However, this well-meaning advice, when taken to its logical extreme, is anything but effective. Most common interpretations of being more assertive simply leads to the person increasing what Harvard and MIT researchers Chris Argyris and Donald Schon called *advocacy*. Put simply, advocacy means putting forward our views directly and working to convince others of their validity. In pure advocacy mode, the primary focus is on stating and going to bat for our own standpoint, being vocal about them and defending it. Most generic advice teaches getting better at advocacy — pushing, packaging, and polishing your own ideas and yourself. Notice how the focus is often on improving YOU– your delivery, style, viewpoint, even appearance, and so on. ## The problem of too much Advocacy Advocacy comes easier, especially to leaders and experts because : - There’s a need to prove expertise. - The notion that they have to persuade, pitch and inspire. - We are not comfortable with silence, so we talk. - We are naturally enthusiastic about our viewpoints, and averse to opposing viewpoints. Because of this cultural bias, we are essentially skewed in our approach— too much advocacy and not enough inquiry. ![Too much advocacy. Not enough inquiry.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/05/2.png) This undue focus on advocacy works for the most part. But it also means we inevitably hit a point where increased advocacy alone simply won’t cut it. In fact, too much of advocacy instead of increasing resonance with our message has the opposite effect of increasing resistance. It starts a vicious cycle. Because increasing advocacy, without enough inquiry, means we don’t understand the other’s position and in fact threaten it. This causes them to increase their own advocacy, leading to an increasing spiral of opposition and resistance. ![The vicious cycle of advocacy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/05/5-1.png) This dynamic ultimately leads to entrenched positions lacking in trust and leading to an impasse. It’s one reason why teams often feel unheard and don’t have buy-in into new initiatives pushed from the top-down. So how can we get better at advocacy and prevent triggering this vicious cycle? The antidote is twofold: - getting better at advocacy itself, and - increasing inquiry that balances out and informs our advocacy Advocacy when done well leverages key aspects of [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). Bill Noonan \[4\] describes it this way: > Advocacy is essentially the Ladder of Inference in action. Spoken statements disclose the data selected as important, the meaning attached, and the conclusion drawn. The immediate effect on a business conversation is that the focus shifts from general, vague abstractions that are prone to misunderstandings and miscommunications to concrete, clear statements containing data-rich information. The results are > > • Ideas that remain agile and innovative > • Increased levels of shared understanding for goals, ideas, and plans > • Clear, more compelling communication Let's look at the second aspect which is increasing inquiry. ## What is Inquiry > You must simultaneously be aggressive and vulnerable with your viewpoint. > > — Chris Argyris \[4\] Inquiry is less common but in many ways a lot more crucial than advocacy. It happens when we ask questions to gain clarity on the other’s expressed opinions or positions. It’s about exploring their perspectives and scrutinizing our own to deepen mutual understanding. Balancing advocacy requires expressing strong opinions while remaining open to opposition. We assert our views clearly and encourage others to contest them. The balance is maintained by genuinely attempting to comprehend and appreciate the reasoning behind others' viewpoints, and by a willingness to reassess our own assumptions. Bill Noonan \[4\] defines inquiry as: > …a skill of asking well-crafted questions to discover more information in others’ views or invite challenge to one’s own viewpoint. Through the effective practice of inquiry, members of an organization will be better able to invite challenge to their own thinking and collect the best possible thinking available in their organization. The results are > > • Faster discovery and correction of errors > • The ability to draw more information from another’s perspective > • Broader group learning through the surfacing of diverse perspectives Persuasion is often couched in the context of charm and what we do and think, instead of understanding and what “they” do and think. There is as much logic and depth in the other’s view as in yours, and also more common ground between the two views than we are used to thinking. Inquiry is very different from just plain “listening”, and then waiting your turn to restart your advocacy. It’s about getting into “their shoes” and seeing their viewpoint. What’s interesting about inquiry is that the more you do it, the more effective your advocacy becomes. Your inquiry increases reflection on the part of others, which in effect creates a virtuous cycle different from the vicious cycle of advocacy. ![The virtuous cycle of inquiry.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/05/6.png) By acknowledging and understanding differing viewpoints, we are making them part of our argument and in effect strengthening, not weakening our position. And this goes against how we are often taught to think in terms of debate and argument instead of a generative dialogue that creates possibilities. Fames strategist Roger Martin calls this approach [assertive inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/assertive-inquiry/). ## Balancing Advocacy and Inquiry When focussed exclusively on advocacy we get the two extremes of: - Passive (not enough) - Assertive (too much) The moment you add INQUIRY into the picture, suddenly the range of available options increases. Mapping them gives the different modalities we can operate in each with its own pros and cons. ![Balancing advocacy and inquiry - the four quadrants.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/05/3.png) The matrix gives 4 primary modalities: - Passive: Low Advocacy/Low Inquiry - Assertive: High Advocacy/Low Inquiry - Accommodating: Low Advocacy/High Inquiry - Integrative: High Advocacy/High Inquiry Bear in mind, none of these by themselves are bad or good. It depends on what the situation requires, and what will have the most impact. The mistake is to operate exclusively in one mode. That's how your message doesn't go anywhere, or you end up in an impasse. Or the opposite of not being able to promote your agenda. This means even within the 4 quadrants, there are effective and not so effective ways of approaching conversations. Each of the 4 quadrants has its own version of positive/negative, doing too much/too little, or with sincere/insincere intentions. ![Balancing advocacy and inquiry - the four quadrants further defined.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/05/4.png) Some pointers: - *Observing* is a better term for the "passive" stance. The extreme is of *withdrawing*, where there’s an unwillingness to expose our own thinking. The more skilled form is *sense-making*. - In the classic *telling* (assertive) mode, the sensible version is *explaining* while the non-inquiry version is *dictating* without making your own reasoning visible. - In the *asking/accommodating* mode — you can be interrogating by peppering someone with questions, or be more of a conversational *interviewing* mode. - You can combine high advocacy and inquiry, but done insincerely and without an intent to learn, it becomes *politicking*. When done with skill and intent, it leads to a *skillful discussion* that integrates viewpoints and generates new possibilities. - Business conversations typically fall into the high advocacy/low inquiry category. In such discussions, we impose our singular perspectives based on our own observations of a situation. To achieve better understanding and more possibilities, leaders have to shift towards a stance of **high inquiry and low advocacy**. Everyone has a tendency for either advocacy or inquiry based on their background and natural inclinations. Studying the different modes and increasing awareness of your default approach is a good place to start making changes. ## How to balance advocacy with inquiry Below are some pointers for getting better at balancing advocacy and inquiry: - Explain your point of view, including the reasoning behind how you got there. - State your thoughts clearly and confidently, while also being receptive to the possibility of being incorrect. - Invite others to ask questions about your standpoint. Encourage them to challenge your views while examining potential barriers that might deter them from doing so. - Ask others genuinely about their perspective. Aim both to comprehend and to challenge the behaviors and motivations of others. - Watch your **question-to-talk ratio**. Instead of providing answers, ask more questions to engage others, prompting them to think independently and arrive at their own conclusions. As they share their viewpoints, help them examine underlying beliefs and assumptions. - Learn to articulate the thought process behind your statements. This goes against the common social practice of concealing such thoughts to avoid embarrassment. Bill Noonan \[4\] gives the acronyms of **STATE and ASK** that are useful reminders of the basics of balancing advocacy and inquiry: > **STATE** (advocacy): > > - Share your data. > - Tell others about your reasoning. > - Acknowledge your assumptions. > - Test your conclusions, rather than stating them as facts. > - Explore alternative interpretations of the data. > > **ASK** (inquiry): > > - Ask questions that surface reasoning and data. > - Search for alternative views. > - Keep your curiosity going. ## Advocacy and inquiry in leadership The skill of balancing advocacy with inquiry is especially critical to effective leadership. High performing leaders and their teams have a healthy ratio of advocacy and inquiry. Balancing the two also leads increases psychological safety. ### But inquiry is rare. Why? - Most places actively discourage inquiry. It’s often seen as a weakness while advocacy is seen as a strength. - Many organizations are gladiatorial in nature where everyone is pitching and defending their own positions and agenda. In such competitive cultures, the primary objective is to win. Typical communication involves discussions where stakeholders staunchly advocate for their positions, leading to counterarguments from others. - Leaders typically approach issues with a predetermined viewpoint or desired outcome that they actively promote. Their contributions are mainly aimed at advocating their own perspective. This dynamic often leads to others pushing back, prompting the original speaker to intensify their advocacy. As a result, positions become entrenched and discussions devolve into arguments where positions are thrown back and forth without [genuine listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/). ### Effective communication - Leaders must communicate clearly and persuasively to effectively advocate for their mission and stakeholders. - But, leaders overlook the importance of being skilled in inquiry. Leadership communication is fraught with potential misunderstandings that can leave both leaders and their teams confused and frustrated. Leaders contribute to these challenges due to their own blind spots and a lack of awareness of fundamental skills — such as advocacy and inquiry — which are crucial for improving communication effectiveness. - Being an effective leader is difficult without also being an effective listener and learner — essential traits for navigating the complexities of interpersonal communication. ### Team dynamics - The dynamics of inquiry and advocacy are significantly influenced by team size. In larger teams there’s a tendency for members to advocate more than inquire. Team members often feel uncertain about when they will have another opportunity to speak, prompting them to use their limited speaking time to state their position or make a point. - Conversely, in smaller teams, people are more inclined to spend their time asking questions and seeking clarification, secure in the knowledge that they will have further opportunities to contribute their ideas and opinions. ### Operating in complexity - Without effective inquiry, plain advocacy can easily lead to groupthink. Being vocal and not entertaining opposing views can work in more predictable environments where solutions are known and best practices already identified. But in evolving situations, diversity of inputs and opinions is what leaders need. - Successful individuals, especially in management, owe their achievements to the ability to develop and communicate ideas to captivate and convince others. However, inflexible advocacy becomes ineffective in the face of complex challenges that necessitate drawing on the collective intelligence of everyone involved. ## Further Reading - Many of the concepts described here build on the [action science model called ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) that Chris Argyris developed. It describes how our thought process works and is an excellent tool to get better at uncovering where we and others might be stuck. [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - Another useful framework for effective communication is [Aristotle's Ethos, Pathos, and Logos triad](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/). [Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in Modern LeadershipThe framework of ethos, pathos, and logos was developed in the 4th century BC by Aristotle. It’s a simple but also robust model for effective persuasion and communication that has withstood the test of time. And yet most leaders are either unaware or it, or don’t really know![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/08/Ethos--Logos--Pathos---1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) - Balancing advocacy and inquiry is especially relevant in meetings. Roger Schwarz has identified some [ground rules for running effective meetings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/). [Active Listening: What It Originally MeantSensitive, active listening is exceedingly rare in our lives. We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding, true empathy. Yet listening, of this very special kind, is one of the most potent forces for change that I know. — Carl Rogers Listen, or your tongue will![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-235.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Active-Listening---Carl-Rogers-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) ## Sources 1. [Necessary Revolution](https://amzn.to/4buFBvj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge 2. [The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook](https://amzn.to/3QA2V2q?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge 3. [The Fifth Discipline](https://amzn.to/44CuVIM?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge 4. [Discussing the Undiscussable](https://amzn.to/4dmV0iZ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by William Noonan ### Filters in Communication URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/ Last updated: 2026-02-25T19:01:24.000Z *When we communicate, there are several layers of invisible filters that can muddle the message. Knowing the most common communication filters we use can help avoid the traps of miscommunication and make sure our message gets across.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 --- ## Why we use filters One key aspect of leadership is that your words and actions get interpreted and amplified throughout the organization. [People copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/), both in words and actions. Everything you say and do gets dissected in a myriad of ways. And also misinterpreted. That's why it's doubly important to understand how your communication comes across. One reason for the wide variation in interpretations is the filters we use when talking and listening. In *Process Consultation*, **Edgar Schein outlines 5 common filters** we use that influences and changes both how we transmit and receive messages. Why do we use filters? Schein puts it this way: > ...each of us has a unique personal history that in effect creates **a set of filters for how we com­municate to others and how we hear and perceive them**. In any given face-to-face encounter both the sender and the receiver automatically and unconsciously use those filters in selecting what they will send and what they will receive. ... > > ...all of us select what we say, how we say it, and when we say it in terms of a complex set of decision rules that we have learned over a lifetime and that re­flect our unique history. ## 5 common communication filters The five communication filters that Schein identifies are: 1. Your self-image 2. Your image of the other person 3. Your definition of the situation 4. Your motives and attitudes 5. Your expectations Let's look at each of these in detail. ### Filter #1: Your self-image Both the sender and receiver have a self-concept, accompanied by feelings of self-worth or self-esteem. Their self-image and the value they attribute to themselves in specific situations dictates their communication style. For example, seeing yourself as an expert with high self-confidence in a given area often leads to: - Increased likelihood of you initiating communication. - Preference for an assertive and authoritative communication style, instead of being hesitant. - Reduced tendency to listen to others discussing the same topic. - Greater likelihood of becoming defensive when contradicted, rooted in the belief of being an expert. Conversely, when you're uncertain about your status within a group: - There's a tendency to remain silent. - More likely to pose genuine questions to gather information. - Likely to avoid actions that could potentially offend others, especially when the relative status of others is unknown. ### Filter #2: Your image of the other person Both the sender and receiver form images and concepts of others involved in the situation, assigning certain values to everyone. These perceptions and the value attributed to others influence communication style. For example, perceiving others as less expert or of lower status often leads to: - Speaking condescendingly. - Frequent interruptions if we think they're mistaken. - Less attention to their unique viewpoints and more focus on whether they understand or agree with us. Conversely, perceiving others as more expert or of higher status results in: - Less frequent contributions to the conversation. - Increased attentiveness to enhance our status within the group. This paradoxically distracts from [effective listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) by shifting focus from the task to interpersonal dynamics. Terms like "arrogance" or "humility" that emerge from our interactions with others, reflect these self-perceptions and our perceptions of others. ### Filter #3: Your definition of the situation Both sender and receiver possess their unique interpretation of the situation in which they are communicating, including: - The setting or "stage." - Assigned roles within the context. - The overall "nature of the play," or purpose of the interaction. Examples of different scenarios: - A problem-solving meeting. - An informal discussion or brainstorming. - A session primarily for the manager to share ideas. Often, the exact nature of the interaction remains unspoken until someone asks: "What are we here for?" or "What is our task?". Our communication style is significantly influenced by how we perceive the situation. Defining the situation involves more than just identifying goals or tasks; it also means: - Understanding our role and the roles of others. - Recognizing the duration, boundaries, and norms of everyone involved. Communication issues often arise from differing perceptions of the situation, which may not be identified or addressed early on. Establishing a common understanding upfront is an essential leadership action. ### Filter #4: Your motives and intent Both speakers and listeners navigate the communication process through another set of filters shaped by their: - Needs and motives. - Intentions. - Attitudes toward others. How we communicate varies depending on underlying motives: - If the goal is to sell a proposal or influence others, the communication approach will be strategic and persuasive. - If the need is to satisfy curiosity or gather information, the approach will be more inquisitive and open-ended. Listening habits also vary based on intent: - When trying to influence, there is a heightened focus on detecting agreement or disagreement. - When gathering information, the focus shifts to understanding new ideas. We communicate to "get things done". But it also serves other functions, including: - Meeting personal needs. - Self-expression. - Collective sense-making. - Influencing others. We're constantly adapting our methods to suit these various purposes. ### Filter #5: Your expectations Expectations, both of oneself and others, act as psychological filters in communication, influenced by: - Actual experiences. - Preconceptions and stereotypes. Expectations shape communication strategies: - Expecting an audience to struggle with comprehension may lead to the use of simpler language. - Anticipating a receptive audience prompts a more relaxed communication style. - Facing a potentially critical audience necessitates careful and precise articulation. As a listener, expectations influence our interpretation: - Expecting high intelligence in a speaker might lead to over-analyzing their message. - Assuming a speaker is inarticulate or unintelligent can result in missing valuable points. - Anticipating disagreement may cause misinterpretation of statements as hostile. - Expecting agreement may lead to overlooking actual disagreements. Given this entire suite of filters we deploy, no wonder clear communication is a premium! Schein's collection of filters is a good sanity checklist for getting better at this key skill. ## Further reading Leaders have to be particularly aware of these 5 filters, especially when they're coming from a position of authority and expertise. Your communication [sets the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) for the actions of your team, and each of these filters influences how you get interpreted. Below are some additional pieces that go into different aspects of leadership communication: - [The ladder of inference model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - [Ground rules for running effective meetings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/) - [Thinking errors that distort our thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/) - [Effective leadership is effective conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/) - [Balancing advocacy with inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) or what Roger Martin calls [assertive inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/assertive-inquiry/) - [Active Listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) ## Sources 1. [Process Consultation Revisited](https://amzn.to/4dbjLyv?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Edgar Schein ### Locus of Control: A Leadership Perspective URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:36:26.000Z *Locus of control refers to how we view circumstances in terms of the amount of control we have over situations and the experiences that affect us. I look at locus of control specifically in the context of leadership and management: *how locus of control impacts leadership performance*, and how it plays into *learned helplessness in organizations*.* --- ## What is locus of control Julian Rotter's concept of locus of control (LOC) describes our perception of the influences that impact life and work, and has been extensively examined in thousands of studies. Those with a high **internal locus of control** believe they're primarily responsible for outcomes in their life. In contrast, those with a high **external locus of control** believe outside forces like fate, chance, external influences, and other people are chiefly responsible for your outcomes. Put simply, it's the extent to which someone believes they are in control of their environment, experiences, and outcomes. Locus of control influences how we perceive and respond to changes and challenges in our environment. An internal locus of control leads to self-attribution for outcomes, while an external locus of control [attributes outcomes to external factors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/). How we process events and occurrences shapes the perception of our ability to master destiny (internal LOC) or succumb to external forces like luck or fate (external LOC). Ultimately, LOC affects[ self-efficacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) and consequently, self-esteem. Psychologists categorize people into two groups: - those with an external locus of control (externals) - those who have primarily an internal locus of control (internals) Internals see themselves as agents with the power to determine outcomes, whereas externals believe their actions have no bearing on results. Internals have a high degree of motivation while externals have a low level of motivation. This makes sense. If you thought things were not necessarily in your control, it's logical not to put great effort. Let’s take a closer look at the differences. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ### Internal locus of control Individuals with an internal locus of control believe their actions directly impact their outcomes. People with a high internal locus of control (internals): - Accept responsibility for their actions and believe they control their own fate. - Are proactive in addressing issues. - Are determined to overcome challenges. - Actively initiate and manage personal change. - Do not wait for external triggers to make necessary life changes. - View change positively as a challenge and opportunity for further development. - Tend to be more achievement-oriented. - Exhibit independence, self-confidence, and self-control. - Are less prone to anxiety, more proactive, and innovative. - Show a strong sense of commitment to self and are vigorous towards shaping their environment. ### External locus of control Those with an external locus of control attribute outcomes to external factors such as fate, luck, or other people. People with an external locus of control (externals): - Blame external forces for their circumstances. - Attribute their successes to luck. - Feel powerless in challenging situations. - Prefer more directive, hands-on supervision. - Are more passive toward change, seeing it as a threat rather than an opportunity. - Are more likely to experience depressive reactions due to a lack of control. ![External Locus of Control vs Internal Locus of Control](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/04/Locus-of-control---internal-vs-external-1.png) ## Locus of Control and Learned Helplessness in Organizations At first blush, the LOC construct seems to be straightforward and somewhat obvious. Anyone with an external locus of control will struggle to stand out in today’s work environment, and it’s clearly a requirement to get anything done. However, there’s a second-order dynamic that I have noticed. Once you’ve spent enough time in organizations, I’ve seen folks go from an internal to an external locus of control in the context of their ability to get things done in a large organization. Sometimes called learned helplessness in organizations, it's the feeling of a lack of agency and victimhood due to the inability to effect change in an organization. It’s caused by a shift in the locus of control from internal to external. What is organizational helplessness? It’s typically characterized by: - incapacity to get things done at the organizational level - stifling bureaucracy - political machinations that kill initiative - blaming others or external factors for failure - inability to make a positive impact or to make a difference - slow pace of change, or the complete lack of it - too many demands without clear direction or context **Once people think their actions lead to nowhere, their LOC starts shifting from internal to external**. Many folks start out as internals, but over time adopt an external locus of control due to their frustration with organizations. In contrast, people who maintain an internal locus of control are more likely to show agency and deploy tactics to fight organizational helplessness and build their organizational savvy. They are more likely to engage in “political” behavior, while externals are less likely to do so. ![How organizational helplessness shifts the locus of control from internal to external](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/04/Learned-Helplessness-in-Organizations.png) ## Locus of Control in Leadership From a leadership perspective, there are two aspects of locus of control: - how LOC affects leaders individually - how leaders’ actions and disposition influences their team and organization's locus of control ### LOC and leaders at the individual level A key dynamic of leadership is having to deal with increasing complexity and ambiguity, especially as managers rise through the ranks. [Paradoxes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/), [contradictions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/), and politics become the name of the game. Whether this takes a toll on managers depends to a large extent on their locus of control. The **impact of locus of control on management and leadership effectiveness** has been extensively studied. Below are some findings \[2, 5\]: - Internals fare better in coping with the day-to-day stress and demands of leadership roles. They’re also less vulnerable to the strain of their jobs. - Companies led by CEOs with an internal locus of control were more likely to survive tough times compared to those led by externals. - Individuals with an internal locus of control are more effective in leadership roles. - Transformational leaders are often found to have an internal locus of control. - Internals are more capable of influencing openly, pursuing innovative strategies, and achieving higher company performance. - Individuals with an internal locus of control tend to have more positive work-related outcomes such as job satisfaction, health, and career mobility. - Internal locus of control is associated with higher effectiveness in leadership, better group performance, and entrepreneurial activity. - Groups led by individuals with an internal locus of control perform better than those led by individuals with an external locus of control. - Internals tend to outperform externals in stressful situations and are more involved in entrepreneurial activities. The caveat is that hard driving internal oriented leaders also have challenges in accepting feedback and complying with external directives. ### How leaders affect their team's locus of control Another key aspect of leadership is whether your actions shift the team’s LOC from an internal to external orientation. Managers significantly influence locus of control within their teams, which affects how team members perceive their ability to influence outcomes and handle challenges. Consider the following: - **Autonomy.** Does the manager encourage responsibility and autonomy, or is everything tightly controlled? - **Decision-making.** Are team members empowered to make decisions, or is this left to external meddling? - **Problem-solving.** Is it primarily reactive, or is it proactive? Do leaders delve in the problems, or do they help in setting the problem itself? - **Accountability.** Is there a high degree of personal and collective accountability, or is it about shifting the blame, or attributing failure to external factors? - **Motivation.** Do the organization's systems drive personal growth and achievement, or do they rely on external rewards and punishment? - **Adaptability.** Do managers help develop resilience, or do their behaviors create resistance and passivity? - **Performance.** Are incentives clearly linked to performance and outcomes? Are promotions transparent and logical, or are they seen as random and based on who one knows? Whether your leadership creates an internal or external locus of control has a lot to do with how well you set the context. Below are some additional articles that go into various aspects of context: - [Why context matters](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) in leadership - [Why Netflix emphasizes context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) - [Why leaders keep ignoring context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/) - [How framing create psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) - [Defining a problem](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) is very different from problem-solving - [Creative versus controlling leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/) - [Aristotle's Ethos, Pathos, and Logos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ethos-pathos-logos-modern-leadership/) in modern leadership ## Further Reading - [Courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) plays a key role in how leaders engage with their ongoing challenges. And it's a different form of courage than how we typically understand it. - Another psychological concept leaders have to be aware of is [cognitive distortions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/). Clear thinking is a premium when you're operating in high stress, low information environments. - Locus of control is a key aspect of what can be called [leadership metacognition](https://thelsweekly.substack.com/p/metacognition-leadership-career). ## Sources 1. Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. *Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80*(1), 1–28\. [https://doi.org/10.1037/h0092976](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0092976?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. [Developing Management Skills](https://amzn.to/4aYPZLs?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David A Whetten, Kim S Cameron 3. [Beyond Performance](https://amzn.to/3JuSidg?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Scott Keller, Colin Price 4. [Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers](https://amzn.to/3JC2NLS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Robert Sapolsky 5. [Choice or Chance](https://amzn.to/3UuLiU1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Stephen Nowicki 6. [The Psychology of Executive Coaching](https://amzn.to/4bcpySJ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Bruce Peltier 7. Kets de Vries, M.F.R., Zevadi, D., Noel, A., and Tombak, M. (1989). ‘Locus of control and entrepreneurship: A three-country comparative study,’ INSEAD Working Paper. ### 20 Leadership Capacities based on Systems Thinking URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/ Last updated: 2025-09-18T19:35:52.000Z Understanding systems thinking is a must for modern leaders. In [*Reading the Room*](https://amzn.to/4cmq95D??ref=leadingsapiens.com), David Kantor outlines a list of leadership capacities based on systems thinking and structural dynamics. They are particularly useful as a reference for developing your own leadership philosophy, practice, and model. Some of the terms Kantor uses are specific to his structural dynamics model that I'll reference in future posts. Nevertheless this list will give you plenty to think about: - [1) Knowing the self](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#1-knowing-the-self) - [2) Soliciting feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#2-soliciting-feedback) - [3) Managing teams](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#3-managing-teams) - [4) Tolerating language differences](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#4-tolerating-language-differences) - [5) Connecting with others](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#5-connecting-with-others) - [6) Compromising with others](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#6-compromising-with-others) - [7) Building a practice model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#7-building-a-practice-model) - [8) Balancing arrogance & humility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#8-balancing-arrogance--humility) - [9) Operating under pressure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#9-operating-under-pressure) - [10) Taking risks](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#10-taking-risks) - [11) Recognizing patterns](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#11-recognizing-patterns) - [12) Understanding systems](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#12-understanding-systems) - [13) Managing organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#13-managing-organizations) - [14) Acting morally](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#14-acting-morally) - [15) Storytelling](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#15-storytelling) - [16) Imagining possibilities](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#16-imagining-possibilities) - [17) Mobilizing energy & morale](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#17-mobilizing-energy--morale) - [18) Optimizing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#18-optimizing) - [19) Maintaining confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#19-maintaining-confidence) - [20) Articulating narrative purpose](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/#20-articulating-narrative-purpose) ## (1) Knowing the self > Leaders must be aware of their personal stories; how these lead to patterned behavioral propensities; and in particular, how [their shadows](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-shadow/), those darker parts of stories, impact others. - Personal stories often acts as [hidden mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) (different from Munger's concept of latticework of models), and are especially critical to understand from a leadership performance perspective. [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be half-baked, often useless in practice. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) ## (2) Soliciting feedback > Leaders must know how to ask for and accept critiques, criticisms, and hard truths in up, down, and across relationships, without penalizing the informant. When models are in contention, leaders must know how to allow and manage constraint, a key form of[ feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/). - Edgar [Schein's framework for constructive feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) is one I've found especially useful. [7 Principles of Effective Constructive FeedbackMost managers suck at giving effective, constructive feedback. Equally, most of us are bad at receiving and processing constructive feedback. This is a lost opportunity for everyone. Edgar Schein, professor emeritus at MIT, was one of the foremost experts in organizational behavior and interpersonal interactions. He articulated a set of![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w1200/2023/11/Constructive-Feedback---7-Principles.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) - Roger Schwarz's [ground rules for effective meetings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/) is useful to ensure all perspectives are taken into consideration. ## (3) Managing teams > To manage teams and working groups, leaders must know how small, face-to-face groups work as systems. To promote the team’s ultimate goal of communicative competency, they must be able to diagnose structures and intervene in real time. - One way of diagnosing structures and knowing where to intervene is to use [the iceberg model of systems thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/): [The Systems Thinking IcebergThe systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on our radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) ## (4) Tolerating language differences > In its framework of speech acts, domains, and preferred operating systems, structural dynamics describes the different languages that individuals prefer and use to achieve their communicational goals. Tolerant leaders recognize the value that each language system brings to the table and can help team members bend each language system toward shared goals. - Understanding [the nuances of language ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/)and using it effectively is a key aspect of leadership communication. - Discerning between the [different kinds of conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/) is another way to get better at this key skill. ## (5) Connecting with others > Leaders must be able to connect with those within their inner circle as well as those outside it. Loosely speaking, sympathy and emotional connection are shared inside the inner circle; empathy, including compassion for strangers, extends to those outside the circle. - Effective leadership at its essence is getting really good at [effective conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/). ## (6) Compromising with others > In situations dominated by polarizing stances or fears, leaders must be able and often willing to credit, take into account, and accept positions, stances, and interests other than their own. This allows vital issues to move toward resolution, after reasonable debate. > > In structural dynamic terms, most “difference” is fueled by normal model differences that can harden into model clashes. Effective cross-model conversation often charts a path to compromise. - [The ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) is a great tool for understanding differing views and perspectives, and how your own perspective might be skewed and missing the point. [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) ## (7) Building a practice model > Models are ubiquitous among mechanics, surgeons, and others. Leaders should have a model. Knowing oneself is equivalent to knowing one’s personal model and its impacts on one’s own leadership practice model. > > The leader’s practice model comprises guidelines for ways of performing—of acting, interpreting and responding to acts of others, and correcting his or her own model’s flaws. - Most leaders have particular ways of looking at organizations that restricts their available action set. The [Bolman-Deal 4 frames](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/) of organizations is a useful model to learn alternative ways of understanding your teams and company. - Correcting your model's flaws start with first recognizing the one you are actually using. [Double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) is an excellent framework to start this process. [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w1200/2023/03/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) ## (8) Balancing arrogance & humility > Arrogance and humility represent two ends of a continuum. Extreme arrogance is seen as evidence of overgrown self-importance; extreme humility is seen as evidence of a leader’s low opinion of his worth. In moderation, both add value. Self-knowledge and the ability to read the room help leaders maintain balance. - Hubris derails many otherwise promising careers. Two effective antidotes are continuous self-development and skilled reflection. [Self-development](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) is very much in the hands of individual leaders instead of organizations. And [reflection is one of the key mechanisms how leaders sharpen their thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). ## (9) Operating under pressure > In high-stakes situations, leaders must be able to stay focused and under self-regulated control in order to see present dangers and make decisions that guide others toward best solutions. One’s own shadow tends to surface uninvited in high-stakes situations and crises. High-stakes leaders must take responsibility for their own shadows and be prepared to help others manage theirs. - Keats' notion of [negative capability is highly applicable to leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) who are constantly working in a high pressure environments rife with ambiguity and uncertainty. [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Negative-Capability-Balance.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) ## (10) Taking risks > Risk is necessary, but the justification for risk should always be the common welfare rather than personal interest. Taking on proper risk is [courageous without being reckless](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/). It requires vision, but also judgment as to [when to “buck the crowd.”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/) It may require putting one’s job at risk for the sake of unacknowledged truths—a strength of exit leaders. - [Existential courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) is very different from physical and moral courage that most of us are familiar with. - [Leadership is a decision](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/#4-personality) before it is a skill or trait. And the risks associated with making that decision are part of the terrain. [Leadership as More a Decision than Skill or AbilityThe default way of looking at leadership ability is in terms of skill, style, or talent, which in turn drives actions and behaviors. But skills and talents are not sufficient for effective leadership. There’s another simpler but necessary step — the decision to lead. In this view, leadership is a![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/04/Leadership-as-a-decision-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/#4-personality) ## (11) Recognizing patterns > In observing face-to-face relations — and relations in larger contexts —leaders must be able to recognize repeating patterns in sequences of verbal and nonverbal exchange. > > Reading the room, leaders can discern constructive and destructive communication patterns and know how to manage both. - [The Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) is an effective tool for leaders to understand how they might be coming across and where to make adjustments. [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/1--Johari-Window---A-guide.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) ## (12) Understanding systems > [Systems thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/), recognizing an organization’s complexities and ambiguities, avoids the trappings of simple but misleading explanations. In systems thinking, [cause and effect are circular](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). Circularity sheds a more neutral explanatory light than do one-sided blame and moral judgment. - [Paradoxes inherent in management](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/), and [contradictions that are part of organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/), are additional aspects that are critical for leaders to understand. ## (13) Managing organizations > As managers of large organizations, leaders know their own and their leadership team members’ strong and weak capacities and their own and team members’ edges of growth. Their own model includes leading team members toward personal growth and leading the team collectively toward [effective communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). > > Leaders also know how [large organizations work *as systems*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/#organizations-as-systems)and are able to navigate unruliness and competition between subsystems. They can also direct a large membership that [looks to them for meaning in work and a clear purpose](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) toward which to strive. - Balancing the [tension between top-down and bottom-up initiatives](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) is what Andy Grove called the [dynamic dialectic](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/). [Andy Grove on Balancing Top-down vs Bottom-up Approaches to LeadershipEver wonder why that particular initiative of yours never got traction? Organizational politics kills more initiatives than people realize, and happens both at leadership and individual contributor levels. Understanding some of the dynamics can help to better navigate the terrain. Three organizational layers and their experiences \* The individual contributor: You![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Top-down-vs-Bottom-up---Dynamic-Dialectic.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) ## (14) Acting morally > A moral act here is a decision to sacrifice personal material gain. An organization without a moral purpose will eventually collapse. External controls play a necessary role in preventing immoral acts, but final responsibility rests with individual leaders. > > Leaders recognize that most **critical decisions have moral repercussions that affect the lives of others**, and include this recognition in decision making. - [Anxiety is the other side of decision-making ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#4-anxiety-or-ambivalence-is-the-wrong-criteria)and leaders understand this basic fact. This means not running away from it, and instead embracing it. ## (15) Storytelling > Leaders are able to create, refine, and communicate effective narratives to relevant audiences. They know the distinction between a *structural story* and a *moral story*. **A moral story blames**, whereas a **structural story describes in morally neutral terms**. > > In high-stakes situations, structural dynamic thinking puts a damper on moral storytelling. Storytelling ability includes a will to know and, when appropriate, tell one’s own stories, and the ability to imagine and/or take in others’ behavior-explaining stories. - [Managing and mastering context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) is a critical leadership skill. The problem is that [too many leaders are focused on content](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/), and not enough on context. Storytelling is one way to manage context. [The importance of mastering context in effective leadershipContext is a powerful tool in leadership but goes underutilized and misunderstood - a deep dive into why mastering context is essential to effective leadership.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/08/1024px-Van_Gogh_from_Space.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) ## (16) Imagining possibilities > Organizations tend to ripen and then go stale. Leaders who have or are open to visionary foresight are needed for steady growth in the future, but they must also gather an inner circle capable of constraint; that is, they must welcome diverse profiles into the group. - Another aspect of possibilities is [future-based thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/) and understanding [how time behaves differently in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). ## (17) Mobilizing energy & morale > [Accomplishing existing goals and setting new ones](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) call for a leader who can mobilize energy and morale from coleaders and lieutenants, from the organization’s membership, and from external agencies and communities whose confidence matters. - Leaders' actions have an amplifying effect both inside and outside their organizations. One reason is because [people copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/). Why? From a complexity standpoint, it's simply the smartest thing to do. - Leaders often do the opposite of what'll actually help their cause. Instead they [unknowingly sabotage their strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-mistakes-okr-strategy/). ## (18) Optimizing > Optimization is the path to functioning at the highest level. Leaders who optimize recognize limits that are imposed on them and are realistic about what is possible, but do not allow pessimism to stifle their ambitions and goals. They don’t doze at the helm and are prepared for the unexpected. > > With leadership team diversity in place (not only followers but an ample crew of strong opposers and bystanders as well), leaders understand how [high stakes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) affect even the best performers, including themselves. - A key aspect of recognizing limits is developing what the poet John Keats called [negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). ## (19) Maintaining confidence > When belief and faith plunge, leaders are on deck as their organization’s prime mover, its voice—whether they issue a call to act unilaterally with conviction, to patiently wait, or to bridge and compromise. > > On the arrogance-humility continuum, they know where to stand firm, casting an image of confidence others will follow. - Confidence can be tricky territory. Here's an alternate take on [confidence in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) compared to what you usually come across. ## (20) Articulating narrative purpose > Leaders must have a “big story” of their organization’s larger purpose, including a model for carrying out that purpose, and both the story and the model are buttressed by an underlying moral premise. They and their top teams must encourage but integrate their differences into a coherent message that is effectively conveyed to the organization and the world at large. - [Leadership is a context sport](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). The more leaders are adept at managing context the better their teams can respond effectively. - Whether by default or by design, there's always a story and it's the leaders job to craft it. [Framing to create psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) is one way how leaders can influence this process. ## Sources 1. [Reading the Room](https://amzn.to/4cmq95D?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Kantor. ### The Systems Thinking Iceberg URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:26:31.000Z *The systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on your radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address the real causes.* *We'll look at the different levels of the iceberg and how leaders can think better using this tool.* --- ## Organizations as systems > So, what is a system? A system is a set of things – people, cells, molecules, or whatever – interconnected in such a way that they produce their own pattern of behavior over time. > > — Donella H. Meadows Clearly, organizations are essentially a big system of systems. And the people within the organization not only work inside this system but make up the system itself. Unfortunately, many leaders forget this basic fact of organizational life. We are as much affected by the systems and structures that surround us, as much as we affect and change the systems themselves. > A fundamental principle of system dynamics states that the structure of the system gives rise to its behavior. However, people have a strong tendency to [attribute the behavior of others to dispositional rather than situational factors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/), that is, to character and especially character flaws rather than the system in which these people are acting. > > … In complex systems different people placed in the same structure tend to behave in similar ways. When we attribute behavior to personality we lose sight of how the structure of the system shaped our choices. The attribution of behavior to individuals and special circumstances rather than system structure diverts our attention from the high leverage points where redesigning the system or governing policy can have significant, sustained, beneficial effects on performance. > > ...When we attribute behavior to people rather than system structure the focus of management becomes scapegoating and blame rather than the design of organizations in which ordinary people can achieve extraordinary results. > > — John D. Sterman \[5\] Leaders have to look at situations not only from different angles but also at different structural levels from a systems perspective. How can we get better at thinking about system structures? This is where the systems thinking iceberg model is a useful tool to both shift perspective and gain some much needed insight. 💡 Note: I've written this in the context of organizations, but the principles are applicable at the individual leadership level as well. The "events" in that case would be tangible behaviors that are driven by underlying structures and belief systems. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## The systems thinking iceberg The systems thinking iceberg model delineates “reality” into the essential layers of events, patterns, structures, mental models, and ultimately stance. ![The systems thinking iceberg](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/2.png) ### (1) Events - The events level is where most of us operate daily and where we usually focus all our efforts. These are immediate visible effects that are smaller manifestations of a much larger reality. - They demand immediate attention, but our reactions tend to be insufficient fixes that do not solve long term issues. They do however tend to be convenient and don't require [double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) or second-order thinking. - We are wired at the evolutionary level to feed on events. In contrast, long-term thinking is an acquired practice. The world conspires to keep us thinking at the event level. But the most leveraged actions can be found at the deeper levels of the pyramid. ### (2) Patterns - At this level, we look for past events that might be similar. It involves identifying recurring trends, cycles, or behaviors that emerge over time. They are essentially events but viewed on a longer timeline. - Patterns provide more context and insight into broader dynamics and relationships beyond isolated events. They reveal underlying systemic issues that may not be immediately apparent. - Identifying and analyzing patterns is crucial for understanding the interconnected nature of systems. This in turn helps in anticipating and responding to emerging trends more proactively. ### (3) Structures - This level refers to the underlying systems, processes, and designs that shape behaviors and outcomes. - Structures reinforce patterns of behavior, create silos, or incentivize short-term thinking. These are often deeply embedded and hard to identify and change. - Addressing issues at this level requires redesigning processes, restructuring roles and responsibilities, and realigning systems to better support desired outcomes. ### (4) Mental Models - These are the deeply held beliefs, assumptions, and mindsets that influence how we perceive reality, make decisions, and take action. These[ mental models ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/)act as [filters](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) through which we interpret information and shape our understanding of situations. - They are deeply ingrained at a subconscious level and can be challenging to surface and question. But, left unexamined, these models lead to blind spots, biases, and flawed decision-making. ### (5) Stance - This is the deepest level of the iceberg from which everything else flows. It's made up of the core values, principles, and worldviews that guide an organization or person. - Stance reflects the "why" behind actions and decisions, rather than just the "what" or "how." - This level shapes the overall direction, priorities, and guiding principles that ultimately inform everything else. By understanding the deeper levels of the iceberg model, we can better identify and address the root causes of systemic issues, rather than merely treating surface-level symptoms. It requires a willingness to question long-held assumptions, redesign structures, and potentially reassess fundamental frameworks. ## A systems thinking iceberg example At the visible, event level, it might be key employees leaving at an alarming rate. ### Patterns level - Consistent failure to promote from within, with external hires being favored for leadership roles. - Lack of competitive compensation and benefits packages. - Minimal opportunities for professional development and career growth. ### Structural level - Rigid hierarchies that limit upward mobility. - Outdated performance evaluation and promotion criteria. - Siloed departments with little cross-functional collaboration. ### Mental Models level - Belief that external hires bring fresh perspectives and are more valuable than internal talent. - Assumption that employees are primarily motivated by financial compensation. - Mindset that prioritizes short-term cost-cutting over long-term talent investment. ### Stance Level - Primary focus on profitability, but at the expense of employee well-being. - Culture that values conformity and obedience over innovation and risk-taking. Addressing the issue effectively will require an approach that not only implements retention strategies (events), but also revamps outdated processes (structure), challenges entrenched beliefs and assumptions (mental models), and reassesses core values and culture (stance). ## How leaders can use the systems thinking iceberg Event oriented responding comes naturally to us. The real work is to develop a practice of thinking that looks beyond events and into the structures and models that lead to those events. ### From answers to questions ![The systems thinking iceberg - ways of explaining reality](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/Systems-Thinking-Iceberg.png) One way to build this thinking practice is to move from seeking answers to focusing on questions at each level: - What makes you say that? (mental models) - What might be causing this behavior? (structures) - How are the forces influencing each other? (structures) - What fundamental aspects need to be changed to alter patterns? (structures) - What are some unintended consequences? (pattern) - What's been happening? Have we been here or someplace similar before? (pattern) Essentially, by focusing on questions instead of answers you’re [actively shaping the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) rather than getting lost in the details of the problem. ### Future-based thinking The standard approach is to start with current problems and then work your way to the deeper structures that are causing them. However, the iceberg model is a **useful tool to practice future-based thinking** as well. **Your leverage is maximum at the deepest levels of the iceberg** where actions are not only driven by the future you want to create, but also more in our control. In future-based thinking, you start at the bottom of the iceberg and work your way up leading to the real-time events you aim to create. ![The systems thinking iceberg - leverage increases as you move down the levels](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/4.png) The difference here is subtle. When we operate only at the events level, the **constant reaction mode means the future is essentially an extension of the past and present**. In contrast, operating and designing actions from the stance and mental model level means you’re **acting proactively into a very different future** instead of simply an extension. You’re essentially shifting perspective and moving into a higher plane of thinking and operating. It's the difference between being [pulled by the future](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/) vs being pushed by the past. ![The systems thinking iceberg - levels of understanding](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/5.png) The following questions can help with **starting at the deepest levels of the iceberg**: - What is the ideal future state? - What's the stance required to enable that vision? - What are the mental models, assumptions, and beliefs required to support this stance and vision? - What structures are needed to support this future? - What patterns and events will tell us we’re indeed on track? ### Balancing the levels on the iceberg As a practice, the key challenge is finding the balance between the different levels of the iceberg based on what we find ourselves in. Too much focus on events and you don't have any perspective, or long-term sustainability. Too much focus on stance, and there's not enough action happening on the ground. The leadership challenge is to get better at balancing between the extremes. ![The systems thinking iceberg - balancing between the levels](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/6.png) ## Related reading Below are some additional articles that are related to systems thinking and the iceberg model: - [The ladder of inference model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) which shows how we jump to conclusions and how to make better decisions. [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - [Double loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/), a related and essential mechanism for leaders to become better thinkers. [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w1200/2023/03/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) - [Hidden mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) that are different from the standard ones being popularized. [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be half-baked, often useless in practice. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) - The [laws of systems thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/). - [Problem-setting is different from problem-solving](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/). - [How to think long-term about careers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/long-term-thinking-careers-practice-art/). - Peter Drucker on [strategic time-frames](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/). - Why [reflection is critical to effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). ## Sources 1. [Systems Thinking Basics](https://amzn.to/437PwE7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Virginia Anderson, Lauren Johnson 2. [The Fifth Discipline](https://amzn.to/3T4y9zo?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge 3. [The Fifth Disicipline Fieldbook](https://amzn.to/3T7GWAj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge, Art Kleiner, Richard Ross, Charlotte Robert, Bryan Smith 4. [Necessary Revolution](https://amzn.to/3uZ0dMn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge 5. [Business Dynamics](https://amzn.to/3wIBY5F?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by John D Sterman ### Cognitive Distortions that Undermine Clear Thinking URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:27:08.000Z *Leaders are paid to think clearly. And a big impediment to clear thinking is what CBT/REBT calls *Cognitive Distortions: errors in thinking or thinking traps we commonly fall for*. Most high-performers are not pathological, but instead fall for them when upset or in high-stress situations.* *In this post, I share *17 of the most common cognitive distortions*. I highlight the *use-cases of leaders and job-hunters*, what causes them, and strategies for countering them.* --- ## What are cognitive distortions? Also known as thinking errors or thought traps, cognitive distortions are defined as "*errors of processing in which the person cognitively focuses on insufficient or inappropriate data and draws illogical conclusions, makes inaccurate inferences or bases predicted outcomes upon little or no empirical evidence*." \[3\] Put simply, these are habitual but unhelpful ways of thinking. Why are they important? Because the way we feel, and how well we operate, are directly dependent on the quality of our thinking. It's not external events or others that make us feel a certain way, but instead our thoughts about them. But this process is so fast and automatic that **we forget our own role in creating these problems**. > Your emotions result entirely from the way you look at things. It is an obvious neurological fact that before you can experience any event, you must process it with your mind and give it meaning. You must understand what is happening to you before you can feel it. > ... > It is not the actual events but your perceptions that result in changes in mood. When you are sad, your thoughts will represent a realistic interpretation of negative events. When you are depressed or anxious, your thoughts will always be illogical, distorted, unrealistic, or just plain wrong. > > — David Burns \[1\] ### **Are cognitive distortions applicable to leadership coaching** In leadership, staying alert to cognitive distortions is important from two key perspectives: the leader's performance, and more importantly, how it affects others. Elite athletes have to train constantly to maintain peak physical and mental conditioning. Their training routines focus on maintaining correct form. The equivalent of good form in leadership is clear thinking. Most high-functioning folks are not necessarily pathological, but nevertheless fall for these subtle but hidden patterns. Additionally, leadership behavior has ripple-effects throughout the organization. [People not only copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/), but also seek answers from them, both direct and implied. Whether by design or accident, [leaders are always setting the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) for their teams. It's why they simply cannot afford to get derailed by thought traps. 💡 ****A caveat:** When going through this list and the examples, it's easy to dismiss them as simplistic and extreme. And they mostly are. However, most of us fall for them in subtle ways that often go undetected. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Common cognitive distortions Just as exercise improves physical strength, there are practices to improve mental conditioning — aka clear thinking. One such practice is to learn, identify, and interrupt common but unhelpful thinking patterns that we fall for. [Leadership coaching](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/) borrows from a range of disciplines including cognitive behavioral methods. What follows are the most common cognitive distortions that CBT/REBT recognizes. Each cognitive distortion is followed by examples from the perspective of a job-hunter and a leader. Why? Thinking errors are most likely when operating in high-stress situations which are rich territory for thought traps. ![17 Cognitive Distortions from CBT and REBT](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/12/Cognitive-Distortions--lr-2.png) ### (1) All-or-Nothing Thinking **Definition** We see the world in dichotomies — it's either black or white with no shades of grey in between. Anything short of perfect is a failure. Characterized by thinking in polarities, extremes, and absolutes. It's either excellent or awful, and forms the basis of perfectionism. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"If my team doesn't achieve 100% of the goals, it's a complete disaster."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"If I don't get this job, I'll never find a good career opportunity."* **How to counter** Cultivate multi-category thinking and a richer understanding to see the shades of grey instead of falling for simplistic explanations. Learn to discern between facts vs hunches or interpretations. Resolve to examine your negative interpretations by testing them out. ### (2) Overgeneralization **Definition** Drawing broad conclusions based on isolated negative events. Characterized by drawing global beliefs and never-ending patterns from a single situation. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"My proposal got rejected ; I'm terrible at pitching ideas."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I failed this interview; I'll never get hired anywhere."* **How to counter** Avoid extrapolation of both good and bad. And when doing so, check if the data actually supports your stance. ### (3) Mental filtering **Definition** Picking out and focusing exclusively on a single negative aspect while ignoring any positives. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"Despite other successful projects, I can't stop thinking about that one recent failure."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I had an excellent interview, but I stumbled on one question, and now I feel like I ruined it all."* **How to counter** Recognize the complexity of situations and acknowledge positive aspects as well that balance out the negative. ### (4) Disqualifying the positive **Definition** Rejecting positive experiences as if they don't count for one reason or another. A simple example is dismissing compliments.Success is seen as a fluke. This make it difficult to build on anything because everything is happenstance. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"The team's success was due to external factors, not my leadership."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"The interviewer praised my skills, but I think they were just being polite."* **How to counter** Learn to accept and acknowledge positive feedback and explanations, in addition to negative and neutral ones. ### (5) Jumping to Conclusions **Definition** Assuming negative outcomes, or negative interpretation without facts or supporting evidence. This is characterized by certainty in interpreting situations despite little evidence. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"He's late today; he must not care about work."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"The interviewer looked uninterested; they probably think I'm unqualified."* **How to counter** Notice your inferences and how far removed they might be from observable facts. Learn to [test your inferences and hunches](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/#1-test-assumptions-inferences-and-attributions). ### (6) Magnification (Catastrophizing) Or Minimization **Definition** Exaggerating or downplaying the importance of events. Also known as **the "binocular trick"**. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"Missing this deadline will ruin my career."* ⦿ Job-Hunter:*"If I don't get this job, I'll never find any job, and my life will be ruined."* **How to counter** Use a balanced perspective instead of a skewed one that catastrophes or minimizes. How would an outside observer view your situation? What are your strengths? ### (7) Emotional Reasoning **Definition** Believing feelings and negative emotions accurately define or reflect reality. The logic goes: "I feel it, so it must be true." **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"I feel like a failure, so I must be incompetent."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I'm nervous about the interview, which means I'll perform poorly."* **How to counter** Get separation between facts and how you feel about something. Discern between emotionally laden assessments vs. factual takes. ### (8) Should Statements **Definition** Trying to motivate yourself by holding rigid or unrealistic expectations on oneself or others. Characterized by should(s), shouldn't(s), musts, oughts and "have to's", as if one has to be punished and whipped before correct behavior. Albert Ellis (REBT founder) called this MUSTerbation. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"I should always have the solution to every problem."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"Employers should always provide feedback after interviews."* **How to counter** Stay alert to your use of language and how that influences your interpretations, choice of actions, and behavior. ### (9) Labeling and Mislabeling **Definition** This is an extreme form of overgeneralization, where we assign global, negative labels to oneself or others. Instead of describing an error, we attach negative labels: "I'm a loser", or: "what a louse". It's often characterized by highly colored and emotionally laden language. Over time, this can also lead to a **lack of separation between the label and** [**identity**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/#identity-as-an-effect-rather-than-a-cause). Eg. "I'm a nervous nelly". **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"I'm a total failure as a manager."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I'm a slouch when it comes to interviews."* **How to counter** Avoid using labels or rating yourself/others globally. Almost no-one is a "total idiot" or a "complete failure". Question the validity of your labels and [separate the behavior from the person](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/#principle-6-sharing-emotions-owning-opinions-and-avoiding-generalities). ### (10) Personalization **Definition** Also known as self-blame: you assume undue responsibility for negative external events for which you were not responsible. This is an easy trap for conscientious leaders – **they've confused influence with control**. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"The project's failure is entirely my fault."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I didn't get the job; I must have said something wrong during the interview."* **How to counter** Try to understand the whole picture instead of one particular aspect that you might have contributed to. Look for alternative explanations that might highlight [different causal factors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). ### (11) Mind-reading **Definition** Believing you know what others are thinking about you without evidence. It also means assuming that others know what you are thinking. It's characterized by a lack of direct communication (they should know), and expecting others to read your body language. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"My team thinks I'm incompetent."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"The interviewer didn't like my answer."* **How to counter** Check your interpretations of others' reactions instead of assuming it's obvious. Look for alternative explanations that are more generous. ### (12) Fortune-teller error **Definition** Predicting future events, usually negative, without evidence. And acting as if your prediction is a fact. Often characterized by anticipation of bad events and assuming outcomes as foregone conclusions. There's a false sense of hopelessness and defeatism. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"I know the client will reject our proposal."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I'm certain they won't hire me, so why apply."* **How to counter** Discern between what's in your control and what's not. Avoid making predictions that are not actually in your control. **Let the decision-makers do their job while you do yours**. ### (13) Always/Never Thinking **Definition** Believing that negative events will always happen, or that good events will never happen. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"My team always makes mistakes."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I'll never get hired."* **How to counter** Take a balanced view of the past, present, and future. Recognize that while bad events are always possible, they're not inevitable and can be mitigated. Meanwhile, positive events are equally likely. ### (14) Entitlement **Definition** Believing one deserves special treatment or privileges, and characterized by unrealistic expectations and demanding behavior based on status. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"I should be promoted without having to prove myself."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"The employer should hire me because of my qualifications."* **How to counter** Watch out for status expectations and wanting to skirt effort in getting to your goals. ### (15) **Outsourcing Happiness** **Definition** Emotional dependence and reliance on external circumstances for happiness instead of internal control. Characterized by the logic: "I'll be happy when/if..." **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"I'll be happy when my team performs well."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"Getting this job will make me happy."* **How to counter** Watch out for when you make your happiness contingent on something outside your control. ### (16) **Control Fallacy** **Definition** Believing external forces have complete control over one's life (helplessness). Or the opposite of everything being in our control. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"I'm powerless against the company's decisions."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"The job market controls my job prospects."* **How to counter** Most of the time, [we have more choice than we realize](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/#the-nature-of-choice). But often this choice is hidden behind consequences that we might not be ok with. ### (17) **Fairness Fallacy** **Definition** Believing that life should always be fair and just. Characterized by resentment and frustration. **Examples** ⦿ Leader: *"It's not fair that my colleague got promoted, and I didn't."* ⦿ Job-Hunter: *"I deserved that job more than the other candidates."* **How to counter** Culture programs us to expect fairness, but the world is far from being fair, let alone predictable. Don't allow expectations of fairness to scuttle your level of commitment and effort. ## **What causes Cognitive Distortions?** While recognizing and countering cognitive distortions is useful, it's also valuable to go further upstream and understand what causes them to begin with. REBT has two constructs that explain what causes distortions: levels of cognitions and irrational beliefs. ### (a) Levels of cognitions REBT postulates that our disturbed mental states and unhelpful emotions follow from thinking that happens at three levels \[6\]. 1. **First level**: perceptions, automatic thoughts, and negative attributions (inferential) 1. This is the level at which cognitive distortions occur. It's what we're aware of and that forms our stream of consciousness. These thoughts are inferential in nature. Eg. "He didn't like my work"/"I fail at everything"/"I am stupid". Because they're inferences, they can be tested. 2. **Second level**: awfulizing, global evaluations, and frustration intolerance (evaluative), that are derived from the third level. 1. They evaluate the importance of the inferences: the badness of the inference(awfulizing), evaluation of your ability to tolerate the situation (frustration intolerance), or worth of person involved (global evaluations). 3. **Third level**: the core irrational belief of "demandingness" from which everything else follows. (imperative/schematic) 1. Also known as "imperative demands" , these are thoughts about the way reality "should" be. They are core beliefs that follow the construct of " I must", "you must", or "the world must". Albert Ellis calls this **MUSTerbation — expectations about the way the world is, ought to be, and what is good or bad about what is/ought to be**. Words like "should", "ought", "must" and "have to" represent demandingness. ### (b) Types of irrational beliefs REBT recognizes 5 basic types of irrational beliefs that underlie cognitive distortions: *demandingness, awfulizing, frustration intolerance, self-worth ratings, and other-worth ratings*. > **Demandingness* is an unrealistic and absolute expectation of events or individuals being the way a person desires them to be.* > > **Awfulizing* is an exaggeration of the negative consequences of a situation to an extreme degree, so that an unfortunate occurrence becomes “terrible".* > > [***Frustration Intolerance***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/frustration-tolerance/) **(FI)* stems from demands for ease and comfort, and reflects an intolerance of discomfort.* > > **Global evaluations of human worth*, either of the self or others, imply that human beings can be rated, and that some people are worthless, or at least less valuable than others.* > > *\[6\]* The most common situations where we use these irrational belief processes happen in these contexts: ***social relationships, achievement, comfort, and fairness***. ## How to use this list of Cognitive Distortions The key is to understand that thought patterns are akin to muscle movements. Habitual ways of thinking have an evolutionary purpose — they help our brains use less energy, draw conclusions faster, and move on with our lives. We get used to a certain way of doing (in this case thinking), and the only way to change/improve is to do it differently, and getting the new “movement” into muscle memory. In this case, your neural pathways. But to do that, you have to first recognize them. We cannot improve something we don’t notice. Identifying the usual suspects beforehand helps raise our level of awareness, which in turn helps in disrupting habitual patterns. ⦿ Familiarize yourself with the common ones. ⦿ Identify 2-3 patterns you regularly fall for. ⦿ Target those in the coming weeks. ⦿ Practice identifying them. ⦿ Replace those recurring patterns with counter narratives. ⦿ Practice just as you would practice scales in music, or weights for building muscle. Reading about them raises awareness, but changes are not sustained without practice. In addition to the specific countering of cognitive distortions, below are some general approaches you can use to improve your thinking and avoid these thought traps. ### Thought record journals Writing down your thoughts and identifying what distortion you might be falling for is super helpful. Done consistently, this practice in itself can literally rewire your neural system. ### Self-Compassion If you were advising your friend in a similar situation, what might you tell them? We're often much harsher on ourselves than with others. ### Relative thinking Learn to recognize the complexity of problems and situations and how your take might be too simplistic. Extreme interpretations require extreme simplification. ### Scientific thinking Always be searching for evidence. Test out your interpretations and get feedback from multiple sources. A useful tool for seeking critical feedback and identifying potential blindspots is [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/). ### Watch out for emotive language Be extra alert to “musts”, “should”, “oughts”, “have to’s”, “it’s awful”, “I can’t stand it”, “never”, and so on. ### Identify your level of thinking Follow the chain of inferences down the levels of thinking and identify what irrational belief might be driving your distortion. Another useful tool is [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). ### Cost-benefit analysis Is your particular approach or way of thinking helpful or harmful? Are there alternate explanations that might be more beneficial? ## Further reading Below are some related articles that build and add to the concepts discussed above. - Instead of learning new mental models, it's often more productive to identify and dismantle [hidden but unhelpful mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/): [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be half-baked, often useless in practice. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) - [Double-loop learning: a simple model of performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) and what lies upstream [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w1200/2023/03/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) - The [ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) is a useful framework that shows how we go from facts to inferences to actions: [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - [Imposter syndrome](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/#dunning-kruger-effect-and-impostor-syndrome) is one kind of cognitive distortion/thought trap: [There’s no need to eliminate or even overcome self-doubt.Self-doubt is not an impediment to be eliminated as is commonly thought of. It’s a condition of the game and can even be a positive indicator.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Doubt--Dunning-Kruger-Imposter-Syndrome.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) ## ## Sources 1. [Feeling Good](https://amzn.to/3TjOMss?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Burns 2. [The Anxious Achiever](https://amzn.to/473A3oY?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Morra Aarons-Mele 3. [Handbook of Coaching Psychology ](https://amzn.to/48eSasR?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Stephen Palmer, Alison Whybrow 4. [Dealing with Emotional Problems Using RECBT](https://amzn.to/3uWpZ3x?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Windy Dryden 5. [Evidence Based Coaching Handbook](https://amzn.to/4afpuBP?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Dianne Stober, Anthony Grant 6. [A Practitioner's Guide to REBT](https://amzn.to/3TtpdVM?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Raymond DiGiuseppe, Kristen Doyle, Windy Dryden, Wouter Backx ### 7 Principles of Effective Constructive Feedback URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/ Last updated: 2024-09-29T23:25:51.000Z *Most managers suck at giving effective, constructive feedback. Equally, most of us are bad at receiving and processing constructive feedback. This is a lost opportunity for everyone.* *Edgar Schein, professor emeritus at MIT, was one of the foremost experts in organizational behavior and interpersonal interactions. He articulated a set of principles required to make the process of constructive feedback actually useful.* *Many of the commonly found frameworks today have their origins in Schein’s ideas. This post looks at constructive feedback using Schein's framework.* --- ## Principle 1: Goal consensus > “The Giver and Receiver Must Have Consensus on the Receiver's Goals. “ Feedback always happens within the context of a given goal. Its function is to show someone where they’re relative to a target so they can make adjustments. Managers often make the mistake of [assuming the context as a given](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). But without agreement on goals, the feedback lacks context. Or worse, the context is assumed, which also means differing interpretations of the given feedback. Effective, constructive feedback requires prior mutual understanding on goals to be achieved & [performance standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) to be met. Without this, feedback can be misconstrued as irrelevant, or even interference. ### Example > ...it does me very little good to have my tennis instruc­tor point out the flaws in my backhand when my goal was to improve my footwork. A good coach will typically ask the trainee "What do you want to work on today?" before launching into corrective feedback. > > …. If I feel that I have some crucial feedback to give, I must first broach the question of where the conversation is headed and what the client is trying to achieve. Only if my feedback fits into that scenario should I feel free to offer it. ## Principle 2: Description and appreciation > “The Giver Should Emphasize Description and Appreciation.” Schein identifies three types of constructive feedback: - **Positive** (when person does well) - This is the easiest to learn from and evokes positive response. - It focuses on whats’ already working. - Feeds into our need for maintaining high self-esteem. - **Descriptive neutral** - Often necessary when person is extremely defensive and easily offended. - Focuses exclusively on description of changeable behavior. - The description acts as a comparison against agreed standards. - **Negative** (where person didn’t do well) - Hardest to do because it triggers defensive reactions or worse simply dismissed or rejected. - A negative focus also doesn’t give direction on positive action. It’s more about stopping something and can distract from what’s actually needed. Many managers rely exclusively on negative feedback as a basis for “correction” and “improvement”. In fact, **common understanding of “constructive” feedback is primarily negative**. But we benefit equally from positive feedback that identifies and emphasizes strengths. The “feedback sandwich” — that tries to strike a balance — ends up being a shit sandwich because managers forget that positives should outweigh the negatives. Often it’s the opposite because the negatives get noticed and flagged much more readily. In effect, the **positives are used to “hide” the negatives.** This makes the process easy for the managers, but they lose credibility and trust, thus missing the whole point. A **“rough” delivery of reality combined with trust is much better than a “slick” delivery** that happens in the absence, and often to make up for a lack of, trust. ## Principle 3: Semantic specificity > “The Giver Should Be Concrete and Specific.“ Lack of clarity, and semantic confusion — no mutual understanding of terms — derails feedback even when done with genuine intent. The key then to effective feedback is semantic specificity. > More general the feedback, more likely it will be misunderstood. More specific it is on mutual observations and actual behavior, less likely it will be misunderstood. In the context of [the ladder of inference model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/), this means sticking to observable, recordable reality when delivering feedback. ### Example > "You are too aggressive" (negative, vague, general) > vs. > “I have observed you shouting other people down when they are trying to express their own views" (descriptive, precise, specific). > "You don't handle your people well" (negative, general) > vs. > "You don't in­volve your subordinates in making decisions, and you don't give them a chance to express their own views" (negative, specific) > or > "l have noticed that your people are more productive when you involve them in decisions and listen to their points-of-view” (positive, specific). ## Principle 4: Trust > “Both Giver and Receiver Must Have Constructive Motives.” If receiver thinks feedback is only in the giver’s self-interest, they simply won’t be receptive. The recipient has to believe that the giver is genuinely interested in actually helping them. **Why should I listen to my manager if I don’t trust his intent?** This is equally applicable to the receiver’s motives as well. Without it, there’s no incentive for the giver to give genuine feedback. **Why should the manager give good feedback if she doesn’t think I’ll actually listen?** At its core, we need a baseline amount of trust in each other’s motives. Techniques and tactics simply won’t work without the requisite amount of trust. Furthermore, trust is easier to develop when both parties are [further down the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/#1-your-position-on-the-ladder) where there’s more objective “observable reality” as opposed to higher up on it where there’s a more judgements and far more subjective. ### Example > "I could get you only a 2 percent raise this year because things are gener­ally lean in the company" > (the boss is trying to be truthful but is vague; the subordinate may conclude that he is being subtly told that he is only an av­erage performer and become demoralized) > vs. > "Your performance overall was excellent this last year, and I wish I could reward it with money, but the company has had a generally lean year, so no one got more than a 2 percent raise " > (the boss is being specific, puts the subordinate performance into the proper context, and expresses appreciation). ## Principle 5: Transparency > “Don't Withhold Negative Feedback If It Is Relevant.” We are naturally wired to avoid being overtly critical and to also avoid any criticism because it triggers defensiveness and unpleasant reactions. But this is simply not an option in leadership roles. Managers who hold back on negative feedback do everyone a disservice, at the very least to themselves. > ...if the boss really has a negative evaluation that influences her handling of the subordinate, she is putting the sub­ordinate into a position of having to guess why there have been no promotions, good raises, or good assignments for him. Most of us withhold negative feedback, and don’t like to hear it because we’re programmed by social norms to avoid it. We don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, neither do we want to feel uncomfortable ourselves. Except in careers, that’s often exactly what’s needed to make real progress and avoid [blindspots that derail careers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/#the-blindspot). When giving negative feedback, the key is focusing on changeable behaviors instead of generalized universal statements. > If the giver of feedback criticizes my traits or personality, my self-image and self-esteem become involved, and I cannot readily change general parts of my personality. Hence I will resist or deny the criticism. > > On the other hand, if the negative feedback deals with some concrete behavior that both the giver and receiver have witnessed, the giver can express his own feelings about the behavior and his evaluation of it, and the receiver can avoid ego involvement. ## Principle 6: Sharing emotions, owning opinions, and avoiding generalities > “The Giver Should Own His Observations, Feelings, and Judgments. “ There are two aspects to this principle. (1) Owning emotions and (2) emphasizing that it’s the giver’s take ### **Sharing and owning emotions** The giver has to share and own their emotions. This is perhaps the subtlest of points in the framework : > ...feedback of the emo­tional reaction is more likely to be accepted than feedback of the judgment. Saying that your behavior made me angry, anxious, or dis­couraged is more likely to be heard than the judgment that your behavior was inappropriate or "bad." > > The same logic applies for posi­tive feedback. Saying that some of your behavior delighted me or made me proud is far more valuable to the learning process than just saying "You did a good job." ### **Avoiding generalizations and emphasizing owner’s role** The giver has to emphasize that it is THEIR take and not a universal one. E.g. “You are no good” vs ”I think you are no good”. The first is a universal generalization that sounds like a final judgment that cannot be challenged or explored. In the second, giver makes explicit their ownership of the feedback. > It is important for the giver to own the feedback in order to make it discussible and a source of potential learning. Impersonal generalities are demeaning because they remove the rationalization that it may be just the giver's idiosyncratic reaction. > > …A general judgment also implies that it has been tested with others and is a final conclusion rather than the giver's immediate reaction. ## Principle 7: Timing > “Feedback Should Be Timed to When the Receiver and Giver Are Ready.“ Four aspects make for good timing in constructive feedback: ### a. Readiness of receiver This is most critical as without it everything else is moot. A receptive learner can overcome a lack of skill on the giver’s part. However, no amount of skill can make up for a lack of receptivity. Thus receiver’s motivation to learn is crucial. ### b. Readiness of giver The giver has to be ready as well. This comes from thinking through & ensuring it doesn’t violate any of the principles. And of course care, aka giving a damn. Needing some time also means that as receivers, it’s good to give stakeholders time to process feedback instead of asking for it impromptu. ### c. Setting the stage/context How feedback gets interpreted depends on the context within which it happens. Goal consensus is part of it, but this is equally applicable at the individual interaction level. Without a context for the conversation, your message can be easily misconstrued. - More on context:[Importance of mastering context in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) - More on different types of conversations: [Closure conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/) ### d. Time and space Closer the feedback is to relevant events, the more likely everyone remembers specific details. Too far and we forget the details. Too soon and we might not have had enough time to process it. --- ## Related reading - Why is accurate feedback so elusive and why is it exceptionally hard to give and receive? Schein articulated 4 parts of the self based on [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) model and the different patterns of communication that this creates. Between these two he captures the many pitfalls of communication that impedes accurate feedback. Awareness of these different parts of our self and the resulting communication patterns can dramatically improve effectiveness in how we interact with others. - [Development in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) is mainly an inside job. - [Leadership can’t be taught](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/) but can be learned. - The Ladder of Inference: [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) ## Sources 1. [**Process Consultation Revisited**](https://amzn.to/3QhpRCE?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Edgar H. Schein 2. [**Humble Inquiry**](https://amzn.to/46MUCqh?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Edgar H. Schein ### The Johari Window: A Guide for Leaders URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:20:49.000Z *The Johari Window is used to understand *how we communicate based on self-knowledge* and *how others see us*. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-discovery. This makes the Johari Window *a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers*.* --- ## What is the Johari Window Developed by psychologists Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham (hence the name Jo-Hari) the Johari Window is a 2x2 matrix model that captures key aspects of the interplay of our socio-psychological selves in communication. The **two dimensions** of the matrix are: - **Self-Knowledge** (aspects of ourselves that are known/unknown to us) - **Others' Knowledge** (aspects of ourselves that are known/unknown to others) The primary improvements based on the tool focus on: - **Increased feedback** (to increase self-knowledge) - **Increased exposure and** [**self-disclosure**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) (to increase others’ knowledge about us) Joseph Luft \[3\] explains: > The four quadrants represent the total person in relation to other persons. The basis for division into quadrants is awareness of behavior, feelings, and motivation. > > Sometimes awareness is shared, sometimes not. An act, a feeling, or a motive is assigned to a particular quadrant based on who knows about it. As awareness changes, the quadrant to which the psychological state is assigned changes. ![Johari Window - primary dimensions](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/2--Johari-Window--Primary-dimensions.png) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## 4 quadrants of the Johari Window model Using the two primary dimensions, the window creates 4 panes or quadrants: - [Quadrant 1, the open quadrant](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) or The Arena - Quadrant 2, the blind quadrant or The Blindspot - Quadrant 3, the hidden quadrant or The Facade - Quadrant 4, the unknown quadrant or The Unknown Couple of pointers: - The **quadrants are not fixed in size**. They vary with the person (more below). Change effort means an attempt to change the pane sizes. - Lines separating the quadrants are akin to **“shades” that can be lifted**. More disclosure and feedback means opening of the shades and the quadrants changing in size. Let’s look at each of the panes/quadrants more closely. ![Johari Window - the 4 panes/quadrants](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/3--Johari-Window--4-panes.png) ### Quadrant 1 - The Open Quadrant This is the public space. It's the part of ourselves — behaviors and feelings — that we’re aware of, and so are others. All information is known to all parties. **We move freely within this space** and it fosters open communication. When operating in this zone: - We're naturally trustworthy. - We share information easily and more receptive to feedback. - It requires [confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) and self-assurance. Larger this zone, the more adaptive and wider our repertoire. It means open communication and well-developed skills in sharing and eliciting. The **more our communication falls in this area, the more effective we are**. More on the [open quadrant](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/): [Open Quadrant of the Johari Window: Beyond Transparency in Leadership“Radical transparency” is often touted as a leadership virtue. So why do leaders still struggle with openness? Using the Johari Window’s Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena), this article examines the complexities of leadership transparency and presents a nuanced approach to mastering openness in leadership. Through the lens of Quadrant 1 (Open/![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-26.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) ### Quadrant 2 - The Blind Quadrant These are behaviors and attitudes that others easily see and recognize, but we're unaware of. A large blind spot can mean any or all of the following: - low self-awareness - scarcity of feedback - no receptivity to feedback - lack of[ listening skills](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) This often **creates confusion and frustration** because you don’t know what others are reacting to, which makes leaders far less effective. This zone is often ripe with opportunities for improvement for most folks. Making gains requires openness and [courage to engage in feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/). ### Quadrant 3 - The Hidden Quadrant This is the private pane. These are **aspects about ourselves we recognize and are aware of, but that we choose not to share**. With leaders, this can be particularly problematic if they assume that others are, in fact, aware. Hiding behind or **putting up a facade is energy consuming** and can be tiring when done for long stretches, especially if your profile requires you to have a larger open area. You also end up coming across as **inauthentic and not trustworthy**. ### Quadrant 4 - The Unknown Quadrant These are aspects of us that are unknown both to ourselves and others. A large unknown area makes you an unpredictable entity. **We're essentially a mystery to others**. This increases the risk of misunderstandings and sending the wrong "vibes". ![Johari Window - typical size of the panes](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/4--Johari-Window--typical-size-of-panes-1.png) ## Change and the Johari Window Luft \[3\] gives key pointers on the nature of change and how it affects each quadrant. He calls it **the "eleven principles of change":** > 1. A change in any one quadrant will affect all other quadrants. > 2. It takes energy to hide, deny, or be blind to behavior which is involved in interaction. > 3. Threat tends to decrease awareness; mutual trust tends to increase awareness. > 4. Forced awareness (exposure) is undesirable and usually ineffective. > 5. Interpersonal learning means a change has taken place so that quadrant1 is larger, and one or more of the other quadrants has grown smaller. > 6. Working with others is facilitated by a large enough area of free activity. It means more of the resources and skills of the persons involved can be applied to the task at hand. > 7. The smaller the first quadrant, the poorer the communication. > 8. There is universal curiosity about the unknown area, but this is held in check by custom, social training, and diverse fears. > 9. Sensitivity means appreciating the covert aspects of behavior, in quadrants 2, 3, and 4, and respecting the desire of others to keep them so. > 10. Learning about group processes, as they are being experienced, helps to increase awareness (enlarging quadrant 1) for the group as a whole as well as for individual members. > 11. The value system of a group and its membership may be noted in the way unknowns in life of the group are confronted. ## The Johari Window and self-awareness There are two key reasons why understanding and utilizing the Johari Window is effective for increasing self-awareness in leaders: 1. Information bias: WYDKYDK 2. [Honest feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) is a rarity ### Information bias Researchers have consistently found **the most frequent cause of** [**leadership derailment**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/) was "insensitivity to other people". They found that **leaders consistently "behave in ways that actively derail their careers"**. What makes this so hard? Not knowing **"what you don't know you don't know"** aka WYDKYDK. This means leaders: - frequently get misinterpreted - have trouble building trust - appear inauthentic - are ineffective at interpersonal relationships When humans communicate, **we don’t tell others what we actually think. And others don’t tell us what they actually think**. Why? Because we would rather not offend anyone. This keeps the social machine well-lubed and working. But it's a liability for leaders. **Your position in the hierarchy is inversely correlated with the amount of accurate feedback you get** — the higher you go, the less feedback. Many end up operating in echo chambers where their opinions and agenda are simply getting parroted and reflected back, aka the CEO disease. Leaders never really understand [their impact on others](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/), or what they might be doing wrong, ultimately leading to career derailment. ### Honest feedback is a rarity > *The temptation to tell a chief in a great position the things he most likes to hear is one of the commonest explanations of mistaken policy. Thus the outlook of the leader on whose decision fateful events depend is usually far more sanguine than the brutal facts admit.* > > — Sir Winston Churchill, The World Crisis The Johari Window model shows why honest, critical feedback is not only hard to give, but equally hard to receive. **Unless you “reveal” what you see that I don’t, there’s no chance for me to reduce my blind quadrant**. By definition I cannot access it without using external help. But because of social norms, this never happens. **Honest feedback would mean going against socially accepted rules of concealing**, and potentially causing pain & discomfort to the other person. And it's **never going to happen when there's a power differential** between the parties involved. > “I want you to tell me exactly what you think of me … even if it costs you your job.” > > \- Boss in a New Yorker cartoon ## The Johari Window and managerial communication How managers seek and share information in the context of the Johari window creates some unique styles. Exposure means how much they openly divulge opinions and share information. Feedback means how much they seek exposure and information from others. This creates **4 distinct styles of managerial communication \[7\]:** ### The Turtle These are managers **low in both exposure and feedback**, and thus unaware of themselves and of others’ feedback. They seem aloof, even anti-social. ### The Interrogator These managers are **constantly seeking information (high feedback) but won’t divulge anything (low exposure)** on their part. It’s a one-way street without mutual give and take. Without the exposure, others are kept guessing. Because their facade/hidden area of unshared opinions doesn't get tested, this **limits their range and effectiveness**. ### The Bull in the China Shop These are folks with **large blindspot zones (high in exposure, low in feedback)**. Characterized by low self-awareness of their impact, except others can clearly see the issues. This is more likely when managers don’t listen well, and trust is not high enough where others share feedback. They often come across as **autocratic and ignorant** – too hung up on themselves and not paying enough attention to elicit feedback, both good and bad. Others don’t get a chance to participate and trust doesn't get built. ### The Ideal Manager They're characterized by openness, high self-awareness, non-defensiveness, and free [flow of information](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/). Basically, **a good combination of high exposure and high feedback**. This is what managers need to aim for – everyone knows where they stand, have a clear understanding of their impact on others, and good at both sharing and eliciting feedback. Without skill and tact, high exposure can come across as [being naive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/), and also requires a high degree of [emotional intelligence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/). More: [Johari Leadership Archetypes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-leadership-archetypes/) ## The Johari Window in leadership coaching The primary aim in coaching, and other self-development efforts, is **to increase your capacity by changing the size of the four quadrants**. ![Johari Window- the goal of leadership coaching](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/5---Johari-Window--goal-of-coaching.png) In effect, leadership coaching tries to: - Increase your Arena zone. This doesn’t mean a tell-all, but instead can be very specific to a given context and situation, and done tactfully. - Shrink your facade and blind spot areas. - Surface the unknown by creating experiments and testing out hypotheses. - Help to see yourself as others really see you. - Become better observers of ourselves. This is achieved using a combination of: - Actively seeking feedback. - Learning to increase exposure through skill and tact. - Recognizing self-created limits, boundaries and pushing through them. - Designing observations and testing. - Engaging in a regular cadence of active [skilled reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). - 360-degree feedback organized in the context of the panes. - [Creating a “safe” environment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) for more accurate, candid feedback that highlights blindspots and facades. ## The Johari Window and entire organizations In senior leadership roles, you also have to be mindful of the Johari Window aspects of your team members, organization and even the whole company. The 4 areas of **organizational self-knowledge** would look like: - The **open area** represents things the organization knows about itself, and that outsiders also recognize. This includes the organization's vision, values, culture, strengths and weaknesses. The more an organization engages with stakeholders through communication, feedback and introspection, the larger this pane grows. - The **hidden area** covers things the organization knows but doesn't reveal. Every organization has secrets. This isn't necessarily bad, but too much hidden knowledge can limit effectiveness. Sharing more internally and externally expands the open area. - The **blind spot** contains unknown unknowns - weaknesses, challenges and external perceptions the organization is oblivious to. This can be reduced through environmental scanning, feedback surveys and external advisory boards. - The **unknown area** covers knowledge outsiders have about the organization, but the organization does not. This intelligence can be gleaned through open [inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/), soliciting input, and building trust with both partners and critics. ## Reflection exercise and pdf worksheet Use the below questions as a reflection exercise both at the individual and team levels: - Do you seek/elicit critical feedback? How can you get better at it? - What aspects of yourself do you hide? - How big is your “facade” pane? How can you reduce it tactfully? - Do you withhold information from your team members? Why? - What potential blindspots are there based on recent performance feedback or 360 reviews? Do you agree with them? - What problems are you having and are they related to your facade or blindspots? - What are the opportunity costs of maintaining a facade or not recognizing blindspots? - Are you [aware of key developmental areas](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) where you need the most help? ## Related reading on the Johari Window Below are some additional articles that build on many of the concepts discussed: [Four Levels of CommunicationWhy is it that the most critical information is often the very thing that remains unsaid? Leaders tend to operate under the illusion that communication is a simple, linear process of “telling”—setting direction, articulating values, and dispensing expertise. Or at best an “exchange”. Yet, the higher they rise in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-164.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Johari-Window---Levels-of-Communication-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/four-levels-of-communication/) [Open Quadrant of the Johari Window: Beyond Transparency in Leadership“Radical transparency” is often touted as a leadership virtue. So why do leaders still struggle with openness? Using the Johari Window’s Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena), I examine the complexities of leadership transparency and a nuanced approach to mastering openness in leadership. Through the lens of Quadrant 1 (Open/Arena) in![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-165.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/The-Johari-Window-Quadrants-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-open-quadrant/) [The Five Johari Leadership ArchetypesJoseph Luft in his now forgotten classic Of Human Interaction, has a section on leadership archetypes I found particularly useful, and entertaining. He based these archetypes — ancient patterns in how we influence others — on the work of anthropologist Merrill Jackson, which explains why these are uncannily accurate. Luft explains the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-186.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Five-Leadership-Archetypes.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-leadership-archetypes/) - The [ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) is a useful tool to understand how we selectively filter information to jump to conclusions and that can lead to misunderstanding: [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-166.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Ladder-of-Inference-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - Earning trust and being self-critical are key aspects of the 16 [leadership principles at Amazon](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/). The Johari window helps with building those skills. More on Amazon's leadership principles: [Amazon’s 16 Leadership Principles: A Deep DiveA deep dive into Amazon’s leadership principles, complete with videos and reading recommendations.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-167.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Amazon-Leadership-Principles.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/) - [Self-development](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) is a key aspect of leadership effectiveness and requires getting good at what's called [double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/): [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-168.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) - A similar notion to blindspots and facades that coaching tackles is to identify unhelpful but [hidden mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/): [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be half-baked, often useless in practice. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-169.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) ## Sources 1. Hanson, P. (1973). **The Johari window: A model for soliciting and giving feedback** 2. Luft, Joseph, & Ingham, Harry, (1961). **The Johari Window: A Graphic Model of Awareness in Interpersonal Relations** 3. **Of Human Interaction** by Joseph Luft 4. [**Process Consultation Revisited**](https://amzn.to/3QhpRCE?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Edgar H. Schein 5. [**Humble Inquiry**](https://amzn.to/46MUCqh?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Edgar H. Schein 6. [**Organizational Behavior**](https://amzn.to/46QyZWa?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Linda K. Stroh , Gregory B. Northcraft , Margaret A. Neale 7. [**The Encyclopedia of Leadership**](https://amzn.to/478GVBO?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Bruce Klatt, Murray Hiebert 8. [The New Johari Window](https://library.psychology.edu/the-new-johari-window-2-models-of-interpersonal-awareness/3/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by William Bergquist ### Ground rules for effective meetings URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/ Last updated: 2025-09-15T23:17:27.000Z How can you run more effective meetings? One way is to study folks who are masters at running effective meetings, and get paid for it — professional facilitators. Roger Schwarz is one of the world’s leading experts on facilitation. He has a set of what he calls ***ground rules for effective groups*** that can be easily be adapted for getting better both as a meeting organizer and participant. \[1,2\] ## How to use these ground rules If you’re a leader/manager, running meetings is a core skill you have to master. The ground rules will: - Guide with behavior that’ll help to run meetings more effectively. - Help diagnose ineffective group behaviors so you can intervene. - Serve as a teaching tool to develop effective group norms and expectations. As a meeting participant, these ground rules give you multiple ways to participate and add value, instead of simply being a passive bystander. Much of the terminology used in the ground rules builds on the basics of [The Ladder of Inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). Check out my article for more details: [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/Ladder-of-Inference--2-.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) Note: I’m using the example of meetings, but the construct is applicable to most interactions. Let's jump in! ## 1\. Test assumptions, inferences, and attributions Assumptions are different from inferences, which are different from [attributions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/). It’s important to understand the differences: > When you **assume** something, you take for granted that it is true without verifying it. > When you **infer** something, you draw a conclusion about what you do not know on the basis of things you do know. > When you **attribute** something, you make an inference about someone’s motives. > Assumption, inference, or attribution, **the effect is the same: an untested supposition**. > The problem is not that we make assumptions and inferences; we must do that to make sense out of what people are saying. The problem is that **if we are unaware of the inferences we are making, our only choice is to consider them as facts rather than as hypotheses** and to act on them as if they are true. > > When you test assumptions and inferences, you ask others whether the meaning you are making of their behavior or of the situation is the meaning they make of it. **Examples:** - *"It seems to me like you're concerned about the budget constraints. Is that what you're trying to say?"* - *"I assumed you were upset when you left the meeting early. Is that correct, or was it something else?"* - *"I inferred from your comments that you don't support the new policy. Am I right?"* The trick is to check the accuracy of your interpretations by asking others about their actual views, motives, and reasons for behaving a certain way. This avoids acting on incorrect assumptions, inferences, or attributions. ## 2\. Share all relevant information > This rule means that each group member shares all the relevant information she or he has that affects how the group solves a problem or makes a decision. > > Relevant information includes not only data that bear directly on the problem, decision, or other content the group is working on; it also includes information that does not support one’s preferred position and information about group members’ feelings about one another and the work they are doing. > > …sharing information in a way that can be validated, which ensures that members have a common basis for making an informed choice and generating commitment. **Examples:** - *"Is there information you haven't shared yet that could be relevant?"* - *"Does anyone have a different interpretation that we should consider regarding this data?"* The goal is to uncover all relevant information, including opposing data, so there's a common and validated understanding when making decisions. This builds commitment through transparency. **Couple of common mistakes I’ve seen:** - Withholding information, thinking it’s obvious or that everyone’s already aware of it. Even if everyone's aware of it, they might not have given it as much thought as you have. Your perspective matters. - Not sharing information that can potentially weaken your position. This is one of the fastest ways to build credibility that shows you’ve thought through your position and are willing to have an open discussion. ## 3\. Use specific examples and agree on what important words mean > …a particular way of sharing relevant information that generates valid data. Using specific examples means sharing detailed relevant information, including who said what and when and where it happened. > > Unlike general statements, specific examples enable others to determine independently whether the information in them is valid. By agreeing on what important words mean, you make sure that you are using words to mean the same thing that others mean. **Examples:** - *"When you say the product failed in testing, what exactly happened? Let's agree on what "failure" means."* - *"You stated that the team is "inexperienced." Can you provide an example showing the gap in skills you see?"* The goal is to move from vague generalizations to specific, detailed examples that everyone can understand and validate. Defining important words also creates shared meaning. Conversely, when being given feedback, both positive and negative, ask for specific examples and making sure that their assessment is consistent with how you're interpreting it. ## 4\. Explain your reasoning and intent > …. means explaining to others what leads you to make a comment, ask a question, or take an action. Your intent is your purpose for doing something. Your reasoning represents the logical process that you use to draw conclusions on the basis of data, values, and assumptions. > > …this rule includes making your private reasoning public, so that others can see how you reached your conclusion and ask you about places where they might reason differently. A key part of explaining your reasoning is to make transparent the strategy you are using to hold the conversation. > > Explaining your reasoning and making your strategy transparent are opportunities to learn where others have differing views or approaches and where you may have missed something that others see. **Examples**: - *"Could you walk me through how you came to this decision?"* - *"I suggested we delay the launch. My intent is to ensure we have more time for quality testing, not to hinder progress. What are your thoughts?"* The goal is to uncover the logic and motivations behind people's statements and actions explicitly, to allow for mutual understanding. ## 5\. Focus on interests, not positions > Focusing on interests is another way of sharing relevant information. **Interests** are the needs, desires, and concerns that people have in regard to a given situation. **Positions or solutions** are how people meet their interests. In other words, people’s interests lead them to advocate a particular solution or position. > > **An effective way for groups to solve problems is to begin by sharing their individual interests**. Once they agree to a set of interests for the group, which may or may not include all the individual interests identified, they can begin to generate solutions or positions that take that set of interests into account. **Example:** - *"What concerns do you have if we go with this solution? Understanding your interests can help me find alternatives."* - *"I'm open to alternatives if we can find solutions that address your interests as well as mine."* The goal is to **uncover the "why" first before jumping to the "what" – interests before position**s. ## 6\. Combine advocacy and inquiry > When you combine [advocacy with inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/), you (1) explain your point of view including the interests and reasoning you used to get there, (2) ask others about their point of view, and/or (3) invite others to ask you questions about your point of view. > > Combining advocacy and inquiry accomplishes several goals. > > First, it can shift a series of monologues into a focused conversation. For example, in some meetings, one person speaks after the other but no one’s comments seem to directly address the previous person’s. Without an explicit invitation to inquire about or comment on the previous person’s remarks, the meeting switches focus with each person who speaks. > > The second goal… is to create conditions for learning. By identifying where people’s reasoning differs, you can help a group explore what has led them to reason differently: Are they using other data, making other assumptions, or assigning different priorities to certain issues? **Examples:** - *"I recommend we move forward with Option A. My interests are reducing costs and time to market. What's your take on this approach?"* - *"Here’s my take on this. Given my interests and reasoning, does this make sense? What am I missing?"* - *"We can't seem to agree on the right path. Can you explain your interests and logic so I can better understand your point of view?"* The goal is to integrate your stance with inquiry into others' views. This merges advocacy with genuine curiosity. **Healthy conversations shuffle through the different modes**, instead of being exclusively in advocacy mode that's low on inquiry. Strategist Roger Martin calls this "[assertive inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/assertive-inquiry/)". ## 7\. Jointly design next steps and ways to test disagreements > In general, jointly designing next steps means (1) advocating your point of view about how you want to proceed, including your interests, relevant information, reasoning, and intent; (2) inquiring about how others may see it differently; and (3) jointly crafting a way to proceed that takes into account group members’ interests, relevant information, reasoning, and intent. Jointly designing ways to test disagreements is one specific type of next step. > > Jointly designing ways to test disagreements means considering such important questions as, “How might it be that we are both correct?” and “How could we each be seeing different parts of the same problem?” A useful analogy for testing disagreements this way is two scientists who must design a joint experiment to test their competing hypotheses; the research design needs to be rigorous enough to meet the standards of both. **Examples:** - *After a debate over marketing strategies, the team agrees to test both approaches on a smaller scale to gather real data on what resonates better with customers.* - *The product team is split on whether to focus on incremental improvements or innovative redesigns. They decide to prototype both approaches on a few smaller projects to evaluate the outcomes.* The key is moving from positional debate to jointly designing objective tests and ways to gather more data. 💡 The ****next two ground rules are relatively trickier than the others and need a lot more skill and tact**. But they’re also high on impact, particularly in leadership roles. ## 8\. Discuss undiscussable issues > An undiscussable issue is one that is relevant to the group, that is reducing or may reduce the group’s effectiveness, and that people believe they cannot discuss without creating defensiveness or other negative consequences. By using this ground rule together with the previous ground rules, you can discuss these issues fruitfully and reduce the level of defensiveness. > > Groups often choose not to discuss undiscussables, reasoning that raising them might make someone embarrassed or defensive and that avoiding them will save face for the group’s members (and themselves). In other words, they see discussing undiscussable issues as not being compassionate. > > Yet people often overlook the negative systemic—and uncompassionate—consequences they create by not raising an undiscussable issue. Examples of undiscussables are members who are not performing adequately, or are not trusting one another, or are reluctant to disagree with their manager who is also a member of the group. **Example:** > *“This may be a difficult issue, but I want to talk about how I think we, as your direct reports, withhold information from you because of how you react when we share bad news. I’m raising this not because I want to put anyone on the spot, but because I want us to make the best strategic decisions possible.* > > *I’d like to share what I’ve seen that leads me to say this and test out whether others see it the same or differently.”* All human interactions have some element of the "undiscussable". At an individual level, there are aspects about us that **others know but that we are unaware of**. [The Johari Window model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) is a good framework that can help with this aspect of our communication. ## 9\. Use a decision-making rule that generates the level of commitment needed > Ground rule nine makes specific the core value of internal commitment. Its premise is that group members’ commitment to a decision is in part a function of the degree to which they make an informed free choice to support it. The more they are able to make an informed free choice, the more likely they are to be internally committed to the decision. > > Practicing Ground Rule Nine means understanding that there are different types of group decision-making processes that generate **different degrees of acceptance of a decision**....: **delegative, consensus, democratic, and consultative**. > > The degrees of acceptance of a decision range from resistance, to noncompliance, to compliance, to enrollment, to internal commitment. Internal commitment means that each member of the group believes in the decision, sees it as his or her own, and will do whatever is necessary to implement it effectively. According to Schwartz’s construct, you have the following **4 kinds of decisions**: 1. **Delegative**: The leader makes the decision unilaterally and announces it. This tends to generate resistance or noncompliance from those who had no input. Usually appropriate for routine operational decisions.. 2. **Democratic**: The decision is put to a majority vote. Leads to compliance from those who voted for it, but can still leave a resistant minority. Works well for low-stakes preferences. 3. **Consultative**: Leader gets input and recommendations but still makes the final call. Creates more buy-in than delegative, but final authority still rests with the leader. Useful when leader has expertise the group lacks. 4. **Consensus**: The group discusses the issue extensively to understand all perspectives. The decision is shaped so that all can actively support it, though not necessarily with 100% agreement. Highest level of commitment, but most time consuming. **Essential for high-stakes, mission-critical decisions.** The key is matching the decision process to the importance of commitment needed for successful implementation. More participation builds more commitment, but not always feasible. A related idea is Jeff Bezos’ notion of [disagree and commit](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-quality-and-velocity). The article has an entire [collection of Bezos' decision-making frameworks](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-making-frameworks). ## Sources 1. Schwarz, R. M. (2002). [The Skilled Facilitator](https://amzn.to/3Q39mKp?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Schwarz, R. M., Davidson, A., Carlson, P., McKinney, S. (2011). [The Skilled Facilitator Fieldbook](https://amzn.to/3M6feBB?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### If Vincent van Gogh Was Your Career Coach URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-09-19T18:11:24.000Z *Most of us have heard of Vincent van Gogh the artist but not many are aware that he was an equally prolific writer. The most well known are his letters to his brother Theo, and they are a treasure trove of wisdom on art, life, work, and everything in between.* *This made me think — *if you were to “consult” Van Gogh about your career, what might he have told you?* We can only speculate, but there are plenty of clues. Below is a collection of quotes from his writings, followed by my commentary as it applies to careers.* - [It’s never easy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#it%E2%80%99s-never-easy) - [Getting ground out](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#getting-ground-out) - [Ambition for preeminence is a jealous lover](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#ambition-for-preeminence-is-a-jealous-lover) - [The basics for a sustained career](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#the-basics-for-a-sustained-career) - [There’s no end, only evolving](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#there%E2%80%99s-no-end-only-evolving) - [Excellence is mundane, and small](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#excellence-is-mundane-and-small) - [Doing, not wishing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#doing-not-wishing) - [Embracing anxiety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#embracing-anxiety) - [Money is cheap](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#money-is-cheap) - [Everyone needs the money though](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#everyone-needs-the-money-though) - [Take action, any action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#take-action-any-action) - [Master the nuances of language and communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#master-the-nuances-of-language-and-communication) - [Cross pollinate](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#cross-pollinate) - [Become a skilled observer](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#become-a-skilled-observer) - [Stay naive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#stay-naive) - [Get in the trenches](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#get-in-the-trenches) - [Always be learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#always-be-learning) - [Your raison d’être](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#your-raison-d%C3%AAtre) - [Friendships and networks](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#friendships-and-networks) - [Mistakes and failure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#mistakes-and-failure) - [Means based action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#means-based-action) - [What makes you unique?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#what-makes-you-unique) - [Embrace the puzzle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#embrace-the-puzzle) - [Sources](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/#sources) --- The caricature of Van Gogh is the troubled genius. But going through his letters, it becomes obvious he knew a lot more about mental well-being and “success” than many of us today, some 150 years later. His lines often jump out of the page and grip you. Coming from anyone else, these might sound like empty motivational ra-ra-ra. But from his pen, it packs a punch. > But you will ask: What is your definite aim? > > That aim becomes more definite, will stand out slowly and surely, **just as the rough draft becomes a sketch, and the sketch becomes a picture**, little by little, by working seriously on it, by pondering over the idea, vague at first, over the thought that was fleeting and passing, till it gets fixed. ## It’s never easy > I have a dirty and difficult occupation, painting, and if I weren’t as I am I wouldn’t paint. > It is no easier, I’m convinced, to make a good painting than to find a diamond or a pearl. > Art is jealous and demands all our time, all our strength. > Possible that these great geniuses are no more than crazies, and that to have faith and boundless admiration for them you’d have to be a crazy too. That may well be — **I would prefer my madness to other people’s wisdom**. > Through working hard, old chap, I hope to make something good one day. I haven’t got it yet, but I’m hunting it and fighting for it … > What I want and set as my goal is damned difficult, and yet I don’t believe I’m aiming too high… When observing a painting by Van Gogh in the sterile environment of a museum, it’s easy to forget the messiness, and the ups and downs of the creative process. It’s natural to assume it came easily to him. Most folks are unaware that he started relatively late, after fumbling at multiple careers, at the age of 27\. More importantly, a bulk of the paintings that he’s famous for happened right towards the very end before his death, when he made giant leaps in style and productivity. **Much of the time leading up to that productive spurt was spent in learning his craft and copying other renowned artists**. Even the best have to work at it and look for it. And no one’s good on day one, not even the so-called genius. A critical mistake we make is to envision ambitious outcomes and goals without clearly understanding what it will actually take to get there. **It’s not necessarily the outcome that’s hard**, but instead [maintaining the mundane day-to-day grind](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/#doing-mundane-things-long-enough-is-the-biggest-challenge) of getting there. > I say it again — work against indifference — perseverance isn’t easy — but things that are easy mean little. This explains why money alone never cuts it. Without the element of challenge, meaning or purpose, we are not engaged. And if Van Gogh had to remind himself of it, [let’s not beat ourselves up for doubting ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/)every once in a while. ## Getting ground out > I feel with all my power that the history of man is like that of wheat: if one is not planted in the earth to flourish, come what may, one will be ground up for bread. Are we going to get ground out by the system, or are we going to germinate and flourish? Van Gogh was probably talking about a life “by design” vs “by default”. It takes a lot more effort to do it intentionally. But are we ok with the default? > There is the same difference in a person before and after he is in love as between an unlighted lamp and one that is burning. The lamp was there and was a good lamp, but now it is shedding light, too, and that is its real function. ## Ambition for preeminence is a jealous lover > **Painting and fucking a lot aren’t compatible**; it weakens the brain, and that’s what’s really damned annoying. > You see what I’ve found, my work, and you also see what I haven’t found, everything else that’s part of life. > Art is jealous and demands all our time, all our strength. > It always comes back at times, in the midst of the artistic life, a yearning for — **real life — ideal and not attainable**. You want to be successful at work, but just not at the price of everything else. When we think of Olympic athletes, dedication over long periods of time is a given. Why do we expect it to be any different for the corporate climb, or your entrepreneurial venture? > It is no more reasonable to expect a great leader to be a “balanced” person with a “normal” private life than it is to expect such a thing of a great creative artist, athlete, or scientist. **Ambition for preeminence is a jealous lover. It will not share and does not forgive dalliance.** > > — James March, Thierry Weill in On Leadership Work-life balance is a misleading dichotomy — it’s the same you who’s everywhere. Balancing becomes an issue when one of them (work/life) is “**energy-draining**”. And it becomes so when we are disengaged, or out of alignment. Engaging vigorously with life and work is “**net energy-producing**”. When both are working well, we don’t have to think about balancing them. One feeds on the other. But success in one domain doesn’t necessarily mean fulfillment in others either. Often, **balance and average performance in multiple areas is actually harder than outstanding success in one domain**. Success in one typically comes at the price of below-average performance in others. It simply cannot be any other way. Even those who seem to have pulled off the impossible, do so only over the long term. They go through long stretches where everything else was out of balance to get that one thing right. ## The basics for a sustained career > Almost no one knows that the secret of beautiful work is to a large extent good faith and sincere feeling. Many a frustrated career happens because of loss of faith and a lack of sincerity — loss of faith in where it’s leading, and a lack of sincerity that comes from treating it as simply a paycheck. The mistake is to assume that no one sees it. It’s too obvious. More importantly, we are cheating ourselves. The trick is in understanding that it’s an active effort on our part, rather than a passive reaction to external circumstances. It’s what we make of it. There’s not necessarily an inspirational job, but rather our approach that makes it so. Of course, this is influenced by [alignment with our values](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/#blinded-by-outcome-focus), aspirations, and how we are wired. But the onus still remains on us. ## There’s no end, only evolving > I’m an artist — which I won’t take back, because those words naturally imply always seeking without ever fully finding. **Success, knowledge, and mastery are asymptotical** — the more you get closer to it, the more there’s to it. It’s the same with careers — there’s no end point, only an evolution towards an ideal which by definition can’t be reached. But instead of being a deterrent, it can be a spur for greater things. ## Excellence is mundane, and small > So then my brush goes between my fingers as if it were a bow on the violin and absolutely for my pleasure. > For the great doesn’t happen through impulse alone, and is a succession of little things that are brought together. You have to find aspects of your work that are enjoyable for their own sake rather than a means to an end. Otherwise, it’s hard to sustain peak performance over long stretches. Nevertheless, it’s important to recognize that not everything you do will be so. All work, even Van Gogh’s, has aspects of drudgery. It’s what David Brooks calls “digging the damn ditch”. The pros are good at doing the mundane things long enough. It’s what Daniel Chambliss called “[the mundanity of excellence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/)”. What we get to see is the final product that's the culmination of a long sequence of [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) strung together into that one final masterpiece or the masterful performance. ## Doing, not wishing > Hoping for better times mustn’t be a feeling but a doing something in the present. > I regard love — as I do friendship — not only as a feeling but chiefly as an action … > Loving is in practice not only eating strawberries. Modern culture prioritizes feelings, and rightfully so. Same for mindset. Research indicates that recognizing feelings and having a [growth mindset](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/#extremely-brittle-personalities) can be pivotal for success. However, this often goes to one extreme — when having the right feelings and “being in the right mindset” become a necessary condition for taking action. But the opposite is equally true — [action fixes mindset and feelings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/) as well. **In all the hoopla about mindset, actions seem to be forgotten**. You don’t have to wait for the “right” mindset, or spend time “fixing” it. It’s the same for decisions. **Deciding is as much about acting as it is about thinking.** Until the very moment we take action, we haven’t really decided. In uncertain scenarios, often any imperfect action is better than perfect inaction. ## Embracing anxiety > You don’t know how paralyzing it is, that stare from a blank canvas that says to the painter you can’t do anything. … Many painters are afraid of the blank canvas, but the blank canvas IS AFRAID of the truly passionate painter who dares. The equivalent of a blank canvas in careers is that new project, new role, or the new field, that pushes you to the limits. But there's no guarantee you will succeed. It’s what stops many from going to the next level. It’s scary for sure. What’s even scarier is [looking back and regretting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#minimizing-regret-as-a-framework) not having taken those chances. > Oh, the beautiful sun down here in high summer; it beats down on your head and I have no doubt at all that it drives you crazy. Now being that way already, all I do is enjoy it. > To know how to suffer without complaining, that’s the only practical thing, that’s the great skill, the lesson to learn, the solution to life’s problem. Many of our struggles stem from not willing to “stay with” the anxiety. If something/someone makes us uncomfortable, we flee. It’s often fruitful to stay with the feeling and experience it fully. This doesn’t mean it's comfortable, or that it goes away. Rather, it means you are engaging, rather than avoiding or trying to eliminate anxiety. ## Money is cheap > In my view I’m often very rich, not in money, but rich \[…\] because I’ve found my work — have something which I live for heart and soul and which gives inspiration and meaning too life. Van Gogh’s paintings fetch millions today. But when he died, he had sold just one painting in his entire life. He wasn’t “successful” by today’s standards, but one thing we cannot accuse him is of being miserable at work. To state a cliché, life is too short to be miserable. [Money typically dominates](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#18-money-is-the-cheapest) our decision-making criteria when it comes to careers. This makes us myopic and blind to other equally valid and more important criteria like energy, time, and identity. Having a range of [frameworks to think differently about careers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/) can be helpful. ## Everyone needs the money though > But the things needed for painting are like those of a ruinous mistress; you can do nothing without money, and you never have enough of it. You hate your job, and you're in it only for the money. Nothing wrong with this, as long as you use that money to move things forward. It’s what Robert Greene calls “[alive time vs. dead time](https://ryanholiday.net/will-you-choose-alive-time-or-dead-time/?ref=leadingsapiens.com)”. To build a side venture, or a new career, you will need time and money. Your current role can help you transition. Use it as fuel and runway for your next endeavor. ## Take action, any action > Life is the same as drawing: sometimes one has to act quickly and resolutely, tackle things with willpower, take care that broad outlines appear with lightning speed. It’s no use hesitating or doubting… > Look, a canvas that i cover is worth more than a blank canvas… > But even as we stray we sometimes find the track anyway, and there’s something good in all movement. > If you hear a voice within you say you cannot paint, then by all means paint and that voice will be silenced. When operating in complexity — unknown outcomes and unclear options — bold but imperfect action is often better than cautious and perfect inaction. Inertia is energy number one when we are stagnating, and **action is the antidote even when suboptimal**. Too many of us wait for the perfect time or the perfect opportunity to get started. It’s not coming. Take your shot with what you have, and with what you can see, for now. > Even if one sometimes feels a sort of decline, the point is nevertheless to revive and have courage, even though things don’t turn out as one first intends. Things rarely turn out as initially planned. Pushing through is the point. [Jeff Bezos ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-problems-and-resourcefulness)puts it this way: *“The whole point of moving things forward is that you run into problems, failures, things that don’t work."* [Work and careers require a specific kind of courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) that’s different from what Hollywood typically portrays. > Holding on to the present and not letting it pass by without managing to get something out of it — now that’s what I believe duty is. Van Gogh was talking about making the most of the limited time we all have. He was probably more aware of the fleeting nature of our existence than anyone else. He’s also hinting at making some forward progress, even producing small artifacts of your work, daily. ## Master the nuances of language and communication > There are so many people … who imagine that words are nothing. On the contrary, don’t you think, it’s as interesting and as difficult to say a thing well as to paint a thing. > > There’s the art of lines and colors, but there’s the art of words that will last just the same. Because we live, breathe and think through language, it’s invisible to us and we take it for granted. But there are entire [dimensions of language that go unnoticed](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). Pay attention to language, and how it’s an indelible part of effective leadership and careers. > You say “I don’t understand you”. Well, that I certainly believe, because writing is actually an awful way to explain things to each other. Writing effective reports and emails is only one aspect of good communication. You have to get equally good at the art of [one-on-one conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/). They are the building blocks of organizational life ## Cross pollinate > Arranging colors in a painting to make them shimmer and stand out through their contrasts, that’s something like arranging jewels or designing costumes. > It’s not good to know only one thing; it stultifies one. One shouldn’t rest until one also knows the opposite. Domain knowledge is important, but to create breakthroughs, you’ll have to draw upon knowledge outside your core area. Many [innovations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/) happen at the intersection of adjacent domains, or where ideas from one domain are applied in a new one. Look for inspirations and parallels from outside your area of expertise. ## Become a skilled observer > The grass trodden down at the side of a road looks tired and dusty like the inhabitants of a poor quarter… A characteristic trait of great artists and writers is their ability to pay attention to the smallest of details; things that often look mundane to the lay observer. They are masters of paying attention to their own attention. Most organizations, and the people in them, can be understood if you observe closely, long enough. > Find things beautiful as much as you can, most people find too little beautiful. > Yet if one has a need for something great, something infinite,… one needn’t look far. Beauty is literally in the eyes of the beholder. More importantly, it’s an active approach rather than a passive reaction. This applies equally to work. The topics that Van Gogh chose to depict weren’t inherently extraordinary. His depiction of them were. Along the same lines, your work/project might not be inherently interesting, but your interest in it will make it so. In fact, **if you can make a “dirty” project successful, that will get you noticed more**. ## Stay naive > Even in the most cultured circles and the best surroundings and circumstances, one should retain something of the original nature of a Robinson Crusoe or a savage. Retain your [original naiveté](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/#the-evolution-of-our-na%C3%AFvet%C3%A9), or the Zen idea of beginner's mind. That’s the only way to reach the next level, without getting burnt out or jaded in the process. It’s easy for knowledge and sophistication to slowly turn into cynicism. ## Get in the trenches > Come on, old chap, come and paint with me on the heath, in the potato field, come and walk with me behind the plough and the shepherd — come and stare into the fire with me — just let the storm that blows across the heath blow through you. In any endeavor, there are aspects of the work that don’t look fun at first, and that require another level of commitment. But these are also activities that are rich and rewarding, and that can help you stand out. They are the very things we know we should be doing, but are resisting it for various reasons. And usually that’s where most of our growth lies. From a management perspective, this can be what Tom Peters calls[ MBWA – managing by wandering around](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). Not easy, but well worth the effort. ## Always be learning > I have more or less irresistible passion for books, and I have a need continually to educated myself, to study, if you like, precisely as I need to eat my bread. Van Gogh is often the poster child for the notion of genius. In his short 10 years as an artist, he single-handedly changed the art scene, and today he’s one of the most well known. So, it’s easy to call him a genius. But that misses an important aspect of his work — he was constantly learning and practicing his craft, perhaps more so than most. > I keep on making what I can’t do yet in order to learn to be able to do it. Writing more than 100 years after Van Gogh, MIT organizational learning pioneer Donald Schon captured this fundamental [paradox of learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/): *real learning means starting to do what we don't know yet*. ## Your raison d’être > I feel a power in me that I must develop, a fire that I may not put out but must fan, although I don’t know to what outcome it will lead me. If Van Gogh had waited for certainty or guarantees, we might not have seen any of his iconic paintings. Keep ignoring your fire long enough, and it will putter out. **Ambitions have expiration dates**. Don’t wait until retirement, or until you have enough time or money. > I feel I have a raison d’être! I know that I could be a quite different man! For what then could I be of use, for what could I serve! There’s something within me, so what is it! Most of us have an inkling, or slight hints over time, about what we might be good at. Often this is too subtle, and can be lost if not nurtured. It’s more like faint music in the background; one that we are good at drowning out. > I’m concerned with the world only in that I have a certain obligation and duty, as it were… to leave a certain souvenir in the form of drawings or paintings in gratitude. Legacy is something people start thinking about too late. But the sooner you start, the better. And this also includes who you are becoming. **The person you become is as much a legacy of your actions, as is what you are building and creating**. > The conscience is a man’s compass, and although the needle deviates sometimes…, one must nevertheless do one’s best to set one’s course by it. The better aligned you are with your internal compass, the easier it is to play the long game. Misalignment is hard to sustain, especially when performing at the highest levels. > I know too well what aim I have in view, I’m too absolutely and utterly convinced that I am, after all, on the right path — when I want to paint what I feel and feel what I paint — to worry too much about what people say of me. When you stand up, people will “talk” but this is not a negative indicator. If anything, it’s a positive indicator. Only the critic gets to sit in the background and watch. Doing anything worthwhile requires jumping into the arena. ## Friendships and networks > The best consolation, if not the only remedy, is, it still seems to me, profound friendships, even if these have the disadvantage for anchoring us in life more solidly than may appear desirable to us in the days of great suffering. Workplace friends are often more critical to “retention” than salary and benefits. They act as “shock absorbers” in an otherwise stressful, demanding role. ## Mistakes and failure > Success is sometimes the outcome of a whole string of failures. > It’s certainly true that it is better to be fervent in spirit, even if one accordingly makes more mistakes, than narrow-minded and overly cautious. Coming from anyone else, these lines can sound cliched and trite. But when Van Gogh says it, it adds a different dimension. His paintings fetch millions of dollars today. But when he died at the young age of 37, he’d sold only one painting in his entire career as an artist. Everyone makes mistakes. But mistakes are forgotten. What stays are the success markers. Meanwhile, we are very intimate with, and never forget, all of our mistakes. Don’t compare your down moments with someone else’s perfection. The biggest mistake in careers is to actively avoid making them. Because it also means you are not pushing yourself to the next level. > What molting is to birds, the time when they change their feathers, that’s adversity or misfortunate, hard times, for us human beings. Andy Grove called these inflection points in careers. Whether it’s being passed up for a promotion or even a lay-off, these are valuable moments to reassess, reevaluate, regroup, and reengage. Often, the perspectives that these pivotal moments afford, are unavailable without the trying circumstances. ## Means based action > … we have to cut our coat according to our cloth, although it’s a great shame that there isn’t a little more cloth. Means-based action is different from actions based on idealistic goals. It’s what Saras Saraswathy calls effectuation — actions and goals that emerge from available means. This includes not just resources, but also your skills and what you are good at. ## What makes you unique? > Because instead of trying to render exactly what I have before my eyes, I use color more arbitrarily in order to express myself forcefully. > But the painter of the future is a colorist such as there hasn’t been before. Until Van Gogh came along, the use of color in art was muted. He was one of the first to use extra bright colors and to use them prolifically. From the perspective of careers, pay attention to your own strengths and what appeals to you, rather than trying to follow someone else’s formula. What appeals to you? What makes you stand out from the crowd, and how can you develop it further? ## Embrace the puzzle > Life in the abstract is already a riddle, reality turns it into a riddle within a riddle. > Life’s ‘an odd thing’, brother. Work and careers are, even more so, a riddle — trying to find a good match between what we are suited for, and what our work entails. I used to get frustrated about why careers have to be so hard to figure out. Over time, I realized, that figuring it out is in fact the game. It’s a lifelong process, and one that changes as we age, mature, and learn more about ourselves. The mistake is to get frustrated, and quit looking. Looking and experimenting is the name of the game until we hit the sweet spot. And then we begin again. > How can I be useful, of what service can I be? There is something inside me, what can it be? --- 💡 Liked this article? You will dig my newsletter: **The Leading Sapiens Weekly*. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ## Sources 1. *Life According to Vincent* published by the [Van Gogh museum](https://www.vangoghmuseum.nl/en?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. [The Letters of Vincent van Gogh](https://amzn.to/44iUJsl?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. [Vincent van Gogh: A Life in Letters](https://amzn.to/46TTlOr?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Nienke Bakker, Leo Jansen, Hans Luijten 4. Wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent\_van\_Gogh](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent%5Fvan%5FGogh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. Online repository of all his letters: [https://vangoghletters.org/vg/](https://vangoghletters.org/vg/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Building vs Buying Complexity: the Pleasure of Process URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/building-vs-buying-complexity-the-pleasure-of-process/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:32:57.000Z *Increasing entropy is the natural state of the universe — everything disintegrates to lower levels of order, especially living things. But when it comes to human choices, we are always moving toward higher states of order, or what some might call *“taste”*. Our tastes tend to evolve over time, and become more nuanced and complex.* *But there are two fundamentally disparate ways of reaching this higher level of taste: *buying vs building*. Is one necessarily better than the other? What is more sustained and longer lasting?* --- ## Moving towards increasing complexity One way to meet this need for higher, more evolved taste, is to buy more and more refined things. It’s what I call buying your way into increasing complexity. We are trying to get to that next level of complexity through “arbitration" using money, rather than working our way towards it. To illustrate, consider the example of a Lego enthusiast. At some point, they will reach a fork in the road: buy a pre-designed, pre-made complex kit, or design one themselves and build it out. As you can imagine, there are various tiers and nuances to this. Increasing levels of complexity and taste are also **a social signaling method**: think about a gas-station bought wine vs owning a dedicated wine cellar vs owning an entire vineyard. More examples of buying our way into increasing complexity: - Buying a fancy blog design vs coding it yourself. - Buying an expensive car or home vs refurbishing it yourself. - Buying a room full of books vs reading them vs learning from them vs writing one. - Buying a meal at a restaurant vs cooking a meal from locally sourced produce. Bear in mind, this is fractal — we typically introduce tiers of bought complexity here. E.g. a hole in the wall place vs a Michelin star restaurant. - Writing an article yourself vs paying someone to do it for you, or using AI. I realize many of the building approaches are simply not practical. These are not perfect examples, but they illustrate the basic idea: in one we are buying complexity, whereas in the other we are building up to higher levels of complexity. ## How they are different When we exchange money for increasing complexity, we are often **trying to bypass, and hopefully avoid, three things: pain, uncertainty, and effort**. \[3\] We are attempting to go directly to what we want: satisfaction, ownership, and enjoyment. Except, the associated feelings tend to be fleeting and temporary. There's a hollow ring to them. And because there was no “investment” on our part outside the money, we move on to bigger and better things, thus re-starting the hedonic treadmill. Here are some additional characteristic differences between the two: **Investment and return dimensions.** When *buying* complexity, we invest money to get emotional and psychic returns. In *building* complexity, we invest emotional and psychic efforts to yield returns in the same dimensions. **Predictability.** Buying is fast and efficient, while building can be slow, painful, and frustrating. Progress follows an expected curve in one, while in the other it's not as predictable. **Dose effectiveness.** Building tends to stay consistent in its positive effects, whereas buying requires to "up" it with quantity, novelty, or frequency. **After effects.** Buying tends to leave you empty after the initial high, whereas building, while often frustrating, has longer lasting positive effects, even without accounting for obviously positive effects like building skills. **Money.** At least in terms of skills, money becomes less of a factor when building. Skill becomes a leveling factor — billionaires can't necessarily buy a skill for themselves. **Experience of time.** When engrossed in something that requires both psychic and emotional investment, [time flies](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/#the-speed-and-elasticity-of-time). We, in fact, become time itself. In contrast, trading time for money, without any engagement, is the complete opposite. Every moment becomes drudgery. ## The pleasure of process In building complexity, the focus is on the pleasure of process, rather than the pleasure of outcome. One is short-lasting, while the other has longevity and builds on itself. > To be complicated is to take pleasure in the process rather than pleasure in the outcome. > …To take pleasure in the process is to understand what an Ithaka means. > > – Karl Weick \[2\] Weick is referencing C.P. Cavafy’s classic poem [Ithaka](https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/51296/ithaka-56d22eef917ec?ref=leadingsapiens.com) (partial excerpt below): > As you set out for Ithaka > hope your road is a long one, > full of adventure, full of discovery. > … > Keep Ithaka always in your mind. > Arriving there is what you’re destined for. > But don’t hurry the journey at all. > Better if it lasts for years, > so you’re old by the time you reach the island, > wealthy with all you’ve gained on the way, > not expecting Ithaka to make you rich. > > Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey. > Without her you wouldn't have set out. > She has nothing left to give you now. > > And if you find her poor, Ithaka won’t have fooled you. > Wise as you will have become, so full of experience, > you’ll have understood by then what these Ithakas mean. Cavafy’s poem has parallels to the ancient Chinese curse: ***“May you get everything you wish, right away, and all at once”***. Building your way to complexity, and the pleasure of process, invariably means embracing effort, which runs counter to what we usually think of human behavior: **minimizing pain, maximizing comfort**. But these counter-intuitive notions about effort can be found in the latest social psychology research as well. Dan Ariely \[1\] explains: > In light of these findings, we might want to revisit our ideas about effort and relaxation. The simple economic model of labor states that we are like rats in a maze; any effort we put into doing something removes us from our comfort zone, creating undesirable effort, frustration, and stress. If we buy into this model, it means that our paths to maximize our enjoyment in life should focus on trying to avoid work and increase our immediate relaxation. That’s probably why many people think that the ideal vacation involves lying lazily on an exotic beach and being served mojitos. > > Similarly, we think we will not enjoy assembling furniture, so we buy the ready-made version. We want to enjoy movies in surround sound, but we imagine the stress involved in trying to connect a four-speaker stereo system to a television, so we hire somebody else do it for us. We like sitting in a garden but don’t want to get sweaty and dirty digging up a garden space or mowing the lawn, so we pay a gardener to cut the grass and plant some flowers. We want to enjoy a nice meal, but shopping and cooking are too much trouble, so we eat out or just pop something into the microwave. > > Sadly, **in surrendering our effort in these activities, we gain relaxation, but we may actually give up a lot of deep enjoyment because, in fact, it’s often effort that ultimately creates long-term satisfaction**. Of course, it might be that others can do better wiring work or gardening (in my case, this is certainly true), but you might ask yourself, “How much more will I enjoy my new television/stereo setup/garden/meal after I work on it?” **If you suspect you would enjoy it more, maybe those are cases where investing more effort will pay off.** ## A checklist to differentiate How do we know if we are building or buying complexity? Here are some general pointers: - Can it be exchanged for money? - Does it require building a skill? Even billionaires cannot buy skill. You have to learn it. - Does it require emotional and psychic investment? - Are you on an even playing field (for the most part) with billionaires? - Does it require time, attention, effort? - Is it instantaneous? Or does it evolve? - Direct vs oblique — are you trying to directly “acquire” satisfaction, or does it follow as a result of? - Does it involve pain and uncertainty? - Does it need sustained commitment? ## Sources 1. [The Upside of Irrationality](https://amzn.to/3J1zum2?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Dan Ariely 2. [Social Psychology of Organizing](https://amzn.to/3CfAcbF?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Karl Weick 3. [The Tools](https://amzn.to/3CeRq90?ref=leadingsapiens.com) byPhil Stutz, Barry Michels ### Amazon's Leadership Principles: A Deep Dive URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:22:08.000Z *Whether you're preparing for an interview at Amazon, or a leader wanting to get better, there’s something for everyone to learn from Amazon’s leadership principles.* *In this article, I explore all 16 of Amazon’s leadership principles. I *link it with Bezos’ own words*, and also with other articles that build on the concepts. At the end, I give a comprehensive list of *reading recommendations and useful links*.* *These principles turn the often vague concept of *leadership into a practical and tactical set of behaviors* that anyone can follow. Of course, simple doesn’t mean easy. If anything, they set the bar much higher.* *The article is heavily interlinked, and with accompanying videos. Use the table of contents to keep you on track. It covers the following*: - [Amazon’s Leadership Principles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#amazons-leadership-principles) - [How they are different](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#how-they-are-different) - [1\. Customer Obsession](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#1-customer-obsession) - [2\. Ownership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#2-ownership) - [3\. Invent and Simplify](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#3-invent-and-simplify) - [4\. Are Right, A Lot](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#4-are-right-a-lot) - [5\. Learn and Be Curious](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#5-learn-and-be-curious) - [6\. Hire and Develop the Best](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#6-hire-and-develop-the-best) - [7\. Insist on the Highest Standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#7-insist-on-the-highest-standards) - [8\. Think Big](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#8-think-big) - [9\. Bias for Action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#9-bias-for-action) - [10\. Frugality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#10-frugality) - [11\. Earn Trust](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#11-earn-trust) - [12\. Dive Deep](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#12-dive-deep) - [13\. Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#13-have-backbone-disagree-and-commit) - [14\. Deliver Results](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#14-deliver-results) - [New additions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#new-additions) - [15\. Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#15-strive-to-be-earths-best-employer) - [16\. Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#16-success-and-scale-bring-broad-responsibility) - [Andy Jassy on iterative innovation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#andy-jassy-on-iterative-innovation) - [Interviewing tips and reading recommendations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#interviewing-tips-and-reading-recommendations) - [Articles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#articles) - [Books](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#books) - [Videos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#videos) - [Sources](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/#sources) --- ## Amazon's Leadership Principles 1. **Customer Obsession.* Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers.* 2. **Ownership.* Leaders are owners. They think long term and don’t sacrifice long-term value for short-term results. They act on behalf of the entire company, beyond just their own team. They never say, “that’s not my job.”* 3. **Invent and Simplify.* Leaders expect and require innovation and invention from their teams and always find ways to simplify. They are externally aware, look for new ideas from everywhere, and are not limited by “not invented here.” As we do new things, we accept that we may be misunderstood for long periods of time.* 4. **Are Right, A Lot.* Leaders are right a lot. They have strong judgment and good instincts. They seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs.* 5. **Learn and Be Curious.* Leaders are never done learning and always seek to improve themselves. They are curious about new possibilities and act to explore them.* 6. **Hire and Develop the Best.* Leaders raise the performance bar with every hire and promotion. They recognize exceptional talent, and willingly move them throughout the organization. Leaders develop leaders and take seriously their role in coaching others. We work on behalf of our people to invent mechanisms for development like Career Choice.* 7. **Insist on the Highest Standards.* Leaders have relentlessly* [*high standards*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/)*—many people may think these standards are unreasonably high. Leaders are continually raising the bar and drive their teams to deliver high-quality products, services, and processes. Leaders ensure that defects do not get sent down the line and that problems are fixed so they stay fixed.* 8. **Think Big.* Thinking small is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leaders create and communicate a bold direction that inspires results. They think differently and look around corners for ways to serve customers.* 9. **Bias for Action.* Speed matters in business. Many decisions and actions are reversible and do not need extensive study. We value calculated risk-taking.* 10. **Frugality.* Accomplish more with less. Constraints breed resourcefulness, self-sufficiency, and invention. There are no extra points for growing headcount, budget size, or fixed expense.* 11. **Earn Trust.* Leaders listen attentively, speak candidly, and treat others respectfully. They are vocally self-critical, even when doing so is awkward or embarrassing. Leaders do not believe their or their team’s body odor smells of perfume. They benchmark themselves and their teams against the best.* 12. **Dive Deep.* Leaders operate at all levels, stay connected to the details, audit frequently, and are skeptical when metrics and anecdotes differ. No task is beneath them.* 13. **Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit.* Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the sake of social cohesion. Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly.* 14. **Deliver Results.* Leaders focus on the key inputs for their business and deliver them with the right quality and in a timely fashion. Despite setbacks, they rise to the occasion and never settle.* ## How they are different At the outset, except for a couple, these might read like standard corporate-speak that you find at every other company. But that would be a mistake. They are fundamentally different in many ways: - Amazon takes these to another level by outlining behaviors that go with each principle. - They use plain language that's easy to read, remember, and communicate. More importantly, they are simple to follow. But this doesn't mean they are easy. - By outlining principles as behaviors couched in simple language, it makes them actionable and more likely to be used. - All their processes support and build on the principles that are deeply embedded. They can be thought of as the operating system or constitution that everyone follows. - Many find them quirky and unnecessary. But that’s precisely the point. You either fit in or you don’t. Having a set of easily understood and readily teachable set of practices plays a key role in how effectively desired behaviors get scaled across the organization. Culture thus becomes scalable and measurable. **They have essentially operationalized leadership and baked it into their culture.** Let's look at each principle more closely. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## 1\. Customer Obsession > Leaders start with the customer and work backwards. They work vigorously to earn and keep customer trust. Although leaders pay attention to competitors, they obsess over customers. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *"...*[*obsessive customer focus*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#customer-obsession-as-a-business-model) *is by far the most protective of Day 1 vitality"* - *...our energy at Amazon comes from the* [*desire to impress customers*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#customer-obsession-vs-competitor-obsession) *rather than the zeal to best competitors* - *I constantly remind our employees* [*to be afraid ... of our customers*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-being-afraid-of-customers)*.* - *One advantage...of a customer-driven focus is that it aids* [*a certain type of proactivity*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-being-internally-driven)*.* **Examples:** - In the early days, Bezos was known to bring an empty chair into meetings to remind everyone of the voice of the customer. - Amazon managers are often required to do two days of call center training. - An Amazon team once procured [4,000 pink iPods](https://www.factoftheday1.com/p/november-9-amazons-delivery-promise?ref=leadingsapiens.com) from the open market themselves, due to Apple not being able to fulfill their order. **Some pointers:** - Amazon’s **mission** states:*“We strive to offer our customers the lowest possible prices, the best available selection, and the utmost convenience.”* Its **vision** states:*“To be Earth’s most customer-centric company, where customers can find and discover anything they might want to buy online.”* Clearly, customer obsession is number one for a reason. It features prominently in almost everything Bezos has written, and all the principles support this primary one. - Staying close to the voice of your customer is key to business success. Here are a couple of ideas: [Management by wandering around (MBWA)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) and Andy Grove's idea of [balancing top-down and bottom-up approaches](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) to strategy and leadership. [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Top-down-vs-Bottom-up.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) **Customer Obsession Video:** ## 2\. Ownership > Leaders are owners. They think long term and don’t sacrifice long-term value for short-term results. They act on behalf of the entire company, beyond just their own team. They never say, “that’s not my job.” **In Bezos’ own words:** > Long-term thinking is both a requirement and an outcome of true ownership. Owners are different from tenants. I know of a couple who rented out their house, and the family who moved in nailed their Christmas tree to the hardwood floors instead of using a tree stand. Expedient, I suppose, and admittedly these were particularly bad tenants, but no owner would be so short-sighted. Similarly, many investors are effectively short-term tenants, turning their portfolios so quickly they are really just renting the stocks that they temporarily “own.” - [*Seek instant gratification*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-long-term-thinking)*—or the elusive promise of it—and chances are you’ll find a crowd there ahead of you.* - ...*you can build a business strategy around the* [*things that are stable in time*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#strategy-around-stable-things) **Some pointers:** - When everyone else is thinking short-term, your willingness to think long-term becomes a competitive advantage in itself. But what does long-term thinking mean at all levels of an organization? This is where Bezos' analogy of an ownership mentality is useful. - Having an owner's mentality also means not just taking responsibility for failures, but also **taking ownership of dependencies**. John Rossman puts it this way: > At Amazon, one of your primary directives is to identify and tenaciously manage every potential business-derailing dependency you have. It is not okay to fail because of a breakdown of dependencies....Taking absolute responsibility for every possible dependency under your purview is no small task. This is one reason that very few have the rigor, determination, and tenacity to make it in a leadership role at Amazon. > > – John Rossman \[7\] Rossman elaborates in an [article](https://the-amazon-way.com/10-rules-behind-amazons-success-you-can-use-on-your-digitisation-journey/?ref=leadingsapiens.com): > You are always dependent upon others in business – other teams, partners, vendors, products, services. The mentality of “managing your dependencies’’ is key to being a leader at Amazon. ... I am often asked how it’s accomplished. > > While there are many ways, start by asking a lot more and deeper questions than you normally do with your colleagues. Secondly, don’t just trust. Instead, trust *and verify.* When this becomes the norm in a company, then asking for details is no longer seen as a challenge to someone’s competency. Finally, create and manage service level commitments on all capabilities – and hold your partners accountable. **Ownership Video:** ## 3\. Invent and Simplify > Leaders expect and require innovation and invention from their teams and always find ways to simplify. They are externally aware, look for new ideas from everywhere, and are not limited by “not invented here.” As we do new things, we accept that we may be misunderstood for long periods of time. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *Good process is absolutely essential. Without defined processes, you can’t scale, you can’t put metrics and instrumentation in place, you can’t manage. But avoiding bureaucracy is essential. Bureaucracy is process run amok.* - *...you need to distinguish between those* [*two types of failure*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#experimental-vs-operational-failures) *and really be seeking invention and innovation.* - *Most large organizations embrace the idea of invention but are* [*not willing to suffer*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#failure) **the string of failed experiments necessary* to get there.* - *Listen to customers, but don’t just listen to customers—*also** [***invent on their behalf***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#skills-forward-vs-working-backward)***.*** **Some pointers:** - It's easy to complicate, and equally harder to keep things simple, especially when you are inventing and innovating at a rapid pace like Amazon. [Paralyzing bureaucracy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/#2-complicatedness) is a natural after-effect of fast growth, and can only be prevented by actively fighting it. - One way to think about bureaucracy vs simplicity is the difference between [leadership as gardening, not chess, that General Stan McChrystal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/) highlights. - John Rossman \[7\] calls **simplicity as the bulwark against bureaucracy**, and gives the following distinctions: > So, how do you recognize bureaucracy and distinguish it from a well-defined process? > > When the rules can’t be explained; > when they don’t favor the customer; > when you can’t get redress from a higher authority; > when you can’t get an answer to a reasonable question; > when there is no service-level agreement or guaranteed response time built into the process; > or when the rules simply don’t make sense > —when any of these circumstances occur, the chances are good that bureaucracy is beginning to spread. **Invent and Simplify Video:** ## 4\. Are Right, A Lot > Leaders are right a lot. They have strong judgment and good instincts. They seek diverse perspectives and work to disconfirm their beliefs. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *People who are right a lot, they listen a lot. And people who are right a lot change their mind a lot. And people who are right a lot, they seek to disconfirm their most profoundly held convictions.* - *All my best decisions in business and in life have been made with heart,* [*intuition, and guts, not analysis*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#intuition-and-instinct)*.* **Some pointers:** - [Leadership reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) is an effective mechanism to develop judgment and instincts. - Getting to the right idea means staying open to options, and diverse perspectives. This requires the ability to stay in the discomfort of not jumping to conclusions. It's what John Keats called [Negative Capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). - An effective tool to develop good judgment, and make sure you've taken multiple perspectives, is [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/): ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Ladder-of-Inference--2-.png) **Leaders are Right a Lot Video:** ## 5\. Learn and Be Curious > Leaders are never done learning and always seek to improve themselves. They are curious about new possibilities and act to explore them. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *From very early on in Amazon’s life, we knew we wanted to create a culture of builders—people who are* [*curious, explorers*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#builder%E2%80%99s-mentality)*.* - [*Wandering*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#wandering-vs-efficiency) *is an essential counterbalance to efficiency.* **Some pointers:** - Well-educated and highly paid professionals are especially likely to struggle with learning. [Learning to learn](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/) is an essential skill in itself. - One reason we struggle is because there's a [paradox in real learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) – doing what you don't know how to do yet. - Continously improving and learning requires questioning existing assumptions and hidden mental models. An effective way to this is to learn [the double-loop learning framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/): ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon.png) **Learn and Be Curious Video:** ## 6\. Hire and Develop the Best > Leaders raise the performance bar with every hire and promotion. They recognize exceptional talent, and willingly move them throughout the organization. Leaders develop leaders and take seriously their role in coaching others. We work on behalf of our people to invent mechanisms for development like Career Choice. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *You don’t want mercenaries at your company.*[ *You want missionaries*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#missionaries-vs-mercenaries)*.* - [*Setting the bar high*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#working-hard-long-and-smart) *in our approach to hiring has been, and will continue to be, the single most important element of Amazon.com’s success.* - *The reason* [*cultures are so stable*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-durability-of-corporate-cultures) *in time is because people self-select.* **Some pointers:** - Leaders play a key role in developing other leaders. [Leadership can be learned](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/), and coaching plays a key role in this development. - It's helpful to be aware of your own [implicit theories of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) that influence how you approach emerging leaders, and to your own managers. - For hiring and retention, leaders have to be aware of the differences between [hygiene factors vs motivators](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/herzberg-hygiene-motivation-theory/): [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Herzberg-Hygiene-Factors-Why-People-Leave-Managers-not-Jobs-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/herzberg-hygiene-motivation-theory/) > Amazon has faced many of the same problems all companies face. The difference is that Amazon has come up with novel solutions that deliver a significant competitive advantage, and this is true of its approach to hiring. The [Bar Raiser process](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/amazon-bar-raiser?ref=leadingsapiens.com) was one of Amazon’s first and most successful scalable, repeatable, and teachable operational practices. > > — Colin Bryar, Bill Carr \[5\] **Hire & Develop the Best Video:** ## 7\. Insist on the Highest Standards > Leaders have relentlessly high standards— many people may think these standards are unreasonably high. Leaders are continually raising the bar and drive their teams to deliver high quality products, services and processes. Leaders ensure that defects do not get sent down the line and that problems are fixed so they stay fixed. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *"Bring a new person onto a high standards team, and they’ll quickly adapt.* *The opposite is also true. If low standards prevail, those too will quickly spread."* - *"To achieve high standards yourself or as part of a team, you need to form and proactively communicate realistic beliefs about how hard something is going to be."* **Some pointers:** - High standards are especially applicable to leadership. Why? Because [people copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/) which has ripples throughout the organization. - Setting high standards also acts as a [framing mechanism](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/#framing-influences-and-distorts) that influences how your team responds to novel situations. - [High-standards and psychological safety are not opposites](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/): [Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood DynamicThe term “psychological safety” is often misleading. When managers hear safety, many dismiss it as a soft style that implies complacency. Meanwhile, psychology implies too much mumbo jumbo. High-profile figures like Elon Musk advocating for a “hardcore” style perpetuate this misconception. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-88.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Psychological-safety-and-High-Standards--2-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) - Setting clear expectations goes hand-in-hand with setting [high standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/): [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Setting-High-Standards--Four-Quadrants--2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) **Insist on the Highest Standards Video:** ## 8\. Think Big > Thinking small is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leaders create and communicate a bold direction that inspires results. They think differently and look around corners for ways to serve customers. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *...a single* [*big winning bet*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#scaling-failure) *can more than cover the cost of many losers.* - *This long-tailed distribution of returns is* [*why it’s important to be bold*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#winning-in-baseball-vs-in-business)*. Big winners pay for so many experiments.* - *We will make* [*bold rather than timid*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#bold-rather-than-timid) *investment decisions where we see a sufficient probability of gaining market leadership advantages.* **Some pointers:** - A counter-intuitive notion of winning big is to look for [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) that eventually turn into big victories. - A big bold [future that pulls people](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/) forwards, requires dramatically different approaches, and frames the context of ensuing actions. Framing and [mastering this context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) is an essential leadership skill. - Thinking big is fundamentally different from [bet the farm recklessness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/): [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Pace-vs-Scale-of-experimentation.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/) **Think Big Video:** ## 9\. Bias for Action > Speed matters in business. Many decisions and actions are reversible and do not need extensive study. We value calculated risk taking. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *In addition to good luck and great people, we have been able to succeed as a company only because we have continued to take* [***big risks***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#failure)*.* - *The *most important factor for nimbleness is** [***decision-making speed***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#type-1-vs-type-2-decisions)*. The second-most important factor is being *willing to be experimental*. You have to be willing to take risks.* - ***...never use a one-size-fits-all*** [**decision-making* process*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-quality-and-velocity)*. Many decisions are reversible, two-way doors.* **Some pointers:** - Bias for action was one of the key findings of successful companies in Tom Peters and Robert Waterman's classic [In Search of Excellence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/in-search-of-excellence-attributes-best-run-companies/). - Waiting for clarity can be a mistake. Often [action creates clarity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/), and generates it's own intelligence: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Action-creates-clarity.png) **Bias for Action Video:** ## 10\. Frugality > Accomplish more with less. Constraints breed resourcefulness, self-sufficiency and invention. There are no extra points for growing headcount, budget size or fixed expense. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, *it is a weighing machine*.* - *Our* [*ultimate financial measure*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-ultimate-financial-measure)*, and the one we most want to drive over the long-term, is *free cash flow per share*.* - *When something seems like an opportunity...you will always get asked the question, ‘Why? Why do that?' But* [*‘Why not?’ is an equally valid question*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#why-vs-why-not)*.* - *The whole point of moving things forward is that you run into problems, failures, things that don’t work...you’re trying to* [*invent your way out of a box*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-problems-and-resourcefulness)*.* **Example:** > You can’t afford to pursue inventions for very long if you spend your money on things that don’t lead to a better customer experience, like trade show booths, big teams, and splashy marketing campaigns. Amazon Music and Prime Video are examples of how we kept our investment manageable for many years by being frugal: keeping the team small, staying focused on improving the customer experience, limiting our marketing spend, and managing the P&L carefully. > > Once we had a clear product plan and vision for how these products could become billion-dollar businesses that would delight tens, even hundreds of millions of consumers, we invested big. Patience and carefully managed investment over many years can pay off greatly. > > – Colin Bryar, Bill Carr \[5\] **Some pointers:** - Being resourceful requires examining hidden constraints and assumptions — we have to understand how [many of our mental models are hidden](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/): ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft.png) **Frugality Video:** ## 11\. Earn Trust > Leaders listen attentively, speak candidly, and treat others respectfully. They are vocally self-critical, even when doing so is awkward or embarrassing. Leaders do not believe their or their team’s body odor smells of perfume. They benchmark themselves and their teams against the best. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *It’s not easy to do hard things well, but* [*that’s how you earn trust*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-trust). - *Our pricing objective is to earn customer trust, not to optimize short-term profit dollars.* Peter Drucker \[8\] highlighted the importance of trust in effective leadership: > The final requirement of effective leadership is to earn trust. Otherwise, there won’t be any followers—and the only definition of a leader is someone who has followers. > > To trust a leader, it is not necessary to like him. Nor is it necessary to agree with him. Trust is the conviction that the leader means what he says. It is a belief in something very old-fashioned, called “integrity.” A leader’s actions and a leader’s professed beliefs must be congruent, or at least compatible. > > Effective leadership—and again this is very old wisdom—is not based on being clever; it is based primarily on being consistent. **Some pointers:** - Trust requires authenticity. But authenticity in leadership is different from its commonly understood meaning. E.g., a simple way to build more trust is to know intimately [how your teams actually get work done](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/). - A useful tool to understand your blindspots and to build trust is [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/): [![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) - Being self-critical requires a high degree of humility and [a cultivated form of naivete](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/): ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Cultivated-Na-vet-.png) **Earn Trust Video:** ## 12\. Dive Deep > Leaders operate at all levels, stay connected to the details, audit frequently, and are skeptical when metrics and anecdote differ. No task is beneath them. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *"It’s always worth asking,* [***do we own the process*** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-danger-of-processes-becoming-proxies)***or does the process own us?"*** - *"The thing I have noticed is that *when the anecdotes and the data disagree, the anecdotes are usually right*. There’s something wrong with the way you’re measuring it."* **Examples:** - Diving deep means being intimately familiar with all aspects. Bezos himself was known for working at Amazon's fulfillment centers. - Amazon's famed 6-page memos, that emphasize narratives instead of powerpoint, act as a forcing function for both reader and writer to dive deeper: > The down side to the 6-pager is that writing a good six-page evidence-based narrative is hard work. Precision counts and it can be hard to summarize a complex business in 6 pages, so teams work for hours preparing the document for these reviews. But that preparation does two things. > > First, it requires the team writing the document to really deeply understand their own space, gather their data, understand their operating tenets and be able to communicate them clearly. The second thing it does is a great document enables our senior executives to internalize a whole new space they may not be familiar with in 30 minutes of reading thus greatly optimizing how quickly and how many different initiatives these leaders can review. > > – [Brad Porter ](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/beauty-amazons-6-pager-brad-porter/+?ref=leadingsapiens.com) **Some pointers:** - [Breakthroughs and innovation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/) often come as after-effects of deep engagement, rather than detached isolation. [MBWA, pioneered by HP](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/#why-mbwa-is-vital-for-effective-leadership), ensures that managers stay close to critical issues as they emerge, both within and outside the organization. - In leadership roles, it's easy to manage by proxy — far removed from the action, and understanding the business only through numbers, KPIs, and metrics. The "dive deep" principle acts as a counter to this common tendency. - It's also a counter-balance to the "think big" principle. Big picture thinking frequently translates into leaving the nitty-gritty to others. It's one way [how leaders botch strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-mistakes-okr-strategy/). But execution is as critical as strategy, even more so. Dive deep ensures leaders stay close to the action. > At many companies, when the senior leadership meets, they tend to focus more on big-picture, high-level strategy issues than on execution. At Amazon, it’s the opposite. Amazon leaders toil over the execution details... > > – Colin Bryar, Bill Carr **Dive Deep video:** ## 13\. Have Backbone; Disagree and Commit > Leaders are obligated to respectfully challenge decisions when they disagree, even when doing so is uncomfortable or exhausting. Leaders have conviction and are tenacious. They do not compromise for the sake of social cohesion. Once a decision is determined, they commit wholly. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *People are entitled to their opinions, but it is the job of a senior leadership team* [*to say no*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-trust)*.* - *...use the phrase *“**[*disagree and commit*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-quality-and-velocity)**.”* This phrase will save a lot of time.* - *It’s a genuine disagreement of opinion, a candid expression of my view, a chance for the team to weigh my view, and a quick, sincere commitment to go their way.* **Some pointers:** - Having backbone in organizational setups is a very [particular kind of existential courage](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/), that's different from the common notions of courage we usually think of. **History:** This principle has a pedigree as it originated at Intel during its heyday. Their's went by the version of : *"Practice constructive confrontation. Argue and debate regardless of rank, and then commit once a decision is made—disagree and commit." \[9\]* Business guru Jim Collins \[9\] explains it this way: > During its rise from entrepreneurial start-up to great company, Intel installed a mechanism for decision making called “**constructive confrontation**.” As a member of the Intel team, you carried the burden to argue, debate, and disagree to help solve pressing problems. It didn’t matter whether you were a junior engineer or field-marketing person; if you felt the logic and facts pointed to a solution contrary to that proposed by other people in the room, even contrary to the views of the CEO, you were expected to argue for that solution. > > Intel’s culture of constructive confrontation (sometimes referred to as “disagree and commit”) exemplifies a pattern of decision making cultivated by Level 5 leaders in our research. They stimulated dialogue, debate, and disagreement as an indispensable ingredient in making supremely good decisions. They also created a climate where evidence, logic, and facts would trump personality, power, and politics. > > As a member of a Level 5 team, you have not only the opportunity to engage in the dialogue, you have the *responsibility* to do so. If you fail to advance your argument, if you fail to disagree with the most powerful person in the room, if you fail to bring solid logic and evidence to the debate, if you attack a person rather than the problem, then you’re failing in that responsibility. ## 14\. Deliver Results > Leaders focus on the key inputs for their business and deliver them with the right quality and in a timely fashion. Despite setbacks, they rise to the occasion and never settle. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *...we believe that focusing our energy on the* [**controllable inputs** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-controllable-inputs-vs-financial-goals)*to our business is *the most effective way to maximize financial outputs* over time.* - *The whole point of* [*moving things forward*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-problems-and-resourcefulness) *is that you run into problems, failures, things that don’t work.* **Some pointers:** - Notice the emphasis on inputs that are more in our control, rather than outcomes. Focusing on [process goals rather than outcomes goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/#2-outcome-vs-performance-vs-process-goals) is a key aspect of goal-setting research. Amazon takes this notion one step further by creating input metrics for almost everything imaginable. John Rossman calls this a focus on **real-time instrumentation** in contrast with metrics that are often lagging. > Input metrics track things like selection, price, or convenience—factors that Amazon can control through actions such as adding items to the catalog, lowering cost so prices can be lowered, or positioning inventory to facilitate faster delivery to customers. > > Output metrics—things like orders, revenue, and profit—are important, but they generally can’t be directly manipulated in a sustainable manner over the long term. Input metrics measure things that, done right, bring about the desired results in your output metrics. > ... > Controllable input metrics are a quantitative (diving deep with data) and qualitative (anecdotes) way of measuring how well the organization is satisfying these customer interests so that the output metrics trend the way the company desires. > > – Colin Bryar, Bill Carr **Deliver Results Video:** ## New additions Principles 15 and 16 have been recently added. I will be updating them, as I find more details. But they are fairly self-explanatory and stem from the various criticisms Amazon has faced over the years. It's a natural offshoot of how big they've become, and the resulting impact. In Bezos' own words: - *"Despite what we’ve accomplished, it’s clear to me that we need a better vision for our employees’ success. We have always wanted to be Earth’s Most Customer-Centric Company. We won’t change that. It’s what got us here. But I am committing us to an addition. We are going to be Earth’s Best Employer and Earth’s Safest Place to Work."* ### 15\. Strive to be Earth’s Best Employer > Leaders work every day to create a safer, more productive, higher performing, more diverse, and more just work environment. They lead with empathy, have fun at work, and make it easy for others to have fun. Leaders ask themselves: Are my fellow employees growing? Are they empowered? Are they ready for what’s next? Leaders have a vision for and commitment to their employees’ personal success, whether that be at Amazon or elsewhere. **Some pointers:** - There's a fundamental difference between[ leaders who control vs. those who help release people's creative energies](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/). - To be effective, [leaders have to understand people](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/) and [what gives them meaning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). - Leading with context is fundamentally different from leading by control. It's [why leading by context is a key tenet at Netflix](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/): ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Leading-through-Context-not-Control.excalidraw.png) **Video:** ### 16\. Success and Scale Bring Broad Responsibility > We started in a garage, but we’re not there anymore. We are big, we impact the world, and we are far from perfect. We must be humble and thoughtful about even the secondary effects of our actions. Our local communities, planet, and future generations need us to be better every day. We must begin each day with a determination to make better, do better, and be better for our customers, our employees, our partners, and the world at large. And we must end every day knowing we can do even more tomorrow. Leaders **create more than they consume** and always leave things better than how they found them. **In Bezos’ own words:** - *If you want to be successful in business (in life, actually), you have to* [***create more than you consume***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#creation-vs-consumption)*.* **Video:** --- ## Andy Jassy on iterative innovation In his very first shareholder letter (2021), Bezos' successor Andy Jassy outline some key components of what he called "iterative innovation". He hits on many of the key ideas in a fresh take: > 1/ **Hire the Right Builders**: We disproportionately index in hiring builders. We think of builders as people who like to invent, who look at customer experiences, dissect what doesn’t work well about them, and seek to reinvent them. We want people who keep asking why can’t it be done? We want people who like to experiment and tinker, and who realize launch is the starting line, not the finish line. > 2/ **Organize Builders into Teams That Are as Separable and Autonomous as Possible**: It’s hard for teams to be deep in what customers care about in multiple areas. It’s also hard to spend enough time on the new initiatives when there’s resource contention with the more mature businesses; the surer bets usually win out. Single-threaded teams will know their customers’ needs better, spend all their waking work hours inventing for them, and develop context and tempo to keep iterating quickly. > 3/ **Give Teams the Right Tools and Permission to Move Fast**: Speed is not pre-ordained. It’s a leadership choice. It has trade-offs, but you can’t wake up one day and start moving fast. It requires having the right tools to experiment and build fast (a major part of why we started AWS), allowing teams to make two-way door decisions themselves, and setting an expectation that speed matters. And, it does. Speed is disproportionally important to every business at every stage of its evolution. Those that move slower than their competitive peers fall away over time. > 4/ **You Need Blind Faith, But No False Hope**: This is a lyric from one of my favorite Foo Fighters songs (“Congregation”). When you invent, you come up with new ideas that people will reject because they haven’t been done before (that’s where the blind faith comes in), but it’s also important to step back and make sure you have a viable plan that’ll resonate with customers (avoid false hope). > > We’re lucky that we have builders who challenge each other, feedback loops that give us access to customer feedback, and a product development process of working backwards from the customer where having to write a Press Release (to flesh out the customer benefits) and a Frequently Asked Questions document (to detail how we’d build it) helps us have blind faith without false hope (at least usually). > 5/ **Define a Minimum Loveable Product (MLP), and Be Willing to Iterate Fast**: Figuring out where to draw the line for launch is one of the most difficult decisions teams must make. Often, teams wait too long, and insist on too many bells and whistles, before launching. And, they miss the first mover advantage or opportunity to build mindshare in fast-moving market segments before well-executing peers get too far ahead. The launch product must be good enough that you believe it’ll be loved from the get-go (why we call it a “Minimum Loveable Product” vs. a “Minimum Viable Product”), but in newer market segments, teams are often better off getting this MLP to customers and iterating quickly thereafter. > 6/ **Adopt a Long-term Orientation**: We’re sometimes criticized at Amazon for not shutting much down. It’s true that we have a longer tolerance for our investments than most companies. But, we know that transformational invention takes multiple years, and if you’re making big bets that you believe could substantially change customer experience (and your company), you have to be in it for the long-haul or you’ll give up too quickly. > 7/ **Brace Yourself for Failure**: If you invent a lot, you will fail more often than you wish. Nobody likes this part, but it comes with the territory. When it’s clear that we’ve launched something that won’t work, we make sure we’ve learned from what didn’t go well, and secure great landing places for team members who delivered well—or your best people will hesitate to work on new initiatives. --- ## Interviewing tips and reading recommendations Between this and the [Bezos' mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/) article, you should be well-prepared for questions on Amazon’s leadership principles. The key is to tie each principle to real examples from your own experience. If you want to dig even further, below are some additional resources. ### Articles - Amazon recruiters' tips on interviewing: [https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/recruiters-offer-their-best-tips-for-interviewing-at-amazon](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/recruiters-offer-their-best-tips-for-interviewing-at-amazon?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - Tips from the Amazon jobs site, including the STAR framework: [https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing\_pages/in-person-interview](https://www.amazon.jobs/en/landing%5Fpages/in-person-interview?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - Interviewing tips from the authors of Working Backwards: [https://www.workingbackwards.com/resources/10-tips-how-to-ace-amazon-interview](https://www.workingbackwards.com/resources/10-tips-how-to-ace-amazon-interview?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - Jeff Wilke on the leadership principles from Amazon's blog: [https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/avoiding-the-perils-of-scrappy](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/avoiding-the-perils-of-scrappy?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - Behavioral interviewing tips from a former Amazon VP: [https://www.scarletink.com/interviewing-at-amazon-leadership-principles/](https://www.scarletink.com/interviewing-at-amazon-leadership-principles/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - 2015 New York Times article on their work culture: [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/technology/inside-amazon-wrestling-big-ideas-in-a-bruising-workplace.html?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - 2014 article in Business Insider where Henry Blodgett interviews Bezos: [https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-jeff-bezos-on-profits-failure-succession-big-bets-2014-12](https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-jeff-bezos-on-profits-failure-succession-big-bets-2014-12?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - Another Amazon VP's article: [http://jeff-barr.com/2014/08/19/my-first-12-years-at-amazon-dot-com/](http://jeff-barr.com/2014/08/19/my-first-12-years-at-amazon-dot-com/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - Jeff Wilke leadership advice: [https://www.geekwire.com/2017/leadership-advice-amazon-keeps-managers-focused-competing-many-industries/](https://www.geekwire.com/2017/leadership-advice-amazon-keeps-managers-focused-competing-many-industries/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Books - *Invent and Wander: The Collected Writings of Jeff Bezos,* with an Introduction by Walter Isaacson - *Working Backwards: Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside Amazon* by Colin Bryar, Bill Carr - *The Amazon Management System* by Ram Charan and Julia Yang - *The Amazon Way* by John Rossman [Invent and Wander](https://amzn.to/3MmBq9I?ref=leadingsapiens.com) is a collection of Bezos's shareholder letters and other written material from a range of sources. It has a great introduction by Walter Isaacson. Even though all the sources are available online, the book does a great job of compiling them into a convenient, accessible form. As a complement to Invent and Wander, [Working Backwards](https://amzn.to/3MF6AdR?ref=leadingsapiens.com) is the most comprehensive with many in-depth examples. The book benefits from both the authors being at Amazon for 15+ years through the periods of highest growth. Amazon Management System is a concise introduction to all the principles wrapped into a system. If you want a short preview, check out [my summary post](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-management-and-decision-making-system/) of the book. [Amazon Way](https://amzn.to/3ImDn4I?ref=leadingsapiens.com) is a short read with decent examples from Rossman's days at Amazon. For a slightly darker, more realistic, take on the realities of practical application of these principles, check out Brad Stone's [The Everything Store](https://amzn.to/41UxGlw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) and [Amazon Unbound](https://amzn.to/3WjK3X3?ref=leadingsapiens.com). These are a lot more than just the leadership principles, and more of a grander narrative. ### Videos - Bezos in interview with David Rubinstein: [https://youtu.be/f3NBQcAqyu4](https://youtu.be/f3NBQcAqyu4?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - HBR Podcast: [https://hbr.org/podcast/2013/01/jeff-bezos-on-leading-for-the](https://hbr.org/podcast/2013/01/jeff-bezos-on-leading-for-the?ref=leadingsapiens.com) - Bezos at Bush Forum on Leadership: ## Sources 1. Amazon [shareholder letters](https://ir.aboutamazon.com/annual-reports-proxies-and-shareholder-letters/default.aspx?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. Amazon [leadership principles](https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us/leadership-principles?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Amazon [leadership principles videos](https://youtu.be/My-2-MyxamQ?si=6kqlJb%5Fq7ggscojr&ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. [Invent and Wander: The Collected Writings of Jeff Bezos](https://amzn.to/3MmBq9I?ref=leadingsapiens.com), with an Introduction by Walter Isaacson 5. [Working Backwards: Insights, Stories, and Secrets from Inside Amazon](https://amzn.to/3MF6AdR?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Colin Bryar, Bill Carr 6. [The Amazon Management System ](https://amzn.to/3odwD2i?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Ram Charan and Julia Yang 7. [The Amazon Way](https://amzn.to/3ImDn4I?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by John Rossman 8. [The Essential Drucker](https://amzn.to/3oixJdb?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker 9. [BE 2.0 (Beyond Entrepreneurship 2.0)](https://amzn.to/45jfiWE?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Jim Collins ### The Laws of Systems Thinking URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:34:41.000Z In [The Fifth Discipline](https://amzn.to/3MiLT62?ref=leadingsapiens.com), there's a useful primer on systems thinking that I keep going back to. Senge calls it the laws of the fifth discipline, or in other words, laws of systems thinking. \[1\] Senge's ground-breaking book was published in the early 90s, and yet in the ensuing decades, things have been more same than different. They are a humble reminder of the reality that everyone faces in modern organizations. Organizations are complex systems, and knowing some of the inherent dynamics can help understand them better. Being aware of the below tendencies helps to stay alert to avoidable mistakes, that are equally easy to forget. - [1\. Today’s problems come from yesterday’s “solutions.”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#1-today%E2%80%99s-problems-come-from-yesterday%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Csolutions%E2%80%9D) - [2\. The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#2-the-harder-you-push-the-harder-the-system-pushes-back) - [3\. Behavior grows better before it gets worse.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#3-behavior-grows-better-before-it-gets-worse) - [4\. The easy way out usually leads back in.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#4-the-easy-way-out-usually-leads-back-in) - [5\. The cure can be worse than the disease.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#5-the-cure-can-be-worse-than-the-disease) - [6\. Faster is slower.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#6-faster-is-slower) - [7\. Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#7-cause-and-effect-are-not-closely-related-in-time-and-space) - [8\. Small changes can produce big results, but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#8-small-changes-can-produce-big-results-but-the-areas-of-highest-leverage-are-often-the-least-obvious) - [9\. You can have your cake and eat it too, but not all at once.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#9-you-can-have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too-but-not-all-at-once) - [10\. Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two elephants.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#10-dividing-an-elephant-in-half-does-not-produce-two-elephants) - [11\. There is no blame.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/laws-of-systems-thinking/#11-there-is-no-blame) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## 1\. Today’s problems come from yesterday’s “solutions.” > Once there was a rug merchant who saw that his most beautiful carpet had a large bump in its center. He stepped on the bump to flatten it out—and succeeded. But the bump reappeared in a new spot not far away. He jumped on the bump again, and it disappeared—for a moment, until it emerged once more in a new place. Again and again he jumped, scuffing and mangling the rug in his frustration; until finally he lifted one corner of the carpet and an angry snake slithered out. > > Often we are puzzled by the causes of our problems; when we merely need to look at our own solutions to other problems in the past. > Solutions that merely shift problems from one part of a system to another often go undetected because, unlike the rug merchant, those who “solved” the first problem are different from those who inherit the new problem. Often success in organizations is a function of **outrunning the problems that you helped create**. It's easy to get frustrated when you inherit "someone else's" issues. But we have to remind ourselves that **others are dealing with problems that we might have created**. ## 2\. The harder you push, the harder the system pushes back. > Systems thinking has a name for this phenomenon: “compensating feedback”: when well-intentioned interventions call forth responses from the system that offset the benefits of the intervention. We all know what it feels like to be facing compensating feedback—...the more effort you expend trying to improve matters, the more effort seems to be required. > Many companies experience compensating feedback when one of their products suddenly starts to lose its attractiveness in the market. They push for more aggressive marketing; that’s what always worked in the past, isn’t it? > > They spend more on advertising, and drop the price; these methods may bring customers back temporarily, but they also draw money away from the company, so it cuts corners to compensate. The quality of its service (say, its delivery speed or care in inspection) starts to decline. In the long run, the more fervently the company markets, the more customers it loses. > Pushing harder, whether through an increasingly aggressive intervention or through increasingly stressful withholding of natural instincts, is exhausting. Yet, as individuals and organizations, we not only get drawn into compensating feedback, we often glorify the suffering that ensues. > > When our initial efforts fail to produce lasting improvements, we push harder—faithful...to the creed that hard work will overcome all obstacles, all the while blinding ourselves to how we are contributing to the obstacles ourselves. ## 3\. Behavior grows better before it gets worse. > Low-leverage interventions would be much less alluring if it were not for the fact that many actually work, in the short term. ....Compensating feedback usually involves a “delay,” a time lag between the short-term benefit and the long-term disbenefit. > In complex human systems there are always many ways to make things look better in the short run. Only eventually does the compensating feedback come back to haunt you. > > The key word is “eventually.” The delay ...explains why systemic problems are so hard to recognize. A typical solution feels wonderful, when it first cures the symptoms. Now there’s improvement; or maybe even the problem has gone away. > > It may be two, three, or four years before the problem returns, or some new, worse problem arrives. By that time, given how rapidly most people move from job to job, someone new is sitting in the chair. A useful to tool to detect and recognize systemic causes instead of being fixated on surface level issues is to use the [iceberg model of systems thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/). [The Systems Thinking IcebergThe systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on our radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) ## 4\. The easy way out usually leads back in. > We all find comfort applying familiar solutions to problems, sticking to what we know best. ...After all, if the solution *were* easy to see or obvious to everyone, it probably would already have been found. > > Pushing harder and harder on familiar solutions, while fundamental problems persist or worsen, is a reliable indicator of nonsystemic thinking—what we often call the “what we need here is a bigger hammer” syndrome. An effective way to counter this tendency is learning to think using the[ double-loop learning framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/), and examining [hidden mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) and questioning assumptions: [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame fi…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be half-baked, often useless in practice. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) Another effective antidote is to focus more on [problem-construction](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) and problem-setting, instead of jumping head on into problem-solving. ## 5\. The cure can be worse than the disease. > Sometimes the easy or familiar solution is not only ineffective; sometimes it is addictive and dangerous. Alcoholism, for instance, may start as simple social drinking—a solution to the problem of low self-esteem or work-related stress. Gradually, the cure becomes worse than the disease; among its other problems it makes self-esteem and stress even worse than they were to begin with. > > The long-term, most insidious consequence of applying nonsystemic solutions is increased need for more and more of the solution. A classic example of a non-systemic solution is using money exclusively to increase retention. As Senge points out, it might work initially, but eventually makes things worse, by needing more and more of the "medicine". Frederick Herzberg differentiated this as the difference between [hygiene factors and motivators](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/herzberg-hygiene-motivation-theory/) – job satisfaction is not the polar opposite of job dissatisfaction, as is commonly understood. And neither are the factors that influence them. > The phenomenon of short-term improvements leading to long-term dependency is so common, it has its own name among systems thinkers—it’s called “[shifting the burden to the intervenor](https://thesystemsthinker.com/shifting-the-burden-the-helen-keller-loops/?ref=leadingsapiens.com#:~:text=Shifting%20The%20Burden%20Template,-In%20the%20Helen&text=This%20particular%20type%20of%20shifting,essential%20part%20of%20the%20system.).” > > The intervenor may be federal assistance to cities, food relief agencies, or welfare programs. All “help” a host system, only to leave the system fundamentally weaker than before and more in need of further help. > In business, we can shift the burden to consultants or other “helpers” who make the company dependent on them, instead of training the client managers to solve problems themselves. Over time, the intervenor’s power grows—whether it be a drug’s power over a person, or the military budget’s hold over an economy... ## 6\. Faster is slower. > This, too, is an old story: the tortoise may be slower, but he wins the race. For most American business people the best rate of growth is fast, faster, fastest. > > Yet, virtually all natural systems, from ecosystems to animals to organizations, have intrinsically optimal rates of growth. The optimal rate is far less than the fastest possible growth. When growth becomes excessive—as it does in cancer—the system itself will seek to compensate by slowing down; perhaps putting the organization’s survival at risk in the process. When it comes to human systems, [speed is often the wrong criteria](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/). ## 7\. Cause and effect are not closely related in time and space. > Underlying all of the above problems is a fundamental characteristic of complex human systems: cause and effect are not close in time and space. > > By “effects,” I mean the obvious symptoms that indicate that there are problems—drug abuse, unemployment, starving children, falling orders, and sagging profits. By “cause” I mean the interaction of the underlying system that is most responsible for generating the symptoms, and which, if recognized, could lead to changes producing lasting improvement. > > Why is this a problem? *...*most of us assume, most of the time, that cause and effect *are* close in time and space. > > When we play as children, problems are never far away from their solutions...Years later, as managers, we tend to believe that the world works the same way. If there is a problem on the manufacturing line, we look for a cause in manufacturing. If salespeople can’t meet targets, we think we need new sales incentives or promotions. > ...the root of our difficulties is neither recalcitrant problems nor evil adversaries—but ourselves. There is **a fundamental mismatch between the nature of reality in complex systems and our predominant ways of thinking about that reality**. > > The first step in correcting that mismatch is to let go of the notion that cause and effect are close in time and space. Another aspect of causality which throws us off is we forget to account for [circular causality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) — rather than a simple linear cause and effect, the effects influence the cause, thus setting up a vicious/virtuous loop. In complex interactions, it's hard to discern what's causing what. ## 8\. Small changes can produce big results, but the areas of highest leverage are often the least obvious. > Some have called systems thinking the “new dismal science” because it teaches that most obvious solutions don’t work—at best, they improve matters in the short run, only to make things worse in the long run. > > But...systems thinking also shows that small, well-focused actions can sometimes produce significant, enduring improvements, if they’re in the right place. Systems thinkers refer to this principle as “leverage.” > > Tackling a difficult problem is often a matter of seeing where the high leverage lies, a change which—with a minimum of effort—would lead to lasting, significant improvement. > > The only problem is that **high-leverage changes are usually highly *nonobvious* to most participants in the system**. They are not “close in time and space” to obvious problem symptoms. ... > There are no simple rules for finding high-leverage changes, but there are ways of thinking that make it more likely. Learning to see underlying structures rather than events is a starting point... In addition to paying attention to structures, another effective way to use leverage is understanding the mechanisms of a [small wins approach](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) — they are small adaptations that are already working, but we are not noticing them because of size. [Strategy of Small Wins and Small Bets - Typical Mistakes and How to Get it RightSmall wins and small bets can be an effective strategy instead of going for the big win. But there are several nuances that are misunderstood.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Small-Wins--Pace-vs-Scale-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) ## 9\. You can have your cake and eat it too, but not all at once. > Sometimes, the knottiest dilemmas, when seen from the systems point of view, aren’t dilemmas at all. They are artifacts of **“snapshot” rather than “process” thinking**, and appear in a whole new light once you think consciously of change over time. > For years, for example, American manufacturers thought they had to choose between low cost and high quality. “Higher quality products cost more to manufacture,” they thought. “They take longer to assemble, require more expensive materials and components, and entail more extensive quality controls.” > > What they didn’t consider was all the ways **that increasing quality and lowering costs could go hand in hand, over time**. What they didn’t consider was how basic improvements in work processes could eliminate rework, eliminate quality inspectors, reduce customer complaints, lower warranty costs, increase customer loyalty, and reduce advertising and sales promotion costs. They didn’t realize that they could have both goals, **if they were willing to wait for one** while they focused on the other. > Many apparent dilemmas, such as central versus local control, and happy committed employees versus competitive labor costs, and rewarding individual achievement versus having everyone feel valued, are by-products of static thinking. **They only appear as rigid “either-or” choices, because we think of what is possible at a fixed point in time.** Dichotomous thinking pervades in business settings. What makes it worse is that [many organizational setups are paradoxes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/), which by definition cannot be resolved. The trick is to recognize them, and instead of fighting them, learn to operate within the tensions that they generate. ## 10\. Dividing an elephant in half does not produce two elephants. > Living systems have integrity. Their character depends on the whole. The same is true for organizations; to understand the most challenging managerial issues requires seeing the whole system that generates the issues. > ... > The key principle, called the “**principle of the system boundary**,” is that the interactions that must be examined are those most important to the issue at hand, *regardless* of parochial organizational boundaries. > > What makes this principle difficult to practice is **the way organizations are designed to keep people from seeing important interactions**. > ... > Incidentally, sometimes people go ahead and divide an elephant in half anyway. You don’t have two small elephants then; you have [a mess](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/#dissolving-messes-vs-solving-problems). By a “mess,” I mean a complicated problem where there is no leverage to be found because the leverage lies in interactions that cannot be seen from looking only at the piece you are holding. ## 11\. There is no blame. > We all tend to blame someone else—the competitors, the press, the changing mood of the marketplace, the government—for our problems. Systems thinking shows us that there is no separate “other”; that you and the someone else are part of a single system. The cure lies in your relationship with your “enemy.” ## Related reading - [Leadership Capacities based on Systems Thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/) [20 Leadership Capacities based on Systems ThinkingUnderstanding systems thinking is a must for modern leaders. In Reading the Room, David Kantor outlines a list of leadership capacities based on systems thinking and structural dynamics. They are particularly useful as a reference for developing your own leadership philosophy, practice, and model. Some of the terms Kantor uses![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-84.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-8)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/) - [Senge on Organizational Learning Disabilities](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/organizational-learning-disabilities/) [Organizational Learning Disabilities: Responding as a LeaderIn coaching leaders across industries, I have observed a consistent pattern: highly capable individuals grappling with invisible organizational forces. These forces, some of which Peter Senge called ‘organizational learning disabilities’, remain as relevant today as when he first described them. Alongside the laws of systems thinking, Senge identified seven learning![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-90.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Organizational-Learning-Disabilities-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/organizational-learning-disabilities/) ## Sources and references 1. [The Fifth Discipline](https://amzn.to/3MiLT62?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge 2. Senge references the following sources: > These laws are distilled from the works of many writers in the systems field: > ‣ Garrett Hardin, *Nature and Man’s Fate* > ‣ Jay Forrester, *Urban Dynamics* > ‣ Jay Forrester, “The Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems” > ‣ Donella H. Meadows “Whole Earth Models and Systems” > ‣ Draper Kauffman, Jr., *Systems I: An Introduction to Systems Thinking* > > ‣ Sufi tales can be found in the books of Idries Shah, eg., *Tales of the Dervishes* and *World Tales* > > ‣ George Orwell, *Animal Farm* > > ‣ D. H. Meadows, “Whole Earth Models and Systems” > > ‣ Lewis Thomas, *The Medusa and the Snail* > > ‣ Charles Hampden Turner, *Charting The Corporate Mind: Graphic Solutions to Business Conflicts* ### The Amazon Management and Decision Making System URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-management-and-decision-making-system/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:45:03.000Z *Just as the Toyota Production System revolutionized manufacturing, Amazon revolutionized the world of e-commerce. But unlike Toyota's system, Amazon's system has not been as widely studied.* *However, there are plenty of clues that can be found between Bezos' shareholder letters, and their leadership principles. *Ram Charan and Julia Yang's The Amazon Management System* captures these key ideas into a usable framework.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Genesis of the Amazon Management System In his very first [shareholder letter](https://ir.aboutamazon.com/annual-reports-proxies-and-shareholder-letters/default.aspx?ref=leadingsapiens.com) in 1997, Jeff Bezos outlined the core principles of Amazon’s management and decision-making approach : > Because of our emphasis on the long term, we may make decisions and weigh tradeoffs differently than some companies. Accordingly, we want to share with you our fundamental **management and decision-making approach** so that you, our shareholders, may confirm that it is consistent with your investment philosophy: > > • We will continue to [focus relentlessly on our customers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#customer-obsession-as-a-business-model). > > • We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long-term market leadership considerations rather than short-term profitability considerations or short-term Wall Street reactions. > > • We will continue to measure our programs and the effectiveness of our investments analytically, to jettison those that do not provide acceptable returns, and to step up our investment in those that work best. We will continue to learn from both our successes and our failures. > > • We will make bold rather than timid investment decisions where we see a sufficient probability of gaining market leadership advantages. Some of these investments will pay off, others will not, and we will have learned another valuable lesson in either case. > > • When forced to choose between optimizing the appearance of our GAAP accounting and maximizing the present value of future cash flows, we’ll take [the cash flows](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-ultimate-financial-measure). > > • We will share our strategic thought processes with you when we make bold choices (to the extent competitive pressures allow), so that you may evaluate for yourselves whether we are making rational long-term leadership investments. > > • We will work hard to spend wisely and maintain our lean culture. We understand the importance of continually reinforcing a cost-conscious culture, particularly in a business incurring net losses. > > • We will balance our focus on growth with emphasis on long-term profitability and capital management. At this stage, we choose to prioritize growth because we believe that scale is central to achieving the potential of our business model. > > • We will continue to focus on hiring and retaining versatile and talented employees, and continue to weight their compensation to stock options rather than cash. We know our success will be largely affected by our ability to attract and retain a motivated employee base, each of whom must think like, and therefore must actually be,[ an owner](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-long-term-thinking). Bezos’ first shareholder letter was the genesis and precursor to the current version of [Amazon’s leadership principles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/). He wrote one every year — the last being in 2021 — expanding on many of the tenets he outlined in the very first one. Between his shareholder letters and Amazon’s leadership principles, there’s a ton of useful frameworks for any manager or leader in a modern organization. Ram Charan and Julia Yang, in [The Amazon Management System](https://amzn.to/3BiTo82?ref=leadingsapiens.com), captured these ideas into a usable system anchored by six building blocks. If you are a student of how Amazon and Bezos operate, their system and checklist is a useful one to revisit regularly. ## Building-blocks of the Amazon Management System They anchor the system into six building blocks, with a checklist for each block: 1. Customer obsessed business model 2. Continuous bar-raising talent pool 3. AI-powered data and metrics system 4. Ground-breaking invention machine 5. High-velocity and high-quality decision-making 6. Forever-day-1 culture Each block highlights how Amazon is fundamentally different compared to traditional companies. ### 1\. Customer-obsessed business model > Despite their espoused commitment to putting the customer first, most traditional companies operate quite differently: they tend to be competition centric. They pay a huge amount of attention to financial results, especially earnings per share, and dance to the quarter-by-quarter short-term rhythm set by the capital market. > > Amazon’s business model, on the contrary, is customer-obsessed, continuously expanding, built on novel concepts of platform, ecosystem and infrastructure, able to defy traditional laws of diminishing returns, and actually delivers increasing cash flows and higher return on investment. **Checklist for building block 1:** > • Online and offline platform, ecosystem, and infrastructure provider > > • Central idea based on customer obsession, inventing for the customers, long-term thinking and cash generation over earnings ### 2\. Continuous bar-raising talent pool > Most traditional companies spend enormous amounts of money and effort in recruiting, developing, and retaining talent, and yet still encounter huge difficulty in finding the right people and deploying them in the right jobs. Take recruiting for example, many companies lack specific standards, and even if there are standards, they will easily give way to the pressing business urgency. > > Amazon’s talent pool is carefully defined, meticulously documented, and rigorously chosen; and coupled with complete end-to-end follow-through and feedback to ensure continuous bar-raising, both for the talent pool itself and for the self-reinforcing mechanism of talent acquisition and retention. > > In all interviews, Amazon includes a designated and trained person known as the “[bar-raiser](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/workplace/amazon-bar-raiser?ref=leadingsapiens.com).” They ensure that the hire is a fit for Amazon’s culture and its continuous bar-raising. **Checklist for building block 2:** > • Definition: builder, owner and mental toughness > > • Recruiting: bar raiser, rigorous process and self-selective mechanism > > • Motivating: builder’s dreamland, young man’s paradise and the [high standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) ### 3\. AI-powered data and metrics system > In most companies founded pre-digital, data is scattered and fragmented within different silos, layers, and business units producing significant latency of weeks and months. People seeking a full picture of what is really happening in any day-to-day operation must spend intensive efforts involving many people, and suffer long wait times, in order to dig beneath the results on the surface. … > > In such a setup, monthly or quarterly reviews could easily last hours or even days, as business and functional leaders sort through their pieces of the jigsaw puzzle one by one; then such work spirals out of control when the business grows bigger, the number of employees increases, and layers are added, due to the limitation of time and energy of any human being, i.e., the rule of “[span of control](https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/how-to-identify-the-right-spans-of-control-for-your-organization?ref=leadingsapiens.com).” > > Amazon leverages modern technology to run day-to-day operations differently. Amazon’s data and metrics system is ultra-detailed, cross-silo, cross-layer, end-to-end, real-time, input-oriented and AI-powered; therefore everything can be tracked, measured, and analyzed in real time with anomaly detected, insights generated, and routine decisions automated. > > In this way, it provides a [single source of truth](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/apn/building-a-single-source-of-truth-with-a-data-hub-from-semarchy/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) and significantly minimizes the need for “personal supervision,” thus enabling massive reduction in organizational layers. **Checklist for building block 3:** > *•* Single source of truth > > *•* Metrics: ultra-detailed, end-to-end, real-time, tracking inputs and need to be verified and be assigned to specific metric owner > > *•* Powerful AI-powered tools able to automate decision-making ### 4\. Ground-breaking invention machine > Most companies began before Amazon build their success on one brilliant innovation they made a long time ago. After that super-lucky and destiny-defining moment, many shy away from ground-breaking inventions, and seem complacent with minor improvements afterwards, here and there, year after year, and sometimes limited to only the packaging. > > ... Amazon’s invention machine is continuous, accelerating, and aimed at generating ground-breaking, game-changing, and customer behavior-shaping inventions that create new market spaces and economic opportunities of massive magnitude. **Checklist for building block 4:** > *•* Relentless drive to invent: daring to learn new skills, to kill own business, [to fail, in a big way](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#scaling-failure) > > *•* Seek and build big ideas continuously ([the press release](https://www.inc.com/carmine-gallo/jeff-bezos-requires-amazons-leaders-to-perform-this-powerful-ritual-before-launching-anything.html?ref=leadingsapiens.com)), and construct cross-functional full-time and co-located [two-pizza team](https://docs.aws.amazon.com/whitepapers/latest/introduction-devops-aws/two-pizza-teams.html?ref=leadingsapiens.com) with the right project leader ### 5\. High-velocity and High-quality decision-making > Another systematic flaw with legacy management systems: decision-making happens at what feels like a glacial pace, with a “one-size-fits-all” approach applied to almost all matters requiring a yes or no. All kinds of frustrations litter a typically lengthy approval process composed of numerous executives and committees, and decisions are further stalled by all kinds of politics, backstabbing, gaming-the-system, and the routine charades of maximizing requests on resources, and minimizing commitments on results. … > > Amazon’s decision-making is high-quality, high-velocity, and strictly follows a set of clearly articulated principles and uniquely designed toolsets enforced with striking consistency throughout the organization. This can make the company a very demanding place to work, but it frees employees from many of the headaches mentioned above. **Checklist for building block 5:** > • Two types of decision-making: type 1 (one-way doors) and type 2 (two-way doors). > > • For [type 2 decisions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#type-1-vs-type-2-decisions), speed matters. Let the metrics owner make the call. If approval required, one level only. > > • For type 1 decisions, focus on a few. Find out the best truth, imagine the possible change, combat group thinking, and if facing disagreement, disagree and commit. > > • To scale up good decision-making, need to crystalize consistent principles and methodologies (the [six-page narratives](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/startups/startup-advice-how-to-write-a-narrative/?ref=leadingsapiens.com)) and enforce them in every decision. ### 6\. Forever- day-1 culture > As they get bigger, most legacy companies find they have long lost the initial speed, agility, and vitality commonly found in start-ups. They have become rigid, slow, and risk-averse; complacency and bureaucracy have crept in. Some could sustain for a while, some would gradually fall into oblivion or irrelevance, some would become the prey for aggressive acquirers, and only a few could continuously refresh themselves. > > Amazon, as an organization, is committed to be forever Day 1, that is, to combine the size and scale advantages of a big company, the speed and agility of a startup, and the continuous upgrade of organizational capabilities. **Checklist for building block 6:** > • To fend off Day 2: true customer obsession,[ resist proxies](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-danger-of-processes-becoming-proxies), embrace [external trends](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-embracing-external-trends), [high-velocity decision-making](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-quality-and-velocity), fight complacency, kill bureaucracy, and own dependency > > • To build a forever-Day-1 culture: operationalize by observable behaviors, create forcing mechanisms, live and breathe them yourself, and invent memorable symbols and rewards. --- It's rare for successful companies to articulate their philosophy, and also do it in a simple, usable way. Even rarer is formulating it upfront, and then sticking with it for twenty-five plus years. Charan and Yang take the key ideas one step further by collating them into a usable framework. [The Amazon Management System](https://amzn.to/3BiTo82?ref=leadingsapiens.com) is a short read that introduces you to all the core tenets of how a trillion-dollar behemoth operates. ## Related Reading on Amazon [How Bezos thinks - All his mental models and frameworksJeff Bezos is one of the clearest thinkers in modern business. This article captures all his mental models and thinking frameworks in one place.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-176.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Jeff-Bezos-1.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/) [Amazon’s 16 Leadership Principles: A Deep DiveA deep dive into Amazon’s leadership principles, complete with videos and reading recommendations.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-177.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Amazon-Leadership-Principles-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/) [Setting high standards and clear expectations in leadershipSetting high standards is well understood. But a critical step often gets left out. Bezos captured this key idea in his 2017 shareholder letter.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-178.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Setting-High-Standards--Four-Quadrants.excalidraw-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) ### Herzberg Hygiene Factors vs Motivators — Why People Leave Managers, not Jobs URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/herzberg-hygiene-motivation-theory/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:33:37.000Z *How true is the statement that "people leave managers, not jobs"? Should you prioritize compensation, or is it team cohesion you should focus on? These are challenges leaders face daily. In modern workplaces, confusion still abounds around the impact of money on motivation, and how to balance it with other factors.* *Frederick Herzberg’s two-factor theory of hygiene factors vs motivators, or what he calls satisfiers vs dissatisfiers, is a basic but useful tool. His model, while not providing all the answers, helps clear at least some confusion, and highlights limitations of each approach.* --- ## Herzberg’s hygiene factors vs motivators The standard way of understanding engagement at work is to look at **satisfaction and dissatisfaction as polar opposites**. Herzberg’s key finding was that factors which satisfy and those that dissatisfy are not opposites, but rather a different set. In his research, the themes of stories about satisfaction were not the same as those about dissatisfaction. Thus satisfaction and dissatisfaction arise from very different factors. He proposed **two separate dimensions — motivators and hygiene factors** — each with a positive and negative emotional end. He argued that factors for satisfaction and dissatisfaction are qualitatively different. ![Frederick Herzberg Hygiene Factors Motivation Theory](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Herzberg-Hygiene-Factors-Motivators.png) Thus the opposing poles become: - Satisfaction and no satisfaction (Motivators/Satisfiers ) - Dissatisfaction and no dissatisfaction (Hygiene factors/Dissatisfiers ) It's a subtle but important distinction — it means pumping up hygiene factors doesn't necessarily lead to increased satisfaction and performance, but maintains a minimum standard. Motivators are what's required to increase satisfaction. However, they won't work without a baseline of hygiene factors already in place. Thus hygiene factors form the solid ground upon which motivation factors can be built upon. ### Hygiene factors These are also known as dissatisfiers. They prevent dissatisfaction, and include company policies and administration, salary, working conditions, interpersonal relationships, status, and security. They tend to be extrinsic, and essentially form the environment and [context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) of the work. Job dissatisfaction is often linked to unfair company policies, incompetent or unfair managers, bad interpersonal relations, unpleasant working conditions, unfair salary, threats to status, and job insecurity. They are like preventive measures that do not make people healthy but can prevent illness. ### Motivators These are also called satisfiers, and include recognition, achievement, content of the work itself, responsibility, and advancement. His findings showed that job satisfaction is often linked to achievement, recognition, interesting work, increased responsibility, advancement, and learning. These tend to be intrinsic, and are key aspects of the content of the job. They meet the psychological needs of recognition, sense of achievement, opportunities for growth, and meaning at work. > Ask workers what makes them unhappy at work, and you’ll hear about an annoying boss, a low salary, an uncomfortable work space, or stupid rules. Managed badly, environmental factors make people miserable, and they can certainly be de-motivating. > > But even if managed brilliantly, they don’t motivate anybody to work much harder or smarter. People are motivated, instead, by interesting work, challenge, and increased responsibility. These intrinsic factors answer people’s deep-seated need for growth and achievement. > > — Frederick Herzberg ## How to enhance motivators Herzberg coined the term “job enrichment” and gave suggestions for the “ingredients of a good job”: - Direct and immediate performance [feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/) - Opportunities for increasing ownership, and accountability - Learning that develops new skills, knowledge, and expertise - Control over schedule - Involvement in decisions about organizational resources - Removing hierarchical barriers to allow[ better communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/) and collaboration - Career advancement to take on new challenges and responsibilities. There's more awareness around these compared to when Herzberg was writing. But it’s still a good back to basics list. His recommendations are also consistent with those in Deci and Ryan’s [self-determination theory](https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/theory/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) that highlights the importance of **autonomy, competence, and relatedness**. ## Limitations and dangers of hygiene factors Money can be a hygiene factor if not high enough, and also a motivator when tied to recognition and achievement. But the problem with hygiene factors is what Herzberg called “zero escaping point”— they have **decreasing marginal utility** beyond a certain point. Once we reach a new high of hygiene factors, we get used to them, and need ever increasing quantities to have the same effect. Positive psychology calls this “hedonic adaption”, or the more visual term of “satisfaction treadmill”. \[2\] > There is nothing wrong with providing the maximum of hygienic benefits to the employee. The benefits should be as great as the society can afford. > ... What is in error is the summation of human needs in totally hygienic terms. > ... > Idleness, indifference and irresponsibility are healthy responses to absurd work. > ... > If you want people motivated to do a good job, give them a good job to do. > > – Frederick Herzberg Hygiene factors can decrease or prevent dissatisfaction more effectively, rather than increase satisfaction. You need motivation factors to increase satisfaction and engagement. Herzberg cautions against using hygiene factors exclusively: 1. Don’t expect people to be excited about boring jobs as boredom is the normal and healthy reaction to such jobs. 2. Hygiene needs escalate, and people demand increasing amounts of money, perks, and status to remain motivated. 3. People may become more interested in hygiene factors and believe that they can find satisfaction by pursuing them exclusively [Peter Drucker](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/) recognized the double-edged sword aspect of compensation turning into hygiene factors: > ...while the ability of the economic reward to provide a positive incentive diminishes, its capacity to create dissatisfaction, if disappointed, rapidly increases. > We have known for 50 years that money alone does not motivate to perform. Dissatisfaction with money grossly demotivates. Satisfaction with money is, however, mainly a ‘hygiene factor'. In the more recent Drive, Daniel Pink differentiates between baseline, "if-then", and "now-that" rewards: > **Baseline rewards:** Salary, contract payments, benefits, and a few perks that represent the floor for compensation. If someone's baseline rewards aren't adequate or equitable, her focus will be on the unfairness of her situation or the anxiety of her circumstance, making motivation of any sort extremely difficult. > ... > **If-then rewards:** Rewards offered as contingencies as in, If you do this, then you'll get that. For routine tasks, if-then rewards can sometimes be effective. For creative, conceptual tasks, they invariably do more harm than good. > ... > **Now that rewards:** Rewards offered after a task has been completed as in Now that you've done such a great job, let's acknowledge the achievement. Now that rewards, while tricky, are less perilous for nonroutine tasks than if-then rewards. ## Why people leave managers, not jobs It’s worth noting that hygiene factors, often, are not directly under the influence of the manager. Managers tend to have more influence in motivation factors. This might explain the common trope of people leaving managers, not jobs. The best teachers can make even a boring subject endlessly interesting. While the worst, make even the most interesting subjects, boring. **Similarly, a good manager can make a bad job bearable. But a bad manager can make even the best job unbearable.** ![Herzberg Hygiene factors - Why people leave managers, not jobs](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Herzberg-Hygiene-Factors-Why-People-Leave-Managers-not-Jobs.png) Herzberg’s model clearly has links with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs — hygiene factors map to the lower-level needs, while motivators address higher-order ones. From a manager’s perspective, they have more direct control in the upper parts of the pyramid. Thus, for leaders, in terms of opportunities for impact, the triangle should be inverted — more on top, and fewer at the bottom. ![Inverted Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. Herzberg's motivation theory.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/05/Herzberg-Hygiene-Factors-Maslow.png) Leaders cannot depend exclusively on financial rewards for driving performance. Herzberg's motivators are equally important, even more so. At the same time, no amount of motivators will help without the right hygiene factors in place. For a manager, the job then is to minimize dissatisfiers, while maximizing satisfiers. --- 💡 Liked this article? ****Try** ****my free newsletter**. Every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form. 📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related reading Herzberg was ahead of his time when he published his findings in 1959\. But even today, organizations are behind in terms of really understanding what makes people tick. We [still operate in early 20th century factory paradigms](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/). Managers have to understand the basics of what I call [the Human OS](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/), if they are serious about performance. [Leaders have to Master Basics of the Human OSMost leaders and organizations ignore the basics of the human OS. Their assumptions are from the domain of machines and material, not the human domain.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=MnwxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDE5fHxibHVlfGVufDB8fHx8MTY1Mzc1MTg2NA&ixlib=rb-1.2.1&q=80&w=2000)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/) [Hidden Drivers of Performance - Basics of the Human OSLeaders have to master the basics of the human OS. We examine these core attributes that underlie all frameworks of human peak performance.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://images.unsplash.com/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b?crop=entropy&cs=tinysrgb&fit=max&fm=jpg&ixid=MnwxMTc3M3wwfDF8c2VhcmNofDE5fHxibHVlfGVufDB8fHx8MTY1Mzc1MTg2NA&ixlib=rb-1.2.1&q=80&w=2000)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) ## Sources 1. Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., Bloch-Snydermann, B. (1959) [*The Motivation to Work*](https://amzn.to/44u56dn?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 2. Sachau, D. A. (2007). Resurrecting the Motivation-Hygiene Theory: Herzberg and the Positive Psychology Movement. Human Resource Development Review, 6(4), 377–393\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307307546](https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484307307546?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. Herzberg, F. (1968) ‘[One More Time: How do you Motivate Employees?](https://hbr.org/2003/01/one-more-time-how-do-you-motivate-employees?ref=leadingsapiens.com)’ *Harvard Business Review* 4. [Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices](https://amzn.to/42LPZuj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker 5. [The Essential Drucker ](https://amzn.to/3M23IYo?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Peter Drucker 6. [Drive](https://amzn.to/3AZigBG?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Daniel Pink ### Creative Breakthroughs and Insights — Busting Common Myths and How to Get Better at It URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:33:55.000Z *Everyone recognizes the importance of creative breakthroughs, but it continues to be a misunderstood phenomenon. Our need for creativity and insight also means a profusion of perpetrators promising easy solutions, and plenty of misconceptions.* *How do we increase the likelihood of insights? What can we do, or stop doing, to get better at it? What does research point to?* --- ## Understanding insight and breakthroughs Creativity and insight are key aspects of effective leadership, or any domain for that matter. For example: - Can you see what others fail to see? - Do you come up with new angles your team didn’t think of? - Can you connect the dots in a new way? To use the cliched phrase, can you think “outside the box”? Insights and epiphanies are the moment when everything just “clicks” together, and we suddenly see the solution that’s been staring at us all along. Now that we’ve “seen” it, the world looks very different. The very nature of insight means we cannot go about it formulaically, although that’s what some folks will try to sell you. What helps is to understand overarching patterns. The process might not be repeatable, but knowing what's entailed increases the likelihood of staying with it, instead of getting frustrated and quitting prematurely. Knowing that hitting a wall is part of the game somehow helps. To understand the nature of insight, I've used a couple of sources — one dated, while the other is more recent and backed by research. I like the dated source because of its simplicity. Research in the ensuing years has more or less confirmed these ideas. ## Elements of breakthroughs and insights An especially articulate and useful description of the process of insight that I’ve come across is of Bernard Lonergan. He outlined 5 properties of insight that are useful to keep in mind. > What we have to grasp is that insight (1) comes as a release to the tension of inquiry, (2) comes suddenly and unexpectedly, (3) is a function not of outer circumstances but of inner conditions, (4) pivots between the concrete and the abstract, and (5) passes into the habitual texture of one's mind. As an example, he cites the story of Archimedes shouting "Eureka”, running out of the baths of Syracuse when he had a sudden insight into the principles of displacement and specific gravity. Archimedes’ story raises several questions: - Did he just get plain lucky? - Why did he have the insight at that point in time and not before that? - Why is that only he had the insight that day, and not others who were doing the same actions? ### 1\. Insight as a release to the tension of inquiry > For if the typical scientist's satisfaction in success is more sedate, his earnestness in inquiry can still exceed that of Archimedes. > > Deep within us all, emergent when the noise of other appetites is stilled, there is a drive to know, to understand, to see why, to discover the reason, to find the cause, to explain. > > …It can absorb a man. It can keep him for hours, day after day, year after year, in the narrow prison of his study or his laboratory. It can send him on dangerous voyages of exploration. It can withdraw him from other interests, other pursuits, other pleasures, other achievements. It can fill his waking thoughts, hide from him the world of ordinary affairs, invade the very fabric of his dreams. It can demand endless sacrifices that are made without regret though there is only the hope, never a certain promise, of success. > > What better symbol could one find for this obscure, exigent, imperious drive, than a man, naked, running, excitedly crying, 'I've got it'? Because insight usually happens in a relaxed state of mind, the notion gets pushed that you need to be in that state of mind to be more "creative". This idea shows up in “brainstorming" sessions that start by trying to put everyone in a "playful" state of mind. Another example is the use of colorful stickies all over the board. But this is missing the point. **Relaxation here is relative** — breakthroughs happen at the point of relaxation simply because of the amount of tension, anxiety, and back and forth, that happened leading up to that point in time. Without the tension that preceded it, relaxation wouldn’t have yielded the results. Thus, striving and struggling is not necessarily a problem, but rather an integral part of the process. Relaxation, while critical, is only one part of an overall process of tension and release. The other obvious but forgotten point, is the desire and motivation to solve the problem in the first place. It’s our drive and curiosity that makes us look for answers. Tension is invariable, and not a bug but a feature. It’s the discomfort of not knowing that spurs us into action. Creative breakthroughs happen during relaxation, but striving and struggling are an equally important aspect of getting there. The striving is what ultimately leads to the relaxed peak performance. ### 2\. Insight comes suddenly and unexpectedly > It did not occur when Archimedes was in the mood and posture that a sculptor would select to portray 'The Thinker.' It came in a flash, on a trivial occasion, in a moment of relaxation. > > ...it is reached, in the last analysis, not by learning rules, not by following precepts, not by studying any methodology. Discovery is a new beginning. It is the origin of new rules that supplement or even supplant the old. > Genius is creative. It is genius precisely because it disregards established routines, because it originates the novelties that will be the routines of the future. Were there rules for discovery, then discoveries would be mere conclusions. Were there precepts for genius, then men of genius would be hacks. This is the one property of insight we are all familiar with, and our language captures it well: "flash" of insight, "hit" by an epiphany, "it came to me", and so on. The unpredictable and sudden nature creates misconceptions and hucksters: 1. That it can happen to anyone. This notion perpetrates the idea that anyone can be an Einstein. Yet, what’s required is the years of dedicated attention to solving singular issues. The timing might be out of the blue, except who it happens to, is certainly NOT out of the blue. 2. Because it's unpredictable, we want "hacks" to make it repeatable. This leads to experts promising us processes and steps that supposedly remove the randomness, and the ability to "manufacture" creativity at will. 3. That somehow creativity and insight are extraordinary, instead of an emergent process rising out of everyday engagement with the ordinary. This leads to organizations trying to "inject" creativity, instead of something we already are and do. ### 3\. Insight is a function of inner conditions, not external circumstances The day Archimedes was taking a bath, there were many others doing the exact same actions in the same conditions. But it was only he who got the insight. Lonergan gives the distinction of ***insight vs. sensation***. The same set of people having the same set of sensations doesn’t mean the same insights. This is an especially critical one in light of what modern organizations do to “increase” creativity in teams. Internal conditions are way more important than externalities imposed from the outside. It's why factors that help with intrinsic motivation are more crucial. > Many frequented the baths of Syracuse without coining to grasp the principles of hydrostatics. But who bathed there without feeling the water, or without finding it hot or cold or tepid? There is, then, a strange difference between insight and sensation. > ... > The occurrence and the content of sensation stand in some immediate correlation with outer circumstance. But with insight internal conditions are paramount. Thus, insight depends upon native endowment, and so with fair accuracy one can say that insight is the act that occurs frequently in the intelligent and rarely in the stupid. Again, insight depends upon a habitual orientation, upon a perpetual alertness ever asking the little question, Why? Thus, external tools and environments don’t matter as much. Yes, they are a key component, but [not as causal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) as we want to think. When we hear of an extraordinary achievement, we focus on the external things that enabled it. We ask for the tools that helped — the right software, or the right shoes, and so on. It's because compared to internal conditions, external factors are easier to acquire and replicate. But that's probably the last five percent of what produced the result. What gets missed, and what's mostly invisible, is the internal conditions that led to the insight. Lonergan also highlights how [problem-setting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) and problem-finding are crucial to problem-solving: > Finally, insight depends on the accurate presentation of definite problems. Had Hiero not put his problem to Archimedes, had Archimedes not thought earnestly, perhaps desperately, upon it, the baths of Syracuse would have been no more famous than any others. Most of us focus on problem-solving. What separates the true genius is their ability to find the right problems and how they define it. ### 4\. Insight pivots between the concrete and abstract > Archimedes' problem was concrete. He had to settle whether a particular crown was made of pure gold. Archimedes' solution was concrete. It was to weigh the crown in water. > > Yet if we ask what was the point to that procedure, we have to have recourse to the abstract formulations of the principles of displacement and of specific gravity. Without that point, weighing the crown in water would be mere eccentricity. Once the point is grasped, King Hiero and his golden crown become minor historical details of no scientific importance. > > Again the story dramatizes a universal aspect of insight. For if insights arise from concrete problems, if they reveal their value in concrete applications, nonetheless they possess a significance greater than their origins and a relevance wider than their original applications. While the realization and breakthrough we get might be abstract, it often comes from grappling with the concrete. This also explains [why wisdom and insight are not transferable](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/wisdom-insight-profound-simplicity/), especially those that are outside scientific formulations. What might be a profound insight for someone, looks simplistic to me because I haven’t gone through the confusion and tension required to get to the point of profound simplicity. ### 5\. Insight becomes habitual and mundane Genuine learning and insight are not easy, but fortunately they are sticky — just like learning a bike, once you get it, you’ve got it forever. This makes them well worth the trouble. > Once one has understood, one has crossed a divide. What a moment ago was an insoluble problem now becomes incredibly simple and obvious. Moreover, it tends to remain simple and obvious. However laborious the first occurrence of an insight may be, subsequent repetitions occur almost at will. > …the process of learning is marked by an initial period of darkness in which one gropes about insecurely, in which one cannot see where one is going, in which one cannot grasp what all the fuss is about; and only gradually, as one begins to catch on, does the initial darkness yield to a subsequent period of increasing light, confidence, interest, absorption. > > …Imperceptibly we shift from the helpless infancy of the beginner to the modest self-confidence of the advanced student. Eventually we become capable of taking over the teacher's role and complaining of the remarkable obtuseness of pupils that fail to see what, of course, is perfectly simple and obvious to those that understand. There is also an obvious point here — [real learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/), by definition, is supposed to be hard, and difficult at first. If there is no struggle, we are not learning. ## How to get better at insight Lonergan's formulation dates back to 1957\. In the ensuing years, the fields of creativity and innovation have been extensively researched and studied. His observations have withstood the test of time. Below are findings from a research paper co-authored by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi — one of the founders of Positive Psychology, and who was also one of the foremost researchers on creativity. Csikszentmihalyi and Sawyer characterize insight as: > Insight is part of an extended mental process. It is based on a previous **period of conscious preparation**, requires a **period of incubation** during which information is processed in parallel at a subconscious level, and is followed by a **period of conscious evaluation and elaboration**. > > The length of this process depends on whether the insight is embedded in a presented problem-solving process or in a discovered problem-finding process. Problem solving may cycle in a period as short as a few hours, whereas problem finding may take a year or more. > > At every stage, the process that comes before and after the insight is heavily dependent on social interaction. This takes the form, of face-to-face encounters and of immersion in the symbolic system of one or more domains. > > Problem-finding insights are characterized by the synthesis of information derived from more than one symbolic domain. It's worth noting that they emphasize stages, it's an extended process, problem-finding takes longer, social interaction is critical, and that it involves multiple domains. ### Prerequisites for insight Based on their research, the authors identify a list of prerequisites that must be met for insight to happen. It busts many of the myths that we identified earlier. > (1) thorough knowledge of one or more symbolic domains; > (2) thorough immersion in a field that practices the domain; > (3) focus of attention on a problematic area of the domain; > (4) ability to internalize information relevant to the problematic area; > (5) ability to let the relevant information interact with information from other domains at a subconscious level where parallel processing takes place; > (6) ability to recognize a new configuration emerging from this interaction that helps resolve the problematic situation; and > (7) evaluation and elaboration of the insight in ways that arc understandable and valuable to the field. ### What prevents insight Just as important as prerequisites, is to identify and avoid what prevents insight. Insight is unlikely to occur in the following situations: > The **absence of a strong interest**, curiosity, or intrinsic motivation that drives the person to commit attention to a problematic area in a domain. A person who is not intrinsically motivated has no incentive to push beyond generally accepted boundaries of knowledge. > > The **absence of a thorough grounding** in at least one symbolic domain, presumably as apprentice to an expert, and not having experienced the colleagueship of other expert apprentices. Creative insights typically involve the integration of perspectives from more than one domain. > > The **absence of interaction** with other individuals who are experts in the domain or in potentially relevant other domains. At every stage of the process, the stimulation and feedback of peers is necessary to select and evaluate potential insights. > > A **schedule in which a person is always busy**, goal-directed, involved in conscious, rational problem-solving. Incubation is facilitated by periods of idling, leisure, and involvement in activities such as walking, gardening, driving (i.e., activities that require some attention but are automated enough to permit sub- conscious processes to work just below the threshold of awareness). > > A person’s lack of the **opportunity or inclination to test the insight** and to develop its implications. A person must be particularly in touch with the field at the stage of evaluation and elaboration; otherwise, the insight is likely to have no effect beyond the individual. ## Questions to consider Given what we know now, here are some questions worth asking regularly: - Do you have enough social interactions on the problems you face? - How much time do you spend on [problem-setting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/), instead of problem-solving? - Do you have structured [time for reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) in your daily routine, or do you see it as a waste of time? - How can you increase depth in your domain? - Do you have [designed practices for reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) that you regularly engage in? - What are some [hidden mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) that might be preventing you from being more creative? - Do you see creativity as innate? Or is it of [creativity as an active decision](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/) you exercise? - What are some other domains you can draw on? - Do you have a [dozen favorite problems](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/three-pillars-and-two-contexts-of-modern-leadership/#a-dozen-favorite-problems) like Richard Feynman did? ## Sources 1. [Lonergan, B.J.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard%5FLonergan?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 1992\. [Insight: An essay in human understanding](https://amzn.to/3ncdvBr?ref=leadingsapiens.com). The collected works of Bernard Lonergan, Vol. 3, ed. F. Crowe and R. Doran. 2. [Csikszentmihalyi, M.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihaly%5FCsikszentmihalyi?ref=leadingsapiens.com), & Sawyer, K. (1995). Creative insight: The social dimension of a solitary moment. In [R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight ](https://amzn.to/3nhH44o?ref=leadingsapiens.com)(pp. 329–363). ### Viktor Frankl’s Laws of Dimensional Ontology and The Fallacy of the Dominant Dimension URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/ Last updated: 2025-09-19T18:20:55.000Z *Viktor Frankl, a concentration camp survivor and the founder of Logotherapy, is most known for his classic book Man’s Search for Meaning. The construct of meaning forms the core of his philosophy. He identified an important framework that’s not as widely known — his *laws of dimensional ontology*.* *Although sounding esoteric, it’s fairly fundamental, and helps explain a common mistake we make in work and life. What were his laws of dimensional ontology, and how can they help?* - [Laws of Dimensional Ontology](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/#laws-of-dimensional-ontology) - [First law of dimensional ontology](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/#first-law-of-dimensional-ontology) - [Second law of dimensional ontology](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/#second-law-of-dimensional-ontology) - [Implications of the laws](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/#implications-of-the-laws) - [Fallacy of the dominant dimension](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/#fallacy-of-the-dominant-dimension) - [Applying Frankl’s laws](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/#applying-frankl-s-laws) - [Sources](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/viktor-frankl-laws-dimensional-ontology/#sources) --- ## Laws of Dimensional Ontology Frankl's work differentiated the three domains of physical, mental, and "noological" (spiritual) aspects of human existence. He highlighted problems caused by focusing exclusively on only one of physical or mental aspects. To illustrate these challenges, he used a framework based on what he called dimensional anthropology and ontology. Essentially, it uses the geometrical concept of dimensions to show how **focusing on one "dimension" causes blindspots in others, or misinterpret what's actually going on**. In *The Will to Meaning \[1\]*, Frankl gives two laws of dimensional ontology. ### First law of dimensional ontology > One and the same phenomenon projected out of its own dimension into different dimensions lower than its own is depicted in such a way that the individual pictures **contradict one another**. > Imagine a cylinder, say, a cup. Projected out of its three-dimensional space into the horizontal and vertical two-dimensional planes, it yields in the first case a circle and in the second one a rectangle. These pictures contradict one another. > > What is even more important, **the cup is an open vessel in contrast to the circle and the rectangle which are closed figures**. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/04/First-Law-of-Dimensional-Ontology.png) ### Second law of dimensional ontology > Different phenomena projected out of their own dimension into one dimension lower than their own are depicted in such a manner that the pictures are **ambiguous**. > ... > Imagine a cylinder, a cone, and a sphere. The shadows they cast upon the horizontal plane depict them as three circles which are interchangeable. **We cannot infer from a shadow what casts it**, what is above it, whether a cylinder, a cone, or a sphere. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/04/Second-Law-of-Dimensional-Ontology.png) ## Implications of the laws > According to the first law of dimensional ontology, the projection of a phenomenon into different lower dimensions results in **inconsistencies**, and according to the second law of dimensional ontology, the projection of different phenomena into a lower dimension results in **isomorphies**. > Once we have projected man into the biological and psychological dimensions we also obtain contradictory results. For in the one case a biological organism is the result; in the other one, a psychological mechanism. But, however the bodily and mental aspects of human existence might contradict one another, seen in the light of dimensional anthropology this contradiction no longer contradicts the oneness of man. > The openness of a cup necessarily disappears in the horizontal and vertical dimensions. Well, man, too, projected into a dimension lower than his own seems to be a closed system, be it of physiological reflexes or psychological reactions and responses to stimuli. The primary thrust of Frankl’s argument was that human beings exist in the "noological" (spiritual) dimension that sits higher than the psychological and biological. **The moment we reduce ourselves to lower dimensions, it causes inconsistencies, contradiction, and confusion.** > Science cannot cope with reality in its multidimensionality, but must deal with reality as if reality were unidimensional. However, a scientist should remain aware of what he does, if for no other reason than to avoid the pitfalls of reductionism. > What is dangerous is the attempt of a man who is an expert, say, in the field of biology, to understand and explain human beings exclusively in terms of biology. The same is true of psychology and sociology as well. … > > What we have to deplore, I would say, is **not that scientists are specializing but that the specialists are generalizing**. … those who cannot resist the temptation to make overgeneralized statements on the grounds of limited findings. All challenges we face, are intricately complex. What attracts us to silver bullets and “proven” methods is their promise of simplification. However, this simplification comes at a cost — the loss of true understanding and real engagement. Just as with human beings, organizations are also treated as closed systems where managers and leaders act “on” the system, often forgetting that they are as much part of the system. True separation is simply not possible. While assuming teams and organizations as systems helps in understanding them, forgetting that it is, in fact, a reduction and abstraction from reality is a mistake. > It is interesting to note just how Newtonian most organizations are. The machine imagery of the cosmos was translated into organizations as an emphasis on material structure and multiple parts. Responsibilities have been organized into functions. People have been organized into roles. Page after page of organizational charts depict the workings of the machine: the number of pieces, what fits where, who the most important pieces are. > > The 1990s revealed these deeply embedded beliefs about organizations as machines when “reengineering” became the dominant solution for organizational ills. Its costly failures were later acknowledged to have stemmed in large part from processes and beliefs that paid no attention to the human (or living) dimensions of organizational life... . > > William Bygrave, a physicist turned organizational theorist, comments on how **many management theorists either were engineers or admired that profession...**— a lineage that continues to the present. There has been a close connection, he writes, between their engineering training and their attempts to create a rational, structured approach to organization > > — Margaret Wheatley \[2\] ## Fallacy of the dominant dimension Frankl used his dimensional ontology framework to illustrate the importance of meaning. But for this article, I want to focus on more mundane applications. One example is assessing the kind of help and advice we seek. Consider two basic questions that lead us to look for answers: 1. How do I become more effective at leadership (or any domain)? 2. How can my team/organization be more effective? For the person with a hammer, everything is a nail to be hammered. Similarly, the **answers to our questions will depend on which “expert” we ask**. This sounds obvious, but we mostly forget this basic fact. - For the question on leadership it can be: [mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/), mindfulness, [emotional intelligence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/), meditation, habits, time management, [authenticity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/), transformational leadership, and so on. - On the second question of teams and organizations it can be: corporate reengineering, restructuring, value stream mapping, lean methodologies, agile frameworks,[ OKRs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/john-doerr-okr-hygiene/), MBOs, or TQM, amongst many others. Notice how many of these have overlaps, and often lead to similar solutions — it's “isomorphism” and “inconsistencies” in play. There’s always a fad that’s in vogue, and we keep falling for them. Why? Fads become that way for a reason — at some level they work well, until they don’t. The underlying promise is always the same — **"we’ve figured it out, so you don’t have to"**. Of course, real life application turns out to be anything but. Peter Drucker \[3\] called this **the fallacy of the dominant dimension** — an over reliance on one method or approach, at the cost of other equally relevant aspects: > These dimensions of working — the physiological, the psychological, the social, the economic, and the power dimension — are separate. Each can — and, indeed, should — be analyzed separately and independently. But they always exist together in the worker's relationship to work and job, fellow workers and management. > > They have to be managed together. Yet they do not pull in the same direction. The demands of one dimension are quite different from those of another. **The basic fallacy of our traditional approaches to working has been to proclaim one of these dimensions to be *the* dimension.** ## Applying Frankl's laws Just as Wall St. pushes the latest mutual fund promising easy riches, [the leadership industry pushes the latest fad](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/kellerman-on-the-problem-with-the-leadership-industry/) promising to change organizations overnight. Same for the personal development space. The trick is to recognize that almost always, no one person or approach has all the answers or the silver bullet. Treating them that way, is a sure fire way of being disappointed, or worse, causing regression instead of progress. Understanding and adjusting for this proactively, ensures that we look for the parts that actually work for us. More importantly, it means **paying attention to the nuances and unique challenges of our own experience**, and building on them. > Just think of the maxim that when you have a hammer, the entire world turns into things that need to be nailed. Take that one step further. **If you drop your hammer, then the world is no longer a world of mere nails.** > > — Karl Weick \[4\] We are essentially "dropping our tools" to see things fresh and differently. Instead of relying solely on some expert, we learn what works, and build our own system. In light of Frank’s laws, it's useful to keep in mind: 1. **Contradictions.** You will often find that experts contradict each other. For example, “follow your passion” vs “focus on what works” — both are correct, and frequently in tension with each other. This will happen between different approaches, and also within a given method. 2. **Uniqueness.** When learning and applying a technique, we find that our own situation is annoyingly unique that doesn’t map onto what the experts proposed. This is not a flaw on our part, but rather a limitation of the method itself. 3. **Approximation.** All methods are abstractions removed from the context of our situations, and thus lack nuance. This means we don’t necessarily know how things will play out, and that experimentation and adaptation are important. The **value of the method might be more in that it spurs actions**, rather than it being the "right" one. 4. **Human "science"**. Most methods will claim to be “proven” or “research-backed”, but when operating in [the human domain](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/), these claims are questionable. This doesn’t mean they won’t work, but that more than likely, we'll have to make adjustments to make it work for ourselves. 5. **Requisite Variety.** Our reality and the challenges we face are multi-faceted. No one system or solution is going to solve it. What’s required is a wide repertoire of approaches. 6. **Game conditions.** Many supposed “problems” are not necessarily so, they are simply the nature of the game. Also common, are [paradoxes that cannot be solved away](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) — constraints that we have to learn to operate within. 7. **Causality.** Most methods will emphasize "if-then" linear causality — if (you do this) then (you get what you want) — but most of the time [circular-causality is more likely](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) in play. Everything influences each other — it’s more interconnected than what these methods make you think. This makes things more complex, but also opens up other avenues to take action. 8. **Meaning.** We have stimuli-based tendencies (behaviorism) but we are also [meaning-seeking and meaning-making creatures](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). Both have to be considered. Behaviorism is easy to understand and sell, but not as sustainable. 9. **Upstream.** We have to differentiate between upstream strategies and downstream tactics; separate the symptoms from the root causes. Tactics have to follow from strategies, not the other way around. For example, what looks like a “habits” or “process” problem, might actually be due to a lack of purpose or engagement. 10. **Reductionism.** Every method or model disregards many dimensions for the sake of simplicity. This means, by definition, it ignores more aspects than it actually addresses. Looking at our challenges from as many different angles as possible, increases the chances of success. ### Sources 1. [The Will to Meaning](https://amzn.to/40A1vay?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Viktor Frankl 2. [Leadership and The New Science](https://amzn.to/40C6Ttw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Margaret Wheatley 3. [Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices](https://amzn.to/3L4TdS5?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker 4. Weick, Karl E., Perspective Construction in Organizational Behavior (March 2017). Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, Vol. 4, Issue 1, pp. 1-17, 2017, Available at SSRN: [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2947645](https://ssrn.com/abstract=2947645?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Problem-Solving is Overrated. Problem-Setting is More Critical. URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/ Last updated: 2025-08-08T23:02:59.000Z *Almost everyone has the term “problem-solving” featured prominently in their resumes. Conversely, barely anyone uses the term “*problem-setting*”. Except in complex domains like leadership, problem-setting is often more critical than problem-solving.* *What is problem-setting, how is it different from good old problem-solving, and why is it critical to effective leadership?* --- ## What is problem-setting MIT organizational learning pioneer Donald Schon, writing in his classic *The Reflective Practitioner*, defined problem-setting as follows: > In real-world practice, problems do not present themselves to the practitioners as givens. They must be constructed from the materials of problematic situations which are puzzling, troubling, and uncertain. In order to convert a problematic situation to a problem, a practitioner must do a certain kind of work. He must make sense of an uncertain situation that initially makes no sense. ‌ > ‌‌ > ...although problem setting is a necessary condition for [technical problem solving](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/), it is not itself a technical problem. ‌ > ‌‌ > ‌When we set the problem, we select what we will treat as the "things' of the situation, we set the boundaries of our attention to it, and we impose upon it a coherence which allows us to say what is wrong and in what directions the situation needs to be changed. > > Problem setting is a process in which, interactively, we name the things to which we will attend and frame the context in which we will attend to them. Schon’s passage gives several clues about what problem-setting is: - Problems are not always obvious, or packaged that way. - We are actively constructing them, instead of the standard passive interpretation of problems being “out there”, and we the solvers tackling them. - It’s more critical when situations are “puzzling, troubling, and uncertain”, aka operating in complexity. - Problem-setting is an active, ongoing process of sense-making. - We are inclined towards a certain interpretation given our backgrounds and histories, but which also blinds us to other definitions. - It's a precursor to problem-solving, and not technical in nature. - We are actively choosing the parameters of a problem, whether we are aware of it or not. - How we name and frame parameters, influences what solutions we consider. Problem-setting is essentially **the context and frame within which problem-solving happens**. Not understanding this also means missing out on a key aspect of problems — the part where we actually have the most leverage and ability to take action. > Problem solving can be understood as a matter of means-ends deliberation. This is because the statement of a well-formed problem includes specification of the purposes to be achieved. But before a problem can be solved, it must be set. > > Real life does not present us with well-defined problems such as those at the end of the chapters of a textbook. Rather, human beings confronted with complex, ambiguous, and puzzling circumstances must pose the problems they will endeavor to solve. > > — Chris Argyris, Robert Putnam , Diana McLain Smith \[9\] Problem-setting is generative in nature, that's distinct from the choosing and looking for answers involved in problem-solving. The process of finding answers happens within the reality that problem-setting generates. It's about shifting attention to inputs, instead of focusing exclusively on means and outcomes. ## An example of problem-setting Consider the radically disparate approaches of the French and American efforts to build the Panama Canal — same situation, but different problem definitions: > ‌The French…thought that construction of a canal in Panama would be a similar task to the one they faced in the Suez; namely, all they had to do was build a sea-level ditch and a few locks and that would be that. Not only were they wrong about that, they didn't figure out how to handle yellow fever. Twenty thousand deaths later, the project, its finances, and the French government were a shambles.‌ > > ‌The Americans succeeded when they realized that a series of step-locks irrigated by the region's heavy rains would minimize the problem of landslides into the canal, a problem exacerbated by the French effort to build a sea-level canal through a mountain range covered by jungle soil. > > The Americans also succeeded when they realized that mosquitoes carried yellow fever, and that the insects were unable to survive very long outside of dense jungle. By cutting back the jungle a few hundred yards the mosquitoes could be kept away from the people working on the project. > ‌ > ‌‌— John Bryson \[11\] ## The problem with problem-solving > From the perspective of Technical Rationality, professional practice is a process of problem solving. Problems of choice or decision are solved through the selection, from available means, of the one best suited to established ends. ‌ > > But within this emphasis on problem solving, we ignore problem setting, the process by which we define the decision to be made, the ends to be achieved, the means which may be chosen. ‌ > > ‌— Donald Schon \[1\] The default problem-solving approach has inherent assumptions, which creates blindspots: - Problems are assumed to be a given, and obvious, with the primary objective being “finding and looking” for solutions. All resources are focused on solution-finding rather than problem-defining. This focus also means **we forget our role in creating and defining the problem**. - The perception of problems is static. This means the focus is more on the means to get there, and the removal of obstacles. Resources are assumed to be a key constraint. What’s forgotten is that **given a different definition, the obstacles might be automatically eliminated**. - The key task is essentially selection and optimizing among the various options. Except, the options are themselves generated by a particular definition of the problem. - Leads to a myopic focus on “problems” that might simply be symptoms, and in the process, missing the **larger systemic issues that are actually causes**. - The tendency is to isolate solutions from problems, whereas in reality both are inter-dependent and influence each other’s evolution. - It’s easy to forget that almost all “problems” are someone’s definition. This could be you, or some other stakeholder like a manager or a customer. We forget that often **the problem definition is negotiable or changeable**. - The problem-solving mindset tends to simplify issues, but can have the opposite effect of complicating issues by directing resources at the wrong problems. This can be a handicap particularly when information is not clear or simply unavailable. In contrast, embracing complexity by focussing on problem-setting naturally leads to more understanding. That’s the difference between naive simplification, and [profound simplification, aka wisdom](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/wisdom-insight-profound-simplicity/). > Complex issues require complex thinking, but not at the level of solving problems, but at the level of formulating them.This is partly an issue about variety. As...W.R. Ashby observed in his ‘Law of Requisite Variety’, **‘only variety can absorb variety’**. ‌ > > ‌Most management processes are about simplifying the external environment (thus reducing variety) so that it can be better understood and acted upon. ...But if there is too much simplification, especially at the early stages of the work, there is a significant danger that the eventual scenarios will likewise be too simple. > > By skipping to problem solving instead of problem setting, important aspects of the overall environment will be overlooked which might otherwise lead the organization...to consider the decision in a completely different light, or even conclude that a different decision is required.‌ > > ‌— Andre Curry \[4\]‌ There is nothing wrong with problem-solving in and of itself. The mistake is to rely on it exclusively, and not realizing that complex problems require a more complex approach. The concepts of "wicked problems" and "messes" are classic situations where problem-setting is more critical than the simple notion of problem-solving. ## Wicked problems vs hard problems Just like the Panama canal, many challenges we face daily tend to be “wicked” problems that are fundamentally different from “hard” problems. What’s the difference? Jennifer Riel describes it this way: > Lots of problems are hard: differential calculus, for instance. Or determining the optimal production schedule for a new manufacturing plant. Or assigning a realistic value to stock options. > > Hard problems are complex and take many steps from beginning to end, making it difficult to see your way clear to the solution from the outset. Hard problems face us at every turn, but fortunately business schools specialize in giving us the analytical tools that allow us to tackle and solve these problems. > > So hard problems aren’t the problem. The real challenge that faces the CEO and the young manager alike is that not all problems are hard problems. In fact, many of them belong to **an entirely different category: wicked problems.** > > Wicked problems aren’t merely harder or more complex than hard problems. They don’t just involve more factors or stakeholders. They don’t just take us longer to solve. Analytical thinking alone, no matter how skillfully applied, isn’t going to generate an answer to a wicked problem. > > Wicked problems, first identified by mathematician and planner Horst Rittel in the 1960s, are messy, aggressive, and confounding…Churchman described wicked problems as “a class of social system problems which are ill-formulated, where the information is confusing, where there are many clients and decision makers with conflicting values, and where the ramifications in the whole system are thoroughly confusing.” > > In other words, wicked problems are ill-defined and unique in their causes, character, and solution. > > — Jennifer Riel \[11\] How do you know if you have a wicked problem on your hand? > • The causes of the problem are not just complex but deeply ambiguous; you can’t tell why things are happening the way they are and what causes them to do so. > > • The problem doesn’t fit neatly into any category you’ve encountered before; it looks and feels entirely unique, so the problem-solving approaches you’ve used in the past don’t seem to apply. > > • Each attempt at devising a solution changes the understanding of the problem; merely attempting to come to a solution changes the problem and how you think about it. > > • There is no clear stopping rule; it is difficult to tell when the problem is “solved” and what that solution may look like when you reach it. > ... > > With hard problems, your job is to look at the situation, identify a set of definite conditions, and calculate a solution. With wicked problems, the solution can no longer be the only or even the primary focus. Instead, dealing with wicked problems demands that attention be paid to understanding the nature of the problem itself. **Problem understanding is central; the solution, secondary**. > > — Jennifer Riel \[11\] ## Dissolving messes vs solving problems Russell Ackoff’s analogy \[5\] of messes vs. problems is a useful one: > One of the most damaging misconceptions plaguing management is that problems are objects of direct experience. Not so. They are abstractions extracted from experience by analysis. Problems are related to experience as atoms are to tables. Tables are experienced, not atoms. > > Managers are not confronted with separate problems but with situations that consist of complex systems of strongly interacting problems. **I call such situations messes**. Therefore, the behavior of a mess, and a mess is a system, depends at least as much on how its parts interact as on how they act independently of each other. > > However, **it is standard managerial practice to reduce messes to aggregations of problems:** to prioritize and treat them separately, as self-contained entities. Managers do not generally know how to deal effectively with any system, let alone messes, taken as a whole. > > **Effective managers do not solve problems; they dissolve messes**. Ineffective managers mismanage rather than manage messes. Thus problems, and problem-solving, can be seen as part of an ever-evolving, problem-setting process, rather than an end in itself. ## Role of the manager and leader As individual contributors, we are trained to focus on problem-solving. But as you move higher up the organization, the skillset of problem-setting starts becoming more critical, while problem-solving becomes secondary. Why so? 1. **Impact —** Your teams, or team of teams, are already good at problem-solving. So what are you bringing to the table? 2. **Right problems —** While in-depth knowledge of a domain helps in understanding what might be going on, even more important is the ability to leverage this knowledge to ensure teams are in fact working on the right problems. 3. **Setting** [**context**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) **—** In complex challenges, as opposed to well-defined technical problems, the solutions and pathways are numerous. What you choose to focus on, often influences downstream choices and actions of your team. This becomes ever more critical in an environment of limited resources and infinite options. 4. **Interpretation and** [**framing**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) **—** Most situations, where leadership is actually needed, are fuzzy by definition. Problem-solving happens within a given definition of a problem. Problem-setting is all about how you go about outlining that definition itself. This choice that you make, by selecting and framing, is a key aspect of effective leadership. 5. **Sense-making and sense-giving:** > A leader at work is one who gives others a different sense of the meaning of that which they do by recreating it in a different form, a different “face”, in the same way that a pivotal painter or sculptor or poet gives those who follow him (or her) **a different way of "seeing"** — and therefore saying and doing and knowing in the world. A leader does not tell it "as it is"; he tells it as it might be, **giving what 'is" thereby a different face**. > > ...The leader is **a sense-giver**. The leader always embodies the possibilities of escape from what might otherwise appear to us to be incomprehensible, or from what might otherwise appear to us to be a chaotic, indifferent, or incorrigible world — one over which we have no ultimate control. > > — Thayer \[7\] ## Questions to consider Here are some questions to regularly ask yourself: - Your default approach — is it problem-solving or problem-setting? Which one are you more comfortable with? - Where, and how, do you add the most value? - Which features are you choosing to focus on? What are you NOT focusing on? - Are there aspects you are unaware of? (you will need external help, because by definition these are invisible) - What additional information, if you had access to, would change the definition of your problem? ## How to get better at problem-setting Given the importance of problem-setting, below are some ways to develop this ability: ### (1) Focus on questions, as much as answers Our default approach is to jump to solve the problem, without questioning the problem itself. > The Westerner and the Japanese man mean something different when they talk of "making a decision." In the West, all the emphasis is on the answer to the question. Indeed, our books on decision making try to develop systematic approaches to giving an answer. > > To the Japanese, however, the important element in decision makingis definingthe question. The important and crucial steps are to decide whether there is a need for a decision and what the decision is about. And it is in that step that the Japanese aim at attaining consensus. Indeed, it is this step that, to the Japanese, is the essence of decision. > > The answer to the question (what the West considers the decision) follows from its definition. During the process that precedes the decision, no mention is made of what the answer might be. . . . Thus the whole process is focused on finding out what the decision is really about, not what the decision should be. > > — Peter Drucker \[7\] ### (2) Understand the role of naming and framing [Language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/) (metaphors and stories) plays a key role in how situations gets interpreted and the resulting actions. This is often tacit, influenced by our backgrounds. Neither can they be avoided because it's ontological — how human beings are. > Depending on our disciplinary backgrounds, organizational roles, past histories, interests, and political/economic perspectives, we frame problematic situations in different ways. > > A nutritionist, for example, may convert a vague worry about malnourishment among children in developing countries into the problem of selecting an optimal diet. But agronomists may frame the problem in terms of food production; epidemiologists may frame it in terms of diseases that increase the demand for nutrients or prevent their absorption; demographers tend to see it in terms of a rate of population growth that has outstripped agricultural activity; engineers, in terms of inadequate food storage and distribution; economists, in terms of insufficient purchasing power or the inequitable distribution of land or wealth. > > ...Those who hold conflicting frames pay attention to different facts and make different sense of the facts they notice. It is not by technical problem solving that we convert problematic situations to well-formed problems; rather, it is through naming and framing that technical problem solving becomes possible. > > — Donald Schon \[2\] ### (3) Use the ladder of inference A useful tool for understanding how we jump to conclusions, and how our stories influence decisions and actions is [Chris Argyris' ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/): [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) ### (4) Understand the role of context Problem-setting forms[ the context within which your teams operate](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/): [The importance of mastering context in effective leadershipContext is a powerful tool in leadership but goes underutilized and misunderstood - a deep dive into why mastering context is essential to effective leadership.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/08/1024px-Van_Gogh_from_Space.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) ### (5) Understand how framing influences actions The framework of [double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) shows where the step of problem-setting fits into the overall picture: [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame fi…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) Another way to understand problem-setting is the power of framing, which also happens to be [a key step in creating psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) in your teams. ### (6) Deeper levels of reality The [systems thinking iceberg model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) shows that top level events can actually be distractions. Leaders have to learn to delve deeper and understand problems from a systemic perspective. [The Systems Thinking IcebergThe systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on our radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) ### (7) Understand the mechanism of small wins Choosing and focusing on particular aspects, amongst a plethora of confusing choices, is one of the key mechanisms at work in engineering a [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) strategy: [Strategy of Small Wins and Small Bets - Typical Mistakes and How to Get it RightSmall wins and small bets can be an effective strategy instead of going for the big win. But there are several nuances that are misunderstood.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Small-Wins--Pace-vs-Scale-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) ## Sources 1. [The Reflective Practitioner](https://amzn.to/3UXJbHj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by [Donald Schon](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald%5FSch%C3%B6n?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. [Educating the Reflective Practitioner](https://amzn.to/3mNRbO6?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Donald Schon 3. Schon, Donald A.. “Metaphor and Thought: Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy.” (1993). 4. [Scenarios for Success: Turning Insights into Action](https://amzn.to/3GU62NV?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Edited by Bill Sharpe and Kees Van der Heijden 5. Ackoff, R.L. (1994), Systems thinking and thinking systems. Syst. Dyn. Rev., 10: 175-188\. [https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100206](https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100206?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. Small Wins by Karl Weick 7. [Sensemaking in Organizations](https://amzn.to/3GRmsqe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Karl Weick 8. Conversational Realities by John Shotter 9. [Action Science](https://actiondesign.com/resources/readings/action-science?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Chris Argyris, Robert Putnam, Diana McLain Smith 10. John Bryson(1988)Strategic planning: Big wins and small wins,Public Money & Management,8:3,11-15,DOI: [10.1080/09540968809387483](https://doi.org/10.1080/09540968809387483?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 11. [The Design of Business](https://amzn.to/41x0Uao?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Roger Martin ### Thinking Long-Term in Work: Careers as Practice and Art URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/long-term-thinking-careers-practice-art/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:35:11.000Z *Our culture is obsessed with speed. Success is often measured in how fast you get somewhere, rather than where you end up, how you got there, or who you become in the process. But this default criteria of speed is detrimental to our development, especially in careers. Instead, thinking of it as a life-long practice can be a useful reframe.* --- ## Why long-term thinking is hard Most of us intellectually understand the importance of thinking long-term, except it’s hard to do it in practice. Why? Because everything around us is designed to make us think otherwise. It takes a proactive approach to train ourselves to think for the long haul vs what will happen in the next week, or the next quarter. This [expectation of speed](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/) manifests itself in **expectations of how fast our careers should evolve**. Rather than putting our heads down and focusing on the current role, we start plotting for the next job, never really “inhabiting” the current one we are in, and not giving it everything. And this makes sense. Since this is not my “ultimate” job/role, there’s no reason to give it our all, and so on. Careers and lives are rarely linear, although that’s how we want them to be. The challenges and underlying dynamics of creative work is a rich source to understand some of the mechanics. ## Mechanical vs human time Rather than being an anomaly, downtimes when things are not going our way can lay the groundwork for explosive spurts in the future. Except we abhor it when it’s slow-going, and try to jumpstart our evolution prematurely in the quest for more linear growth. In his book Keep Going, the third in a trilogy, [Austin Kleon](https://austinkleon.com/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) captures the ebbs and tides of creative work: > Like a tree, creative work has seasons. Part of the work is to know which season you’re in, and act accordingly. In winter, “the tree looks dead, but we know it is beginning a very deep process, out of which will come spring and summer.” > > The comedian George Carlin lamented how obsessed we all are with the notion of forward, visible progress. “**It’s the American view that everything has to keep climbing: productivity, profits, even comedy.**” > > He felt we made no time for reflection. “No time to contract before another expansion. No time to grow up,” he said. “No time to learn from your mistakes. But that notion goes against nature, which is cyclical.” Culture programs us to think in[ mechanical, clock time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/). We think in terms of days, weeks, quarterly reports, and annual objectives. Some of the more ambitious ones amongst us, even have 10-year plans. [Language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/), and the terms we use, influence how we think about work and life, and our experience itself. Consider the following contrasting words that Kleon highlights: > Seconds vs Heartbeats > Days vs Sunrises > Weeks, Months vs Moon phases > Quarters vs Seasons > Years vs The return of spring Notice how **the boundaries of mechanical time are fixed and defined**, whereas that of “lived time” are nuanced and transitionary. The trouble starts when we expect transitions, happening in human time, to follow the requirements of mechanical time. When **expectations outlined in the language of mechanical time**, don’t pan out in the reality of lived time, it causes unnecessary frustration or to quit on projects prematurely. While your manager might not agree with your seasonal metric instead of quarterly, internally you can realign yourself. After all, managers come and go, but it’s always you who’s moving from the perspective of your career. Kleon advises: > You have to pay attention to the rhythms and cycles of your creative output and learn to be patient in the off-seasons. You have to give yourself time to change and observe your own patterns. > > “Live in each season as it passes,” wrote Henry David Thoreau, “and resign yourself to the influences of each.” One way to get in touch with your own seasons is to follow Kent and Thoreau’s leads and observe the seasons in nature. > > ... Try to get a feel for nonmechanical time, and see if it recalibrates you and changes how you feel about your progress. These ideas are applicable to the entire arc of a career and life: > Our lives, too, have different seasons. Some of us blossom at a young age; others don’t blossom until old age. Our culture mostly celebrates early successes, the people who bloom fast. But those people often wither as quickly as they bloom. It’s for this reason that I ignore every “35 under 35” list published. I’m not interested in annuals. I’m interested in perennials. ... > > I don’t want to know how a thirty-year-old became rich and famous; I want to hear how an eighty-year-old spent her life in obscurity, kept making art, and lived a happy life. …I want to know how in his nineties, Pablo Casals still got up every morning and practiced his cello. > > These are the people I look to for inspiration. The people who found the thing that made them feel alive and who kept themselves alive by doing it. The people who planted their seeds, tended to themselves, and grew into something lasting. I want to be one of them. > > I want to make octogenarian painter David Hockney’s words my personal motto: “**I’ll go on until I fall over**.” Kleon’s writing is an important reminder that successful careers, and lives, are a marathon rather than a sprint. Often, what speeds us up in the interim slows us down long-term. In contrast, **slowing down can speed us up, even though in the moment, it doesn’t feel that way**. ## Your career as a practice Thinking of our careers as a life-long practice and our role as an evolving artist is a helpful one. > There is no measuring with time, no year matters, and ten years are nothing. Being an artist means, not reckoning and counting, but ripening like the tree which does not force its sap and stands confident in the storms of spring without the fear that after them may come no summer. > > It does come. But it comes only to the patient, who are there as though eternity lay before them, so unconcernedly still and wide. I learn it daily, learn it with pain to which I am grateful: patience is everything! > > —Rainer Maria Rilke But this patient approach is anything but easy. You have to constantly remind yourself of it. Here are some questions worth asking regularly: - Are you making progress internally, regardless of what the external “metrics” might be showing? - Is that movement forward or backward? Paradoxically, progress in external metrics can also mean going backward internally, when we are out of alignment with [what we truly care about](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/). - Do you have the patience **to “let” your project ripen** and eventually grow, or are you too impatient? - Whatever time metric you've assigned to your project, how did you come with it? ## Your career as art Kleon’s articulation of the creative life is applicable to any career when seen from a zoomed out, life-long view: > The creative life is not linear. It’s not a straight line from point A to point B. It’s **more like a loop, or a spiral**, in which you keep coming back to a new starting point after every project. No matter how successful you get, no matter what level of achievement you reach, you will never really “arrive.” > > Other than death, there is no finish line or retirement for the creative person. “Even after you have achieved greatness,” writes musician Ian Svenonius, “the infinitesimal cadre who even noticed will ask, ‘What next?’” > > The truly prolific artists I know always have that question answered, because **they have figured out a daily practice—a repeatable way of working** that insulates them from success, failure, and the chaos of the outside world. They have all identified what they want to spend their time on, and they work at it every day, no matter what. Whether their latest thing is universally rejected, ignored, or acclaimed, they know they’ll still get up tomorrow and do their work. Developing [your daily practice](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/) — whether you are an individual contributor, a division head, or a VP of a key function — is a key requirement for a flourishing, and more importantly engaged, career. ## Doing your verbs Kleon’s words towards the end of his book are iconic and worth keeping nearby at all times: > Whenever life gets overwhelming,…think about your days. Try your best to fill them in ways that get you a little closer to where you want to be. Go easy on yourself and take your time. > > Worry less about getting things done. Worry more about things worth doing. > Worry less about being a great artist. Worry more about being a good human being who makes art. > Worry less about making a mark. Worry more about leaving things better than you found them. > > Keep working. Keep playing. Keep drawing. Keep looking. Keep listening. Keep thinking. Keep dreaming. ... > > Keep doing your verbs, whatever they may be. > > Keep going. --- 💡 Liked this post? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Sources 1. [Keep Going](https://amzn.to/3KuE8u7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Austin Kleon 2. Kleon's [trilogy of books](https://amzn.to/3K4XPqV?ref=leadingsapiens.com) are short reads, but deep in wisdom and well worth rereading regularly ### The Type of Courage Needed in Modern Leadership and Organizations URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:35:28.000Z *We don’t usually think of courage in the context of careers and organizations. But this is a mistake. Courage is more fundamental than we think, and equally relevant. The key is to understand the specific type of courage required, and how it applies to an ordinary work life.* --- ## Ordinary courage What does courage mean in modern leadership? The notion of the swashbuckling leader is as cliched as it is anachronistic. Still, it persists. We think of Elon Musk as courageous for taking bold risks. But what does it mean for lesser mortals like us, at various stages of careers and at different levels in the organization? What does it mean for a team lead or an individual contributor to be “courageous” in the daily grind of work? The courage required in organizations is very different from common notions we typically carry. It’s also easy to avoid this form of courage. In many ways, **this makes it harder than the kind that Musk demonstrates**. Understanding and recognizing it can be instrumental in avoiding common stumbling blocks in leadership, and careers as a whole. ## Courage as foundational In Mavericks \[2\], Lewis, Goddard, and Batcheller-Adams, identify five attributes of what they call the “Maverick leadership mindset”: > **Belief:** …The Maverick leader, in the face of what seem to be systemic, ineffective and unjust outcomes, resolves to take action to make things better. They assess options, seize opportunities and side-step barriers with an absence of ego, the need to be right or personal preference. Rather, they act informed by a vision of what better looks like.‌‌‌‌ > > **Resourceful:** …The Maverick leader, through curiosity, identifies opportunities to connect people, ideas and assets that to others may seem unconnected or too bothersome to engage in.‌‌‌‌ > > **Nonconformist:** …The Maverick leader challenges orthodoxy, not for the sake of being obstinate or contrary, but to break out of the box and create something better.‌‌‌‌ > > **Experimental:** … The Maverick leader recognizes that there is no proven path to a better future, yet is determined to take the first step, learn and work out, along the way, how to make progress while others simply give up.‌‌‌‌ > > **Undeterred:** …The Maverick leader persists in striving to make things better, in the face of difficulty, resistance and even outright hostility, through the force of their own will. In the face of setbacks and little or no indication of success, they find ways to stay energized and garner support when needed. What’s interesting about these attributes is that courage is foundational to all of them. Without courage, acting consistently on these mindsets is near impossible. > Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. ‌‌‌‌ > > —C.S. Lewis Rollo May \[3\] recognized this **foundational quality of courage**: > The word courage comes from the same stem as the French word coeur, meaning “heart.” Thus just as one’s heart, by pumping blood to one’s arms, legs, and brain enables all the other physical organs to function, so **courage makes possible all the psychological virtues**. > > …‌‌‌‌In human beings courage is necessary to make being and becoming possible. An assertion of the self, a commitment, is essential if the self is to have any reality. This is **the distinction between human beings and the rest of nature**. ‌‌‌‌ > > The acorn becomes an oak by means of automatic growth; no commitment is necessary. The kitten similarly becomes a cat on the basis of instinct. Nature and being are identical in creatures like them. ‌‌‌‌But **a man or woman becomes fully human only by his or her choices and his or her commitment to them**. > > People attain worth and dignity by the multitude of decisions they make from day by day. These decisions require courage. This is why Paul Tillich speaks of **courage as ontological**—it is [essential to our being](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/#ontological-givens-not-psychology). May is alluding to a specific type of existential courage that’s more applicable to work and careers, and not as widely recognized. ### Types of courage Research suggests three primary types of courage: 1. Physical courage (valor, military bravery) 2. Moral courage (standing up for what’s right) 3. Psychological courage (internal battles, existential) Most of us recognize physical and moral bravery, and it’s what Hollywood typically portrays. However, in careers and organizations, it’s the third type that can make or break us. Psychological courage often goes undetected and underdeveloped. One reason is because it’s easy to avoid it. In the moment, we typically have a choice to go for the more safer, comfortable option. Sometimes called emotional courage, psychological courage is more existential in nature — **our ability and willingness to face and cope with the inevitable uncomfortable emotions produced by important but avoidable actions**. One aspect particularly useful in identifying this type of courage, is the existentialist notion of **courage as the ability to deal with anxiety**. And leadership is an excellent use-case for its application. ## Anxiety is in the nature of leadership Why is courage foundational to leadership? One reason is because anxiety is an ever-present dynamic in leadership, and courage determines how we engage with it — facing it and growing in the process, or avoiding it and shrinking away. What's the relationship between leadership, anxiety, and courage? Peter Koestenbaum \[1\] articulated it this way: > Anxiety is the experience of thought becoming action. What do you feel when reflection becomes behavior, when strategy becomes implementation? Anxiety is the feeling of leadership in action, of theory being transformed into practice. This explains why ideas are cheap, while executing on ideas in the real world comes at a premium. > Courage, as a dominant strategy, or dimension, for acquiring the leadership mind, is the willingness to risk. … The courageous leadership mind understands that you cannot live life without courage. And the leader knows that courage does not avoid anxiety and guilt but uses them constructively. To lead is to act. … courage means to act with **sustained initiative**.‌‌‌‌ > > Courage is **the free decision to tolerate maximum amounts of anxiety**, to manage your anxiety constructively, to understand that being anxious is what it feels like to grow. > > ‌‌‌‌...The fact **that anxiety is the natural condition of human beings** rather than a pathological aberration is the pivot …. > ...You should face your anxiety, you should stay with your anxiety, and you should explore your anxiety. The same is true of the decision to tolerate guilt. > > In general, **management techniques, useful as they may be, are often more escapes from courage** than effective tools to harness courage. ## What courage looks like in organizations Now that we know the type of courage we need more of, what does it look like in common work scenarios? How does it play out in organizational leadership? Courage can be as simple as facing up to what is, rather than bemoaning how things “should” be. Things simply are. The real question is what are we going to do about it? How do we close the gap between the desired future and today’s reality? It requires **the** [**paradoxical combination of conviction and humility**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/#the-stockdale-paradox) — the conviction that you can, in fact, improve/change it, and the humility to recognize the reality of the situation. Here are some common organizational scenarios that require psychological courage, and a new way of seeing them. ### 1\. Difficult conversations Consider the last time you avoided a painful conversation, or didn’t challenge your VP’s position even when you knew a lot more than they did. Doing so requires [redefining our relationship with anxiety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) and uncertainty —recognizing them as part of the human condition, and not as signals that indicate if something is good or bad. Instead of trying to get rid of discomfort, it can be seen as an opportunity to grow that we run towards. > In real-world situations, the practical formula with respect to anxiety is this: **go where the pain is**. > > …That is a technique for achieving leadership courage. Explore your moments of anxiety. Examine your nightmares. Do not fear them, and do not deny them. ‌‌‌‌ > > — Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership \[1\] ### 2\. Risking vulnerability Genuine relationships and authentic leadership require an element of vulnerability. Human beings are attuned to picking this up. Of course, leaders are trained to do everything but show vulnerability. This means your **willingness to risk being vulnerable is an act of courage in itself**. > Vulnerability is the road towards courage. You cannot be courageous without being vulnerable. When we hear the word vulnerability, we often mistakenly confuse the term with fragile. However, vulnerability is a universally human feeling that occurs when we find ourselves in difficult situations that are characterized by uncertainty, risk, and emotional exposure. > > – Morten Henriksen, Thomas Lundsby in Fearless Leadership ### 3\. Creative originality as an antidote It’s easy to get stifled in organizational setups. There are the processes, deliverables, metrics, structures — all designed to control, and supposedly manufacture “innovation”. But in practice, it’s the opposite — they kill creativity and drive. Questioning these structures, and actively working to subvert them, can put life into an otherwise dull and mundane **“organization man” existence**. Of course, this comes with its attendant risk, which is precisely what makes it difficult and uncommon. Used intelligently, it can be a source of engagement and competitive advantage. > To live with courage in any work or in any organization, we must know intimately the part of us that does not give a damn about the organization or the work. That knows how to live outside the law as well as within it. …‌‌‌‌ > > With **a healthy outlaw approach**, we are outside the laws of predictable cause and effect and inside the intensity of creative originality. > > ‌‌‌‌— David Whyte in Crossing the Unknown Sea ### 4\. Questioning accepted norms How do “best practices” and the “status quo” become that way? They are the safer bet, and most don’t have the courage to question them. We forget that **every formula and best practice was once an untried theory**, or more likely, emerged from grappling and trying different things. Someone else’s formula rarely works for the specific complexities of our own situation. > \[Maverick leaders\] resist the popular notion that effective practice is essentially the application of proven knowledge or the adoption of best practice. In a sense, Mavericks reverse the standard model of the growth of knowledge by cleaving to the belief that **most theory is the post-rationalization of the discoveries first made by those solving practical problems...** > > — from Mavericks \[2\] ### 5\. Difficult decisions An obvious anxiety producing aspect of modern leadership is decision-making. Critical choices often come coupled with lack of clarity and consequences for many. Not recognizing the role of anxiety and how it influences decisions can be a blindspot. Consider the following questions by Henriksen and Lundby \[5\]: > 1\. How do I experience difficult decisions? ‌‌ > 2\. How do I cope with doubt in decision-making processes? ‌‌ > 3\. How do I cope with my own insecurity in decision-making? ‌‌ > 4\. Are there areas in which I delay decisions because I fear the consequences? ‌‌ > 5\. How is my ability to take responsibility, despite my experience of considerable insecurity? > ‌‌ 6\. How is my ability to act independently? To how large an extent am I dependent on the attitudes, feelings and social norms of others? Regularly asking these questions, when making decisions, builds the anxiety-embracing muscle. ### 6\. Independent thinking Intellectual tenacity requires the ability to think on your own, and to develop an independent viewpoint. Forging your own path is never convenient and comes with downside risk. The herd is usually right, and a contrarian view by definition means going against conventional wisdom. Often independent thinking is simply a question of deciding to use it, rather than skill – the decision is to **not fall for the easier choice of basing it on other people’s thinking**. > Sapere aude!—Dare to reason! Have the courage to use your own minds!—is the motto of the enlightenment. . . . If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a doctor who decides my diet, I need not trouble myself. If I am willing to pay, I need not think. Others will do it for me. ‌‌‌‌ > > — Immanuel Kant ### 7\. Taking responsibility Organizational life is often about deflecting blame, or passing responsibility onto others. Let’s face it — accepting mistakes or failures can easily derail careers. It’s a lot easier and safer to deflect. But this can also translate into not taking enough risk, and playing it too safe. The possibility of surprises, or things not playing out per plan, are always there. Understanding that **responsibility comes packaged with anxiety** is useful, and can help to look at risk more objectively. > Responsibility is something we face and something we try to escape...There is something fearful about man’s responsibility...It is fearful to know at this moment we bear the responsibility for the next, and that every decision from the smallest to the largest is a decision for all eternity—that at every moment we bring to reality— or miss—a possibility that exists only for the particular moment. > > ...But it is glorious to know that the future, our own and therewith the future of people and things around us, is dependent—even if only to a tiny extent—upon our decision at any given moment. ‌‌‌‌ > > — Viktor Frankl in The Doctor and The Soul ### 8\. The courage to execute As glamorous as strategy is, [execution can be equally mundane](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). The requisite strategy is often well understood. What is less common is the courage to execute on those strategies, and stick with them long enough to get the desired results. > **The single biggest barrier to implementing any strategy is courage**. What makes our superstar managers so impressive is not what they are doing, but the fact that they are doing it. Many people (and firms) lack the guts to stick with the plans and goals they have set for themselves. They lack the courage of their own convictions…. > > — David Maister in Practice What Your Preach ‌‌Maister calls this **“insistent patience”**: > Just as management involves a delicate balance between being supportive and being demanding, it also requires a style of insistent patience. Patience that “Rome doesn’t get built in a day,” and insistence that “We are building Rome.” > > … People must believe that the manager has the courage to believe in something and, more importantly, the guts to stick with it. There is **no greater condemnation of a manager** than to say that he or she is expedient, and **no greater commendation** than to say that he or she truly lives and acts in accordance with what he or she preaches. ### 9\. Innovation Innovation gets proudly featured in almost all “corporate speak”, but most organizations are designed to suppress it. True innovation requires open [experimentation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/), the willingness to fail, and also knowing when to change, correct course, and even quit. Courage underlies all these. It means remembering that risk can be mitigated, but uncertainty cannot be eliminated. > The challenge is to create a corporate culture that is comfortable trying things out, that possesses a kind of daring-do, that places greater emphasis on discovery than analysis, and that relies more upon iterative processes of exploration. ‌‌‌‌ > > Instead of believing that the future can be plotted intellectually like a journey to a chosen destination, perhaps the art is to be more nomadic… Instead of more thinking, perhaps there should be [more action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/); instead of diligence, greater daring; and instead of ‘why me?’, an attitude of ‘why not?’. > > — from Mavericks \[2\] ### 10\. Combating learned helplessness Each small action and decision [shapes our identity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/). Embrace inaction and resigned acceptance for too long, and we end up being an organizational sleepwalker — an also ran. Courage is a muscle that has to be exercised regularly, and that can easily atrophy due to lack of use. It’s easy to fall into the disempowering notion that your actions on their own are not going to change things. But this can be especially telling if you lead in any capacity. Consider Robert F Kennedy’s iconic lines: > Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring those ripples build a current which can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance. > > — from Mavericks \[2\] We might not be creating giant waves, but our actions nevertheless create “tiny ripples”. Regardless of how subtle they are, every action or a lack of action gets [interpreted and copied ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/)through the organization. This is as true for division heads, as it is for project leads. “Bending history” is the equivalent of bending “organizational norms” that go unquestioned, but are, in fact, **the bane of everyone’s existence**. One reason the status quo is resilient, is because everyone’s simply accepted that’s the way it is. ## Developing the character of leadership Why bother with all this? Why inflict unnecessary pain? It’s the only way to develop depth of character, one that can withstand the demands of modern leadership. It's also what makes for an interesting career, and life. > ...Character is developed by going through the existential crisis, which means to allow anxiety to come to full flowering. ‌‌‌‌Do not fear anxiety. Instead, allow yourself to feel it fully. You come out at the other end of the process strong and resilient, wise and mature. ‌‌‌‌ > > … No significant decision, personal or corporate, professional or military, has been undertaken without its own existential crisis, the leader choosing to wade through rapids of anxiety, uncertainty, and guilt. It is such crises of the soul that give leaders their character and their potency. > > — Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership The construct of courage is an important one because it explains how many of us become jaded in careers over time. Often the convenient option is also the more dangerous one in the long run. And one mechanism that corrodes spirit is a continued lack of courage — **conform to the norms too long, and soon the original drive is lost**. ### Not rocking the boat equals mediocrity It's common to get habituated to staying within our comfort zone, especially at work. > The mantra becomes “don’t rock the boat” — but over time this turns our boat designed for sailing, into a rock sitting stagnant on the beach of possibilities. This doesn’t happen in a momentous, clearly defined moment, but rather in hundreds of small decisions or inactions that we lull ourselves into over time. Why does this happen? Because to do otherwise is plain inconvenient and potentially risky. Culture and organizations program us, even incentivize, to avoid this kind of risk. But avoiding it also means mediocrity. When we find ourselves in the middle of a not-so-fulfilling career, it’s often because we are not challenged by an “existential risk”. **Mediocrity might guarantee “existence”, but often a dull one instead of one worth living for.** --- 💡 Liked this article? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related Reading Another way of looking at courage in leadership and organizations is to understand the counter-intuitive notions of developing [naiveté](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) and [negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) in leadership: [The Case for Naive Leaders over Clever, Sophisticated OnesNaïveté is considered a liability. But is it really? We’ve been oversold on the merits of sophistication and cleverness, meanwhile missing out on the benefits of a considered approach to naiveness.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Cultivated-Na-vet-.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Negative-Capability-Balance.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) ### Sources and references 1. [Leadership: Inner Side of Greatness](https://amzn.to/3lW4aNC?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Koestenbaum 2. [Mavericks](https://amzn.to/40OoEGK?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Lewis, Jules Goddard, Tamryn Batcheller-Adams 3. [The Courage to Create](https://amzn.to/3m4cWZP?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Rollo May 4. [Leading with Emotional Courage](https://amzn.to/40BTqTC?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Bregman 5. [Fearless Leadership](https://amzn.to/430wpLB?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Morten Henriksen, Thomas Lundby 6. [Practice What you Preach](https://amzn.to/40GBwis?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Maister 7. [Crossing the Unknown Sea](https://amzn.to/3Gf2DJr?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Whyte ### The Deliberate Amateur URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-amateur/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:35:48.000Z *Would you rather be a pro or an amateur? How about choosing between sophistication and naiveté? Most of us choose to be sophisticated pros. But consider the fact that expertise comes with its own pitfalls, while deliberately staying an amateur has its counter-intuitive upsides. The trick is in balancing the tension between the two.* --- ## The beginner and the master The word amateur in modern usage has a negative connotation of someone who's not serious — a dabbler or a dilettante. But consider that the ancients used the term in the context of *love and devotion to your craft*. Too often, in the process of becoming professionals, we lose the [original naiveté ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/#the-evolution-of-our-na%C3%AFvet%C3%A9)and curiosity that got us there. Left unchecked, it can easily become a barrier to our continued evolution and a stumbling block. > The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything. > > — Steve Jobs (after being fired from Apple) \[3\] > *In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s there are few.* > > — Shunryu Suzuki in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind The real challenge then is not just in becoming a pro, but rather maintaining the beginner’s mind in concert with increasing levels of mastery. What is characteristic of extraordinary mastery and productivity is that the **true masters find new ways of engaging with their craft**, and in the process both master and craft evolve together. ## The deliberate amateur Sarah Lewis calls this the **“wisdom of the deliberate amateur”** in her book *The Rise*: > An **ever-onward almost** is part of mastery, on the field, in the studio, and in the lab. The wisdom of the deliberate amateur is part of how we endure. **Maintaining proficiency is best kept by finding ways to periodically give it up.** > It is an old idea for artists, seen in the freedom that comes in a late style or the Zen concept of “beginner’s mind,” a shift in perspective that comes from trying **to see things anew after gaining sufficient expertise**. > > “As you grow older, every book becomes a little more difficult,” author Erskine Caldwell told The Paris Review about the process of writing, not just “because you’re more critical of what you’re doing,” but because “you reach the point where you know something is wrong but you’re incapable of making it any better.” > > Choreographer Twyla Tharp also used the technique. “Experience . . . is what gets you through the door. **But experience also closes the door**,” she said. “You tend to rely on that memory and stick with what has worked before. You don’t try anything anew.” > > Without off-road exploration, we have little way of figuring it out. The **amateur’s “useful wonder”** is what the expert may not realize she has left behind. The deliberate amateur deftly avoids what psychologists call the [Einstellung effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstellung%5Feffect?ref=leadingsapiens.com), and keeps their practice fresh by straddling the tension between the ignorance of the novice and the blindness of the expert. > An amateur is unlike the novice bound by lack of experience and the expert trapped by having too much. Driven by impulse and desire, the amateur stays in the place of a “constant now,” seeing possibilities to which the expert is blind and which the apprentice may not yet discern. It can lead to playing like there’s “no birth certificate on your notes,” as Ornette Coleman once said about a trumpeter’s sound. It keeps us in the spirit of discovery. > An amateur’s adventure is an embodied feeling of being rapt, utterly absorbed. We sense it after reaching a state of exhaustion, switching tasks to something that has our interest, and feeling refueled, our endurance enhanced by authentic passion. For a moment, [we are out of time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/#the-speed-and-elasticity-of-time). > German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer and writer Ludwig Börne both made the case for periodically cultivating this approach. ... > > Börne argued for “**the art of making oneself ignorant**” in his controversial 1823 essay, “How to Become an Original Writer in Three Days.” Inherited knowledge, he said, was like some “ancient manuscripts where one must scrape away the boring disputes of would-be Church Fathers and the ranting of inflamed monks to catch a glimpse of the Roman classic lying beneath.” > > Schopenhauer developed Börne’s idea when he called for an “intellectual Sabbath” from constantly **being on “the playground of others’ thoughts.”** Worried that “his age would ‘read itself stupid,’ ” and no longer be able to generate novel ideas, he outlined his logic with an analogy about riding versus walking: If a person only rides and never walks, she will soon lose the ability to walk herself anywhere. **Follow someone else’s route too often and soon you lose the ability to map out your own**. Why do most of us don't go down this alternate path? For one, we would rather not look foolish. And two, because the uncertainty of stepping into the unknown can be painfully uncomfortable, which most of us have long forgotten how to navigate. Lewis cites the example of Noble Laureate physicist Sir Andre Konstantin Geim: > “You always can be considered as a fool,” Geim said, “inventing the wheel, investing your time into something, which might turn out like a blip.” It can turn a walk into a wander. > > Geim described **how hard it was to switch subjects**, moving from semiconductor physics to superconductivity. “I went to those conferences as a beginner with having a couple of already prestigious papers, being an associate professor. > > People looked at me \[and said\], ‘Who is this materials postdoc? What is he doing?’ Because I came from a completely different community . . . It’s not secure. You’re **moving in the unknown waters** which are not only scientifically unknown but . . . psychologically.” > > The approach means **moving forward by backpedaling**, running to get up to speed, leaping, then scanning the field midair to find out if you’re wasting your time. How do you deal with the uncertainty and discomfort? The paradoxical combination of [**courage**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) **coupled with playfulness** is one answer: > This agility takes an inordinate amount of “courage,” Geim said. “I suppose,” he said, that is where “play comes in.” > > **Playfulness lets us withstand enormous uncertainty**: The deliberate amateur knows no other way. ## Beginner's mind and your career So how does this apply to the rest of us mortals who are not zen masters or Nobel laureates? It's a helpful framework especially in **mid-career** — a tricky terrain to navigate because it's easy for expertise to turn into cynicism and stagnation. This is especially true when operating in larger organizations, where silos and specialization are the norm. It's not "scientific" but the below sketch captures some of the dynamics: ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Evolution-of-Na-vet--.png) In many ways, corporate existence is designed to maximize the *exploit* mode, often at the cost of the *explore* mode. This makes us more **tuned to efficiency, but that comes at the cost of** [**insight and creativity**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/). It's how people lose the motivation and drive that carried them through their early years. Thus, staying in touch with our original naiveté is an effective antidote against [mid career doldrums](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/) that derail many. --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related reading - I took a [deep dive into the role of naiveté in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) and how we over-index for sophistication: [The Case for Naive Leaders over Clever, Sophisticated OnesNaïveté is considered a liability. But is it really? We’ve been oversold on the merits of sophistication and cleverness, meanwhile missing out on the benefits of a considered approach to naiveness.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Cultivated-Na-vet-.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) - Many of us will have a better chance of becoming pros if we actually knew what it takes. We tend to be intimately familiar with desired outcomes but not with the mundane actions required to get there. In a sense, we are naive about [the realities of becoming a pro](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). **Keeping up with the mundanity long enough is a bigger challenge** than the outcome itself: [The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the MundaneExcellence is more mundane than we think. Understanding its nuances increases our likelihood of success. Not doing so sets us up for failure.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/08/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project_-454045-.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) ### Sources 1. [The Rise: Creativity, the Gift of Failure, and the Search for Mastery](https://amzn.to/3FHS80H?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Sarah Lewis 2. [Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind](https://amzn.to/42txaMV?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Shunryu Suzuki 3. [Beginners: The Joy and Transformative Power of Lifelong Learning](https://amzn.to/409w9Iu?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Tom Vanderbilt ### Conceptual vs Experiential learning URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/conceptual-vs-experiential-learning/ Last updated: 2025-11-18T16:37:55.000Z *Do you consider yourself an* [*effective leader*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/)*? What about parenting? When you think of getting better at something, what's your first instinct?* *Our default approach is to look outside for help. But an equally fruitful and often better approach is to look inside — the natural process of *learning from our own experience*. Unfortunately, most of us have forgotten how to.* *It's because culture programs us otherwise and we want to learn from "other people’s mistakes”. Except when it comes to certain skills, you simply have to learn from your own.* *What is* [*experiential learning*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/experiential-learning-cycle/)*, how is it different from conceptual learning, and what is its role in improving performance?* --- Tim Gallwey is one of the intellectual forebears of sports psychology and many modern coaching approaches have their origins in Tim’s methods. There are many aspects to his "inner game" approach but in this article we will focus on two key pieces : 1. the difference between conceptual and experiential learning 2. the importance of awareness (different from the standard notion of self-awareness in leadership.) ## Our need for conceptual learning When we go about learning something, often we look everywhere else but within — online search, read a book, or find an expert. The underlying assumption being we don’t know the basics or that we can do better if someone taught us. This works for the most part, but also ignores an essential side of learning particularly when it comes to skills like leadership and parenting. Consider the fact that humans are highly evolved social beings and we could not have survived these many generations without being deft at skills like leadership and parenting. Couple of hundred years back, no one was writing leadership or parenting bestsellers, let alone having access to them. Are today’s organizations and families necessarily better than the ones before? Probably not. Very rarely do we consider that **we might already have the knowhow** even if they might not be refined to the level of skills. So why do we look outside by default? Partly because we've been trained to look for what Gallwey calls **“conceptual learning”:** > Institutional education has overemphasized conceptual learning to such a degree that the value in, and trust of, the natural process of learning directly from experience has been seriously undermined. Based on the assumption that the mind is an empty receptacle that develops as it is filled with facts, **conceptual** **learning is concerned primarily with the accumulation and ordering of concepts and theoretical information**. Paulo Freire calls this kind of learning **the "banking" concept of education** \[4\]: > Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the **students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor**. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. They do, it is true, have the opportunity to become collectors or cataloguers of the things they store. But in the last analysis, **it is men themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge** in this (at best) misguided system. > > For apart from inquiry, apart from the praxis, men cannot be truly human. **Knowledge emerges only through invention and reinvention**, through the restless, impatient, continuing, hopeful inquiry men pursue in the world, with the world, and with each other. We take this notion of banking to all areas of learning both in work and life. Conceptual learning also happens to be more attractive and easier to consume. **Reading about writing is a lot easier** than grappling with the existential anxiety of staring at the blank screen and actually writing. **Consumption of concepts often disguises as learning.** The promise of conceptual learning is [speedy results](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/) and guaranteed outcomes. But this tends to be a mirage, which we often learn from hard earned experience. It's one reason why [you cannot learn leadership in a classroom](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/) – it has to be learned experientially in the real world. ## Drawing out what's already within Everybody has leadership potential, some more than others. Same for parenting. We can develop it only if we stop doubting our natural abilities. [Preconceived notions about leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) do more to stop you in the tracks than external factors. > Experiential learning has more to do with the development of innate potentialities and skills. The word 'education' comes from the Latin educate, meaning 'to lead out,' and indicates that the potential intelligence sought already exists within us, and needs to be drawn out. This drawing out by a teacher, system or environment is the primary function of true education. Real world experiential learning coupled with [skillful reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) on those experiences is the primary mechanism that makes [leadership coaching](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/) work. But you don’t need a coach. You can do this yourself by **becoming a better observer of yourself**. ## Leadership as a physical skill > Balanced education requires a proper relationship between cognitive and experiential knowledge, but **in the teaching of physical skills, learning through direct experience should take priority** over learning through formal instruction in concepts… > > …the difference between conceptual learning and experiential learning lies in the difference between a concept and an experience. A concept is a thought or an idea, but it is not the reality it refers to. As such it has its value: it can point the way to a desirable experience, or can warn against an undesirable one. But **when any educational process becomes more involved in concepts than in the realities behind them, serious imbalance results**. When Gallwey mentions physical skills he is writing in the context of learning golf and other sports. We don't tend to think of them as such, but **leadership and parenting are physical skills** as well. There is clearly a craft and practice element to it, and even more so than the scientific and conceptual — they are more “embodied” than we are prone to think. The mistake is of over reliance on cognitive aspects, meanwhile forgetting about their experiential aspects. Bear in mind, the **concepts we come across were someone else’s experience** before they got packaged and become that way. > I sometimes wonder what man’s fate would have been if in the development process he taught himself to understand language before he learned how to walk. No doubt parents would have coached us when to shift our weight from left foot to right, and we would have spent a lot of time on the floor analyzing the causes for falling down again. Undoubtedly many of us would have developed negative self-images about our motor skills and would still be tripping over our own feet. > > Instead we learned from experience as a natural process, just as kids teach themselves how to balance on bicycles and skateboards. It is a demanding process that engages one’s complete attention and is enjoyable, although the desired results are not always reached overnight. > > The foundation of the Inner Game approach to learning is that **experience itself is the primary teacher** and each individual must learn to learn directly from his or her own personal experience. Another person’s experience, through teaching and instruction, can be helpful only if it does not compromise a student’s all-important relationship with his or her own direct experience. ## Awareness as the key to experiential learning So how do we get better at experiential learning? One of the crucial pieces is what Gallwey calls "the law of awareness": > In simplest form, this law states that if you want to change something, first increase your awareness of the way it is. In a more concise form: **Awareness itself is curative**. > > Whatever helps to increase awareness of what is will promote learning; whatever hides or distorts awareness of what is will block or distort learning. And the way we increase awareness is through skilled use of our attention: > Attention is the faculty of focusing awareness and the principal means of increasing awareness. Stated in simplest possible terms, **where you focus your attention determines what you learn**. > > An “awareness instruction,” then, is an instruction to the attention to focus on a particular area for the purpose of becoming more aware of what is there. Unnecessary judgment, fear, or doubt about what is there will distort awareness and thus distort the opportunity for learning. Awareness is curative and acts as a catalyst in learning only when it's free of judgment. It means to **simply focus on what’s happening rather than constantly comparing it to our expectations**. > One of the primary characteristics of the awareness instruction is that it is nonjudgmental. Awareness simply sees and accepts what is; it doesn’t place a positive or negative value on the result. > > ...it’s impossible to be aware of not doing something because awareness can focus only on what is happening. **What’s not happening is a concept based on a judgment about what you think should be happening**. > Awareness is like light. Whatever it shines on becomes knowable and potentially understandable. Just as focused light brings objects into greater definition and clarity, *so focus of attention* brings clarity and distinctness to whatever is being observed. > ... > Profound understanding requires attending to what lies beneath the visible surface. Likewise, the comprehensiveness of our understanding of any situation or subject depends on the attention given to all its relevant aspects and their relationship to each other. **Thus the quality of our attention is linked to the quality of both one's learning and performance**. > When we “unlearn” judgment we discover, usually with some surprise, that **we don’t need the motivation of a reformer to change our “bad” habits. We may simply need to be more aware**. There is a more natural process of learning and performing waiting to be discovered. It is waiting to show what it can do when allowed to operate without interference from the conscious strivings of the judgmental self. #### On finding your own technique and relearning to feel: > The more awareness one can bring to bear on any action, the more feedback one gets from experience, and the more naturally one learns the technique that feels best and works best for any given player at any given state of development. Bottom line: there is no substitute for learning from experience. > > However, even though we have the ability to learn naturally, many of us have forgotten. And many of us have lost touch with feel. We may need to learn how to feel again and learn how to learn again. The saying of an old master is pertinent here: “No teacher is greater than one’s own experience.” #### On awareness as seeing reality: > The essence of awareness skills is learning to see things as they are—that is, nonjudgmentally. When a golfer sees his swing in terms of “good” or “bad” he will not have a clear picture of it as it *is.* Awareness never judges; only Self 1 does. True awareness is like a flawless mirror; this principle is basic to Inner Game understanding. Awareness is curative only when there is no judgment, and when it is combined with purpose, effective action and learning can take place. > ... > It’s important to see the situation in clear detail. **Negative judgments tend to obscure your vision of what you wish wasn’t there** and to cause doubt and tightening. Positive judgments tend to make you feel it’s unnecessary to see details, and you become too casual. ## A formula for peak performance Ultimately, why should we bother with experiential learning and awareness? Because we want to perform better and operate at even higher levels. And what stands in our way is wrong headed notions about what performance is truly about. Gallwey proposed a simple formula for performance: > P = p - i > Performance = potential - interference Often external concepts create more interference and undermine potential.We forget about our inherent potential and do everything to interfere with it, instead of trusting it and letting it blossom. In the context of leadership and work, Peter Block puts it this way: > High performers are people who simply learn faster. We learn faster when we pay attention and see the world for what it truly is, not for what it should have been. **Learning then becomes a function of awareness more than instruction**; it is seeing clearly what is happening around you, seeing it without much judgment and without an instinct to control and shape all that you touch. > > **Learning is retarded in conditions of high anxiety and low acceptance**. For most tasks, people have the intellectual knowledge to perform well; they just have a hard time acting on what they know. ...We do not need to learn more from a boss or expert: we need to change the way we apply what already exists within us. Increasing pressure for results is more paralyzing than liberating, even though this idea goes against the conventional wisdom of the culture. ## The inner game of leadership and life Gallwey popularized the notion of inner game approach in sports. But it is equally applicable to leadership and simply life in general. Central to his approach is the notion of two selves, **Self 1 and Self 2**: > To gain clarity on the mental problems in tennis we introduced the concept of Self 1 and Self 2\. Self 1 was the name given to the conscious ego-mind which likes to tell Self 2, you and your potential, how to hit the tennis ball. > > The key to spontaneous, high-level tennis is in resolving the lack of harmony which usually exists between these two selves. This requires the learning of several inner skills, chiefly the art of letting go of self-judgments, letting Self 2 do the hitting, recognizing and trusting the natural learning process, and above all gaining some practical experience in the art of relaxed concentration. > When a player comes to recognize, for instance, that learning to focus may be more valuable to him than a backhand, he shifts from being primarily a player of the outer game to being a player of the Inner Game. Then, instead of learning focus to improve his tennis, he practices tennis to improve his focus. This represents **a crucial shift in values from the outer to the inner**. This movement of focus from outer to inner is a crucial one — this means leadership or parenting **rather than a means to an end become ends in themselves**. Rather than trying to get better at them with our default notion of "in order to", they become practices in and of themselves. In many ways, this inner mastery is a meta-skill that can help improve almost every facet of work and life: > There are always external obstacles between us and our external goals, whether we are seeking wealth, education, reputation, friendship, peace on earth or simply something to eat for dinner. And the inner obstacles are always there; the very mind we use in obtaining our external goals is easily distracted by its tendency to worry, regret or generally muddle the situation, thereby causing needless difficulties from within. > > It is helpful to realize that **whereas our external goals are many and various and require the learning of many skills to achieve them, the inner obstacles come from only one source and the skills needed to overcome them remain constant.** ## Related Reading [Experiential Learning CycleIt’s easy to assume that you learn from all experiences. Not always. Those who adapt and learn the fastest are actually using a deeper process that turns experience into compounded learning. David Kolb called this the experiential learning cycle thats consists of Concrete Experience (experiencing), Reflective Observation(reflecting), Abstract![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-137.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Experiential-Learning-Cycle---David-Kolb-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/experiential-learning-cycle/) [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-138.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) [Just Do It - Changing Mindset through ActionWe think action comes from the right mindset. This can be counter-productive. Often mindset follows action. It’s easier to control physical action.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-139.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Mindset-vs-Actions-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/) ## Sources and references 1. [The Inner Game of Tennis](https://amzn.to/40fpSuh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by W. Timothy Gallwey 2. The Inner Game of Golf by W. Timothy Gallwey 3. The Inner Game of Work by W. Timothy Gallwey 4. [Experiential Learning](https://amzn.to/3lsFXxT?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Colin Beard and John P. Wilson 5. Bill Gates talks about the influence of inner game on him: [https://www.gatesnotes.com/The-Inner-Game-of-Tennis](https://www.gatesnotes.com/The-Inner-Game-of-Tennis?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Video: Bill Gates on the inner game ### Video: Key ideas from The Inner Game of Tennis ### How Double-Loop Learning Improves Performance URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:42:45.000Z *Our actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of* [*hidden mental models*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/)*. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning.* *Professional sports teams use postgame films and analysis as a core part of their training regimen. What’s the equivalent for managers and other knowledge professionals? It’s mostly non-existent. Double-loop learning can help change this dynamic.* *What is double-loop learning and how can you utilize it to improve performance?* --- ## Double-loop vs single-loop learning Chris Argyris of Harvard and Donald Schon of MIT were pioneers in organizational learning who developed the framework of single-loop vs double-loop learning. Argyris \[1\] put it this way: > Human beings produce action by activating designs stored in their heads (mind/ brain) that when activated produce the actions that are necessary to implement their intentions. Human beings also develop designs to assess the degree to which they achieve what they intended to produce. If they achieve what they intended, there is a match between intentions and actions. If they do not achieve what they intended there is a mismatch. > > In order to make valid evaluations of their effectiveness, human beings must detect mismatches and correct them. **At the core of acting effectively is learning.** Learning also occurs if actions produce a new outcome for the first time. ![Double-loop learning](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon.png) > Single-loop learning occurs when errors are detected and corrected without altering the governing values of the master program. Double-loop learning occurs when, in order to correct an error, it is necessary to alter the governing values of the master programs. > > An example of single-loop learning would be to correct an error in an existing strategy without altering the underlying governing variables of that strategy. Double-loop learning would occur if, in order to correct and error, it is necessary to change the underlying assumptions and values that govern the actions in the strategy. > > A **thermostat is a single-loop learner**. It is programmed to turn the heat up or down depending upon the temperature. A thermostat would be a double-loop learner if it questioned the existing program that it should measure heat. > > The premise of this approach is that all **actions (behavior with intentions)** are produced as matches with the **designs stored in our heads** that we activate. These designs are developed by human beings as they strive to become skillful in whatever actions they intend. Argyris and Schon developed and applied the framework in the context of organizational learning but it’s equally applicable to learning at the individual level. What are the characteristic differences between single-loop and double-loop learning? How can we utilize it to become more effective? These are some of the answers we will explore. But before we jump into the details it’s useful to look at **the framework that underlies them**. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Bateson’s deutero-learning Double-loop learning has its origins in cybernetics and Gregory Bateson’s levels of learning — each level requiring a completing different way of thinking and skillsets. > **Zero learning** is characterized by specificity of response, which—right or wrong—is not subject to correction. > > **Learning I** is change in specificity of response by correction of errors of choice within a set of alternatives. > > **Learning II** is change in the process of Learning I, e.g., a corrective change in the set of alternatives from which choice is made, or it is a change in how the sequence of experience is punctuated. > > **Learning III** is change in the process of Learning II, e.g., a corrective change in the system of sets of alternatives from which choice is made. > > **Learning IV** would be change in Learning III, but probably does not occur in any adult living organism on this earth. > > — Gregory Bateson in Steps to an Ecology of Mind Bateson coined the term deutero learning to capture the nesting effect of the levels. He was quick to point out that while Leaning III is possible, it’s no easy task and outright rules out the possibility of Learning IV in human beings: > Learning III is likely to be difficult and rare even in human beings. Expectably, it will also be difficult for scientists, who are only human, to imagine or describe this process. But it is claimed that something of the sort does from time to time occur in psychotherapy, religious conversion, and in other sequences in which there is profound reorganization of character. Single-loop and double-loop learning essentially span the first three levels of Bateson’s learning hierarchy. Although Argyris and Schon didn’t directly address Learning III, there are others who developed the next level of Triple Loop Learning. In more layman’s terms the three levels differ as follows: - Level 0 - simple stimulus and response - Level I/Single-loop: skills, techniques, methods, tips, simple set of alternatives, error correction within those alternatives - Level II/Double-loop: changing the set of alternatives, learning how to learn, challenging assumptions of level I, altering mental models, changing thinking and ensuing actions - Level III/Triple-loop: changing the system of alternatives itself, altering how you are, who you are being, your stance and the very context of your existence (relatively rare) Most of us operate at level I and sometimes in level II. Rarely do we operate at level III which also tends to be a lifetime process. Bear in mind that **one level is not necessarily better than other**. They are nested, and their utility depends on the situion and your goals. ## Single-loop learning Consider this very simple model of performance — results, outcomes and consequences follow from our actions. ![Single-loop learning](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Single-Loop-Learning.png) Our default approach of problem solving tends to delve directly on actions or the lack thereof. When we don’t get the desired results the primary mode of operation tends to focus on this first order of thinking — examining outcomes and trying to change the actions that lead to the results. And this works fine most of the time. The primary orientation is that of “Am I getting results? If not, what am I doing incorrectly? What actions do I need to change, do more of, or less of?" It’s characterized by typical learning of skills, refining abilities, knowledge acquisition, and acquiring new competencies **but within the same realm of understanding**. ### Learning loops Single loop learning can be found in versions of learning loops from other disciplines. **David Kolb’s** [**experiential learning cycle**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/experiential-learning-cycle/)**:** ![David Kolb’s experiential learning cycle](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Kolb-s-Experiential-Learning-Cycle.png) **W Edward Deming’s PDCA learning loop:** ![W Edward Deming’s PDCA learning loop](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Deming-PDCA-Cycle.png) There's nothing wrong with single-loop learning and works well most of the time. That's our standard mode of operating. **The trouble starts when things don’t go per plan.** ### The problem with single-loop learning Single-loop learning is optimal in situations where we are well trained, the solutions are known, and where there are benchmarked best practices. It's not inferior but not necessarily optimal in all situations. Single loop learning can easily become a liability when results are not forthcoming or when operating in complex situations. How? - It tends to be myopic by focusing exclusively on inputs and results without trying to figure out what actually produced those inputs. This **creates blindspots** where we don’t examine the value systems, both rational and emotional, that led us to taking a particular set of actions. - When we fail, we blame it on execution and redouble efforts without questioning the problem itself. Focus is on more of the same actions, or doing different actions but **within the same definitions and assumptions**. - Because assumptions go unexamined, **good outcomes often hide bad processes** until things go wrong. - When done in response to fixing more complex problems, the **gains are not sustained**. The tendency is to fallback to previous levels of performance. - Single-loop learning can block us from looking for alternatives. This is when **problems start appearing “unsolvable”**. - Too much focus on single loop can hide underlying assumptions effectively making us **skillfully incompetent** — skilled at the what we are doing but without producing the desired results. - Change efforts tend to be **focused on the content level rather than context,** which limits available set of actions. - Focus tends to be on **problem-solving rather than problem-identifying or problem-setting** — optimizing right solutions for the wrong problems. When faced with intractable problems, we try harder never actually questioning why we are doing it to begin with. We operate within the confines of a predefined problem and going around the circle never really improving or getting different results. We are on the road to nowhere. This is where double-loop learning comes in. > Single-loop learning remains within the accepted routines. Double-loop learning requires that new routines be created that were based on a **different conception of the universe**. > > — Chris Argyris ## Double-loop learning In double-loop learning, you examine and test the assumptions, thinking and mental models behind your actions. It’s what Ron Heifetz calls “going to the balcony” and watching the dance floor from a different vantage point, except in this case you are watching yourself — you are becoming a **better observer of yourself**. This is akin to the five why process applied to your actions and thinking. ![Double-loop learning](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Double-Loop-Learning.png) Instead of just focusing on outcomes and actions, you loop back to the thinking that produced those actions and outcomes, reframing and redesigning the problem to uncover previously unexplored actions. The goal is to understand context, and how you think and frame situations that influences results. This kind of evaluation is essential in order to evolve and develop your own complexity and the essential **skill of metacognition**. ### What characterizes double-loop learning? - A keen eye for mismatches between intent and results, and for causal links between thinking, actions, and outcomes. - Surfacing and examining fundamental underlying assumptions and beliefs, and challenging them if they are helpful in producing desired results. The intent is to identify the reasoning that produced your actions and the elements that form your context. - Identifying and testing your mental models requires higher levels of deliberate effort and mental awareness. This can often be uncomfortable as it requires questioning long-standing notions. - It forces you to expand on existing capabilities or create completely new ones. - You are thinking at the systems level and questioning the overall goal itself by examining and changing your frames of reference. - Instead of passively playing by the rules of the game, you are not only examining and modifying the rules, but also checking if the game is worth playing. When needed, you change the game itself. Double-loop learning has the additional dimension of being **reflection driven** in addition to being experiential. We are usually good at experience driven learning but **reflection based learning often goes underutilized** or even ignored. Latest research in neuroscience shows that these two modalities create very different kinds of neural changes. \[5\] ### Triple-loop learning Although Argyris and Schon haven’t directly mentioned it in their work, some practitioners have written about triple loop learning where your “stance” and the way you are being, drives your thinking. \[4\] ![Triple-loop learning](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Triple-Loop-Learning.png) You can see hints of double-loop and triple-loop learning in James Clear's notion of [identity-based habits](https://jamesclear.com/identity-based-habits?ref=leadingsapiens.com): ![Outcome-based actions vs Identity-based actions](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Identity-based-habits---James-Clear.png) Clear puts it this way in Atomic Habits: > Outcomes are about what you get. Processes are about what you do. Identity is about what you believe. When it comes to building habits that last—when it comes to building a system of [1 percent improvements](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#small-gains-that-accumulate)—the problem is not that one level is “better” or “worse” than another. All levels of change are useful in their own way. **The problem is the *direction* of change.** > > Many people begin the process of changing their habits by focusing on *what* they want to achieve. This leads us to outcome-based habits. The alternative is to build [identity-based](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/) habits. With this approach, we start by focusing on *who* we wish to become. ## Example of double-loop learning A great example of double-loop learning by examining assumptions is the nine dot puzzle — connect all the dots using only four lines and without lifting the pen. ![Nine dot puzzle](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Nine-dot-puzzle.png) If new to this, try solving it before going further. Most folks struggle in their initial attempts. And the primary reason we struggle? — Examining the dots themselves but **forgetting about our “assumptions behind the dots”**. The mistaken assumption here being the imaginary box formed by the dots which restricts options. This is never stated but often gets assumed given our tendency to impose order on chaos. The moment you remove the imaginary box, other solutions start becoming apparent. (solution in notes at bottom) ## Double-loop learning and leadership performance Consider where you are today and where you want to be. Let’s call this the performance gap. ![Learning/Performance gap](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Learning-and-performance-gap.png) Bridging this gap requires a step change in capacity which is an order of magnitude rather than simply acquiring new skills or competencies. Second order change can be thought of as vertical development as opposed to lateral where the focus is on incremental improvement in skills and competencies. Thus, a jump in performance requires a corresponding jump in capacity — where the problem looks fundamentally different to you. **How do you go about engineering this kind of step change to improve performance in a domain like leadership?** One answer is getting better at [learning to learn](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/) and improving at metacognitive skills — thinking about your thinking. Double-loop learning is the equivalent of **postgame film analysis for leaders** that utilizes the mechanism of [reflection for better performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). What to think about often is obvious. What is not common is knowing how to think — Double-loop and triple-loop learning essentially show us how to go about developing this key skill. Consider the following demands on leaders rise as they rise through the organization: - You can’t predict or anticipate everything. So you better be prepared, in other words develop your capacity to handle the unexpected. - An inability to adapt and learn has stalled one too many careers. Higher levels in the organization also mean increasing ambiguity and complexity. Fine tuned cognitive skills become a core requirement. - Better decision making is contingent on your ability to question your own [process of coming to conclusions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) and being able to think though multiple positions on the same issue. - Problem solving is not the primary skillset as you go higher. Instead problem setting and problem defining start becoming more important. - Clear thinking leading to effective action becomes a requirement. - Skilled reflection and clear thinking leading to effective action becomes a key aspect of performance. - You have to be adept at acquiring new skills, the capacity to master new challenges, and avoid getting into ruts or getting redundant. - Team performance often depends on your skills of [framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) and [setting the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). - Your ability to operate within constraints without decreasing your capacity for action is paramount. Building capacity at double-loop learning is an effective way to get better at these aspects of leadership. It's a process of skilled reflection, and your effectiveness is directly tied to the [ability to reflect](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/), reframe and redesign in order to create new action sets. A primary motive of [leadership coaching](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/) is to increase the ability to regularly engage in double-loop learning on your own, not just during coaching engagements. ## Double-loop learning exercise Consider your notions about what makes someone an effective leader. Do you think of yourself as [effective](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/)? Can you unearth underlying notions and assumptions about it? How are they informing your actions and your behavior towards others? For more on this, check out my article that examines [implicit theories about leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) that we carry, often unknowingly. Regularly asking the following questions helps build double-loop learning capacity: - What kind of thinking led me to these particular actions? - Is my focus downstream or upstream? - What’s the stance, mindset, and orientation that’s behind my thinking? - Is my orientation helpful or hindering? - What are the assumptions that I am not aware of? - To what extent is my stance helpful in producing desired outcomes? How can I go about shifting it? - What am I assuming as givens and unchangeable? - Who am I *being*? What kind of *doing* is it enabling? As with any form of [real learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/), asking these questions and actually making adjustments is not easy. Our very sense of competence and self-confidence stems from these unexamined assumptions. To actually question them is to shake the foundations of this edifice. But that’s the only way to get better at playing the game. It's how you surface hidden mental models in order to examine them for usefulness and change them if needed. This is obviously not an overnight process and requires months, often requires years of practice. ## Related Reading The [systems thinking iceberg model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) highlights some parallel ideas similar to double-loop learning but taken from a systems perspective. [The Systems Thinking IcebergThe systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on our radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) An effective tool to unearth hidden assumptions and enable double-loop learning is [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/): [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) [The Johari Window ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/)can be equally effective at identifying blindspots and facades that we might be using: [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This mak…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/1--Johari-Window---A-guide.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) David Kolbs' [experiential learning cycle](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/experiential-learning-cycle/): [Experiential Learning CycleIt’s easy to assume that you learn from all experiences. Not always. Those who adapt and learn the fastest are actually using a deeper process that turns experience into compounded learning. David Kolb called this the experiential learning cycle thats consists of Concrete Experience (experiencing), Reflective Observation(reflecting), Abstract![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-135.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Experiential-Learning-Cycle---David-Kolb.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/experiential-learning-cycle/) ## Sources 1. [Argyris, Chris](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris%5FArgyris?ref=leadingsapiens.com) (2005). "[Double-loop learning](https://actiondesign.com/resources/readings/double-loop-learning?ref=leadingsapiens.com) in organizations: a theory of action perspective". In Smith, Ken G.; Hitt, Michael A. (eds.). *Great minds in management: the process of theory development*. pp. 261–279. 2. [Organizational Learning II: Theory, Method, and Practice](https://amzn.to/3A3rHPM?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Chris Argyris and Donald Schon 3. [Steps to an Ecology of Mind](https://amzn.to/3KBabYc?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Gregory Bateson 4. [Creating Great Choices](https://amzn.to/3KBlu2o?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Roger Martin and Jennifer Riel 5. [Experiential Learning](https://amzn.to/3L6AFlK?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Colin Beard and John Wilson 6. Witherspoon, R. (2014). Double-Loop Coaching for Leadership Development. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 50(3), 261–283\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313510032](https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313510032?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 7. [Never Stop Learning](https://amzn.to/3MTqHFE?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Bradley R. Staats 8. [Atomic Habits](https://amzn.to/3MPzyIj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by James Clear 9. Seibert, Kent W. and Marilyn Wood Daudelin. “The Role of Reflection in Managerial Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.” (1999) 10. Below is one solution to the nine dot puzzle. Additional ones [here](https://www.artofplay.com/blogs/stories/history-of-the-nine-dot-problem?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ![Nine dot puzzle solved](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Nine-dot-solved.png) ### Bolman Deal Four Frames Model of Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bolman-deal-four-frames/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:19:52.000Z Organizational life can be a confusing muddle, especially if you are trying to get better at playing the game. Take the leadership genre for example. You might come across books that cover any of the following: power, building better teams, culture, emotional intelligence, war and strategy, psychology, authentic leadership, biographies of famous leaders, and so on. The same applies to leadership development courses and training programs. Like the three blind men and the elephant, each of them seems to tug at a small strand of the overall canvas, but never truly getting the whole picture. One useful meta framework that can help better understand organizations and the leader's role within it is the four frame model of organizations and leadership by Lee Bolman and Terrence Deal. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Four Frame Model of Leadership Bolman and Deal outline four frames for looking at organizations and leaders: 1. Structural frame 2. Human Resource frame 3. Political frame 4. Symbolic frame Frames are mental models that we carry. The wider your repertoire of frames, the better you can understand situations and adapt to changing conditions. > A frame is a [mental model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/)—a set of ideas and assumptions—that you carry in your head to help you understand and negotiate a particular “territory.” A good lens makes it easier to know what you are up against and, ultimately, what you can do about it. > > Mental maps are vital because organizations don’t come with computerized navigation systems to guide you turn-by-turn to your destination. Instead, managers need to develop and carry accurate charts in their heads. Each frame — structural, human resource, political, symbolic — has its own way of looking at how organizations work and what the priorities are. The mistake many managers make is to default to only one of these as their modus operandi and basing their actions on them. Another common mistake is to assume one frame as good (eg.focus on people) and meanwhile dismissing the others (eg organizational politics) as bad. To be effective and to thrive in [modern leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/three-pillars-and-two-contexts-of-modern-leadership/), skill with all four frames is almost a requirement. In other words, [multi-frame thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/). Leaders tend to have strengths in one or even two of them but not all four. Most **developmental programs will tend to focus on one of the frames**. It’s useful to consider your own set of problems through these different lenses and which one you might be leaning towards. Below is excerpted from their books *Reframing Organizations* and *How Great Leaders Think.* ### 1\. Structural frame - **Metaphor:** factory/machine - **Disciplines:** sociology, management science, economics - **Central concepts:** roles, goals, strategies, policies, technology, environment - **Image of leadership:** Architect, Analyst - **Leadership challenge:** attune structure to task, technology, environment > Structural leaders emphasize rationality, analysis, logic, facts, and data. They are likely to believe strongly in the importance of clear structure and well-developed management systems. > > A good leader is someone who thinks clearly, makes the right decisions, has good analytical skills, and can design structures and systems that get the job done. More on the [structural frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/). ### 2\. Human Resource frame - **Metaphor:** family - **Discipline:** psychology - **Central concepts:** needs, skills, relationships - **Image of leadership:** Coach, Servant, Catalyst - **Leadership challenge:** align organizational and human needs > Human resource leaders emphasize the importance of people. They endorse the view that the central task of management is to develop a good fit between people and organizations. They believe in the importance of [coaching](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/), participation, motivation, teamwork, and good interpersonal relations. > > A good leader is a facilitator and participative manager who supports and empowers others. More on the [human resource frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/). ### 3\. Political frame - **Metaphor:** jungle - **Discipline:** political science - **Central concepts:** power, conflict, competition, politics - **Image of leadership:** Politician, Advocate, Warrior, Negotiator - **Leadership challenge:** development agenda and power base > Political leaders believe that managers and leaders live in a world of conflict and scarce resources. The central task of management is to mobilize the resources needed to advocate and fight for the unit’s or the organization’s goals and objectives. Political leaders emphasize the importance of[ building a power base](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/): allies, networks, coalitions. > > A good leader is an advocate and negotiator who understands politics and is comfortable with conflict. Another good framework for understanding the political frame is Gareth Morgan's analysis of [sources of power in organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/). More on the [political frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/). ### 4\. Symbolic frame - **Metaphor:** carnival, temple, theater - **Disciplines:** anthropology, dramaturgy, institutional theory - **Central concepts:** culture, meaning, metaphor, ritual, stories, heroes - **Image of leadership:** Prophet, Poet, Storyteller, Healer - **Leadership challenge:** create faith, belief, beauty, meaning > Symbolic leaders believe that the essential task of management is to provide vision and inspiration. They rely on personal charisma and a flair for drama to get people excited and committed to the organizational mission. > > A good leader is a prophet and visionary, who uses symbols, tells stories, and frames experience in ways that give people hope and meaning. More on the [symbolic frame of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/). ## Transitioning to leadership It's all too common for folks [moving into leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/) or being promoted to struggle with the demands of a new role. A primary reason for the struggle is too much over-indexing on a [certain leadership style](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/) based on understanding of one frame but that comes at the cost of the other frames. While this might have worked in your previous role, in the new one it starts becoming a liability. If you are struggling in getting up to speed in your new role, it's helpful to take a closer look at your repertoire of skills through these four frames and analyze where you might be lacking. ## Related reading This is one in a series of posts on the Bolman-Deal 4 frames model. Here are the other ones in this series: - [Symbolic frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/symbolic-frame-of-leadership/) - [Structural frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/structural-frame-of-leadership/) - [Human resource ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/human-resource-frame-of-leadership/) - [Political frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/political-frame-of-leadership/) - [Multi-frame thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) Another model that can highlight gaps is the flaherty-habermas domains of competence — the [I- It-We model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/). In the article, I take a closer look at the common challenges when folks with technical backgrounds transition into leadership and management roles. [Paradox is a key feature of organizational life](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/). Unfortunately, they are misunderstood and most folks are unaware of them. Recognizing paradox beforehand can help to navigate organizations and avoid unnecessary frustration. ### Sources 1. [Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice, and Leadership](https://amzn.to/3FarEF7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal 2. [How Great Leaders Think: The Art of Reframing](https://amzn.to/3ZKHMFe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lee G Bolman and Terrence E Deal ### Authentic leadership as knowing what your people actually do URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/ Last updated: 2026-04-17T17:14:25.000Z There are scores of tomes written on “authentic” leadership, but all too often in practice they come across as farce. People simply don’t trust managers — perhaps the reason why authentic leadership is a cottage industry of its own. A primary reason for this mistrust is the disconnect between the reality of how work gets done and a lack of understanding on the manager’s part. ## The sources of inauthenticity Consider the last time your manager told you: “I understand” or “I get it”. You probably didn’t believe them. If you did, you might be in a minority. Managers don't come across as authentic because more often than not they don't have an intimate understanding of the day to day realities of how their teams actually get work done. What's the reason for this disconnect? Is it plain ignorance or is it incompetence? Two dynamics of modern workplaces foster this dynamic and make it almost impossible to be otherwise: ### 1\. Superficiality By its very nature, managerial work requires you to be superficial. Henry Mintzberg calls this the “syndrome of superficiality”: > The prime occupational hazard of the manager is superficiality. Because of the open-ended nature of the job and because of the responsibility for [information processing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/) and strategy-making, the manager is induced to take on a heavy load of work, and to do much of it superficially. > > Hence . . . the job of managing does not develop reflective planners; rather it breeds **adaptive information manipulators** who prefer a stimulus-response milieu. > > — Henry Mintzberg in The Nature of Managerial Work The fragmented nature of the job almost guarantees a lack of intimate understanding. But this doesn’t have to be a given. ### 2\. Complicatedness Size and revenue comes coupled with complexity. Organizations in their effort to cope with this increasing complexity inherently become complicated. This means managers are often several layers removed from where the action really is.**“Work about work” rather than work itself** becomes the primary occupation, especially that of managers. > Managers in the top quintile of the most complicated organizations spend **more than 40 percent of their time writing reports and between 30 percent and 60 percent of their total work hours** in coordination meetings—work on work. That doesn’t leave much time for them to work with their teams, which, as a result, are often misdirected and therefore expend a lot of effort in vain. > > Our analysis shows that in the top quintile of complicated organizations, teams spend between 40 percent and 80 percent of their time wasting their time. It is not that teams are idle. On the contrary, they often work harder and harder but on non-value-adding activities. It means they have to do, undo, and redo, and when their efforts seem to make less and less of a difference, people lose their sense of meaning. > > — Yves Morieux and Peter Tollman in Six Simple Rules Complicatedness means as you rise through the organization, you are that much more detached from “real work”, but more importantly your understanding gets detached as well. **You “see” the work through the filters of KPIs, OKRs and a dozen other acronyms**. Peter Drucker likened growing organizations to organisms and called this the “problem of bigness”: > It is a biological law that the larger an organism grows the greater is the ratio between its mass and its surface, the less exposure to the outside there is for the cells on the inside. As living organisms grow they have therefore to develop special organs of breathing, perspiration and excretion. > > It is this law that sets a limit to the size of living organisms, that makes sure that the trees will not grow into the sky; and **the business enterprise stands under this law as much as any other organism**. Another typical offshoot of this bigness is **organizational silos** where managers are often familiar with the issues of their own silos, but not necessarily how they affect other silos and vice versa. It’s why the lack of authenticity also happens between managers of functional units as well. Neither of the scenarios necessarily account for the more recent phenomenon of remote work which adds an additional layer of complexity. ## Authenticity - an alternate definition None of these “syndromes” can necessarily be avoided, at least at the individual level. What can in fact be changed is whether managers are aware of this dynamic and how they engage with this reality. So what are managers to do? One option is to embrace **an alternate definition of authenticity:** > The more a manager or exec is intimate with the workings of their team — how work actually gets done — the more likely they will come across as genuinely authentic, both to their teams and peers. By extension, this also means [being more effective](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/), not just managers but entire teams. Yves Morieux and Peter Tollman in Six Simple Rules call this reconnecting with **“the materiality of work”**: > To have an authentic management presence, you have to regain direct knowledge of operations and escape the abstractions and symbols that are meant to represent work—structures, procedures, KPIs, and the rest—but **that push management to the periphery of work**. > > Do not accept this fate. You do not have to live in a world of abstractions. You need not spend your time wracking your brain about how best to reshuffle the boxes or draw the lines in the org chart. You can deal with the real content of the work, rather than just its container… > > The more organizations harness the power of digital technologies, disperse globally, and operate in virtual teams, the more we need to shed light on **what has become increasingly obscured: the actual work real people do**. Connecting to the materiality of work is both challenging and essential. > > [**Understanding the context**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) **within which work happens is a way to see the reality, which is precisely what is filtered out or obscured** by visions of the supposed pros and cons of structures, processes, and systems (the hard approach) as well as stories about personalities and sentiments that turn against people (the soft approach). Authentic leadership doesn't have to be some pie in the sky notion that's disconnected from reality on the ground. It can be as simple as getting dirty and grubby in the metaphorical trenches alongside your teams. But simple doesn't mean easy and perhaps why it continues to be a rarity. ## Related reading An effective antidote against disconnection and ivory tower notions is what HP in its heyday used to call "managing by wandering around" or MBWA. The military calls it [battlefield circulation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/): [MBWA : The Lost Art of Managing by Wandering AroundManaging effectively using data is all the rage today. But most of it is shallow “hard data”. The real challenge is to get so called “soft data”. How do you get the real pulse of your teams, or your customer’s true opinion? There’s a simple method that can![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/President-Lincoln---MBWA.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) For some additional perspectives check out [Rian van der Merwe's](https://elezea.com/2023/03/authentic-leadership-is-about-getting-in-the-trenches-with-our-teams/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) post. ### Sources 1. [Managing](https://amzn.to/3Gkdphq?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Henry Mintzberg 2. [Six Simple Rules](https://amzn.to/40JSjRQ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Yves Morieux and Peter Tollman 3. [https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/bringing-managers-back-to-work](https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/bringing-managers-back-to-work?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. [The Practice of Management](https://amzn.to/411wmgD?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter F. Drucker ### The Power of Framing in Creating Psychological Safety URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:52:41.000Z *Over the past two decades, psychological safety has gotten significant traction both in academia and in real world applications. It’s one of the few frameworks coming out of research that’s been widely proven as critical to team performance.* *A crucial aspect of this research is the *role leaders play by how they frame* a given situation. Leaders have an outsized influence on how things get interpreted, and the key skill is framing. Unfortunately, most leaders and managers are oblivious to the importance of framing.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## The importance of framing Framing is a well researched and well understood phenomenon in the social and behavioral sciences. Yet most leaders are not adept at using it skillfully. Why is framing so important to understand? - For one, [people tend to copy leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/). They set the tone and are often looked up to for situational cues. Thus how a given situation gets interpreted often depends on leader's framing of that particular problem or challenge. - Why is this important? In most complex situations that are ambiguous with no clear solutions, how the manager frames the challenge influences the team's actions. Did it come across as doable or as an impossible task? Did it come across as a challenge or a nagging problem to deal with? ### Framing and performance So why does this matter? One word: performance. Harvard professor Amy Edmondson \[1,2\] studied the implementation of a new innovative procedure across 16 different hospitals. The **single most powerful factor** that explained success or failure was how leaders framed the new initiative: > The difference between success and failure was not determined by management support, resources, project leader status, or expertise. Surprisingly, the difference wasn’t determined even by whether the hospital was academic, or by its prior history of innovation. Instead, differences in how the project was framed by each project leader gave rise to different attitudes about the technology and the need for teamwork. > A key insight from this work was that psychological safety is not a personality difference but rather a feature of the workplace that leaders can and must help create. More specifically, in every company or organization I’ve since studied, even some with famously strong corporate cultures, psychological safety has been found to differ substantially across groups. Nor was psychological safety the result of a random or elusive group chemistry. > > What was clear was that **leaders in some groups had been able to effectively create the conditions for psychological safety while other leaders had not**. This is true whether you’re looking across floors in a hospital, teams in a factory, branches in a retail bank, or restaurants in a chain. ### Framing influences and distorts Skill in framing also matters because frames fundamentally influence and often distort how we see situations and thus ensuing actions: > **Frames filter what we see.** They control what information is attended to and, just as important, what is obscured. Remember: no single window can reveal the entire panorama. > > **Frames themselves are often hard to see.** Just as we have to step back from a window to see that it’s there, so too do we have to “step back” from our frame to see that we are viewing the world through a particular perspective. > > **Frames appear complete.** Frames simplify the world. They do not capture all of reality, leaving gaps. But since our mind tends to fill in such gaps, we usually don’t even notice that anything is missing. > > **Frames are exclusive.** We typically see one frame at a time. It’s hard, after all, to simultaneously look out the windows on both the north and west sides of a room. > > **Frames can be “sticky” and hard to change.** Once we are locked into a frame, it can be difficult to switch, especially without conscious effort. When people have emotional attachments to their frames, changing frames can seem threatening. > > — Excerpt from Winning Decisions \[5\] ### Framing enables psychological safety Edmondson \[1, 2\], one of the foremost experts on psychological safety, identifies framing as the key step that sets the stage to create the right conditions for psychological safety that enables peak performance. > Whenever you are trying to get people on the same page, with common goals and a shared appreciation for what they’re up against, you’re setting the stage for psychological safety. **The most important skill to master is that of framing the work**. One common leadership gaffe is of making the assumption that what needs to be done, or what approach is best, is obvious to everyone. For most non-technical scenarios, it's not. Each situation can have different focal points, and it's the frame that leaders create that determines what those focal points are. > If near-perfection is what is needed to satisfy demanding car customers, leaders must know to frame the work by alerting workers to catch and correct tiny deviations before the car proceeds down the assembly line. > > If zero worker fatalities in a dangerous platinum mine is the goal, then leaders must frame physical safety as a worthy and challenging but attainable goal. > > If discovering new cures is the goal, leaders know to motivate researchers to generate smart hypotheses for experiments and to feel okay about being wrong far more often than right. So what are frames and how can leaders get better at it? ## What is framing Framing is a natural aspect of being a human and operating in complex reality. It's an automatic process that we do on a regular basis but are often unaware of. It's useful to understand some of the nuances of frames. ### Framing effects Consider this classic example by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman \[4\] that shows how reality is subjective and not as objective as we are prone to think: > Italy and France competed in the 2006 final of the World Cup. The next two sentences both describe the outcome: “Italy won.” “France lost.” Do those statements have the same meaning? The answer depends entirely on what you mean by *meaning*. > > For the purpose of logical reasoning, the two descriptions of the outcome of the match are interchangeable because they designate the same state of the world. As philosophers say, their truth conditions are identical: if one of these sentences is true, then the other is true as well. This is how Econs understand things. Their beliefs and preferences are reality-bound. In particular, the objects of their choices are states of the world, which are not affected by the words chosen to describe them. > > There is another sense of *meaning*, in which “Italy won” and “France lost” do not have the same meaning at all. In this sense, the meaning of a sentence is what happens in your associative machinery while you understand it. The two sentences evoke markedly different associations. > > “Italy won” evokes thoughts of the Italian team and what it did to win. “France lost” evokes thoughts of the French team and what it did that caused it to lose, including the memorable head butt of an Italian player by the French star Zidane. In terms of the associations they bring to mind—how System 1 reacts to them—the two sentences really “mean” different things. The fact that logically equivalent statements evoke different reactions makes it impossible for Humans to be as reliably rational as Econs. Kahneman calls these framing effects: > Different ways of presenting the same information often evoke different emotions. The statement that “the odds of survival one month after surgery are 90%” is more reassuring than the equivalent statement that “mortality within one month of surgery is 10%.” Similarly, cold cuts described as “90% fat-free” are more attractive than when they are described as “10% fat.” The equivalence of the alternative formulations is transparent, but an individual normally sees only one formulation, and what she sees is all there is. ### Two types of frames It's essential to understand two different kinds of frames: - One can be called "worldviews" which are global and that we borrow from culture and upbringing. - The second type is local and more specific to a given situation that we actively construct. Russo and Schoemaker \[5\] differentiate them as ***thinking frames*** and ***constructed frames***: > The terms “frame” and “framing” have their origin in the academic fields of cognitive science and artificial intelligence. > ... > An adult brain contains thousands of mental models, which have developed over decades of education and experience. Much of decision-makers’ special knowledge about their professional activities may be represented as a collection of mental models. > > Frames are at the tightly woven structural core of these mental models, what we might call the mental model’s “essence.” They often reside in our memories and are usually evoked or triggered automatically. Whereas trying to change any substantial portion of a mental model can take weeks, months, even years, because of the vastness and strength of its interconnected network, f**rames can be exposed, understood, and realigned in less time**. > The frames we use can be either **borrowed or constructed**. Every culture teaches powerful thinking frames (such as democracy) to its young. We unconsciously borrow these frames and apply them to diverse situations. A person’s occupation and education, capturing years of training and experience (e.g., learning how to think like a lawyer, engineer, or accountant), similarly produce powerful thinking frames. They become a permanent part of our mental repertoire, and we use them broadly. In fact, many thinking frames become so deeply ingrained in groups or organizations that people cannot change them when the circumstances call for it. When large groups use these widely shared mental models to define their reality, we call them paradigms. > > In contrast to the broad thinking frames that we internalize through years of socialization and then borrow to apply to a wide range of situations, we sometimes construct frames to organize our thinking about a specific topic, situation, or decision. For example, when we develop criteria to evaluate possible vacation options, whom to hire for a job opening, or where to open a new retail outlet, we may construct a frame tailored to the problem and decision at hand. Although thinking frames and constructed frames differ in their origin and depth, their impacts on our decision-making processes bear enough similarities that we can talk about them together. Werner Erhard puts it more simply: > While one’s worldview is relative to everything in one’s world, each of one’s frames of reference is relative to some specific something in one’s world. It is as though our **worldview is a primary lens** through which we view everything in our world. And, our **various frames of reference are secondary lenses** through which we view specific things in our world. ### Frames as applied to leadership Framing effects are a widely researched phenomenon in the social sciences, behavioral economics and cognitive psychology. But they are equally applicable to leadership. In her highly cited paper Framing for Learning (2003), Edmondson defines a frame as follows: > A frame is a set of assumptions and beliefs about a particular object or situation. The process of framing is a process of creating meaning—either passively and unconsciously or actively and consciously—that is not a necessary or factual aspect of that situation. Frames are shaped by past experiences in similar situations (or situations that seem similar in some way to those perceiving them) and affect both how we feel and how we think. > > Framing is neither bad nor good; it is simply inevitable. We interpret what is going on around us through a lens shaped by our personal history and our current social context. The catch is, we tend to assume that our framing captures the truth, rather than presenting a subjective “map” of territory that could instead be mapped differently. ## How to get better at framing Given the importance of framing, what can leaders do to get better at it? Below are some basic strategies to get better at framing: 1. Learn to uncover and identify frames 2. Become familiar with common opposing frames 3. Learn to [leverage language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/) forms 4. Learn how to change the frame aka reframing 5. Understand the role of context in leadership Let's look at each of these. ### 1\. Uncover and identify frames Every decision, initiative or situation has an underlying frame whether we are aware of it or not. Use the following questions to uncover not just yours but other's frames as well: - What do I consider as givens that go unquestioned? What frame do these assumptions support? - What aspect does the frame address the most? What aspects does it ignore? - What are the boundaries that the frame imposes? What do those boundaries leave out? - What are the measures of success? Are they tailored to that particular situation? Do they encourage the behavior that you want to emphasize? - What are the dominant metaphors and imagery being used to describe the issue? Are they working? If not, can you use another one instead? - What behavior does the frame emphasize? What does it minimize? - Can you borrow a different frame from a different discipline or industry? - How is my background and training influencing my frame? - What do you consider as non-negotiables? - What are the "undiscussables"? ### 2\. Common primary opposing frames Some frames tend to be more common than others and it's useful to be aware of them. They often lie on a spectrum and are in tension with their polar opposites. Most of the time one tends to be the dominant which automatically makes the other secondary. Consider the following: - Learning vs performing - Goal-achieving vs self-protecting - Health-enhancing vs health-limiting - Positive vs negative - Promotion vs prevention - Growth vs fixed mindset - Optimistic vs pessimistic - Win-lose vs win-win - Competition vs cooperation/coopetition - Cost vs investment - Maximizing gain vs minimizing loss - Global vs local - Past vs present vs future - Transactional vs relationship based - Contractual vs community based Often you will notice that these opposing polarities exist simultaneously. Thus framing gets even more critical as it drives which aspects get attention. As it turns out [paradoxes are all too common in organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and an often misunderstood aspect of the nature of managerial work. ### 3\. Leveraging language to create and change frames Gail Fairhurst outlines commonly used forms of language that leaders can use to frame and reframe more effectively: > **Metaphorical* language* portrays a subject’s resemblance to something else that is not literally applicable. > > **Story** frames a subject through narrative. > > **Contrast** describes a subject in terms of what it is not. > > **Spin** places a subject in a positive or negative light. > > **Jargon* or catchphrases* frame a subject in familiar terms. > > **Analogy** frames a subject’s parallels to another subject. > > **Argument** frames a subject in reasoned, rational terms. > > **Feeling statements** frame a subject in terms of felt emotions. > > **Categories** frame a subject in terms of its membership (or not) in a category and of category limits. > > **Three-part lists** organize a subject in easily remembered “threes.” > > **Repetition** dramatizes a subject through parallel form. ### 4\. Learn how to reinforce and reframe In her book Teaming, Amy Edmondson gives tactics for reinforcing a frame and for individual reframing. **Tactics for reinforcing a learning frame:** > Use verbal and visual discourse to promote the learning frame. > > Reinforce this framing by explaining and modeling the desired interpersonal and collaborative behaviors. > > Explain these desired behaviors in practical terms, such as “Speak up if you see something wrong” or “Just pick up the phone and ask if you have a question.” > > Initiate activities, for example, a kick-off meeting, a meeting to identify personal goals within the teaming or learning effort, and training on how to efficiently deal with interpersonal conflict. These can facilitate new processes or routines and help team members build confidence. > > Use artifacts such as a prominent sign in the project work area to visually reinforce the learning frame. **Tactics for individual reframing:** > Tell yourself that the project is different from anything you’ve done before and presents an exciting opportunity to try out new approaches and learn from them. > > See yourself as critical to a successful outcome and yet as unable to achieve success without the willing participation of others. > > Tell yourself that others are vitally important to a successful outcome and may provide key knowledge or suggestions that you can’t anticipate in advance. > > Communicate with others exactly as you would if the above three statements were true. ### 5\. Understand the role of context Learning to [use context effectively](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) is a key aspect of effective leadership, and framing is one way of managing context. Netflix is a good example of implementing [context at the organizational level](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/). [The importance of mastering context in effective leadershipContext is a powerful tool in leadership but goes underutilized and misunderstood - a deep dive into why mastering context is essential to effective leadership.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/08/1024px-Van_Gogh_from_Space.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) [Why Netflix Leads with Context not ControlControl was the dominant management paradigm in early twentieth century industrial factories. A century later, in many modern workplaces it continues to be dominant and mostly goes unquestioned. Often we don’t even realize that this is the case. But in knowledge work, context is a far more effectiv…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Leading-through-Context-not-Control.excalidraw.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/) Another factor that influences your ability or inability to set the right context and frame is [your leadership style](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/). All leaders have a default approach. Being aware of your blindspots can help immensely. [Blake Mouton Leadership Grid- Styles and their PolaritiesMost leaders tend to have a default go-to style with possibly another that they use in extreme situations. Each style has its own set of characteristics.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Blake-Mouton-Leadership-Style-Polarities-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/) ## Related reading on psychological safety [Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood DynamicThe term “psychological safety” is often misleading. When managers hear safety, many dismiss it as a soft style that implies complacency. Meanwhile, psychology implies too much mumbo jumbo. High-profile figures like Elon Musk advocating for a “hardcore” style perpetuate this misconception. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-120.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Psychological-safety-and-High-Standards--2-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) [Project Aristotle: Implications and ChallengesProject Aristotle was a multi-year research initiative by Google to understand what made teams effective. Some of its findings, psychological safety in particular, were counterintuitive. It changed how companies viewed teams and performance. Yet, a decade later, implementation remains challenging. I examine common challenges leaders face in applying psychological safety![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-121.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Google-Project-Aristotle-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/project-aristotle/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-122.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Fundamental Attribution Error: Why It’s Always Someone Else’s FaultTraining in biases is standard fare these days. However, I see managers regularly fall for one particular bias: the fundamental attribution error. Unlike other biases, FAE directly affects several aspects of leadership. In this piece, I dive into what fundamental attribution error is, how it trips up leaders, and ways![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-123.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Fundamental-attribution-error-1-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/) [Self-Disclosure: A Balancing Act in LeadershipIn conventional leadership, competence is about maintaining composure, projecting strength, and exuding confidence. However, truly effective leaders do something more surprising: self-disclosure. They share their fallibility as well as strengths. Self-disclosure is a misunderstood skill of effective leadership. How much is too much? And how can you ensure that opening![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-124.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Self-Disclosure-3.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) ## Sources and references 1. [Teaming](https://amzn.to/3Je4hNk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Amy Edmondson 2. [The Fearless Organization](https://amzn.to/3kDJl92?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Amy Edmondson 3. Edmondson, A. C. (2003). [Framing for Learning](https://doi.org/10.2307/41166164?ref=leadingsapiens.com): Lessons in Successful Technology Implementation. California Management Review, 45(2), 34–54\. 4. [Thinking Fast and Slow](https://amzn.to/3Je3mMw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Daniel Kahneman 5. [Winning Decisions](https://amzn.to/3kM5WQI?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by J. Edward Russo and Paul J.H. Schoemaker 6. [The Power of Framing](https://amzn.to/3Yfsbfn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Gail T. Fairhurst 7. Video: Amy Edmondson talking about how anyone can create psychological safety, not just leaders: ### How Leaders Botch OKRs and Strategy URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-mistakes-okr-strategy/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:37:46.000Z *OKRs and strategy are considered key responsibilities of leadership. But more often than not, managers end up doing more harm than good.* *Here are four common ways they screw it up:* *#1\. Expecting OKRs and people to "do their job".* *#2\. "Big picture only" managers.* *#3\. Confusing goals with objectives.* *#4\. Forgetting mundane execution and their own role in it.* --- I was once part of a high performing sales team for a long cycle, technical product — we had broken records for five consecutive quarters in a tepid market. But that's when "leadership" got greedy. Whether out of plain malice or just stupidity, they tripled our targets overnight. But increasing targets wasn't really the core issue. High performers thrive on challenges, and [setting high standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) is a proven method to push performance. The real problem was that **leadership's involvement ended with setting those impossibly high targets**. Increasing performance targets by doing it in a vacuum, without giving much thought to, let alone participate in, how to get there and what it looks like is a recipe for disengagement and disaster. Which is exactly what happened to that team - almost all members were gone over a span of two years. This kind of dysfunctional behavior is common if not widespread. Organizations often set ambitious targets without changing any of the underlying structures or contributing factors. **Like mice responding to sugar in classic behaviorism, are people simply supposed to automatically respond positively to high goals?** Turns out, there are some **common patterns how managers screw up** the OKR and strategy process, and in the process inflicting damage instead of actually helping. Sometimes it's because of ingrained bad habits, while at other times it's just plain ignorance. ## Mistake#1 Expecting OKRs and people to "do their job" Too many managers think their job is to design the perfect OKR or come up with the best strategy. Designing OKRs is considered as setting "strategic direction" and "leadership", whereas followup and execution reeks of "managing". The underlying assumption? Given the "right" OKRs and strategy, you shouldn't have to manage. Of course no one puts it that way, but that's the implied message when you have a month long OKR and strategy process, and then simply ask for quarterly updates and wondering why it's not working after all. They expect the process and the people to do "get the job done", but this is mistaken. In his book Empowered, Marty Cagan highlights three primary reasons why the OKR process doesn't yield results for most companies. **Other than structural issues, what's the biggest culprit? Leader attitudes and their lack of involvement** beyond setting the OKRs. > And finally, and really **the root of the problem**, is that in the vast majority of companies I see that are struggling to get any value out of OKRs, **the role of leadership is largely missing in action**. > > They literally think that the idea is to let teams identify a set of objectives, and then let them pursue those objectives, and we'll see where we are at the end of the quarter. > > They think that empowered product teams, and this technique especially, is about ***less* management**. But as I've tried to emphasize throughout this book, it's really about ***better* management**. > > It is really any wonder why so many companies get so little value from this technique? > > ...**Leaders need to step up and do their part to turn product strategy into action** > > — Mary Cagan, Chris Jones in Empowered So why are leaders "missing in action" and not doing their part? After all, isn't that their job? There are two primary contributors to this malaise. One is thinking that execution and "figuring it out" is not their job. ## Mistake #2 "Big picture only" managers Consider this famous line by management guru Warren Bennis: > Managers are people who *do things right* and leaders are people who *do the right thing*. In many training programs, it's fashionable to draw a clear line between managing and leading. Leadership gets put on a lofty pedestal while managing gets a secondary role, almost as a necessary evil. Too many managers get hung up on this distinction. Stanford professor Bob Sutton puts it this way: > There is a difference between management and leadership, but focusing on it is dangerous....because it distorts how too many bosses—at all levels—view and do their work. **It encourages bosses to see generating big and vague ideas as the important part of their jobs—and to treat implementation, or pesky details of any kind, as mere “management work” best done by “the little people.”** > > Even if left unsaid, this distinction reflects how too many bosses think and act. They use it to avoid learning about people they lead, technologies their companies use, customers they serve, and numerous other crucial little things. Among the CEOs, Brad Smith of Intuit...reacted most strongly to these arguments. He explained they struck a nerve because of his experience with developing new managers:the best are obsessed with learning details about every aspect of the business; **the worst—the least promising and most arrogant—treat such nuances as being somehow beneath them**. > > **“Big picture only” bosses** often make decisions without understanding constraints that affect the cost and time required to implement them. They are especially prone to suffer from the smart-talk trap ...because actually doing things and making sure things get done are chores for little people, not top dogs, A-players, or high potentials like them. > > I am all for big ideas, visions, and dreams. But the best bosses do more than think big thoughts. They have a deep understanding of their industries, organizations, and teams, the people they lead, as well as other mundane things. > > — Robert Sutton in Good Boss Bad Boss Strategies and objectives detached from the realities of execution is an all too common phenomenon. There's a reason why HP during it's heyday was known for pushing its managers to regularly do MBWA - [managing by wandering around](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). Only by engaging with the mundane details does strategy often emerge. "Big picture only" managers also end up overly reliant on purely [top down approaches](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) instead of balancing it with feedback from the frontlines. ## Mistake #3 Confusing goals with objectives Ambitious goals are meant to rally everyone, aligning the team behind a purpose, and getting everyone focused in order to achieve a common target. Except people are not stupid. If leaders set ambitious targets without a path to get there, no amount of external motivation or push is going to work. The fundamental mistake is not understanding the difference between goals, and the strategy and objectives to get there. As basic as that sounds it's surprising how many folks don't get this basic distinction. Richard Rumelt highlights this common mistake in Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: > ...it is helpful to **use the word “goal” to express overall values and desires and to use the word “objective” to denote specific operational targets**. Thus, the United States may have “goals” of freedom, justice, peace, security, and happiness. It is *strategy* which transforms these vague overall goals into a coherent set of actionable objectives—defeat the Taliban and rebuild a decaying infrastructure. **A leader’s most important job is creating and constantly adjusting this strategic bridge between goals and objectives.** Rumelt highlights how even when this distinction is understood, often objectives are just plain bad, what he calls **"dog's dinner objectives" and "blue sky objectives"**: > Good strategy works by focusing energy and resources on **one, or a very few, pivotal objectives whose accomplishment will lead to a cascade of favorable outcomes**. One form of bad strategic objectives occurs when there is a scrambled mess of things to accomplish—**a “dog’s dinner”** of strategic objectives. > > **A long list of “things to do,” often mislabeled as “strategies” or “objectives,” is not a strategy.** It is just a list of things to do. Such lists usually grow out of planning meetings in which a wide variety of stakeholders make suggestions as to things they would like to see done. Rather than focus on a few important items, the group sweeps the whole day’s collection into the “strategic plan.” Then, in recognition that it is a dog’s dinner, **the label “long-term” is added so that none of them need be done today**. > The second form of bad strategic objectives is one that is **“blue sky.”** A good strategy defines a critical challenge. What is more, it builds a bridge between that challenge and action, between desire and immediate objectives that lie within grasp. Thus, the objectives a good strategy sets should stand a good chance of being accomplished, given existing resources and competence. ... By contrast**, a blue-sky objective is usually a simple restatement of the desired state of affairs** or of the challenge. **It skips over the annoying fact that no one has a clue as to how to get there.** > > A leader may successfully identify the key challenge and propose an overall approach to dealing with the challenge. But if the consequent strategic objectives are blue sky, not much has been achieved. The purpose of good strategy is to offer a potentially achievable way of surmounting a key challenge. **If the leader’s strategic objectives are just as difficult to accomplish as the original challenge, there has been little value added by the strategy.** > > – Richard Rumelt in Good Strategy Bad Strategy This brings us to the fourth mistake. Strategy is glamorous, while the mundane realities of execution not so much. ## Mistake #4 Forgetting mundane execution and their own role in it The reality of any strategy is that most of the time everyone knows what needs to be done. It's not necessarily the brilliance of the strategy per se, but rather how much commitment we have and how consistently we go about [executing the mundane basics](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) on an everyday basis. David Maister uses the analogy of the fat smoker who knows what needs done but never gets around to it: > We know what to do, we know why we should do it, and we know how to do it. Yet most businesses and individuals don't do what's good for them. > > The problem is that many change efforts are based on the assumption that all you have to do is explain to people that their lives could be better, convince them that the goals are worth going for, and show them how to do it. > > But this assumption is patently false. If it were true, there would be no drug addicts, no alcoholics, or bad marriages in the world. "Oh, I see, this behavior's not good for me? Ah well then, I'll stop, of course!" What nonsense! > > And yet strategic plans and annual speeches by CEOs, managing partners, management consultants, and others continue to adopt this **same useless structure**: "Look at how fabulous it would be if you were a fit, nonsmoking exerciser, David!" My usual response? "**True, but please shut up and go away**". > > And that's the response of most audiences to the manager's or consultant's latest vision or strategy: **"We knew all this a long time ago. Why don't you ask us why we don't do it?"** > Improving the quality of the analysis is not where the problem lies. **The necessary outcome of strategic planning is not analytical insight but resolve.** > > The **essential questions of strategy** are these: "Which of our habits are we really prepared to change, permanently and forever? Which lifestyle changes are we really prepared to make? What issues are we really ready to tackle?" > > Now that's a different tone of conversation and discussion (and the reason the real debate is so often avoided). **Discussing goals is stimulating, inspiring, and energizing. But it feels tough, awkward, annoying, frightening, and completely unpleasant to discuss the discipline needed to reach those goals.** Maister also points out how **leaders are quick to point out what everyone else needs to be doing but forget their own role in execution**: > Good corporate strategy is generally perceived as one that stresses analytics, planning, and logical, rational thinking. **Managers are frequently skilled at figuring out what their firms should be doing. But they are less skilled at successfully motivating their people to accomplish these goals.** > ... > Few business strategies are tested or chosen based on how motivating individuals and groups in the firm will find them. Choices are still made on the detached, analytical grounds. > ... > Too few organizations, and too few individuals, have implemented the basic insight that he or she wins who gets more done, and he or she gets more done who passionately wants to get to the next level of accomplishment. **Creating and sustaining that ambition is management's primary task. It's obvious, but it's still scarce.** > > \- David Maister in Strategy and the Fat Smoker ## Questions for reflection - Does your team have a clear path to your ambitious targets? - Do they have a clear picture of what success looks like or is it some vague idea? - What needs to change in order to get there? - How different are your expectations compared to what's being done already? What behavior change will this require? And is this consistent with already existing routines? - What is your role as a leader and manager? Do you expect OKRs and your teams to "do their job"? How are you going to contribute? - How are you taking personal responsibility for results? What changes will you be making? Can your team see this clearly? --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related reading - In his 2017 shareholder letter, [Jeff Bezos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/) gave a great example of how clear expectations go hand in hand with [setting high standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). [Setting high standards and clear expectations in leadershipSetting high standards is well understood. But a critical step often gets left out. Bezos captured this key idea in his 2017 shareholder letter.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Setting-High-Standards--Four-Quadrants.excalidraw-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) - Andy Grove called the [balancing of top down and bottom up approaches](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) "the dynamic dialectic" — it's not easy but necessary for any strategy to be effective. [Andy Grove on Balancing Top-down vs Bottom-up Approaches to LeadershipEver wonder why that particular initiative of yours never got traction? Organizational politics kills more initiatives than people realize, and happens both at leadership and individual contributor levels. Understanding some of the dynamics can help to better navigate the terrain. Three organizati…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Top-down-vs-Bottom-up---Dynamic-Dialectic.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) - Managers mess up OKRs often enough that John Doerr has a set of common pitfalls that he calls [OKR hygiene](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/john-doerr-okr-hygiene/). ### Sources 1. [Empowered: Ordinary People, Extraordinary Products](https://amzn.to/3KhG2i3?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Marty Cagan, Chris Jones. 2. [Good Boss, Bad Boss](https://amzn.to/3KyJvcn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Robert Sutton. 3. [Good Strategy/Bad Strategy: The Difference and Why It Matters](https://amzn.to/3Id5OBz?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Richard Rumelt. 4. [Strategy and the Fat Smoker: Doing What's Obvious But Not Easy](https://amzn.to/3YYDzgB?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Maister. ### Wisdom and Insight are Not Quite Portable URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/wisdom-insight-profound-simplicity/ Last updated: 2025-11-05T18:49:14.000Z *Experts promise hacks and easy formulas, but actually succeeding at something often is much harder, sometimes even impossible. Is it just us, or are the experts plain wrong? Understanding *how knowledge evolves into wisdom* can help explain this discrepancy.* --- ## How understanding evolves Consider this all too common scenario: You read a pretty legit business book. The formula is “proven” over many years and multiple engagements. But somehow it doesn’t work for your particular situation. And it’s not a lack of execution either, in fact you executed even better. So what’s the problem here? **Is it you, or is it the formula?** Some call this phenomenon [**Insight Porn**](http://jakobgreenfeld.com/insight-porn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) — much of the advice from so called “experts” when applied to our own situations doesn't pan out as promised. Does this mean all experts are con artists? Some of them sure are, but there are also many that speak from actual experience. So why the disconnect? One way to explain this discrepancy is Karl Weick's framework of **how understanding evolves over time** in three phases, going from: 1. **Superficial simplicity** to 2. **Confused complexity**, and finally to 3. **Profound simplicity** ## Mistaking profound simplicity for superficial simplicity In his book [Making Sense of the Organization](https://amzn.to/3IopeEy?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Weick uses the model to explain what he calls High Reliability Organizations. Many of the points Weick makes about HROs, can be extended to the personal realm as well — to understand our struggles with putting something into practice and actually succeeding at it. ### Wisdom that emerges from confusion > I am not against simplicity per se, but I am against mistaking superficial simplicity for simplicity that is profound. That’s what I find fascinating about more effective high reliability organizations (HROs). > > HROs strive for profound simplicity. They understand that **the means to move toward profound simplicity is through doubting the completeness of their assumptions, through experimenting, and through entertaining a wider variety of possibilities**. They realize that when they distrust their simplifications they will feel confused, but they also know that **out of that confusion may come fuller understanding of what they face**. > ... > **When we are confused we pay closer attention** to what is happening in order to reduce the confusion. Later, all we remember is that this period of confusion was an unpleasant experience. **What we often fail to realize is that we also learned a lot of details while struggling with the confusion.** Those struggles and their consequences comprise learning, even if momentarily they don’t feel that way. > > After a period of confused complexity, we often see that many of our initial simplifications were superficial, but we also see that a handful of those initial simplifications still hold true, although for different reasons than we first thought. And we also see that a handful of new simplifications help us make sense of the earlier confusion. **These outcomes are the profound simplicities that are sometimes labeled ‘wisdom’**. ### Why superficial simplification doesn't work > If people examine mindful HROs, those organizations often appear to be no more complex than mindless organizations. What people miss, however, is the fact that **mindful organizations have struggled through periods of confused complexity on the way to their profound simplicities** (e.g. they looked closely at their own failures and have examined them with candor). > > Mindless organizations, however, tend to settle for the first superficial simplicities they stumble onto, and as a result know neither themselves nor their environment very well. **This by the way is why benchmarking seldom works**. **You can borrow the simplicities but you can’t borrow the confused complexity that gives meaning to the profound simplicity**. > > Without that background, you have no idea why the simplifications are profound, why they work, or what lessons they summarize. Hence, the **borrowing is superficial**. It fails to come to grips with either your own resources or the environment, and typically fails when implemented. ### Better vs worse simplifications > Most people would agree that the business environment is complex. The complexity is due in large part to the fact that the environment is unknowable and unpredictable. **In the face of all of this complexity, everyone simplifies the data they receive**. But there are better and worse simplifications. > > **Better simplifications** arise from **deeper knowledge of the environment and deeper understanding** of what the organization is and what it can do. That deeper knowledge develops when people attend to more things, entertain a greater variety of interpretations, differentiate their ideas, argue, listen to one another, work to reconcile differences, and commit to revisiting and updating whatever profound simplicities they settle on as guidelines for action. > …. > But they don’t come easily. It takes a complex organization to see the value of confused complexity, **to weather the messiness of confused complexity**, and **to have faith that confused complexity is not terminal** but can lead on to the hard- won lessons summarized in profound simplicity. It also takes a complex organization to retain and value the diverse resources needed to spot which assumptions are superficial and **to tolerate the mess** when people contest different interpretations of what the organization faces. > > — Karl Weick in Making Sense of the Organization ## Where we go wrong and lose our way When we read a book, take a course, or try to “hack” something, often we are trying **to avoid the messy middle of confused complexity**. Who wants to be confused after all? **Confusion and** [**doubt**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) **are seen as a sign of incompetence.** But is it really? Profound simplicity, and by extension clarity, can be arrived at only from our own experience and investment. It comes from grappling with ambiguity and doubt, and the [back and forth of action and feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/). While I can borrow superficial simplicity or even confused complexity from someone else, making it simple at the level of profound simplicity requires **investment of time, energy, emotions and risk on my part**. I’m not saying not to use help, but instead to check what our underlying expectation is. Because even the best guides and coaches cannot help us avoid the inevitable confusion that’s involved in learning and mastery. While the advice might be connected to their reality and experience, **for you it is still an abstraction**. What might be profoundly simple to someone else looks superficially simple to us because **we haven’t gone through the confused complexity required to get there**. Only after it’s rooted in our own experience does it turn into actual insight. ![How understanding evolves into wisdom over time](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Wisdom---profound-simplicity---2-1.png) ## Hacking wisdom Although not always recognized, we often look for a “hack” to avoid anxiety, confusion, and most importantly lost time. Time that’s lost in **"muddling” through**, and not always knowing if we are heading in the right direction. Paradoxically though, wisdom only comes if we’ve actually muddled through. Without the grappling and struggle of execution and trying to understand, it’s just “another cool idea” that we are aware of leading to the all too common declaration of “**I’ve heard that before**”, a cliche in other words. Often, we are looking for insights minus the work required. And that's **the ethos of pornography** — engineering an artificial high but without the investment that’s required in the real thing. We **want to dictate the process rather than submit** to the process of learning, [reflecting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/), unlearning, and eventually mastery. What was someone else's earned wisdom, turned into insight porn for us. We would rather have the answers, instead of wrestling with existential questions. **Struggling becomes a signal of incompetence** instead of a method for building competence, so we try to avoid it and jump straight to the wisdom part. Except there's one problem, and it's a cliche — **you cannot borrow or buy wisdom, it has to be earned**. Wisdom is not as portable as would like it to be — perhaps the very reason why it’s a rarity. ## Related reading - Being naive is considered a liability, so we over-index on sophistication and cleverness. But this can actually work against us in the long run. [Naivete can in fact be a positive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/), if we know its various nuances and how it evolves. [The Case for Naive Leaders over Clever, Sophisticated OnesNaïveté is considered a liability. But is it really? We’ve been oversold on the merits of sophistication and cleverness, meanwhile missing out on the benefits of a considered approach to naiveness.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Cultivated-Na-vet-.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/) - We tend to think of ability in positive terms, but often our ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity determines our success. The poet John Keats coined the term [Negative Capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) that is equally critical to our ventures as is any other skill. [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in LeadershipLeadership development is usually about positive abilities. Negative Capability is often forgotten but equally critical. What is it and what prevents it?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Negative-Capability-Balance.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) ### Sources and references 1. [Making Sense of the Organization Vol II](https://amzn.to/3IopeEy?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Karl Weick. 2. Weick built upon the concept of Profound Simplicity by Will Schutz. ### Mental Models - A Subtractive Approach URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/ Last updated: 2024-03-06T19:33:54.000Z *Most common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But this tends to be *half-baked, often useless in practice*. There is equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between *hard and soft mental models*.* *How is the subtractive approach different and why is it more effective?* --- ## The additive vs subtractive approach to mental models We seem to be drowning in mental models. Almost every other article or tweet thread has some mention of them. These range from the everyday to the esoteric. Some are useful, most are not — **they just make you feel smarter**. Promoters push a range of supposedly useful mental models from a range of disciplines. But they are **more similar than different in one critical aspect** — they are all additive by trying to teach a “new mental model”. We get the dopamine hit of having “learned” something new but never actually getting any better. A majority of them have their origins in **Charlie Munger’s idea of a "latticework of mental models"**. That model itself is an additive one— you collect and tack on new models over time to build up your latticework. The more nodes and connections you have, the stronger your model and thus your abilities. What has NOT gotten as much attention is that **a majority of our mental models are tacit and below our level of awareness.** There is often more value in identifying and jettisoning these existing but hidden mental models, rather than trying to learn new ones. ![Mental models : subtractive vs additive approaches](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models--Subtractive-vs-Additive-1.png) There is a fundamental reason why almost all popular treatment of mental models focuses on adding new models rather than discarding existing ones – they are targeting two very different kinds of models. **One is easy to identify and "sell" but not as useful**, while the other is harder to identify and package, but can be more transformative. ## Two kinds of mental models One of the first known definitions of mental models dates back to 1943: > If the organism carries a “small-scale model” of external reality and of its own possible actions within its head, it is able to try out various alternatives, conclude which is the best of them, react to future situations before they arise, utilize the knowledge of past events in dealing with the present and the future, and in every way to react in a much fuller, safer, and more competent manner to the emergencies which face it. > > — Kenneth Craik, The nature of explanation Different kinds of mental models can be found in a range of disciplines including cybernetics, architecture, cognitive psychology, systems dynamics and neuroscience amongst others. To keep our discussion simple, consider two generic types of mental models — **hard and soft**. - **Hard mental models** are the ones common in popular discourse. These are models identified from various disciplines, packaged as a "rule" and put into language that we then learn and try to use in practice. By definition, they tend to be explicit and thus visible. - In contrast, **soft mental models are ones we're already using but unaware of**. These are often not "languaged", personal to us and because of their proximity and common use, transparent to us. Nevertheless we use them and are influenced by them. You can visualize the two types on a continuum: ![Mental models: Hard and soft models and their properties](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-1.png) Your notions and beliefs about your abilities are an example of soft mental models, whereas models derived from physics are hard. 💡 Liking this article? ****Try** ****my newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form. 📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. Consider the following as a **definition of soft mental models**: > ...the images, assumptions and stories which we carry in our minds of ourselves, other people, institutions and every aspect of the world. Like a pane of glass [framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) and subtly distorting our vision, mental models determine what we see. Human beings cannot navigate through the complex environments of our world without these ‘mental maps’; and all of these mental maps, by definition, are flawed in some way. > > — Peter Senge in The Fifth Discipline **Why are these soft mental models invisible?** It’s because they are what can be called “givens”— things we assume to be true, thus not treated as assumptions and go unexamined. > ...We call them “big assumptions” because they are not currently viewed as “assumptions” at all. Rather, they are uncritically taken as true. They *may* be true, and they may not be, but as long as we simply assume they are true, **we are blind even to the question itself**. > > — Robert Kegan in Immunity to Change ## Soft mental models — an example A simple but powerful example of soft, hidden mental models is the Kanizsa triangle: ![The Kanizsa triangle is an example of soft mental models](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Sott-mental-models--kanizsa-triangle.png) John Sterman of MIT puts it this way: > Most of us do not appreciate the ubiquity and invisibility of mental models, instead believing naively that our senses reveal the world as it is. On the contrary, **our world is actively constructed (modeled) by our senses and brain**. > > Figure shows an image developed by psychologist Gaetano Kanizsa. The vast majority of people see a bright white triangle resting on top of three circles and a second triangle with black edges. The illusion is extremely powerful (try to look at the figure and “not see” the two triangles!). > > Research shows that the neural structures responsible for the ability to see illusory contours such as the white triangle exist between the optic nerve and the areas of the brain responsible for processing visual information. Active modeling occurs well before sensory information reaches the areas of the brain responsible for conscious thought. > > **Powerful evolutionary pressures are responsible**: Our survival depends so completely on the ability to rapidly interpret our environment that we (and other species) long ago evolved structures to build these models automatically. **Usually we are completely unaware these mental models even exist**. It is only when a construction such as the Kanizsa triangle reveals the illusion that we become aware of our mental models. > > The Kanizsa triangle illustrates the necessity of active and unconscious mental modeling or construction of “reality” at the level of visual perception. > > **Modeling of higher-level knowledge is likewise unavoidable and often equally unconscious**. > > — John Sterman in Business Dynamics Sterman makes a subtle but important distinction that's worth repeating — *"our world is actively constructed (modeled) by our senses and brain"* **.** It's the difference between perception, interpretation and generation — **we are generating reality as much as we are interpreting it**. ## Perception, interpretation, and generation We don’t always see outside reality and then interpret it based on our models. This is what the additive approach is based on, and is only partially true. Rather **we are creating reality itself using these models** — which makes it even more critical to understand the ones we're already using, but not aware of. **Rather than a mirror or a camera that captures reality, we are more like a projector** creating its own reality based on models running in our head. And most of these remain invisible and unexamined. **Our minds are not necessarily mirrors of reality, rather our reality is a mirror of our minds.** > What you see is not really there; it is what your brain believes is there...Seeing is an active construction process. Your brain makes the best interpretation it can according to its previous experience and the limited and ambiguous information provided by your eye. > > — Francis Crick in The Astonishing Hypothesis > In the metaphorical no less than in the literal use of “seeing”, **interpretation begins where perception ends**. The two processes are not the same, and what perception leaves for interpretation to complete depends drastically on the nature and amount of prior experience and training. > > — Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions But as we saw in the Kanizsa triangle, it goes one step beyond interpretation as well. We are actively generating reality as well, just like we generated the triangle that's non-existent. We cannot "unsee" the triangle, even when we are actively aware of its non-existence. In the additive approach, the idea is that the new mental models will help us interpret better and thus respond better. But what gets left out is that mental models also "generate" or rather create my world. This is where the implicit, soft models play a large role and **why leaving them out is a missed opportunity**. ## Examples of soft mental models As a human being, mental models are a part and parcel of how we operate. The fact that we use them and even that many of them are wrong is not the problem. The real challenge is that we are primarily unaware of their influence, especially unhelpful ones that impede growth and development. Some examples of hidden mental models would include: - *"Leadership requires being an extrovert."* - *"Meetings are a waste of time."* - *"All leaders are power hungry."* - *"You cannot learn anything past a certain age."* - *"People don't change."* Each of these models informs and influences my actions and how I go about it. Robert Hargrove calls them "**unhelpful frames of reference**": > • **Role frames:** “I am the boss, I have more experience, and therefore I am right.” > > • **Thought frames or pet theories:** Seeing this situation as the one you were previously in and thereby thinking or doing the same thing. > > • **Industry frames:** Old orthodoxies that inhibit inventive and effective thinking. > > • **Personal mental models:** Rigid patterns of thinking or thinking based on unexamined assumptions or assumptions that may no longer be accurate. > > • **Gaps in reasoning:** Conclusions ungrounded in data or [jumping to conclusions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). > > • **Crooked attitudes:** Ways of looking at what happened based on blame, shame, or guilt, which get in the way of making accurate interpretations of reality. > > • **Emotional or defensive reactions:** Reacting to what happened based on past hurts in a way that is intended to defend and protect yourself; may cloud your ability to see clearly. > > – Robert Hargrove in Masterful Coaching A useful tool for uncovering hidden mental models is [the systems thinking iceberg](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/). It highlights how we focus on the events level (top of the iceberg) but don't pay enough attention what actually causes it (deeper levels). ## Why is the additive approach more popular Our efforts for improvement default towards additive rather than subtractive approaches. We want to go learn additional new ones without trying to figure out what’s actually restricting us already. Why so? ### The additive approach feels easy - Learning about new models feels and sounds easy. Identifying, updating or removing existing models on the other hand is much harder and takes time, effort, and attention. The additive model is seductive but equally ineffective for the most part, especially how we usually go about it — reading about them and thinking we "got it". - The subtractive model looks “soft” whereas the additive models looks analytical and “science backed". It's easier to package and sell the additive model. ### The subtractive approach takes work - We've spent entire lifetimes relying on these hidden models, so of course we can't get rid of them overnight. - We see through them — their invisibility makes them harder to identify and tackle. - We have defensive routines that actively work to prevent us from seeing the gaps and flaws in our reasoning. - Perhaps what makes unlearning mental models so difficult is that it requires temporarily suspending judgement and preconceived notions. This makes causes discomfort and requires us to embrace what Keats called [negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). Mental models play a key role in performance. We can either pretend to be getting better by reading about new ones, or do the hard work of identifying, examining and refining existing unhelpful ones. --- 💡 **Try* **my weekly email* **—** learn frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients. 📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related reading - One example of **a common unexamined mental model** in careers is [implicit leadership theory](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/). Our implicit notions about leadership and that of our organizations can have a lasting impact on our success or failure. [How Implicit Leadership Theory Affects CareersWhat makes someone “leadership material”? This often depends on who’s making the call and what their Implicit Leadership Theory is - we all have one.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/How-ILT-Affects-Careers-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) - An excellent tool to examine and uncover hidden mental models is [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). It shows how we jump to conclusions and by slowing down the process highlight hidden assumptions. [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - Skilled reflection is a key part of removing, replacing, or upgrading existing mental models. [Reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) is essentially a technology that most of us hardly use and especially leaders. - An effective tool that can help with reducing our hidden mental-models is [the Johari Window](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/): [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This mak…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/10/1--Johari-Window---A-guide.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) ### Sources and references 1. The Fifth Discipline by Peter Senge. 2. The Nature of Explanation by Kenneth Craik. 3. Business Dynamics by John Sterman. 4. Masterful Coaching by Robert Hargrove. 5. Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. *Psychological Bulletin.* 6. The history of mental models by *P. N. Johnson-Laird in* Psychology of Reasoning. 7. An overview on transformative learning b*y Jack Mezirow in* Lifelong Learning. 8. Social constructivism, mental models, and the problems of obedience by Patricia H. Werhane, Laura P. Hartman, Dennis Moberg, Elaine Englehardt, Michael Pritchard, and Bidhan Parmar. 9. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul by Francis Crick. 10. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. 11. Immunity to Change by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey. ### The Best Leadership Style - There Might Not be One URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/best-leadership-style/ Last updated: 2024-09-12T00:34:19.000Z If you're the ambitious type, you've probably had your fair share of leadership books and management training. More than likely you've come across two stalwarts of the leadership literature and their models :[ emotional intelligence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/) and [authentic leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/). A key thrust of these models, including many others, is that there are different [leadership styles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/), and some supposedly more effective than others. Successful leaders tend to have a wide "repertoire" of styles that they are able to adapt to a given situation. The leadership genre **can often read like religion** with its various prescriptions especially around "good" leaders. The most effective styles invariably end up being those that sound democratic and "morally sound". But how much of this is true in practice? In my own experience, I've seen **autocratic leaders who were very effective** and rose rapidly through the ranks, while the emotionally intelligent, "coaching style" manager struggled with results, floundering in the bottom ranks. So what are you to do as an individual to maximize your chances of success? This leads to two important points: 1. Leadership literature can often be misleading or **useless, if not borderline harmful**. 2. Success in leadership and management, and by extension in organizations, is contingent on the **person-environment fit more than any other factor**. Let's look at these ideas through the commentary of two articulate but practical voices from the business world itself. ## Business idealization is hazardous to your career In organizations and teams, paying close attention to our own observations on what's actually working, is a better use of time than relying on models that are often ideal abstractions, removed from the messy reality and context of your particular situation. Writing in [Power](https://amzn.to/3I8EuoY?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford outright issues a warning when consuming the leadership genre: > Most books by well-known executives and most lectures and courses about leadership should be stamped CAUTION: THIS MATERIAL CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR ORGANIZATIONAL SURVIVAL. > > **That’s because leaders touting their own careers as models to be emulated frequently gloss over the power plays they actually used to get to the top.** Meanwhile, the teaching on leadership is filled with prescriptions about following an inner compass, being truthful, letting inner feelings show, being modest and self-effacing, not behaving in a bullying or abusive way—in short, **prescriptions about how people *wish* the world and the powerful behaved.** > > There is no doubt that the world would be a much better, more humane place if people were always authentic, modest, truthful, and consistently concerned for the welfare of others instead of pursuing their own aims. But **that world doesn’t exist.** > > **As a guide for obtaining power, these recommendations are flawed.** Most CEOs are not the level 5 leaders described by Jim Collins in *Good to Great* as helping to take companies up the performance curve—individuals who are “self-effacing, quiet, reserved, even shy,” who get the best out of employees by not soaking up all the limelight and making all the decisions. The rarity of such leaders may be why so few organizations go from good to great. > > And even Collins begins his story when these paragons were already in the CEO position—**the road to the top may require different behavior than being successful once you have arrived**. For most leaders, the path to power bears little resemblance to the advice being dished out. > > — Jeffrey Pfeffer in Power Pfeffer outlines **three reasons why this is so**: > \[1.\]... **leaders are great at self-presentation**, at telling people what they think others want to hear, and in coming across as noble and good. This ability to effectively self-present is why successful individuals reached high levels in the first place. In the stories told either directly in autobiographies or indirectly in the case studies found in leadership books, **leaders overemphasize their positive attributes and leave out the negative qualities and behaviors**. > > \[2\] ... **Those in power get to write history** ...one of the best ways to acquire and maintain power is to construct a positive image and reputation, in part by coopting others to present you as successful and effective. > > \[3\] ... **the just-world effect:** if people know that someone or some organization has been successful, they will almost automatically attribute to that individual or company all kinds of positive qualities and behaviors. Although it is far from evident that doing the stuff in the leadership books will make you successful, **once you become successful, odds are vastly increased that people will selectively remember and attend to the positive characteristics** they believe make good leaders. ## Context and environment matters more than you think In [Managing](https://amzn.to/3DRSelu?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Henry Mintzberg highlights an important assumption that often goes unquestioned: that we can in fact change our styles to what is optimal. This is of course **assuming we know beforehand what is in fact optimal**. Can we really do it beyond the superficial? Even when it's possible, it requires enormous amounts of time, energy and attention to make a fundamental change in how we behave and approach everyday work and lives. While it can be done, it's not as easy as others would like us to believe. You might be better off **finding an environment and context where your styles and talents are a natural fit**, instead of trying to adapt your style to that of your organization's. > **Is the Manager a Chameleon?** > > A *Harvard Business Review* article entitled “Leadership That Gets Results” was described by its author Daniel Goleman as taking “much of the mystery out of executive leadership”, by reducing it to six [basic styles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/). > > These were [**coercive**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/) (“Do what I tell you,” which Goleman called a “negative style”); **authoritative** (“Come with me . . . toward a vision,” which he called “most strongly positive”); **affiliative** (“People come first”), **democratic** (“What do you think?”), and **coaching** (“Try this”), all three of which he called positive; and **pacesetting** (“Do as I do,” which he considered negative... . > > Goleman claimed that, much like “the array of clubs in a golf pro’s bag,” these styles can be picked and chosen “based on the demands of the shot. . . . The pro senses the challenge ahead, swiftly pulls out the right tool, and elegantly puts it to work. That’s how high impact leaders operate too” . > > **This assumption, that we can change our behaviors the way we change our golf clubs—a long-standing one in much of applied psychology and management development—needs to be scrutinized.** > Bear in mind that **while chameleons change colors, they do not change tails or tongues, let alone habitats**. In fact, all they really do is hide—that is, use color to pretend to fit. It may work for them in a very limited context, but for how long can that work for any manager? > > The effective manager may more usually be the **one whose natural style fits the context**, rather than the one who changes style to fit context, or context to fit style (let alone being a so-called professional manager whose style is supposed to fit all contexts). > So while every manager has to *make* the job, he or she also has to *do* the job. That is why **managerial style cannot be considered out of context**, independent of where it is practiced—as does so much of the literature. And that is why, to me at least, **so much of the literature on style feels sterile**. > > So if you are a manager, **be careful to understand your own style, not in general but in the context in which you practice management.** And then be awfully careful about what other managerial jobs you take or put other managers into. > > Recently a professor of education asked me what I thought about the current American practice of appointing retired army officers to head up school systems. Good idea, I replied, and **let’s have schoolteachers run the army**. > > — Henry Mintzberg in Managing ## Related reading - A classic model on differing leadership styles is the [Blake Mouton managerial grid](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/). It maps leadership styles along two parameters of people and task orientation to generate five different styles of leadership, each with its own set of polarities. It's decent first go as a diagnostic tool rather than a prescriptive one. - One reason why success as a manager or leader is contextual is because of [implicit theories of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/). Both you and your organization have implicit notions about leadership which influences your approach and how you judge others. A good or bad fit of implicit leadership theories can determine whether careers flourish or flounder. --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### Sources 1. [Power: Why Some People Have It and Others Don't](https://amzn.to/3I8EuoY?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Jeffrey Pfeffer. His most recent treatise on power is [7 Rules of Power](https://amzn.to/3RJHZWc?ref=leadingsapiens.com). Both are essential reading in understanding how power really works in organizations. 2. [Managing](https://amzn.to/3DRSelu?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Henry Mintzberg — his magnum opus and the best 30 dollars on a book I've spent in terms of return on investment. Devour this one before you go get an MBA to become a better manager. There's a shorter version called [Simply Managing](https://amzn.to/3ljQEm3?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Blake Mouton Leadership Grid - A Model on Leadership Styles URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:24:18.000Z *Most leaders and managers tend to fall into patterns in how they choose between *prioritizing people* concerns vs *needs of the organization*. Not being aware of these biases creates imbalances. Understanding different *leadership styles* opens up potential areas for improvement.* - [Blake Mouton Leadership Grid](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#blake-mouton-leadership-grid) - [The five leadership styles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#the-five-leadership-styles) - [Impoverished style (1,1)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#1-impoverished-style-11) - [Country Club style (1,9)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#2-country-club-style-19) - [Compromise, middle of the road style (5,5)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#3-compromise-middle-of-the-road-style-55) - [Authoritarian, dictatorial style (9,1)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#4-authoritarian-dictatorial-style-91) - [Integrative style (9,9)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#5-integrative-style-99) - [Polarities of each style](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#polarities-of-each-style) - [Using the leadership grid](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#using-the-leadership-grid) - [As a diagnostic](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#as-a-diagnostic) - [Mixing the styles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#mixing-the-styles) - [Reflection questions based on the grid](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#reflection-questions-based-on-the-grid) - [Related reading](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/#related-reading) --- In my managerial career, it was common to come across managers who struggled to give [critical feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/). They wanted to be **“friendly” and ended up doing more damage** than good. In contrast, there were others who were too task focussed and completely oblivious to the "people" needs of their team. Neither approach works well. The **skill in management is to do both**, what Jim Collins calls embracing the "Genius of the AND" rather than succumbing to the "Tyranny of the OR" — thinking that it has to be one way or the other. All managers have to learn this through trial by fire, and achieving balance is the essence and skill of [effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/). Fortunately there are **models that can be used as good diagnostic tools**. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Blake Mouton Leadership Grid The Blake Mouton Leadership Grid, originally called the Managerial Grid or the Grid Theory of Leadership, is a classic model that captures leadership styles and managerial attitudes and behaviors. ![Blake Mouton Leadership Grid with the five leadership styles.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Blake-Mouton-Leadership-Grid-3.png) It maps different styles of management and leadership on a 9x9 grid based on two primary criteria: 1. **People orientation** on the vertical axis : characterized by focus on team members' interests, development, social needs and participation. 2. **Task orientation** on the horizontal axis: characterized by focus on organizational objectives, efficiency and productivity. The grid identifies 5 distinct styles of leadership and management that straddle the extremes of balancing the two orientations of people and tasks. ## The five leadership styles Most leaders tend to have a default go-to style with possibly another that they use in extreme situations. Each style has its own set of characteristics. ### 1\. Impoverished style (1,1) - Characterized by a low concern for both tasks and people. - Classic symptom of managers who are disengaged or on their way out. - Mantra: preserve the status quo - a **laissez-faire** style. - Show a minimal amount of initiative and exertion coupled with avoidance of responsibility and commitment. They do just enough to get by or not get fired. ### 2\. Country Club style (1,9) - This style is more concerned with maintaining relationships, and less so for results and productivity. - **"People pleasers"** is one extreme in this category. - Focussed on creating a positive work environment. Characterized by a friendly environment and easy tempo but sometimes at the cost of performance. - Often have low turnover rates. ### 3\. Compromise, middle of the road style (5,5) - Attempts to strike a balance between people and tasks, but ends up being not as effective at either. - Often marred by mediocrity. - **"Don't rock the boat"** is the mantra. Organization man. - Focused on maintaining the peace and moving things forward. Avoids confrontation - Can get accused of being opportunistic and called out as **"weasels"**. - Often the least effective due to changing priorities, and a lack of focus and conviction. ### 4\. Authoritarian, dictatorial style (9,1) - Taskmasters with a high focus on results and tasks but with little concern for relationships. - People are simply resources and commodities to be applied towards achieving deliverables. Efficiency and getting results, even at a high human cost, is the focus. - **"Produce or perish"** is their mantra. - Power and control takes precedence over everything. - The human element is often considered a liability. - Often marred by a **high turnover rate**. ### 5\. Integrative style (9,9) - Shows high concern for both people and results. S - Often characterized as **"democratic"**. - Skilled at managing both and navigating the tension by driving teams to common goals and results. - Characterized by strong leadership that delivers results but that also enables development of people. - A good balance of long term trust and development. ## Polarities of each style Each leadership style has its own set of positive and negative polarities – **trying to avoid something** while at the same time **working towards achieving** something. Recognizing and understanding these tendencies in our own approaches is a useful exercise. For eg the **authoritarian style is fearful of showing weakness and failure**, while the **country club style is more focused on avoiding rejection**. ![Polarities of the five leadership styles in the Blake Mouton leadership grid](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Blake-Mouton-Leadership-Style-Polarities.png) Bear in mind, reality is a lot more complex than this grid would have you believe. All of us will find a mix of polarities in how we operate. The question is not which particular style we fall under, but rather **what we are overlooking because of our dominant style**, especially when that default style is not working effectively or is coming at a high cost of attrition or performance. ## Using the leadership grid The original use of the grid was as a predictive and prescriptive tool — trying to predict which managers will do best and prescribing the best approaches. Blake and Mouton's research mapped managerial behavior based on **seven core characteristics**: - initiative (taking action) - enquiry( being curious) - [advocacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) (speaking out) - decision making (evaluating and choosing) - conflict resolution (resolving disagreements) - resilience (facing challenges) - critique (delivering feedback) The primary thrust of Blake and Mouton's research was that **the 9,9 integrative style of good balance between people and results tends to be the most effective**. Granted, this shouldn't be news anymore, but it's still a good reminder. ### As a diagnostic While it’s predictive abilities are questionable, it’s **a useful diagnostic tool** for reflecting on your own leadership style and how it fits with the rest of your organization. It can highlight blindspots and biases that might be holding you back. Managers with a strong task orientation will benefit from [understanding what makes people tick](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). In contrast, people-oriented managers will benefit from getting better at setting objectives and [stronger follow-up conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/). ### Mixing the styles While 9,9 integrative is the most preferred style, certain situations require an authoritarian style. Middle of the road management although considered mediocre might be best for sustaining performance in the long run without burning out the team. **The country club style is not categorically bad either**. If it's a group of high functioning independent operators, they might thrive best in an environment of minimum supervision and high camaraderie. **When taking over a new team**, focusing initially on people is one approach. Over time you start balancing between (1,9) and (9,1), stabilizing at (5,5) and then eventually working up to operating skillfully at a high (9,9). ### Reflection questions based on the grid - What style maximizes the performance of your team? - Which style do you naturally default to? - What style do you avoid and why? - What's your organization's dominant style? - What is your manager’s style and how different is yours? - In order to be promoted, what styles would make you more eligible ? - Which style is congruent with your organization’s [implicit leadership theory](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/)? - Where do your managers fall on this grid? Can you identify their polarities? ## Related reading - We want to think there is a[ best leadership style](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/best-leadership-style/), suited for all situations. But it's more subtle than we think, including some common misconceptions. - A [creative leadership style vs a controlling leadership style](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/) is another distinction between different types of leaders. One tries to control the energy of a system, while the other helps releasing it and multiplies the energy. - Both organizations and individual leaders have [notions of leadership that are implicit](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) — what researchers call implicit leadership theory. Making sure your implicit theories of leadership aligns with that of your organization, plays a critical role in your success or failure. ### Sources and references 1. [The Managerial Grid](https://amzn.to/3K8oapy?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton. 2. Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1979). What’s New With The Grid®? Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 16(4), 41–46\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/103841117901600412](https://doi.org/10.1177/103841117901600412?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Video explaining the Blake Mouton Managerial Grid ### Design Principles for Practicing Reflection URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-08-13T22:24:48.000Z *For leaders and managers, the art and practice of doing regular reflection is essential to functioning at peak levels. The challenge is that the environment surrounding them enables anything but reflection. It's designed to do the exact opposite. Are there basic *guidelines that can help to reflect more often and better*?* *In his book* [*Step Back*](https://amzn.to/3lbAPxB?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, Joseph Badaracco highlights how reflection requires regular practice and can be aided by what he calls "design principles" — basic guidelines that can help to build an effective reflection routine and integrate it into busy schedules.* --- Action tends to be our default choice, and stepping back can often feel passive and indecisive in the face of mounting pressure. But when the pressure to act is at its most intense is also when we need to reflect the most. As with any muscle, getting good at reflection needs training and attention. Well-developed reflection muscles can hold us in good stead when it really matters. Almost all managers and execs recognize [the importance of reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) but fail to do it regularly or sometimes altogether. Why? There are two primary reasons: 1. A perceived lack of time. 2. [Misperceptions about reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/#if-its-so-effective-why-isn%E2%80%99t-everyone-doing-it) or a lack of understanding of what it actually entails. ## Four principles to develop your reflection Given the challenges, how do you go about it and what do you actually do? Reflection does not have to be a 7 day guided meditation retreat in the mountains. Badaracco emphasizes that it can be practiced right where we are, which is also where it's often needed the most. > The art of reflection is like other arts. To do it well, you have to practice, and your practice should be guided by certain principles, which are often called *design principles*. If you paint a picture, for example, you have to make choices about line, balance, and contrast. **Design principles call attention to these choices and guide them, but they don’t tell you what to paint or what colors to use.** Design principles are “laws with leeway.” They provide compass directions, not turn-by-turn instructions. > > The design principles for reflection work in the same way. If you want to make the best use of scarce time for reflection, you should rely on **four basic principles**. They clearly define good reflection, but they don’t specify what you should do. That is your call. The design principles for the art of reflection are templates, and your task is filling in the specifics, with ways of reflecting that work for you. He identifies 4 principles for reflection: 1. **Aim for good enough** 2. **Downshift occasionally** 3. **Ponder your hard issues** 4. **Pause and measure up** ## 1\. Aim for good enough > This design principle advises you to put aside the image of reflection as “going up to the mountain”—that is, as extended, solitary deliberation. Instead, it encourages you to **find an approach to reflection that works pretty well, most of the time**. This is an approach that meets your needs, fits your situation, and you can follow fairly regularly. But you will have stretches with little or no reflection. That is simply a reality of life, not a failure on your part. When it happens, just move on and get back to your routine of reflection. Not having enough time for reflection often stems from **putting reflection on a pedestal**, instead of treating it as any other mundane but important activity we do on a daily basis. The core idea is to step back and create some space between you and the action. He shares examples of busy managers and CEOs who aim for good enough reflection using a combination or one of the below: - Using the drive home to contemplate issues. - "Piggy backed" reflection — combining it with activities you might already be doing eg during running or exercising. - Looking for "spaces of quiet" — these can be specific times in your schedule or dedicated separate spaces or rituals that trigger reflective thinking. - Writing regularly or keeping a journal. Regularly doesn't mean everyday or even proactive. It can be a habit when you are triggered. - Having a "reflective conversation" with a significant other like a spouse, a friend or a peer. Reflection doesn't have to be a solitary activity. ## 2\. Downshift occasionally > We spend much of our time, particularly at work, relying on highly focused analytical or pragmatic thinking. Our goal is output. We ask, again and again, “What is the problem here, and what do we do about it?” This guiding principle says to pause occasionally and **shift your mental machinery into a lower gear**. This means, as one manager put it, “letting your mind run free for a while and **avoiding any taint of productivity**.” > > Downshifting, in its various forms, gives you greater clarity about what is happening around you and what you are really thinking and feeling. > When you downshift or contemplate, you are consciously trying to suspend your default mental habits of analytical thinking, cost-benefit analysis, and planning next steps. Your goal is to simply look around, watch, and observe. Downshifting is a way of really seeing and fully grasping what matters at a meeting, in a conversation, during time with family and friends, or in quiet moments you spend by yourself. It is a form of reflection that helps you be present, alert, and responsive to other people, to situations, to unfolding events. Its basic aim is **depth of experience**. > There are no road maps or rules for this way of downshifting. It is spending a few minutes letting your thoughts, feelings, and attention wander where they will. That may sound simple, but actually doing it is a real challenge—particularly for men and women whose minds are trained to process task after task and who feel good being productive. Hence, it takes **a focused effort in order to “unfocus.”** > Until about twenty years ago, cognitive neuroscientists thought our brains were idling, like a parked car with its engine running, when we weren’t focusing on a task. However, a large body of evidence now indicates that **our minds remain active all the time**. When we are thinking about doing something and when we are actually doing it, we utilize a particular neural network. But when we stop focusing and doing, another set of circuits lights up. This happens automatically, by default, and hence is called the ***default network*.** > > Recent research on the default network suggests that periods of quiet, contemplative reflection may serve a wide range of purposes. It may be a source of creativity, enable children to engage fully in play, help us with conscious planning for the future, heighten our self-awareness, raise our emotional intelligence, and enhance our moral judgments. There are even indications that **the time we spend with our minds “idling” actually improves our conscious, analytical thinking about tasks.** In his interviews, managers shared some of the ways they practiced this kind of downshifting: - **Mental meandering and wandering** — giving yourself the permission to [wander ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/)not just mentally but even physically. Often we are so driven that we don't give ourselves the permission to just *be*. - **Deliberately slowing down** by engaging in any activity that gets you out of your standard routine and environment. Writing in a journal in a separate place from where you typically work can trigger a different set of thoughts and emotions. - **Time in nature** can be truly transformative that creates a sense of awe and wonder. Our particular set of problems often seem puny in front of the timelessness of what surrounds us. It's what Oliver Burkeman calls [cosmic insignificance therapy](https://www.oliverburkeman.com/nobigdeal?ref=leadingsapiens.com). But it doesn't have to be that fancy either. It could be as simple as spending time mindfully with kids and pets as well. - **Finding ways to notice, acknowledge and celebrate**, even if it's a [small win](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). In our go-getter culture, too often we forget to notice what we've already achieved. Pausing to celebrate, breaks this **cycle of constant striving and focusing on deficits rather than gains**. ## 3\. Ponder your hard issues > This type of reflection is a way of working through really challenging issues, at work and throughout life. It says to step back and make a conscious effort to look at a problem or a situation from **several different perspectives**. Pondering can help you gain a fuller understanding of a complex issue and show you which aspects of it really matter. > > Pondering is turning something over in your mind, like a woodcarver gradually shaping a piece of wood. One manager gave a succinct, practical definition of pondering. She said, “You’ve got the linear perspective, which is important, but then you have to develop for yourself a way of finding other angles on things.” The aim of pondering is depth of understanding, and the classics and the interviews provide a wide range of ways to do this. > It is trying to grasp what really matters about an issue or a problem by coming back to it again and again and looking at it from a variety of angles. Pondering supposes that hard issues have different facets and angles, and each is worth at least some consideration. Hence, instead of making quick judgments, you are sifting through a range of possibilities and seeing what you can learn. Pondering relies on [what the poet John Keats called “negative capability”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/)—that is, the skill of “being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.” > > [Looking at a problem or a question from different perspectives](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/multi-frame-thinking/) may sound easy, but it isn’t. We often respond to complex situations with quick, instinctive, definitive reactions or answers. Even worse, we often stick like glue to our initial positions. And these aren’t just bad habits—we seem to be hardwired to behave this way. > > A recent book, *Thinking, Fast and Slow* by Daniel Kahneman, presents a vast range of experiments and real-world examples showing that **we are spring-loaded to produce fast and firm convictions** on a wide range of topics and questions. “Slow” thinking, which is akin to **pondering, is our biological and evolutionary exception, not the Darwinian rule**. Pondering is a specific way of thinking and very different from plain rumination. Here are some strategies for building your muscle of pondering: - **Deliberately** [**shifting your mindset**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/) by thinking on a problem in a different place, using a different method, or taking an opposite stance to it. He gives the simple example of a manager using his whiteboard (away from his desk) and simply doodling solutions (less analytical than writing). - **Using anchor questions** that give direction and center your thinking. It's easy to lose track and go down rabbit holes when pondering important, emotionally laden issues. Anchoring questions help to keep coming back to the central problem you are trying to tackle. Examples would be: "What would X person do in this situation?" or "What would it actually look like – in vivid detail – if I were to take this step?" or "What am I trying to avoid here?" - **Talking with yourself** — this can literally be holding a question and answer session with yourself or using a journal where you record answers to specific questions. The interesting part is how the conversation evolves as you answer each question. Revisiting your responses after a few days or weeks can be equally revealing. - **Living with your question —** practice progressive procrastination. If the decision can wait, then let it simmer in the background. Often, ceding active control can yield creative answers. Another method is allocating a fixed amount of time to ruminate, or scheduling dedicated time in the future to worry about something. ## 4\. Pause and measure up > This is reflection for times when you have to decide and act. Its focus is depth of impact. It is asking **what really matters** about what you are doing or planning to do. > ... > Grasping what really matters about what we decide and do means answering **two questions**. Both are serious and sometimes profound. > > The first asks: **Are my decisions and actions** [**measuring up to the standards**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) **I have for myself and the standards others expect me to meet?** The second question focuses on the longer-term impact of what we do. It asks: As I make decisions and act over the course of days, weeks, and longer periods of time, **am I becoming the kind of person I want to become?** > Seeing ourselves as we are is the most challenging aspect of measuring up. An avalanche of experience and evidence—from serious literature, the long historical record, the wisdom of many different faiths, and the findings of contemporary social science—tell us that we routinely do a poor job of seeing ourselves as we are. If we had a scale for measuring up, our thumb would be on it most of the time. The book goes further into the details of each principle and is well worth the time invested. [Step Back](https://amzn.to/3lbAPxB?ref=leadingsapiens.com) is a short but eminent read that looks into an oft neglected aspect of leadership, but is also refreshingly different from your typical business bestseller. It's a meditation in itself that draws on a variety of both ancient and modern sources, and balances it well by drawing insights from interviews with contemporary managers living busy lives. ## Related reading - Balancing action with reflection is a key aspect of [self development in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). This post was a "how to", looking into the mechanics and practice of reflection. If you are curious [why reflection is so critical](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/), I delved into it in **The Importance of Reflection in Leadership**. - Badaracco mentions John Keats' notion of negative capability — I did a deep dive into [why negative capability is critical for leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). ### Sources 1. [Step Back: Bringing the Art of Reflection into Your Busy Life](https://amzn.to/3lbAPxB?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Joseph L. Badaracco 2. More on the book and the research behind it: [https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-pause-that-brings-peace-and-productivity](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/the-pause-that-brings-peace-and-productivity?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Video of Badaracco discussing the book: ### Do Leaders Have to Be Confident? URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:42:42.000Z *What's the role of confidence in leadership? Is it a requirement for being an effective leader? How confident are you about your confidence?* --- ## Confidence, on sale Looking at the brochure of one leadership program, it seems confidence is necessary to be an effective leader and that all successful leaders are confident. This intuitively makes sense — after all **who would want to follow a shaky leader**. You might also come across so called "**confidence coaches**". Supposedly these folks have figured out the formula and you will be ultra confident on short notice. Unfortunately, I don't have such super skills and neither can I teach you to be confident. But it's interesting to **consider what the underlying assumptions are** of someone who's looking for a confidence coach and wants to become confident. The clues are in the term "looking for" and that c**onfidence is a noun rather than a verb**. There are **two common but misguided premises:** 1. In order to do something or be somebody you need to have confidence. Essentially confidence is a requirement but more importantly it's external and you have to "acquire it" **before* *you can act like or do something**. 2. People who have it made are in fact confident, or that confidence was a key factor in getting them there. Here **confidence is considered a causal factor**. As to the first, hundreds of biographies and autobiographies show that many successful leaders were not actually as confident as we make them out to be. They might not have displayed this externally, but internally they were anything but confident, albeit in varying degrees and depending on the situation and domain. More importantly, they didn't let it become an impediment. Paradoxically, **often it was the very lack of confidence which enabled behaviors** that helped in reaching their heights. The ones who typically are eternally confident often are sociopaths disconnected from others and reality. **It's the con who's often the most confident.** For the second one, [we are getting the causation wrong](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). The plain simple fact is that confidence often is an effect, rather than a cause of success. The social science writer Erik Barker captures this nuance in his book [Barking Up the Wrong Tree](https://amzn.to/3Hw9XQE?ref=leadingsapiens.com). In his usual self deprecating but insightful manner, he addresses common notions around oft-used terms like self esteem and confidence that we misunderstand in an age of constant promotion and exposure to perfect lives that the media portrays. Barker puts it this way: ## Believing in yourself is nice. Forgiving yourself is better.‌‌ > **Self-compassion beats self-esteem.** I’d like to think that I’m the Jason Bourne of social science writing, but I’m probably a lot closer to its court jester. And that’s okay. We don’t need to see ourselves as larger than life and it’s often better if we don’t. You don’t want to fall into denial or be a jerk. You want to keep learning but not feel bad about yourself. > > You need to **avoid self-worth that is contingent on fantasy-based illusions or constantly proving yourself**. So be self-compassionate. It’s got all the upsides of confidence without the downsides. ## Adjust for your natural level of self-esteem‌ > **Are you normally pretty confident?** Then enjoy the benefits but keep an eye out for delusion and stay empathetic. Seek situations that challenge you to keep yourself humble. Strive to keep an open mind instead of assuming you already know the answer. Be nice. Don’t end up as an emperor in your own mind. > > **Do you lack confidence?** No problem. You’ll naturally learn faster than those know-it-alls and you’ll make more friends. Focus your efforts in quantifiable areas where competence can be accurately measured so you don’t have to sweat issues of perception. (Nobody cares if I’m confident in person as long as the words come out okay on the page.) **Become great at what you do and confidence will increase**. Which leads us to our next point . ## Absolutely have to have more confidence? Earn it. > **Confidence is a result of success, not a cause.** So in spite of my fevered recommendation of self-compassion, if you still want to focus on confidence, **the surest path is to become really good at what you do**. > > When [Daniel Chambliss studied top swimmers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/), he found that by them [focusing on “small wins” ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/)every day their skills progressed and their confidence in their abilities did too. When you have a competitive mind-set you always risk underperforming and feeling like a loser. **When challenged, focus on improving your skills—not doing well or looking good.** > > Studies show [“get-better goals”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/#4-performance-goals-vs-learningmastery-goals) increase motivation, make tasks more interesting, and replenish energy. This effect carries over to subsequent tasks. As always, [pick the right pond](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/#6-environment). G. Richard Shell of Wharton said that surrounding yourself with those who believe in you can lead to “transferred expectations” and a self-fulfilling prophecy, which increases confidence. You can become more confident over time with hard work. As Alfred Binet, inventor of the IQ test, said about intelligence, “**It is not always the people who start out the smartest who end up the smartest.**” ## Don't be a faker > Faking it is too hard and the price of failure is too high. The short-term benefits of impressing others aren’t worth being labeled untrustworthy and moving to Moldova. Even if you’re successful in tricking others, this all too often leads to tricking yourself, which is the most dangerous scenario of all. As Richard Feynman famously said, “**The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool**.” > *...* > What’s that extra thing that self-compassion brings us that’s so darn special? It’s a little thing called “**wisdom**.” I’m not being sappy or poetic here either. In a study titled “Self-Kindness When Facing Stress,” they found that being compassionate with yourself was actually correlated with being wise. Not just IQ points or knowledge, wisdom. (How many things that you do every day can you really say are making you wiser?) > > Harshly judging yourself as good or bad, as immediately successful or unsuccessful, is very black and white and narrow-minded. **To achieve wisdom, you need a little more flexibility, acceptance, and the learning that comes with growth**. Think about the wisest people you’ve known. Were they full of bluster and hubris? Or utterly without confidence? They were probably calm and understanding, forgiving and less judgmental. We’d all like to achieve that level of wisdom one day. And self-compassion is a great first step. ## You and your confidence Confidence tends to get automatically associated with leadership, and one common interpretation is that of an absence of doubt. We've been **trained to treat doubt and anxiety as negative signals**, when in fact they're often just noise and part of playing the game at a higher level. Giving them the elevated status of key indicators leads us to go looking outside of ourselves in order to fix this "condition" that we are suffering from. The mistake is to treat confidence as some sort of ingredient for success when the reality is that it's often a product of it. At the same time, **internal doubt doesn't stop you from taking confident action**. You can have a realistic assessment of your chances of succeeding, while at the same time being aware of what you need to work on and focusing on your efforts . Confidence is more about [your relationship with doubt rather than a total absence of it](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/), or trying to eliminate it. [**Courage**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) **tends to be a better word than confidence**, because it means acting in the face of, rather than in the absence of something. In the same vein, confidence is not the absence of doubt, but [taking actions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/) confidently even in the face of it. > The cowards never started. The weak died along the way. That leaves us. > > — Phil Knight in Shoe Dog As with many things that have to be earned not just wanted, **confidence can't necessarily be pursued, but rather it has to ensue**. It follows out of the work and effort that we put in over time, from **overcoming and becoming**. --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Sources 1. [Barking Up the Wrong Tree](https://amzn.to/3Hw9XQE?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Eric Barker. 2. Eric Barker's blog: [https://bakadesuyo.com](https://bakadesuyo.com/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. [Shoe Dog](https://amzn.to/3nezmYB?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Phil Knight ### Why Netflix Leads with Context not Control URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:51:09.000Z *Control was the dominant management paradigm in early twentieth century industrial factories. A century later, in many modern workplaces it continues to be dominant and mostly goes unquestioned. Often we don’t even realize that this is the case.* *But in knowledge work, *context is a far more effective* and sustainable approach to performance, than control. *What is leading by context and how is it different from leading by control?* Unfortunately, most managers are unaware of this subtle but fundamental difference in approach to people and organizations.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## The anomaly that is Netflix Consider the following list of policies that are considered “standard” in most organizations: > Vacation Policies, Expense Policies, Decision-Making Approvals, Decision Making by Committee, Performance Improvement Plans, Key Performance Indicators, Management by Objectives, Travel Policies, Approval Processes, Contract Sign-Offs, Salary Bands, Pay Grades, Pay-Per-Performance Bonuses, Raise Pools > > — from No Rules Rules by Reed Hastings, Erin Meyer These are pervasive to the point where we take them for granted and don’t question their existence. The ones listed are pretty standard ones but it doesn’t stop there. Based on the organization and type of work, there’s a million different variations and additional types of controls that management imposes to increase “compliance”. **Netflix is a 100 billion+ dollar company and operates without any of the above policies.** How do they pull it off? The clue is in one of their leadership mantras: “**Lead with context, not control**”. > As a society, we’ve had hundreds of years to work on managing industrial firms, so a lot of accepted HR practices are centered in that experience. We’re just beginning to learn how to run creative firms, which is quite different. Industrial firms thrive on reducing variation (manufacturing errors); creative firms thrive on increasing variation (innovation). > > — Reed Hastings quoted in How Netflix Reinvented HR by Patty McCord in Harvard Business Review ## Leading through control What drives performance and results? Thousands of books, and even more thousands of research papers have been written about performance and how to improve it. But at it’s very basic, **the simplest model is that actions and behavior drive performance**. Thus changing actions changes the ensuing performance and results. All typical managerial actions are designed to directly influence actions and behavior and generally fall into two buckets: **hard and soft**. \[2,3\] ![Leading through control.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Leading-through-Control.excalidraw.png) **Hard approaches** are based on **data, structures, and financial stimuli** — think KPIs, OKRs, org charts, processes, functions, reorgs, quality metrics, training, and policies amongst others. **Soft approaches** are based on **psychological stimuli** — think incentives (cash and non-cash) , disincentives, punitive measures, “morale boosting” activities like team building, recognitions, off sites, office socials, holiday parties and so on. Both approaches, are supposed to drive the “right” kinds of behavior and thus performance. When performance falters, management goes right back to modifying these levers. The fundamental problem is that this **tries to cure the symptoms rather than the cause** thus creating a never ending vicious loop. The mistake is in trying to intervene in the action itself. ## Leading through context In both hard and soft approaches that epitomize control, **the underlying ethos is of controlling the individual and one main assumption** — that people cannot be trusted to do the right thing or take the best decision, and that **they won’t do it without external oversight or the right incentives.** Bear in mind, we are talking about systems and assumptions that have been in place for over two centuries dating back to the industrial revolution. So even employees have been programmed to think that way. **Context** on the other hand, assumes that people will make the right decisions and take the right action, given the right input. The leader and manager’s role is not necessarily to dictate and direct the action but rather on creating an environment that enables the right behavior. ![Lead with context not control](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Leading-through-Context-not-Control.excalidraw-1.png) Every decision and the actions that follow have an overarching context in which they are undertaken. **Managers should be focused on influencing this context.** In their book [No Rules Rules](https://amzn.to/3DjwXkk?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Reed Hastings and Erin Meyer highlight why Netflix emphasizes context over control, and how they go about it. > **If you’ve got high-performing employees, leading with context is best**. To encourage original thinking, don’t tell your employees what to do and make them check boxes. Give them the context to dream big, the inspiration to think differently, and the space to make mistakes along the way. > ... > The best managers figure out how to get great outcomes by setting the appropriate context, rather than by trying to control their people. > **Leadership with control** is familiar to most. The boss approves and directs the initiatives, actions, and decisions of the team. Sometimes she may control employees’ decisions through direct oversight—telling them what to do, checking in frequently, and correcting any work that isn’t done as she desires. Other times she may seek to empower her employees more, avoiding direct oversight but putting control processes in place instead. > **Leading with context**, on the other hand, is **more difficult**, but gives considerably more freedom to employees. You provide all of the information you can so that your team members make great decisions and accomplish their work without oversight or process controlling their actions. The benefit is that **the person builds the decision-making muscle** to make better independent decisions in the future. The **biggest difference between the context and control approaches** is autonomy and leeway to make both small and large decisions, ability to use creativity and ingenuity, and using real time responsiveness to complexity rather than behaviors based on rules dictated from above. **But for context to work, there are underlying conditions** to make sure that it in fact works. Some industries, like nuclear for example, are probably not as well suited for context to work at an organizational level. In contrast, more creative fields have a natural advantage. Even then, at the managerial and individual levels context is still a lot more effective approach over control. In the day to day decision making of individual contributors, setting context gives more autonomy and creates more engagement compared to controlling every step of the process. ## Three requirements for context to work Hastings and Meyer highlight three preconditions that have to be in place for context to work across entire organizations: 1. High talent density. 2. Goal as innovation rather than error prevention. 3. Balance of alignment and [loose coupling](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/loose-coupling/). ### 1\. High talent density > The first question you need to answer when choosing whether to lead with context or control is, “What is the level of talent density of my staff?” > > If your employees are struggling, you’ll need to monitor and check their work to ensure they are making the right decisions. **If you’ve got a group of high performers, they’ll most likely crave freedom and thrive if you lead with context.** ### 2\. Innovation vs safety (eg. Target vs Exxon) > You also have to consider your industry, and what you are trying to achieve. …The second key question to ask is whether your goal is error prevention or innovation. > > **If your focus is on eliminating mistakes, then control is best**. ExxonMobil is in a safety-critical market. Its sites need hundreds of safety procedures to minimize the risk of people getting hurt. Control mechanisms are a necessity when you’re trying to run a dangerous operation profitably with as few accidents as possible. ### 3\. Balancing high alignment and loose coupling #### Tightly vs loosely coupled companies > A tightly coupled system is one in which the various components are intricately intertwined. If you want to make a change to one area of the system, you have to go back and rework the foundation, which impacts not just the section you need to change, but the entire system. > > By contrast, **a** [**loosely coupled**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/loose-coupling/) **design system has few interdependencies** between the component parts. They are designed so that each can be adapted without going back and changing the foundation. > > **When a company is tightly coupled, big decisions get made by the big boss and pushed down to the departments**, often creating interdependencies between the various areas of the business. If a problem occurs at the departmental level, it has to go back to the boss who oversees all of the departments. > > Meanwhile, **in a loosely coupled company, an individual manager or employee is free to make decisions or solve problems, safe in the knowledge that the consequences will not ricochet through other departments.** #### Highly Aligned > If loose coupling is to work effectively, with big decisions made at the individual level, then the boss and the employees must be in lockstep agreement on their destination. **Loose coupling works only if there is a clear, shared context between the boss and the team**. That alignment of context drives employees to make decisions that support the mission and strategy of the overall organization. This is why the mantra at Netflix is HIGHLY ALIGNED, LOOSELY COUPLED ## Creating context takes more skill and work So [why don’t managers focus on context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/)? For one, **it’s not easy and goes against the grain of default behavior.** Secondly, it takes a lot more work and persistence to ensure context, as opposed to the easy way of putting controls in place and expecting them to do the magic, or simply throwing more resources and processes at recurring problems. Hastings outlines how he goes about setting context from a CEO’s perspective. It’s obvious that **context clearly takes a lot more work** compared to just barking orders and expecting everyone to follow directives from up above. > I use a handful of methods for setting context across the company, but my primary platforms are our Executive Staff and our Quarterly Business Review (QBR) meetings. A few times a year we bring together all the leaders (top 10 to 15 percent of people) of the company from around the world. > ... > The number one goal for these meetings is to make sure that all leaders across the company are highly aligned on what I call our North Star: the general direction we are running in. We don’t need to be aligned on how each department is going to get where they are going—that we leave to the individual areas—but we do need to make sure we are all moving in the same direction. > ... > Between QBRs, I hold ongoing one-on-one meetings to get a feel for how aligned we actually are and where context is lacking. I have one thirty-minute meeting with each director once a year. That makes about **250 hours of meetings with people who are three to five levels below me** in the org chart. In addition, I meet with each vice president (two to three levels below me) for one hour every quarter. This results in **another 500 hours of meetings annually.** > ... > These **one-on-one meetings** help me to better understand the context in which our employees are working, and alert me to areas where our leadership is not aligned so that I can revisit key points at the next round of QBR meetings. Creating the context to enable better decisions further downstream **not only takes more skill but also more investment of time upfront.** ## What it looks like If you are leading through context what does it look like in practice? Hastings and Meyer give some examples. ### An alternative to expense policies > During the ten years that David Wells was CFO he set the first round of context for incoming recruits at our “New Employee College.” He explained it like this: > > Before you spend any money imagine that you will be asked to stand up in front of me and your own boss and explain why you chose to purchase that specific flight, hotel, or telephone. If you can explain comfortably why that purchase is in the company’s best interest, then no need to ask, go ahead and buy it. But if you’d feel a little uncomfortable explaining your choice, skip the purchase, check in with your boss, or buy something cheaper. > > This is what I mean by “**context at the front end**.” David’s instruction to imagine explaining your purchases to your bosses is not a simple exercise in make-believe. If you aren’t careful with your spending, you likely WILL have to explain your purchases. ### The decision making pyramid vs tree > The pyramid decision-making structure … is easily recognizable in the majority of organizations, regardless of industry or location. Either the boss makes the decision and pushes it down the pyramid for implementation, or those at lower levels make the smaller decisions but refer the bigger issues to the higher-ups. > > But at Netflix…the informed captain is the decision maker, not the boss. The boss’s job is to set the context that leads the team to make the best decisions for the organization. If we follow this leadership system from the CEO all the way to the informed captain, we see that **it works not so much like a pyramid but more like a tree, with the CEO sitting all the way down at the roots and the informed captain up at the top branches making decisions**. ### Is it their mistake or did you fail to set context? > When one of your people does something dumb, don’t blame that person. Instead, ask yourself what context you failed to set. Are you articulate and inspiring enough in expressing your goals and strategy? Have you clearly explained all the assumptions and risks that will help your team to make good decisions? Are you and your employees highly aligned on vision and objectives? ### Are you still making all the decisions? > You know you’re successfully leading with context when your people are moving the team in the desired direction by using the information they’ve received from you and those around you to make great decisions themselves. ### Video: Reed Hastings explaining leading with context not control ## Related reading Context continues to be an under leveraged aspect of leadership. When in doubt, consider the poem below from Antoine de Saint-Exupery that perfectly captures the essence and dynamic of context vs control: > If you want to build a ship, > don’t drum up the people > to gather wood, divide the > work, and give orders. > > Instead, teach them to yearn > for the vast and endless sea. > > — Antoine de Saint-Exupery - In **Importance of Mastering Context in Leadership** I take a deeper, higher level look at [what makes context so effective in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). - Unfortunately, leaders continue to delve in the paradigm of control. In **Tyranny of Content and Control** I look into [why leaders keep focusing on control and content](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). - The [**Netflix culture deck**](https://igormroz.com/documents/netflix%5Fculture.pdf?ref=leadingsapiens.com)that went viral in 2009 is still a valuable read for unconventional but common sense approaches to building teams and organizations. - [**No Rules Rules**](https://amzn.to/3DjwXkk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) is an excellent read, if not for anything but to challenge what's often taken for granted about performance and organizations. [Loose Coupling: Rethinking Control in OrganizationsTraditional management emphasizes strict control, clear hierarchies, and uniform processes. This approach, rooted in industrial-era thinking, promises efficiency and predictability. However, loose-coupling is a compelling alternative to traditional tightly-coupled approaches. In this piece, I revisit Karl Weick’s notion of loose-coupling in organizations and its impact on control and flexibility.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-85.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Loose-Coupling.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/loose-coupling/) ### Sources and references 1. [No Rules Rules: Netflix and the Culture of Reinvention](https://amzn.to/3DjwXkk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Reed Hastings and Erin Meyer. 2. Strategic Workforce Engagement by Yves Morieux and Robert Howard, Boston Consulting Group. 3. [Six Simple Rules: How to Manage Complexity without Getting Complicated](https://amzn.to/3He6sOz?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Yves Morieux and Peter Tollman. 4. Latest Netflix culture page with some more good examples: [https://jobs.netflix.com/culture](https://jobs.netflix.com/culture?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 5. [How Netflix Reinvented HR](https://hbr.org/2014/01/how-netflix-reinvented-hr?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Patty McCord in Harvard Business Review. ### MBWA : The Lost Art of Managing by Wandering Around URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/ Last updated: 2026-04-02T18:16:28.000Z *Managing effectively using data is all the rage today. But most of it is shallow "hard data". The real challenge is to get so called “soft data”. How do you get the real pulse of your teams, or your customer’s true opinion?* *There’s a simple method that can tell you more than any amount of data. Most *managers either don’t do it, or simply miss the point* of the whole exercise. It’s the lost art of *MBWA – Managing by Wandering Around*.* ‌ 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What is MBWA? MBWA stands for managing by wandering around. Variations include wandering about, or walking about. The military calls it “battlefield circulation” while others call it “visible management”. Lean methodology calls it the “gemba walk”. But the core idea is the same. It is to break through the walls of organizational bureaucracy by using **informal communication channels**. How? Simply by walking around and having direct one on one conversations. Sounds too simple? As with many simple ideas, it's not necessarily the method but the **consistency of execution that makes it potent**. Managers and leaders can easily become ensconced in a disconnected reality of paperwork, functions, organizational silos and titles. It’s about **getting out of that bubble** and cutting through the typical hierarchy and filters to understand what’s really going on directly from the frontlines. > You can’t lead from your office/cubicle. You lead on the shop floor or, for that matter, in the customer’s or vendor’s place of business. You lead, damn it, by staying in direct touch with the action that matters. And it gets harder and harder and harder as the company gets bigger and bigger and bigger.‌‌‌‌ > > …the faster things change, the more important MBWA becomes. In fact, MBWA for me has become not a “thing to regularly do” but a metaphor for a way of life and **style of leadership fit for eternity** and, especially, fit for these crazy times. ‌‌‌‌ > > MBWA means jumping directly into the fray, not via spreadsheets (which are important to the extent that they are realistic—few are) but through **conversation at the proverbial “coal face”—where the grubby digging is done.**‌‌‌‌ > > — Tom Peters in The Excellence Dividend MBWA applies equally to the factory floor and to remote teams. With remote teams it can be harder, but I would argue even more important to do. In remote setups, **almost all interactions become “scheduled” conversations** that impose formality. The idea behind MBWA is to go past formal setups that restrict communication. It can take any number of forms: informal one on ones, water cooler talk, hallway conversations, coffee chats, shop floor interactions and even schmoozing. The mechanism doesn't matter. **The key differentiator is whether you do it, and how you go about it.** The terminology belies it’s simplicity. When done well it can be an effective way to build resilient teams and strong customer relations. ## The rise and fall of MBWA It's easy to dismiss it as just another fad, but one of the earliest practitioners of MBWA was **President Lincoln**. Recognizing that the White House was an ivory tower cut off from reality, he was regularly on the battlefront, once even getting shot. He sacked one of his generals for being too isolated. And back in the office, a majority of his time was spent meeting ordinary people. ![President Lincoln on the frontlines practicing MBWA](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/President-Lincoln---MBWA-2.jpg) President Lincoln on the frontlines practicing MBWA MBWA originated at Hewlett Packard in the 60s and 70s, later popularized by the book [In Search of Excellence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/in-search-of-excellence-attributes-best-run-companies/) in the 80s. But in the ensuing years, it’s popularity has waned. Why? One major reason is easy access to lots of “data” giving managers the illusion of having an accurate or complete picture of reality. If anything, MBWA should be even more relevant now because it gives the exact kind of **detail that data cannot capture**. Often it’s just what’s needed to get a balanced view rather than one skewed by **the smoke and mirrors of "hard data"**, which often ends up a mirage and fallacy. One genuine conversation in the field or with a customer can give you more data than a hundred superficial surveys. ## How not to do MBWA Most articles focus on the “how” of doing MBWA. But that’s unnecessarily complicating it. It's far more useful to know how managers botch it up. Many of **our default behaviors end up having the opposite effect** of what MBWA is supposed to do. It's easier to be **smart by not being stupid**. - **Doing it for the sake of doing it.** You do it because someone told you to, simply checking it off your list. To be effective, you have to be genuinely curious and actually care. People can sense when you are being superficial and simply want to get something done. You don’t want to turn this into cringe exercise for your folks or your customers. - **Too much of “**[**active listening**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/)**”.** Just listen and be present. For most folks [active listening is simply a distraction](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/). It makes you do too many things, and not enough of actual listening. - **Going in with a script.** You have to be willing to be vulnerable. The moment you rely on script, it kills spontaneity and effectiveness. The “information” you are after can’t necessarily be pursued. Rather it has to ensue as a result of the rich interactions. When done wrong it can easily turn into micromanaging. - **Being the “coach”.** Please don't. Rather, be willing to *be* coached. Too often coaching and "helpful pointers" derail the conversation and put folks on the defensive. - **Going in with an agenda.** When you have agendas on your mind to actively get something out of it, you are not paying attention to what’s right in front of you. You miss out on a rich dataset because you are preoccupied. - **Dictating or preaching.** Usually this ends up being a monologue or simply another form of micromanaging and **trying to control the process**. Listening and engaging should be the priority, not pontificating. - **"Catching" people in the act.** The idea is not to ignore wrongdoing but instead focusing on what's going right. - **Going with an entourage.** This is especially relevant to CEOs and execs. The idea is connection, not alienation. ## Why most managers fail to do MBWA > Aimless wandering takes discipline. ‌‌‌‌ > > — Tom Peters Inspite of its effectiveness, most managers simply won't do it, and usually there are logical sounding reasons not to. Many others "intend" to, but never get around to doing it. Some common reasons: - They are afraid to hear exactly what they don't want to : **the uncomfortable truth**. That the customer dislikes the product, that no one is following the new initiative, or that the new process is in fact broken. It's easier to hide behind data or to wait for it passively. - It doesn’t work right away and initially **can feel like a waste of time**. - They think they already know everything there is to know or that they have all the "data". - It [risks looking foolish and “naive”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/), especially in the beginning when you’ve never done it. It requires a degree of vulnerability which most managers have been trained not to exhibit. - They claim to not have the bandwidth. - Listening well and **asking questions takes work**. Staying patient until something emerges is one of the hardest things to do. - The unpredictability of the process causes uncertainty and anxiety which causes discomfort. **We like the expected predictability and structures of formal meetings** where everyone has a predefined role. The lack of structure forces you to step out of your normal roles. But that's exactly what makes it effective. Every engagement is unique and unexpected. It’s why the pros will do it while the amateurs will shy away. - Disengaged managers will rarely do it. The process can be demanding, and requires commitment and energy. - It can often look like schmoozing, meanwhile **meetings look and feel like “real work”** but the often it's the exact opposite. - Some managers are afraid that it will be seen as micromanaging. Done the wrong way, it will surely come across that way. - They think the **“open door policy”** is a good substitute for MBWA. It’s not. Most folks hesitate to “waste” your time. They come to you only when there’s a crisis, or when they have something important. But many large issues start off as seemingly unimportant roadblocks. > The average harried manager remains tied to her or his desk or screen and over time loses touch with reality. Advanced artificial intelligence may be reading faces on screens and assessing moods with some accuracy, but being “in touch” with all one’s senses and with every sort of player in the organization remains of the utmost importance, remains the heart of the matter. ‌‌‌‌ > > True transformation (a word I usually avoid like the plague) will mainly come from a **dozen new little habits, not some bullshit values statement** that nine out of ten employees find laughable because the isolated boss is so unaware of the degree to which it has no impact or veracity in the field…where, to re-re-repeat myself, the real work, as always, is done. > > ‌‌‌‌...The good MBWA intentions are not fulfilled (for “good” reasons), and you end the day one more degree out of touch than you were when the sun came up. Soon, alas, you will become a **MBM—Managerial Blind Man**. Awash in numbers and spreadsheets, clueless about the real world—and, believe it, big data and algorithmic voodoo ain’t gonna save you, my friend.‌‌‌‌ > > — Tom Peters in The Excellence Dividend ## Why MBWA is vital for effective leadership > Walking around enables the perceptive leader to judge the organization’s psyche, morale, readiness, toughness, inventiveness. He or she may hear valuable scuttlebutt, rumors, misinformation. Always being around is a way for managers to sense the cultural pulse of the company. Being in the fray is another way to spot future stars, notice behavior issues, observe interpersonal chemistry challenges. > > …Walking around does not mean you have to help load the trucks or solve the big marketing problem, but it does mean **you will know who are the good truck loaders and good marketing mavens**, and who are not. > > ‌‌‌‌— Jeffrey J Fox in How to be a fierce competitor ### 1\. Understanding your audience MBWA helps you understand the “world of your audience” and thus informs all your interactions. It gives rich [context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) when you communicate which enables a **connected dialogue instead of a disconnected monologue**. This is true not just for your own team but customers as well. It's hard to build genuine relationships when you are detached from the realities of what your teams and customers face on a daily basis. And you will not get this from formal reports or feedback surveys. Most folks are not good about communicating what troubles them. But catch them at different times of the day and you might get different answers. Measuring **employee engagement** can be done by questionnaires, but they cannot beat realtime one on one feedback from the field. Same for **customer satisfaction surveys**. ### 2\. Going beyond instrumental communication Most communication in organizations tends to be instrumental. It’s a means to an end and people pick up on it. **Non-instrumental, non-hierarchical interaction** is a rarity that enables rich, open exchanges. Without having a mechanism to access the nuances, what you get through formal channels will always be devoid of depth. And neither can you game it or time it. You cannot show up once a year and expect the customer to “open up”. It requires investment of time, effort, and engagement, coupled with the risk of coming out empty. The four star general [Stan McChrystal, compares leadership to gardening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/), and MBWA is essentially the leader’s daily and primary task. > Gardeners plant and harvest, but more than anything, they *tend*. Plants are watered, beds are fertilized, and weeds are removed. Long days are spent walking humid pathways or on sore knees examining fragile stalks. Regular visits by good gardeners are not pro forma gestures of concern—they leave the crop stronger. So it is with leaders. > > ‌‌‌‌The military term is **“battlefield circulation”** and it refers to senior leaders’ visiting locations and units. ...Most of these visits had multiple objectives: to increase the leader’s understanding of the situation, to communicate guidance to the force, and to lead and inspire. A good visit can accomplish all three, but a bad visit can leave subordinates confused and demoralized.‌‌‌‌ > > Visits offer an opportunity to gain insights absent from formal reports that have passed through the layers of a bureaucracy.‌‌‌‌ > > — General Stanley McChrystal in Team of Teams MBWA promotes ownership and engagement, and enables what Alvin Toffler called **adhocracy** — informal but highly adaptive organizational structures that are responsive. It works outside of standard organizational channels that tend to be one-to-many rather than bi-directional. ### 3\. Balancing top down vs bottom up [Balancing top down and bottom up approaches](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) to strategy is critical but rare. Folks on the frontlines are the ones in direct communication with customers and thus most aware. But they don’t have the top level view that executives might have. How do you bridge this gap? By making sure there’s [free flow of information](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/) not just top down but bottom up as well. MBWA enables this dynamic by building natural feedback loops. It bypasses organizational filters putting you straight at the source. Big problems often start small. If you are paying attention you can be ahead of the curve. > If you wait for people to come to you, you’ll only get small problems. You must go and find them. The big problems are where people do not realize they have one in the first place. ‌‌‌‌ > > —W. Edwards Deming ### 4\. Accelerating your learning curve In modern knowledge work, knowhow tends to be concentrated in silos. More often than not, teams know a lot more than the manager. MBWA done consistently over time can literally be **a crash course in what your team is actually doing,** how they get it done, and the typical roadblocks. A good 50-70% of this stuff never surfaces in formal meetings or discussions because no one thinks it’s worth mentioning. But that’s exactly what makes it valuable to surface. > To manage one must lead. To lead, one must understand the work that he and his people are responsible for. ‌‌‌‌ > > — W. Edwards Deming Informal tacit knowledge often cannot be captured. The only way to access it is through informal mechanisms like MBWA. ### 5\. Building trust How do you build trust? One way is to consistently show up, not just metaphorically but literally. **Visibility and credibility are more related than we think. Thugs don’t want to be seen.** MBWA gives leaders an opportunity to build relationships outside of hierarchy and instrumentality, through honest conversations and keeping things simple. It requires vulnerability and courage on the leader's part, and thus creates greater trust. > In organizations, real power and energy is generated through [relationships](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/relationship-level-of-communication/). The patterns of relationships and the [capacities](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/) to form them are more important than tasks, functions, roles, and positions. > > ‌‌‌‌— Margaret Wheatley We humans have a need to talk and be heard. Formal team meetings or project meetings don't often address these needs. MBWA is an effective way to hit on many of the core aspects of [what's needed for peak human performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). ### 6\. Leveraging the technology of talk MBWA allows a real conversation to evolve between two human beings and two peers, in contrast to the traditional manager-subordinate setup. In formal meetings, everyone shows up in their masks and behind their roles, which makes it hard to have a genuine, candid conversation. Managers forget that conversations are the basic building blocks of organizations and that [effective leadership is essentially effective conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/). MBWA is a potent framework to do just that. ## Some questions to consider - How many organizational layers does information filter through before getting to you? - How do you get most of your information? Is it primarily through reports and emails? - Are you intimate with the real problems on the ground? - How does your team get their work done? - Do you intimately know your team's pain points? What about your enduser/customer? - Do you have a good pulse on your team's morale and your customer's satisfaction? - Are you the first to know or the last to know when problems surface? - How do you "balance out" your data? Jack Welch once said, > There are only three measurements that tell you nearly everything you need to know about your organization’s overall performance: employee engagement, customer satisfaction and cash flow. MBWA is an effective way to address at least two of those three important parameters. What else is there to do? ## Related Articles [Active Listening: What It Originally MeantSensitive, active listening is exceedingly rare in our lives. We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding, true empathy. Yet listening, of this very special kind, is one of the most potent forces for change that I know. — Carl Rogers Listen, or your tongue will![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-231.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Active-Listening---Carl-Rogers-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) [The Dark Side of Active ListeningWe’re constantly told to be better communicators. As part of this push, courses and programs tell us to master what Carl Rogers called “active listening”. But this active approach towards listening can actually be counter productive and make your communication worse, not better. Consider some of the common recommedations of![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-232.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Dark-Side-of-Active-Listening-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/) ## Sources 1. [The HP Way](https://amzn.to/3HBCPZ3?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Packard. 2. [In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies](https://amzn.to/3iXxnpT?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman. 3. [The Excellence Dividend](https://amzn.to/3Hb9nHV?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Tom Peters. 4. [Team of Teams](https://amzn.to/3R7EnwM?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, with Tantum Collins , David Silverman, Chris Fussell. ### Still In Search of Excellence — Attributes of the Best Run Companies URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/in-search-of-excellence-attributes-best-run-companies/ Last updated: 2025-09-15T23:05:50.000Z According to one estimate, around 12,000 business books are published every year. But back in 1982 this was not the case. That was the year [In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies](https://amzn.to/3iXxnpT?ref=leadingsapiens.com) was published, long before the terms “business bestseller” or “business guru” became commonplace. In fact, it might have invented those terms and spawned an entirely new industry. In a genre defining format, two McKinsey consultants, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman, analyzed 43 of the most successful companies at the time to capture the essence of what made these top performers successful. I'm writing this post in 2023, after finally reading my own copy that sat on the shelf for 20 years. I ignored it precisely because of its success, dismissing it as cliched and simplistic. But now with the hindsight of two decades working in corporate, I am realizing simple doesn't mean easy, and is often harder. [Excellence is more mundane than we think](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) — it's the stringing together and execution, of a bunch of mundane actions over long periods of time, longer than most of us would want to or can. In the 2003 reprint, the authors, Tom Peter and Robert Waterman, added a note that’s a concise capture of their key findings. The attributes can also be read as a list of areas where companies commonly falter. Many organizations still don't get the basics right either due to a lack of attention, lack of competence, or plain ignorance. ## Three key ideas > First, people and organizations are not “rational” in the ways strategy, business, and organization are typically taught. It’s dangerous to try to force a simplistic and misguided rationality on the way we manage. [You cannot just manage “by the numbers.”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/) Don’t even think about it. > > Second, most of the management systems that treat people as “factors of production,” as cogs in an industrial machine, are inherently demotivating. People are wonderfully different and complex. [Leaders need to set people free to help, not try to harness them.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/) > > Third, the world is a confusing place, full of ambiguity. The [hardest thing to manage is the “soft stuff,”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/) especially culture. Yet without serious attention to the so-called soft stuff, leaders will fail. ## Eight attributes of excellence of the best companies ### 1\. A bias for action > In its simplest terms, this says “get out there and try something.” Just as you don’t learn anything in science without experimenting, you don’t learn anything in business without trying, failing, and trying again. The trick, and it’s a tough one, is a common cultural understanding of [what kind of failure is okay and what kind leads to disaster](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#experimental-vs-operational-failures). But don’t kid yourself. No amount of analysis, especially market research, will lead to true innovation. ### 2\. Close to the customer > This may be the hardest to accomplish and perhaps where our sample of excellent companies — IBM, Hewlett-Packard, K Mart, and even McDonald’s — got off the track. It’s hard. There’s so much to pay attention to inside an organization that has time to understand customers, especially when the set of customers includes distributors and wonderfully irrational end users. Yet Procter’s skill at keeping everyone in the organization in close touch with customers, combined with a formidable [innovative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/), may explain that company’s incredibly long history of success. ### 3\. Autonomy and entrepreneurship > Even if you’re big, [act small](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). Organizations are simply collections of people, and people don’t relate well to big, abstract entities. If you want to understand the success of Johnson & Johnson, 3M, Wal-Mart, and the original HP, look to the fact that they organize themselves into small, relatively independent units, held together by common goals and cultural norms. ### 4\. Productivity through people > As the youngsters say, “Duh!” What else counts in an organization except people? Everyone gives lip service to[ the importance of their people](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/), yet only a few really treat them as other than cannon fodder. One of the best examples we’ve ever seen was Delta Airlines with its “family feeling,” which was so special that in 1982 employees banded together to spend a total of $30 million in payroll deductions to give their employer its first Boeing 767, the *Spirit of Delta*. Sadly, Delta lost that family feeling, maybe when it merged with Western Airlines. ### 5\. Hands-on, value-driven > The idea is simple. Figure out what your company should stand for, what would give your people the most pride. Then actively manage toward that value system. Remember that profit is to business as breathing is to life. The top companies[**make meaning**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/)**, not just money**. ### 6\. Stick to the knitting > Except for one or two notable exceptions, for example, Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway and Jack Welch’s GE, business diversity almost never works. **Be particularly leery of the word *synergy*,** which sounds great — who doesn’t want 1 + 1 to equal 3? Well, our observation then and now is that **big mergers rarely work**. Further, nothing screws up a successful business more than [hyperfast growth](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/). ### 7\. Simple form, lean staff > Though [organizations are inherently quite complicated](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/), one ought not make them more so via complex organizational arrangements. Install a simple and workable structure; people will figure out the rest. Keep staff to a minimum, outsource a lot of staff activities, or use time-limited, project-oriented task forces (another form of the line organization). Big staffs, and most career staff people, always seem to get in the way of the folks in organizations who get the real work done. ### 8\. Simultaneous loose-tight properties > Any well-functioning organization is [neither centralized nor decentralized ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/)but a wonderful combination of both. Around most dimensions the best companies, then and now, are loose. They give people exceptional freedom to do things their own way. At the same time, the great companies are highly centralized around a few crucial dimensions: the central values that make up their culture, one or two (no more) top strategic priorities, and a few key financial indicators. One metric for the robustness of a book is whether its ideas withstand the test of time. Going through the list, it's obvious they captured some timeless truths whose simplicity belies their durability. In the ensuing years after publication, the book has come under a variety of criticism, including the scientific rigor of how the companies were shortlisted and their longevity. But putting that aside, the list is still a veritable checklist of common pitfalls that still ails companies. [Excellence is simple, even mundane,](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) but not necessarily easy or convenient. ## Sources and references 1. [In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best-Run Companies](https://amzn.to/3iXxnpT?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Thomas Peters and Robert Waterman 2. More on the history and criticism of the book: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In\_Search\_of\_Excellence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In%5FSearch%5Fof%5FExcellence?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### The Stupidity of My SMART Goals - Mistakes and Learnings URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/ Last updated: 2026-01-23T15:05:25.000Z *SMART goals is a widely accepted framework coming out of goal setting research. Every other organization uses it in some form with countless articles written on it.* *We don’t want to be dumb either, so we go about setting "smart" goals in personal areas as well. This includes yours truly. But looking back at my year, I missed most of them, in spite of following the framework assiduously.* *In hindsight, *my so called smart goals were actually stupid*. What were the critical mistakes and what will I do differently this year?* --- ## Why SMART goals are anything but smart The SMART acronym stands for Specific, Measurable, Ambitious or Actionable or Attractive, Realistic or Relevant, and Time bound. There are as many variations as there are authors. But the underlying ethos of the framework is to leverage **the motivation vs expectancy curve** to ensure we stay motivated and focused on our goals. ![Graph showing relationship of motivation and expectancy.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Motivation-vs-Expectancy.png) Put simply, effort is sustained and increases the more clearer and more achievable it looks, but only up to a certain point. SMART is supposed to help straddle that optimum balance between motivation and expectancy. **But in an effort to simplify, it ends up doing more harm than good.** Consider the following: - **Specificity**. Often what we are attempting is vague, especially in the early stages or when operating in complex domains with no clear criteria. **Clarity often emerges only in hindsight**. Trying to be specific upfront only ends up delaying first action. In contrast, **random “foolish” actions can create intelligence** that eventually leads to clarity and specific tasks. - **Measurable**. The framework is inherently performance based. Many studies have proven that learning goals, rather than measurement, are more effective at motivating intrinsically and sustaining engagement in the long run. Often things worth measuring, like qualities, are not measurable. Measurement also means being narrowly focused while potentially missing out on other feedback that might be more relevant - **Actionable/Attainable.** What do you do when the next action is not obvious or when there are too many competing actions? If all you attempt are attainable goals, why bother even setting them? - **Realistic/Relevant**. If we stick to only what’s realistic or relevant, it’s essentially binding us to what we already know thus preventing exploration. - **Time bound**. In complex, fuzzy arenas we don’t always know how long something takes. Even in well defined areas, each person’s timeline varies based on a variety of factors. One definition of smart is being adaptive and responsive, but SMART goals are static and restrictive. They assume a mechanical, linear stance instead of the iterative, dynamic, ever changing terrain we face everyday. There is an assumption of upfront knowing and predictability, which contradicts the unknown, unpredictable nature of work and life. ## Why my smart goals failed Why did I fail at most of my goals while doing spectacularly well at a select few? I found common elements to both failures and successes, albeit realizing it only in hindsight. **Many of these are obvious and perhaps the very reason I missed them**. ### 1\. External motivations Many of my goals were “shoulds” and “musts” inspired by someone else in some shape or form. In the reality of day to day execution, removed from the clear detached thinking of goal setting, ultimately I fell back to what I already knew, listening to my own voice. **Often we already know what’s best for us**. It became clear I didn’t have any intrinsic motivation for those goals. Perhaps **setting an intention and seeing if you actually followup is one way to differentiate** between extrinsic and intrinsically motivated goals. Regardless of our awareness, we are already moving towards or away from something. Working towards something or the unwillingness to do so, can give clues into what truly motivates us. ### 2\. Using it as a manipulation tool Often we set goals because we think if we don't set them we won't do what's needed, or simply because some hustle culture guru has been raving about their "miracle" system. We want it as a **forcing function**. Instead it ends up being a **blunt manipulation tool — it doesn't do what we need it to do, but also creates a mess.** ### 3\. Mismatch between perception and reality of what it takes It’s always longer, harder, and [more mundane than we initially thought](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/#motivation-is-mundane). We research the destination but forget about the journey, leading to an intimate understanding of the outcome but not the process. We are **prepared to become the next NY Times bestselling author, but not for sitting in front of a blank screen day in, day out,** only to realize we don’t in fact like the process after all. And **unlike travel, we spend most of our time in the "journey” to the outcome**, with an infinitesimal part of it in the actual destination aka outcome. ### 4\. Quitting before getting past the "wall of frustration" ![Graphic showing learning curve and how we quit before crossing the wall of frustration.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Wall-of-Frustration-5.png) We quit before we start enjoying the process. Any new skill is frustrating by definition in the early stages of learning. The challenge is to make it past the point where you start enjoying the skill which then builds on itself. Intellectually, I think everyone understands this. **What makes it more challenging is that you don’t know exactly how long it will take for you**. Sticking with something that has a finite timeline is a lot easier than persisting with no clear end in sight. ### 5\. No external scaffolding Many of my goals didn’t materialize because, 1. They required me to act differently from my ongoing daily routines, and 2. I didn’t have external systems and support structures to reinforce and support my transition to the new behavior. Achieving even one of them would have required major changes in daily rhythms. Sustained change in multiple areas while possible, requires a lot more effort and takes longer. People who make overnight changes tend to revert back to their baseline. **Folks who are able to sustain change long term, do so because the changes were more integrated with their overall lives** or because they pivoted their lives around that change. **Writing resolutions is a first step but also the easiest**. Everything is an uphill climb after that. Also, the **mere act of writing goals can give a false high** that can lull us into inaction. What matters is what follows after day one. ### 6\. No external accountability In addition to external structures you need some kind of external accountability mechanism. This one’s probably **the Achilles heel of personal goals**. Accountability tends to be naturally built into work setups, but in personal areas or if you are an independent operator like me, this is a common pitfall. ### 7\. Our estimation of time is flawed Putting time limits on goals is a tried and tested tactic. But this works well when the domain is well understood and tasks are well defined. Setting arbitrary [timeframes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/) doesn't necessarily help in newer complex domains, or something in which we are plain newbies. Time limits increase pressure and internal criticism. When we miss the deadlines, w**e forget that we were the ones who came up with the deadlines**. It’s better to look at it as closing in on the end goal, rather than having missed a target. This is especially critical if you are new to a domain where you don’t know exactly what it will take and how long. ### 8\. Our mental accounting is flawed We might be succeeding in some areas, but we don’t see them because of our focus on failures and misses. When we do in fact notice, we’ve already moved on to the next target, thus **failing to register the positive** in the porous sieves of our minds. Meanwhile we **keep replaying the failures thus ensuring they're etched in memory**. Success doesn’t come with blinking lights as depicted in movies. It often comes not clearly delineated and is sometimes too mundane to notice. Some aspects to consider: - Your definition of “success” might be too stringent. - Discrepancy between what you initially thought and the actual path is not necessarily a failure. - [Satisficing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing?ref=leadingsapiens.com) or reducing [standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) for the time being is not necessarily bad. - Taking a closer look at our[ arbitrary benchmarks](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/#1-where-did-our-definition-of-success-come-from) can be helpful. ### 9\. Comparing against others Setting goals automatically means measurement which also means comparison to others who might be “leaner, faster, better”. We are intimate with our own struggles, but only an outsider’s view of others people’s challenges or their inherent advantages. Comparison can be the fastest road to misery, especially when external outcome-driven goals make it easier to do so. ### 10\. Being too rigid When striving for something, we are constantly evolvingand so are our goals. But we pretend as otherwise—**a goal that was set 6 months back is not as accurate as my experience and assessment of it today**, but somehow I pretend that the person 6 months back was wiser. So instead of revising my estimates, I beat myself up for not being diligent enough. Consistency for its own sake can easily turn into what Emerson called, a “[foolish consistency](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/353571-a-foolish-consistency-is-the-hobgoblin-of-little-minds-adored?ref=leadingsapiens.com)”. ### 11\. Focusing too much on problem solving Using goal setting as a **problem-solving device rather than a creative endeavor** are two fundamentally different approaches. One operates out of what already exists and resolving existing issues, whereas the other is of creating what you want and working towards it. One is bound by the past whereas the second is tied to the future. Too many of my goals were rooted in problems I was trying to solve. Even if I hit everything I would end up with a "patched up past" rather than a "[designed future](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/)". ### 12\. Too many of them Saying yes to something also means saying no to something else. If everything's important, then nothing is. Too many goals also means lack of focus, lack of sufficient time and attention for something to develop, and scattered resources. You end up quitting **before hitting critical mass and momentum**. ## Key takeaways and what I will do differently Legit **effective goal design is more of a difficult art form and less of a science**. Here’s how I am approaching goals differently this year: 1. Use goals as a **prioritization tool, rather than a motivation or manipulation tool**. It's an external construct and reminder mechanism — a compass and beacon to keep you focused rather than a comparison mechanism. 2. See goals as a **process of natural selection** that exposes a lack of intrinsic motivation. Use it as a system to discern and weed out non-inspiring ones. The ones you genuinely care about will **tend to emerge over time**. 3. Stick to only 2-3 major goals at a time, with everything else feeding into or supporting them. 4. Differentiate clearly between **outcome-based performance goal**s vs **learning-based mastery and maintenance goals**. They are fundamentally different in nature and should be kept separate based on the stage of project and your skill level. 5. Focus more on **process goals and inputs rather than outcome goals or results**. One tends to be more in your control than the other. 6. For every goal you target, check for **impact on existing routines** and install **external supporting structures**. Without this, there’s zero chance of succeeding. 7. **Regular check-ins** with a peer, coach or mastermind group can make a tangible difference. 8. Expect it to be long, hard, mundane and replete with setbacks. Anything worthwhile always is, and is a realistic approach to optimism. As [James Stockdale](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stockdale-paradox/) put it, "You *must *maintain unwavering faith* that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the discipline to *confront the most brutal facts of your current reality*, whatever they might be."* 9. Stay alert to and account for the **“wall of frustration”**. Ascertain whether you have crossed it or not. Expect it to be tough going until then. Account for the fact that **you don’t exactly know how long this will take**. 10. In novel, new domains, **use goals as a "zooming in" tool rather than a targeting tool**. In these cases goals end up being **first guesses** that you are constantly adjusting and fine tuning. 11. Watch for mental accounting flaws. Are there small wins you are missing? **When faltering, focus on what you’ve already accomplished** instead of what’s left to be done. 12. Instead of comparing yourself with others, doing it against past versions of you can be more productive. Lean towards **adjustments rather than resentment**. You know more about your goals today than you did the day you set them. 13. Focus more on creating what you want rather than exclusively solving an existing problem-set. In complex, novel situations, the “stupid” approach is more adaptive. Once the territory is better defined, then it makes sense to switch to the smart approach. This is akin to the [explore vs exploit dichotomy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#a-bias-for-exploit-rather-than-explore), each requiring a different mindset and strategy. ## An alternate approach In addition to the above, consider the following counter-intuitive but practical strategies based on the realities of getting things done. **Expect it to be mundane**. Planning for the challenge of dealing with [the mundanity of excellence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) for long periods of time can significantly increase chances of success. Mundane doesn’t mean drudgery either. Paradoxically, it means **enjoying the various mundane aspects** involved in the process of getting to your goals. **Go small**. Look for [small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) rather than the default of going for [big bold bets](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/). Can you design for small wins? This goes beyond simple notions of small steps and celebrating wins. **Go negative**. Often, the unstated intent of goals is to control outcomes. We don’t want to work toward something and not have anything to show. But **what happens when outcomes cannot genuinely be controlled?** That's where the ability to deal with uncertainty and ambiguity comes in. John Keats coined the term [Negative Capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) in 1824, but it's even more applicable today. **Be naive**. Setting goals is a clever, sophisticated approach. But often situations require a naive disposition rather than a calculated one. In many situations,[ being naive can in fact be a positive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/). **Go deeper**. There are many underrated but critical [aspects of goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) that go unnoticed. Understanding these nuances can make the process more effective and fruitful. **Check for alignment**. Ask these [three basic questions before setting any goal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/). Go for [**qualities rather than outcomes**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/year-end-review-framework/). ### Why We Copy Leaders — A Complexity Point of View URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/why-people-copy-leaders-complexity-view/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:44:26.000Z *Leaders are often cautioned to watch their actions and behavior because it sets an example and gets replicated through the organization. Which begs the question: *why do people copy leaders?* The common explanations tend to be psychological.* *But it goes beyond simple carrot and stick notions from behaviorism. There's a simple logical explanation based on a deeper understanding of organizations seen through the lens of complexity sciences.* *The systems and unspoken rules and norms that we work within, end up influencing our actions a lot more than just plain psychology. We are *independent agents, trying to optimize for the best outcomes*, who are in effect changing the game as we play it. And this game is being played inside what's called *a complex adaptive system*.* --- ## What are complex adaptive systems Most of us, including organizations, intuitively recognize complexity but don’t necessarily know how to operate in it. Complexity is different from plain “complicated”. It's also different from chaos sciences. > The simple answer is that chaos deals with situations such as turbulence that rapidly become highly disordered and unmanageable. On the other hand, **complexity deals with systems composed of many interacting agents**. While complex systems may be hard to predict, they may also have a good deal of structure and permit improvement by thoughtful intervention. > > — Robert Axelrod, Michael Cohen in Harnessing Complexity There are dynamics unique to complex adaptive systems. This post is not a definitive one on complex adaptive systems, but the book [Harnessing Complexity](https://amzn.to/3Xtv2ll?ref=leadingsapiens.com) is a great introduction to basic concepts of complexity that are essential to understanding how organizations work and operating within them. Axelrod and Cohen start off the book by asking one simple question: > In a world where many players are all adapting to each other and where the emerging future is extremely hard to predict, what actions should you take? This is the question everyone faces when working in organizations and given the nature of careers. As much as we would like to think otherwise, the trajectory of both our companies and our own careers are anything but predictable. So how do we go about optimizing when there are no clear answers? One place to look is to understand the nature of complexity. **Every organization in effect is a complex adaptive system and we are agents operating within them**. > Whenever we are interested in designing something new (such as a product or sales strategy), or when we are contemplating a possible change in a policy (such as new store opening hours), we are considering interventions in a system. But what might make a system we are interested in complex? > > … **a system is complex when there are strong interactions among its elements, so that current events heavily influence the probabilities of many kinds of later events**. A major way in which complex systems change is through change in the agents and their strategies. > In Complex Adaptive Systems there are often **many participants**, perhaps even **many kinds of participants**. They interact in intricate ways that continually reshape their collective future. New ways of doing things— even new kinds of participants—may arise, and old ways—or old participants—may vanish. **Such systems challenge understanding as well as prediction**. > > These difficulties are familiar to anyone who has seen small changes unleash major consequences. Conversely, they are familiar to anyone who has been surprised when large changes in **policies or tools produce no long-run change in people’s behavior**. > When a system contains agents or populations that seek to adapt, we will use the term Complex Adaptive System. In many Complex Adaptive Systems, all the agents’ [strategies are part of the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-is-directly-tied-to-results-and-performance) in which each agent is acting. **This makes it hard for an agent to predict the consequences of its actions and therefore to choose the best course of action**. > > Even more subtle is the point that **as agents adjust to their experience by revising their strategies, they are constantly changing the context in which other agents are trying to adapt**. For example, workers in a company might be learning better ways to produce a product. Each change of strategy by a worker alters the context in which the next change will be tried and evaluated. When multiple populations of agents are adapting to each other, the result is a coevolutionary process. > What makes prediction especially difficult in these settings is that the forces shaping the future do not add up in a simple, systemwide manner. Instead, their effects include nonlinear interactions among the components of the system. ## Why look at organizations as complex adaptive systems > The Complex Adaptive System approach is a way of looking at the world. It provides a set of concepts, a set of questions, and a set of design issues. > ... > Why might this perspective and its associated vocabulary be useful for deliberations over action in settings whose consequences are hard to predict? Complexity research deals with systems that are hard to control, and much of it has gone on in fields that seem far from policy or design concerns. … However, many of the same dynamics are involved in social issues. … **Social systems exhibit dynamic patterns analogous to physical, biological, and computational systems**. > Complexity research gives us a grounded basis for inquiring where the “leverage points” and significant trade-offs of a complex system may lie. It also suggests what kinds of situations may be resistant to policy intervention, and when [small interventions may be likely to have large effects](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). For guidance in designing actions, such insights into the right questions can be very valuable. They can be valuable even if the theories are too multiple and too preliminary to support any claim that a theory of complexity implies any sharply etched expectation about a future scenario and how a particular action will guarantee it. > It is our argument that principles derived from working with complexity problems shed valuable light on the issues confronting policy makers and designers. Complexity is a potent framework to understanding organizations and optimizing our actions within them. Which leads us to our main question: why do we copy leaders? ## Why leaders get copied – intelligence as acting foolishly Put simply, the world is not as predictable as we would like to be. We do not know beforehand what will work and what won't. Accepting this reality, but also designing actions that increase our chances of success is what James March calls the technology of foolishness. > In the 1970s, James March began to write articles about a provocative topic: “**the technology of foolishnes**s” . He forced into the open an issue that remains hidden in a more conventional view of choice or decision making in social systems: **the hard reality that the world in which we must act is often beyond our understanding**. He began to draw out the implications of this fact when others were mostly in denial. It implies that **each action we take is partly an instrumental step and partly a learning experience**. We copy leaders because it's the most logical approach to increase our probability of favorable outcomes when operating in environments of high uncertainty and no clear cause and effect. Each time we copy, we are essentially taking action in uncertainty, which creates more feedback and intelligence about the system we are operating in. This in turn informs future actions. > In the ambiguous and hard-to-predict world of a Complex Adaptive System, **agents often don’t know what criteria of success** they should use **or how to evaluate the strategies** they could select. This is especially important in an age of uncertainty and rapid change. When adaptive agents live in a rapidly changing environment, **they tend to look to other agents to see which performance measures tend to work** and which ones tend to fail. > ... > When agents are not able to predict the effects of various possible courses of action, they may **resort to imitating the observable behavior of agents who seem to be successful**, or who at least have more experience with the new environment. Imitating others who are successful or experienced is **a form of implicit attribution of credit** that certainly has its disadvantages. When features that are copied are only superficially relevant, the results can be wasteful or even comical. Nevertheless, following the practices of those with more experience or success is **often a good strategy in an uncertain world**. > There are **three basic reasons a leader in a formal organization or other social system is especially likely to be copied.** > > First, a leader can sometimes set standards that provide incentives for others to copy. > Second, a leader’s actions or performance measures are typically seen to be successful and hence worth emulating. > Third, a leader may set an example that helps establish beneficial norms in a community. > ... > [**Leadership in setting a standard**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) can cause others to go along for their own reasons. Consider the case of Norway as a country that writes much of the world’s maritime insurance. When the standards body in Norway set certain regulations for insuring oil platforms, the makers of oil platforms had an incentive to build in ways that met those standards. Thereafter other marine insurers tended to gravitate toward similar regulations. Norway’s regulations helped shape the industry in ways that led other maritime insurers to copy their visible behavior. > ... > The emulation of a leader need not be based on a full understanding of how the emulation will help. Other agents may wish to emulate the actions or performance measures of a visibly successful leader **in the hopes that what worked for the leader will work for them**. > > …. For example, Gandhi’s criterion of nonviolence was advanced throughout the world by the success its practitioners achieved in winning India’s independence from Britain. Gandhi’s leadership was successful in large part because he visibly embodied the very values he was advocating. This led others to emulate not only his tactics but also his values. > ... > Visible leadership can also be exercised by **setting an example that helps establish beneficial norms in a community**. In Complex Adaptive Systems, norms are often important regulatory mechanisms. Central monitoring and control can be difficult when many agent interactions are widely distributed across physical or social spaces. > > Criteria that the agents themselves apply are a very attractive alternative. Especially when they become internalized, norms regulate not through fear of consequences but through the belief that some actions are right and others wrong. This is extremely important when monitoring by central authorities is costly or intrusive. Moreover, once established, a norm can be reinforced and spread by dispersed agents who accept the norm and are willing to punish others who deviate from it. ## Related reading - One of the key features of complex systems is the lack of clear cause and effect. Instead of one way relationships, there are causal loops that influence and build on each other. We assume [linear causality, whereas in reality it's often more circular](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). - [Organizational life tends to be replete with paradoxes ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/)— two opposing situations that exist simultaneously but that cannot be solved away. Recognizing these paradoxes beforehand can increase our effectiveness in operating within them optimally. --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### Sources and references 1. [Harnessing Complexity: Organizational Implications of a Scientific Frontier](https://amzn.to/3Xtv2ll?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by [Robert Axelrod](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FAxelrod?ref=leadingsapiens.com) and Michael D. Cohen. 2. Axelrod, Robert. “An Evolutionary Approach to Norms.” American Political Science Review. 3. Influence: The New Psychology of Modern Persuasion by Robert Cialdini. 4. Leading Minds: An Anatomy of Leadership by Howard Gardner. 5. Chaos by James Gleick. 6. March, James G.. “The Technology of Foolishness.” 7. More on complex adaptive systems: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex\_adaptive\_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex%5Fadaptive%5Fsystem?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Warren Bennis on Self Invention and Authenticity in Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/warren-bennis-self-invention-authenticity-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-09-15T23:11:52.000Z > Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. > > *— Leo Tolstoy* Leaders are often mentioned in the context of change in organizations. What often gets forgotten is [**the evolution of leaders themselves**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). A common impediment to peak performance in executives is a lack of internal alignment. Leadership is a contact sport and it's difficult to hide leaks in the system. While it can be contained for short periods, over time it becomes a drag on performance and ultimately leads to failure. But often this misalignment is not obvious. [We chase goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/) throughout our lives, not realizing it was someone else's idea until it's too late. The typical [challenges start appearing typically in mid career](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/) when the pull of money starts losing its power and we start thinking as to what else is out there. This is just one example of different types of **inflection points**, both big and small. How we respond to them shapes our character and leadership. **Charisma and presence** are not simply traits and behaviors that you tack on, but **rather intrinsic properties that emerge out of the whole of your experience**. > Without that internal work, it's hard to project and sustain [confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) that's authentic. Performing at the highest levels requires ample amounts of [self-efficacy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) and an [internal locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/). It's **a process of constant observation and reinvention**, or what leadership guru Warren Bennis calls **self-invention**. In his classic [On Becoming a Leader](https://amzn.to/3CSdzL6?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Bennis emphasized how critical self-knowledge and self-invention are to [effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/). He differentiates between being "invented by circumstances" and "inventing yourself". Are we creating our own circumstances, or are we at the mercy of them? Bennis put it this way: ## Once-born vs twice-born leaders > Harvard professor emeritus Abraham Zaleznik posits that there are two kinds of leaders: **once-borns and twice-borns**. The once-born’s transition from home and family to independence is relatively easy. Twice-borns generally suffer as they grow up, feel different, even isolated, and so develop an elaborate inner life. As they grow older, they become truly independent, relying wholly on their own beliefs and ideas. **Leaders who are twice born are inner-directed, self-assured, and, as a result, truly charismatic**, according to Zaleznik. > > Once-borns, then, have been **invented by their circumstances**, as in the case of Johnson and Nixon, while twice-borns have **invented themselves**, as in the case of Roosevelt and Truman. ## Internal alignment matters > A couple of studies underscore the benefits, even **the necessity, of self-invention**. First, middle-aged men tend to change careers after having heart attacks. Faced with their own mortality, these men realize that what they’ve been doing, what they’ve invested their lives in, is **not an accurate reflection of their**[ **real needs and desires**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/). > ... > Another study indicates that what determines the level of satisfaction...is the degree to which they acted upon their youthful dreams. **It’s not so much whether they were successful in achieving their dreams as the honest pursuit of them that counts**. The spiritual dimension in creative effort comes from that honest pursuit. ## Self-invention and native energies > I cannot stress too much **the need for self-invention**. [To be authentic](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) is literally **to be your own author** (the words derive from the same Greek root), to discover **your own native energies and desires**, and then to find your own way of acting on them. When you’ve done that, you are not existing simply in order to live up to an image posited by the culture or by some other authority or by a family tradition. > ... > When you write your own life, then no matter what happens, you have **played the game that was natural for you to play**. If, as someone said, “it is the supervisor’s role in a modern industrial society to limit the potential of the people who work for him,” then it is your task to do whatever you must to break out of such limits and live up to your potential, to keep the covenant with your youthful dreams. > Norman Lear would add to this that the goal isn’t worth arriving at unless you enjoy the journey. “**You have to look at success incrementally**,” he said. “It takes too long to get to any major success." > > . . . If one can look at life as being successful on a moment-by-moment basis, one might find that most of it is successful. ...When we wait for the big bow, it’s a lousy bargain. They don’t come but once in too long a time.”... [Applauding yourself for the small successes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/), and taking the small bow, are good ways of learning to experience life each moment that you live it. And that’s part of inventing yourself, of creating your own destiny. > > ... **To become a leader, then, you must become yourself, become the maker of your own life.** The alignment of what Bennis calls native energies and desires to the demands of our role is essential to performing at the highest levels. Even a little misalignment adds up over time. Integrity, in terms of alignment between what's required and our own values and goals, is a necessary part of the game and [has a direct link to performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/#10-authenticity-integrity-directly-affect-performance). ## Self-knowledge is critical for self-invention > Self-knowledge, self-invention are lifetime processes. Those people who struggled to know themselves and become themselves as children or teenagers continue today to explore their own depths, reflect on their experiences, and test themselves. Others—like Roosevelt and Truman—**undertake their own remaking in midlife**. > > Sometimes we simply don’t like who we are or what we’re doing, and so we seek change. Sometimes events, as in Truman’s case, require more of us than we think we have. But all of us can find tangible and intangible rewards in self-knowledge and self-control, because **if you go on doing what you’ve always done, you’ll go on getting what you’ve always got**—which may be less than you want or deserve. ## Four lessons of self-knowledge > All of the leaders I talked with agreed that **no one can teach you how to become yourself**, to take charge, to express yourself, except you. But there are some things that others have done that are useful to think about in the process. I’ve organized them as the four lessons of self-knowledge. They are: > > One: [You are your own best teacher](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/). > Two: Accept responsibility. Blame no one. > Three: You can learn anything you want to learn. > Four: True understanding comes from [reflecting on your experience](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). ## Being self-directed vs learning from others > Leaders are self-directed, but learning and understanding are the keys to self-direction, and it is in our relationships with others that we learn about ourselves. **How, then, do we resolve the paradox?** > > This way: **leaders learn from others, but they are not made by others**. This is the distinguishing mark of leaders. The paradox becomes a dialectic. The self and the other synthesize through self-invention. > > What that means is that here and now,[ true learning must often be preceded by unlearning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/), because we are taught by our parents and teachers and friends how to go along, to measure up to their [standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/), rather than allowed to be ourselves. > ... > Like everyone else, leaders are products of this great stew of chemistry and circumstance. **What distinguishes the leader from everyone else is that he or she takes all of that and creates a new, unique self**. > Until you make your life your own, **you’re walking around in borrowed clothes**. Leaders, whatever their field, are made up as much of their experiences as their skills, like everyone else. **Unlike everyone else, they use their experience rather than being used by it**. > By its very nature, [teaching homogenizes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/), both its subjects and its objects. [Learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-as-strategy/), on the other hand, liberates. The more we know about ourselves and our world, the freer we are to achieve everything we are capable of achieving. ## Related reading - Many of us are [pushed by the events of our past](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/) rather than being pulled by the force of a different future — there is a fundamental difference in stance between the two orientations. One tends to be dominant over the other at different phases in life. Our best performances and maximum engagement are usually spurred by [the pull of a compelling future](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/). - We often think of identity as static and our actions following from it. But the opposite is equally true —[ actions and choices mould our identity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/) and we can be proactive about them. Self-knowledge and self-invention that Bennis mentions, relies on identity being malleable and the determination to proactively shape it through actions and choices. - An unconventional way of checking authenticity is [examining your relationship with time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/). How you perceive time, and your experience of it, holds important clues to authenticity or its lack thereof, which in turn impacts performance. ## Sources 1. [On Becoming a Leader](https://amzn.to/3CSdzL6?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by [Warren Bennis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren%5FBennis?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. [Still Surprised: A Memoir of a Life in Leadership](https://amzn.to/3iEM01e?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Warren Bennis. ## Video capturing key ideas from On Becoming a Leader ### Leadership as More a Decision than Skill or Ability URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/ Last updated: 2025-08-05T01:55:04.000Z *The default way of looking at leadership ability is in terms of skill,* [*style*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/)*, or talent, which in turn drives actions and behaviors. But skills and talents are not sufficient for effective leadership. There’s another simpler but necessary step — *the decision to lead*.* *In this view, leadership is* **a proactive stance you take,** *rather than a skill or talent you have or don't. It turns the noun of leadership into the verb of leading — and everything follows from this stance.* --- ## Leadership is a creative act In [*Wisdom, Intelligence and Creativity Synthesized*](https://amzn.to/3w2cpZz?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Robert Sternberg, one of the foremost researchers and experts on intelligence and creativity, shares key findings on creativity. I noticed the **striking similarity between developing creativity and developing leadership**. Leadership at its essence is a creative act — a leap into the unknown and helping others do the same. If outcomes and paths were certain, it wouldn’t be creative and neither would we need any leadership. What follows are core tenets from Sternberg's framework on creativity that are equally applicable to leadership. ## Pervasive fallacies about creativity and leadership Both creativity and leadership are well researched fields, but equally have their fair share of misleading information and [unhelpful myths](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-myths/). One common myth is that of skill and talent, that some have it and others don’t. The core underlying assumption in this model is of talent and ability as precursors to the right actions and behavior. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Leadership-as-a-decision-1.png) These myths about innate leadership talent are further perpetuated by[ common thinking errors](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/cognitive-distortions-leaders/). Sternberg identifies four fallacies that are common stumbling blocks: > The first, **the should-be fallacy**, is the belief that what is, should be. ‌‌‌‌ > > The second, **the must-be fallacy**, is the belief that what is, must be. In Leibnizian philosophy, it is the principle of sufficient reason – that whatever exists can exist only if there is a sufficient reason for it to exist. ‌‌‌‌ > > The third fallacy is **the always-will-be fallacy**, the belief that the way things are now is the way they always will be. > > ‌‌‌‌And the fourth fallacy is **the safety fallacy**, which is the belief that regardless of what should be or must be, doing what others are doing is the safe way to live. These fallacies are evident in the following statements: - Leaders “should” be a certain way because that’s what you’ve seen so far, and you aren’t “that” way. - Whoever is a leader “must be because” of their skills, talent or some other factor. - If I have not been in a leadership capacity, I don’t have the skill for it and shouldn’t try to act like one. - Before I can lead, I need to “know” ,“be” or “have” leadership ability. - If everyone is doing it a certain way, that must be the “right” way. This undermines and disregards our own experience, interpretation and approach. ## Creativity and leadership as decisions Sternberg’s research backed *investment theory of creativity*, primarily revolves around the counter-intuitive notion of **creativity as a decision**. This turns the myth of talent and skill on its head, and puts the onus instead on us to develop it by taking **a proactive stance towards creating**. The same proactive stance goes for leadership. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/01/Leadership-as-a-decision-2-1.png) What does creativity entail? He outlines six key resources but identifies **the decision to use that resource as the critical differentiator**. > Although levels of these resources are sources of individual differences, **often the decision to use a resource** is a more important source of individual differences. ‌‌ > … ‌‌ > **The skill is not enough: One first needs to make the decision to use the skill**. …**Creativity is as much a decision about and an attitude toward life as it is a matter of ability.** The decision to be and act creatively is a precursor and necessary condition to effectively utilizing and developing skills and abilities. The same can be said of leadership. Let's look at the fundamental pieces in his framework. ## Key attributes of creativity and leadership ### 1\. Intellectual skills > Three intellectual skills are particularly important:‌‌ ‌‌ > (a) the creative skill to see problems in new ways and to escape the bounds of conventional thinking; ‌‌ > (b) the analytic skill to recognize which of one’s ideas are worth pursuing and which are not; and > ‌‌(c) the practical–contextual skill to know how to persuade others of the value of one’s ideas. #### Deciding to think different > One aspect of switching between conventional and unconventional thinking is **the decision that one is willing and able to think in unconventional ways**, that one is willing to accept thinking in terms different from those to which one is accustomed and with which one feels comfortable. For anyone aspiring to stand out and climb the leadership ladder, thinking differently is almost a requirement. Your willingness to take a stand for something, and to see what others can’t, can make you stand out. Otherwise you are always in danger of getting lost in the crowd. **Truly contrarian positions and novel thinking carry risk and thus many won’t sign up for it**. #### Reframing problems > Redefining a problem means taking a problem and turning it on its head. Many times in life individuals have a problem and they just don’t see how to solve it. They are stuck in a box. Redefining a problem essentially means extricating oneself from the box. It is an aspect of **problem finding, as opposed merely to problem solving**. [The art of reframing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) is an essential leadership skill and the key to [managing context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). Our relationship with problems defines how we approach them. Do you see them as an impediment or as an interesting aspect of your job? They can either be an irritant or a puzzle waiting to be solved. #### Questioning the givens > **Creative people question assumptions** and eventually lead others to do the same.‌‌‌‌ It is more important … to learn what questions to ask – and how to ask them – than to learn the answers. > > …Society tends to make a pedagogical mistake by emphasizing the answering and not the asking of questions. …The expert in a field thus becomes the extension of the expert student – the one who knows and can recite a lot of information. As John Dewey recognized, **how one thinks is often more important than what one thinks**. **Questioning the status quo requires not just innovative thinking but guts as well**. Conventional wisdom is hard to challenge because most of the time it’s right. Asking effective questions is a core mechanism leaders have to master. They are especially critical to reframing and [managing context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). #### Ideas won't sell themselves. You have to sell them. > As Galileo, Edvard Munch, Toni Morrison, Sylvia Plath, and millions of others have discovered, creative ideas do not sell themselves. **On the contrary, creative ideas are usually viewed with suspicion and distrust**. Moreover, those who propose such ideas may be viewed with suspicion and distrust as well. > > Because people are comfortable with the ways they already think, and because they probably have a vested interest in it, it can be extremely difficult to dislodge them from that current way.‌‌Thus, \[leaders\] need to learn **how to persuade other people of the value of their ideas** as part of the practical aspect of creative thinking. Persuasion skills are a requirement in any leader's repertoire. Many managers expect people to follow them simply on positional authority or on the strength of their ideas. This tends to be shallow and ineffective. Logic is only part of the equation. **Appealing to emotions** is an equally essential and often more important part. This applies not just to leading people but also in **pushing priorities and initiatives** through an organization full of stakeholders with competing priorities and limited resources. ### 2\. Knowledge (a double-edged sword) > ...on the one hand, one needs to know enough about a field to move it forward. One cannot move beyond where a field is if one doesn’t know where it is. On the other hand, knowledge about a field can result in a **closed and entrenched perspective**, confining a person to the way in which he or she has seen problems in the past. > > Thus, one needs to **decide to use one’s past knowledge, but also decide not to let the knowledge become a hindrance** rather than a help. Everyone has a knowledge base. **How they choose to use it is a decision they must make**. Technical chops will get you far but they can also become a hindrance. Actively working to cultivate abilities outside your comfort zone while also adjusting for existing biases and preferences goes a long way. ### 3\. Thinking styles > Thinking styles are preferred ways of using one’s skills. In essence, **they are decisions about how to deploy the skills available** to one. With regard to thinking styles, **a legislative style** is particularly important for creativity, that is, a preference for thinking **and a decision to think in new ways**. Idea generation and developing an independent point of view is a decision and habit you develop rather than some innate skill you are born with. Some might be naturally better at it, but most have to work at it. #### Balancing priorities > ...It also helps to become a major creative thinker if one is able to **think globally as well as locally**, distinguishing the forest from the trees and thereby recognizing which questions are important and which ones are not. When working in large organizations it's easy to get caught up in the myopia of your own unit's problems, forgetting that the storyline and [priorities are different at each level](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/). Global thinking is as critical as understanding local problems. #### Cross-fertilizing ideas > Creative ideas and insights often result…from integrating material across subject areas, not from memorizing and reciting material. Instead of reading the latest CEO autobiography, you are better off learning the basics of chaos and complexity sciences, reading Dostoevsky for psychology, studying Von Clausewitz for strategy, or understanding how beavers build dams. #### Time and space for thinking > Most creative insights do not happen in a rush. People need time to understand a problem and to toss it around. Keeping enough slack in your schedule to accommodate free thinking is a challenge many execs struggle with. Without enough breathing room, your ideas won't have any space to develop, only to find yourself running from putting out one fire to the next. #### Differing points of view > An essential aspect of working with other people and getting the most out of collaborative creative activity is to **imagine oneself in other people’s shoes**. Individuals can broaden their perspective by learning to see the world from different points of view.‌‌ Nowhere is this more critical than in effective leadership. You are essentially getting work done through others, and without influence it's an uphill climb. But it's also hard because you don't necessarily have to understand the other's point of view, given your positional authority. **It's always easier to dictate rather than listen, but never as effective.** ### 4\. Personality > Numerous research investigations have supported the importance of certain personality attributes for creative functioning. These attributes include, but are not limited to, **willingness to overcome obstacles**, **willingness to take sensible risks, willingness to tolerate ambiguity, and self-efficacy**. Leadership, just like creativity, has its unique dynamics that most folks don't realize from an outsider's view. It's why many figure out eventually that they were not cut out for the job. #### Seeking opposition > ...buying low and selling high typically means defying the crowd, so one has to be willing to stand up to conventions if one wants to think and act in creative ways. Often, **creative people seek opposition**, in that they decide to think in ways that countervail how others think. Note that **none of the attributes of creative thinking is fixed**. **One can decide to overcome obstacles, take sensible risks,** and so forth. **Going against the grain** does not come naturally to most of us. **We are biologically wired to conform** and also why it's a core differentiator between those who can lead and those who can't. #### Anticipating, even relishing obstacles > ... people who defy the crowd – people who think creatively – **almost inevitably encounter resistance**. **The question is not whether one will encounter obstacles; one will**. > > When one buys low, one defies the crowd, and generally engenders in others a reaction of, at best, puzzlement, and, at worst, hostility. The question is whether the creative thinker has **the fortitude to persevere**. > > I have often wondered why so many people start off their careers doing creative work and then vanish from the radar screen. I think I know at least one reason why: **Sooner or later, they decide that being creative is not worth the resistance and punishment**. > … > Some obstacles are within oneself, such as performance anxiety. Other obstacles are external, such as the bad opinions of others. Whether internal or external, obstacles must be overcome. Life in leadership can be equally punishing and lonely. But that's the price you pay for playing the game and you wouldn't want it any other way. #### Sensible risk-taking > …When taking risks, one must realize that some of them just will not work, and that is the cost of doing creative work. …Defying the crowd means risking the crowd’s disdain for “buying” into the wrong idea, or even its wrath. > > …Creative people may take sensible risks and produce ideas that others ultimately admire and respect as trend-setting. But sometimes they make mistakes, fail, and fall flat on their faces. Any stand you take, or an opinion that's contrarian is also risky by definition. A unique point of view makes you stand out, but can also sink you. Wise navigation of the terrain while balancing risk and return are key aspects of playing the game. #### Allowing yourself mistakes > Many ideas are unpopular simply because they are not good. People often think a certain way because that way works better than other ways. > > But once in a while, a great thinker comes along – a Freud, a Piaget, a Chomsky, or an Einstein – and shows us a new way to think. These thinkers made contributions because **they allowed themselves and their collaborators to take risks and make mistakes.** > … > Their ideas were great not because they lasted forever, but because they became the basis for other ideas. … Often, **mistakes or weak ideas contain the germ of correct answers or good ideas**. An essential part of the creative process is that you don't know upfront what will work and what won't. **Success is not a given**. There's an aspect of experimentation and indeterminacy that's part of the territory. Same for many speculative projects at work. It means taking [multiple smart but small bets](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/) and allowing for failures. At the same time you have to ensure it doesn't wipe you out completely and allow for quick recovery. #### Tolerating ambiguity and uncertainty > Artists working on new paintings and writers working on new books often report feeling scattered and unsure in their thoughts. They need to figure out whether they are even on the right track. Scientists often are not sure whether the theory they have developed is exactly correct. These creative thinkers need to tolerate the ambiguity and uncertainty until they get the idea just right. > > … A creative idea tends to come in bits and pieces and develops over time. **The period in which the idea is developing tends to be uncomfortable**, however. Without time or the ability to tolerate ambiguity, many may jump to a less than optimal solution. … uncertainty and discomfort are a part of living a creative life. Leadership equally requires a high tolerance of ambiguity and uncertainty. In fact, others are often looking to you to decrease their own anxiety. **Understanding ambiguity as a condition inherent to the game** you are playing, rather than an anomaly to be eliminated, changes how we approach it. #### Self-Efficacy > Many people eventually reach a point where they feel as if no one believes in them....Because creative work often doesn’t get a warm reception, it is **extremely important that creative people believe in the value of what they are doing**. This is not to say that individuals should believe that every idea they have is a good idea. Rather, individuals need to believe **that, ultimately, they have the ability to make a difference**. [Self-doubt and imposter syndrome](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) come with the territory when pushing the limits, and particularly in leadership where you are always in the public eye. Understanding **when to treat doubt as a signal and when as noise** is a critical skill. Leadership can often be a thankless job. The buck stops with you. If the team does well they get the credit. If they don't, you take the blame. **Without** [**self-efficacy**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-efficacy-in-leadership/) **and a** [**strong internal compass**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/)**, it can take a heavy toll and hard to pull off**. ### 5\. Motivation > Intrinsic, task-focused motivation is also essential to creativity. The research of Amabile and others has shown the importance of such motivation for creative work, and has suggested that **people rarely do truly creative work in an area unless they really love what they are doing** and focus on the work rather than the potential rewards. #### Manufacturing motivation > **Motivation is not something inherent in a person: One decides to be motivated by one thing or another**. Often, people who need to work in a certain area that does not particularly interest them will decide that, given the need to work in that area, they had better find a way to make it interest them. #### Loving the work > People who truly excel creatively in a pursuit, whether vocational or avocational, **almost always genuinely love what they do**. Certainly, the most creative people are intrinsically motivated in their work. Less creative people often pick a career for the money or prestige and are bored with or loathe their careers. Your work needs to be intrinsically satisfying in order to operate at your peak capacity for long stretches. Leadership is a contact sport and there's nowhere to hide. You can operate sub-optimally for a while but eventually it catches up. [**Internal alignment**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/) **is a critical aspect of sustained peak performance**. It’s a lot easier to stay motivated and engaged when you are having fun, much harder and unsustainable if otherwise. Peak performance also means understanding what it really takes, and recognizing that not everything is as exciting as the movies portray it. Excellence is often about [mastering the mundane details over long periods of time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) instead of that singular masterful performance. #### Delaying gratification > Part of being creative means being able to work on a project or task for a long time without immediate or interim rewards … In the short term, people are often ignored when they do creative work or even punished for doing it. > > ... The greatest rewards are often those that are delayed…. **Hard work often does not bring immediate rewards**. …The people who make the most of their abilities are those who wait for a reward and recognize that **few serious challenges can be met in a moment**. Many of your efforts will not yield results for a while, both personally and with other people. The ability to stay patient and stick with it is crucial. **The long arc of a successful career is filled with numerous ups and downs**. Expecting it to be a straight up linear curve that only rises is **a recipe for disillusionment and unnecessary frustration**. ### 6\. Environment > One needs an environment that is supportive and rewarding of creative ideas. One could have all of the internal resources needed in order to think creatively, but **without some environmental support …the creativity that a person has within him or her might never be displayed**.‌‌ > > Environments typically are not fully supportive of the use of one’s creativity. The obstacles in a given environment may be minor...or major... The individual therefore must **decide how to respond** in the face of the pretty close to **omnipresent environmental challenges** that exist. **Some people let unfavorable forces in the environment block their creative output; others do not**. > Creative ideas are both novel and valuable. But **they are often rejected** when the creative innovator stands up to vested interests and defies the crowd. > > The crowd does not maliciously or willfully reject creative notions. Rather, it does not realize, and often does not want to realize, that the proposed idea represents a valid and advanced way of thinking. Society often perceives opposition to the status quo as annoying, offensive, and reason enough to ignore innovative ideas. > … > **From the investment view, then, the creative person buys low by presenting an idea that initially is not valued and then attempting to convince others of its value**. ...People typically want others to love their ideas, but **immediate universal applause for an idea often indicates that it is not particularly creative**. We are either shaped by our circumstances, or we proactively shape them. When stepping up to lead by design or by need, opposing forces will emerge that previously didn’t exist. This is part of playing a larger game. #### Person–Environment Fit > What is judged as creative is an interaction between a person and the environment. **The very same product that is rewarded as creative in one time or place may be scorned in another**. …There is no absolute standard for what constitutes creative work. The same product or idea may be valued or devalued in different environments. The lesson is that individuals need to find a setting in which their creative talents and unique contributions are rewarded, or they need to modify their environment.‌‌ The person-environment dynamic is even more critical for success in leadership and management. Performance is often open to interpretation and success as a leader is very contextual. It’s one reason why **managers wildly successful in one place end up being abject failures in a different setting**. Research has proven that [implicit leadership theories of your manager](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) and the organization play a large role in your success or failure. Finding the right fit and ideal environment is almost as important as, and in many cases even more important than, your skills and abilities. ## Are you cut out for leadership? A checklist. The **leadership as decision framework** puts the responsibility and onus of development squarely on our shoulders. This prompts a series of questions worth pondering over: - Do you have an active or passive stance towards leading? - How patient are you with developing your ideas and initiatives? - Are problems an impediment or an opportunity for learning? - Does your technical background help or hurt you? - How varied is your reading and other activities outside of work? - Is there slack in your schedule to allow for clear thinking? - How hard is it to accept an opposing point of view? - How risk averse are you? Are you comfortable taking contrarian positions? - Do you find leadership lonely and tiring, or challenging and inspiring? - Do you accept or question the status quo? - Are you skilled at uncovering assumptions and givens? - What's your comfort level with selling and persuading? - Are you easily discouraged by a lack of acceptance of your ideas/your leadership? - How much do you rely on positional authority as opposed to influence? - Is your work environment an ideal fit for what you bring to the table? - Do you see your actions following from your abilities, or do your actions define your abilities? - What's your relationship with mistakes, both your's and those of others? - Can you operate effectively in uncertainty and ambiguity? - Do you enjoy work or is it "just another job"? - Is [your implicit leadership theory](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) consistent with your organization's? Spending some dedicated time with these questions can unearth underlying issues and assumptions potentially opening up avenues for further action. While not everyone might “be” a leader, anyone can lead. **The verb is easier than the noun.** ## Related reading - Too often we think of identity as static and let it drive our actions and chocies. What gets easily forgotten is that the opposite works even better and is in fact in our control — we can [actively shape our identity through choices and actions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/). This includes notions about leadership ability as well. - Leadership is not just about positive abilities, it's also [the ability to deal with uncertainty, ambiguity and lack of information](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). It's what John Keats called **negative capability**. - Is self-doubt always negative? Is it signal or noise? Understanding the [role of doubt in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) and creativity is essential to functioning effectively. ## Sources 1. [Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized](https://amzn.to/3w2cpZz?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by [Robert J. Sternberg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert%5FSternberg?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### Andy Grove on Balancing Top-down vs Bottom-up Approaches to Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-09-18T19:18:24.000Z *Ever wonder why that particular initiative of yours never got traction? Organizational politics kills more initiatives than people realize, and happens both at leadership and individual contributor levels. Understanding some of the dynamics can help to better navigate the terrain.* --- ## Three organizational layers and their experiences - **The individual contributor:** You solved a major, recurring customer problem. They praised you, and so did all the stakeholders. Your manager thought this could be scaled and got other units interested. You even made a presentation to the top brass. But somewhere along the way, it got killed, or more like atrophied. Meanwhile they're asking you to work on a brand new “initiative” the CEO is pushing. - **The middle manager:** You don’t understand why your teams are getting lost in the details. Why can’t they see the forest from the trees? And why is the CEO running after this new shiny thing? Can she not see the reality on the ground? - **The CEO:** You brought in the top consultants who proposed a viable, “proven” solution to a vexing company wide problem. But it never gained traction or even acceptance at some levels. Everyone is back to their old ways of doing things. Clearly, **the execution faltered — it always does, it’s never the strategy**. Perhaps you should’ve considered the consultant’s add-on implementation package instead of relying on your teams. And the cycle goes on. Sounds familiar? ## Two diverging approaches > The practical wisdom of employees ... will never reach the manager who is convinced that his position puts him above the need to listen to other’s opinion and advice. > > — Konusuke Matsushita in *My Management Philosophy* Innovation is probably one of the most overused buzzwords in the corporate world, and yet in practice, organizations actively prevent it. One reason this happens is due to the **constant tension, and often disconnect**, between strategies that get **pushed down from the top** versus those that **rise organically from the bottom** up. The frontline folks, along with first and middle management, are typically well aware of emergent local issues. Meanwhile, the top tier of management is typically conversant with macro challenges affecting the entire organization. Many of these conflicts are simply the nature of the beast. **The mistake** however is to rely on any one of these exclusively. ## The dynamic dialectic Intel CEO Andy Grove, writing in *Only the Paranoid Survive*, called this balancing of top-down and bottom-up approaches to strategy and innovation, “**The dynamic dialectic**”. He identified it as a key attribute of companies that survive and come out winning on the other side of strategic inflection points. > It seems that companies that successfully navigate through strategic inflection points have a good dialectic between bottom-up and top-down actions. > > Bottom-up actions come from the ranks of **middle managers**, who by the nature of their jobs are exposed to the first whiffs of the winds of change, who are located at the periphery of the action where change is first perceived (remember, snow melts at the periphery) and who therefore catch on early. But, by the nature of their work, they can only affect things locally…. > > Their actions must meet halfway the actions generated by **senior management**. While those managers are isolated from the winds of change, once they commit themselves to a new direction, they can affect the strategy of the entire organization…. > > The **best results seem to prevail when bottom-up and top-down actions are equally strong**. \[1\] > This dynamic dialectic is a must. The wisdom to guide a company through the valley of death **cannot as a practical matter reside solely in the heads of top management**. If senior management is a product of the legacy of the company, its thinking is molded by the old rules. If they are from the outside, chances are they really don’t understand the evolving subtleties of the new direction. They must rely on middle management. > > Yet the burden of guidance **also cannot rest solely on the judgment of middle management**. They may have the detailed knowledge and the hands-on exposure but by necessity their experience is specialized and their outlook is local, not company-wide. \[1\] > What we needed was **a balanced interaction** between the middle managers, with their **deep knowledge but narrow focus**, and senior management, whose [**larger perspective could set a context**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). The dialectic between these two would often result in searing intellectual debates. But through such debates the shape of the other side of the valley would become clear earlier, making a determined march in its direction more feasible. \[1\] ![Balancing top-down vs bottom-up approaches to leadership. Andy Grove: Dynamic Dialectic](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2025/09/Top-down-vs-Bottom-up-2.png) ## Debate versus determined march There are two distinct phases, each with its particular characteristics and strategy: 1. **Debate:** when the strategy is not clear, still emerging, and primarily relying on wide experimentation. 2. **Determined march:** when some sort of strategy has emerged as a winner from the various experiments, and now it’s time to double down and focus resources in that direction. Recognizing the swing of the pendulum from one phase to the other and changing tact accordingly is a key competence. > An organization that has a culture that can deal with these two phases—**debate (chaos reigns)** and a **determined march (chaos reined in)**—is a powerful, adaptive organization. … Such an organization has two attributes: > > **1.** It tolerates and even **encourages debate**. These debates are vigorous, devoted to exploring issues, indifferent to rank and include individuals of varied backgrounds. > **2.** It is capable of making and accepting **clear decisions**, with the entire organization then supporting the decision. > > Organizations that have these characteristics are far more strategic-inflection-point-ready than others. … While the description of such a culture is seductively logical, **it’s not a very easy environment** in which to operate, particularly if you are a newcomer to it and are not familiar with the subtle transition in the swings of the pendulum. \[1\] Each of these opposite ends of the spectrum have their unique characteristics. **Management’s role is to enable the dance rather than artificially dictate, or inadvertently squelch** what’s emerging. > If the actions are dynamic, if top management is able to alternately let chaos reign and then rein in chaos, such a dialectic can be very productive. When top management lets go a little, the **bottom-up actions will drive toward chaos by experimenting**, by pursuing different product strategies, by generally pulling the company in a multiplicity of directions. > After such creative chaos reigns and a direction becomes clear, it is up to senior management to rein in chaos. **A pendulum-like swing between the two types of actions** is the best way to work your way through a strategic transformation. \[1\] ## Carlson’s law One attribute of top-down strategy, especially when disconnected from reality on the ground, is that it ends up being **sterile and lacking engagement** at lower levels. Meanwhile, bottom-up approaches while chaotic are often dynamic and smart. They’ve emerged from the cauldron of numerous **realtime adaptations in the thick of action**. But they also need to be nurtured, and given encouragement and support to roll them out on a larger scale in order to have any impact. Thomas Friedman calls this variance between the two approaches, **Carlson’s Law:** > Innovation that happens from the **top down** tends to be **orderly but dumb**. > Innovation that happens from the **bottom up** tends to be **chaotic but smart**. \[2\] The notion of the lone mad scientist or the singular, ground breaking idea in innovation is pervasive. What gets missed is that many[**novel ideas often emerge in the day-to-day engagement**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#2-minor-improvements-vs-major-advances) with the mundane details of a challenge. And the people who have the most engagement are folks on the front lines. > “People think innovation is the idea you have in the shower,” said Ernie Moniz, the physicist who heads MIT’s Energy Initiative. “More often it comes from seeing the problem. It comes out of working with the materials.” > > To be sure, there is some pure innovation—coming up with a product or service no one had thought of before. But a lot more innovation comes from working on the line, seeing a problem, and devising a solution that itself becomes a new product. That is why if we don’t retain at least part of the manufacturing process in America, particularly the high-end manufacturing, we will lose touch with **an important source of innovation: the experience of working directly with a product and figuring out how to improve it**—or how to replace it with something even better. \[2\] Increasing **organizational complexity also means increasing specialization and resulting silos**, where skills and knowhow are concentrated in certain people and teams. This means no one person or team has all the answers, and thus one more reason to enable innovation at every level of the organization rather than a select few. > In the past, companies had ‘‘innovation centers” off in the woods, where big-thinking R&D teams devised new things that were then produced on the assembly line. Some companies still have such centers, but others are opting instead for **continuous innovation that includes frontline workers** as well as top management. > > Now every employee is part of the process… The assembly-line worker today not only has more information than ever before, but also the capacity to communicate what he or she is learning instantly to upper management and throughout the company. \[2\] ## The role of the leader From this perspective then, what is the role of a middle manager, or a VP? Curtis Carlson, CEO of SRI International, puts it this way: > We had a group visiting SRI from Japan… and one of them asked me: ‘**How many big decisions do you make every day?**’ I said, ‘**My goal is to make none of them**. I am not the one interacting daily with the customer or the technology. My employees are the ones interacting, so if moving ahead on a project has to wait for me to decide, that is too slow. That does not mean I don’t have a job. My job is to help create an environment where those decisions can happen where they should happen—and to support them and reward them and inspire them.’” > > Carlson said he thinks of himself more as **“the mayor” of his company**, orchestrating all the departments and [listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/) to his constituencies, rather than as a classic top-down CEO. \[2\] The four star general Stan McChrystal calls [this style of leadership as gardening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/), in contrast to that of the all-knowing chess master. It's a mistake to dismiss this **as merely a more “democratic” way of leading** and managing. It’s in fact almost a requirement to survive rapidly changing conditions, requiring constant adaptation and adjustment, that almost every modern organization faces today. > Continuous innovation is not a luxury anymore—it is becoming a necessity. In the hyper-connected world, whatever can be done, will be done. The only question for a company is whether it will be done by it or to it: but it will be done. A breakthrough product, such as the iPhone, instantly generates competition—the Android. Within months, the iPad had multiple competitors. > > So a company that does not practice constant innovation by taking advantage of **every ounce of brainpower at every level** will fall behind farther and faster than ever before. \[2\] ## Adjusting for biases at each level Understanding the stage of your initiative along with the priorities of other stakeholders, is **equally critical for success as is the logic of your approach**. For the individual contributor, it might be to tie the proposed solution to the larger organizational picture. For the middle manager, it might be to orchestrate competing priorities. For the CEO, it might be to align with ground level reality — almost every episode of Undercover Boss is an example of this disconnect. Each level of the organization has **its own version of myopia**. Adjusting for biases specific to our narrow focus and level can greatly increase chances of success. ## Related reading - Strategy and innovation often emerge in the process of **active coping and adapting** to real-time conditions and situations. In that context, [it’s more akin to Tetris](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategy-as-tetris-not-chess/) rather than the traditional notion of strategy as chess. - The idea of the [big bold bet](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/) while sounding enticing is often more romantic than practical. In contrast, an [emerging strategy of focusing on small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) can be a more effective way when operating in ambiguous, complex domains that require novel approaches. - As a manager or executive, how do you make sure you are conversant with the realities on the ground? It's simple but not easy — [managing by wandering around or MBWA](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). ### Sources 1. [Only the Paranoid Survive](https://amzn.to/3w9IVtb?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Andy Grove. 2. [That Used to Be Us ](https://amzn.to/3ixvZtD?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Thomas Friedman, Michael Mandelbaum. ### Gen. Stan McChrystal: The Leader as Gardener URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/ Last updated: 2025-08-13T22:22:41.000Z *How do you view your role of leader or manager? Is it as a chess master or a gardener?* --- ## The lure of control Often unknowingly, leaders and managers suffer from the [myopia of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). The underlying ethos is of knowing everything, solving problems directly and having everything under control. It's what helped them rise quickly through the ranks. But beyond a certain scale and level in the organization this tendency increasingly becomes a liability. Four star general Stanley McChrystal puts it this way \[2\]: > *I think up through probably 35, I was very much a control freak, because the size of the organizations I commanded, and I was part of, were small enough where I could micromanage them. I had a fairly forceful personality, and if you worked hard and studied hard, you could just about move all the chess pieces, no problem.* > > *Around age 35 to 40, as you get up to battalion level, which is about 600 people, suddenly, you’re going to have to lead it a different way, and what you’re really going to have to do is develop people. The advice I’d give to anyone young is it’s really about *developing people* who are going to do the work. Unless you are going to go do the task yourself, then the development time you spend on the people who are going to do that task, ... *every minute you spend on that is leveraged, is exponential return*.* This dynamic is relevant not just to generals, but also to someone moving up from an individual contributor role to being responsible for a team. ## The leader as the puppet master Heroic leaders who appear to have it all figured out, and who dictate strategic direction from up above is still the default expectation. This is exacerbated by media and [the leadership industry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/kellerman-on-the-problem-with-the-leadership-industry/) that exaggerate this notion. It's **much easier to sell the "all-knowing" leader**, and equally hard to sell someone who's enabling it and not always in the limelight. But these notions are antiquated, and sub-optimal for complex, ambiguous conditions that leaders face in the hyper-connected, fast evolving world of modern organizations. In Team of Teams, McChrystal highlights this flaw: > We gravitate toward “heroic leaders” who combine qualities we associate with leadership, such as wisdom and physical courage. For a generation after his 1815 triumph over Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington, embodied this concept. Images of Wellington on horseback, deftly maneuvering troops, established an ideal: **the leader as all-knowing puppet master**, crafting brilliant strategies and distributing precise commands. We've been conditioned to think about leaders in this manner. **It's convenient because the lines are well defined** and clear as to who's doing what – the leader leads while the followers follow. But for modern organizations that face constantly changing situations on the front lines, this model is ill-suited for adapting optimally. It relies too much on the leader and thus is [limited by their brilliance or folly](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/). > The organization as a rigidly reductionist mechanical beast is an endangered species. The speed and interconnected nature of the new world in which we function have rendered it too stupid and slow to survive the onslaught of predators. In some cases, it simply lumbers into tar pits, lacks the strength to free itself, and slowly dies. > > The traditional heroic leader may not be far behind. Yet even in our new environment, we still retain high, often unrealistic, expectations of leaders. We publicly demand high-level strategic vision and an unerring ability to anticipate broad market trends, but we simultaneously celebrate CEOs for encyclopedic mastery of every aspect of their business. We routinely ask government leaders if they knew the smallest details of an issue, and if not, why they didn’t. **We expect our leaders to know everything, knowing full well that the limits of technology and the human brain won’t allow it**. ## The leader as the chess master Another modern day malady that ails leaders is ready access to data, which gives the false impression of being in the know and thus wanting to control everything. The mistake is to think that more "data" and deft analysis will solve the challenges. This notion is akin to chess — the leader as the chess master constantly watching for threats and opportunities on the board, while his strategic pieces are ready to move at his command. But this is more a mirage than reality. Neither is it practical to expect leaders to "process" this vast amount of incoming "data". > Armed with unprecedented amounts of data, CEOs, politicians, and bureaucrats can peer into what is happening almost as it occurs. ... this information can seduce leaders into thinking that they understand and can predict complex situations—that they can see what *will* happen. But the speed and interdependence of our current environment means that **what we cannot know has grown even faster than what we can**. McChrystal highlights how the evolving situation in Iraq in 2004 was too complex for the leader as chess master model to hold up. **The enemy in this case was playing to a different rulebook, or in fact no rules.** > ...the chess metaphor quickly broke down. Even in its most rapid form, chess is still a rigidly iterative game, alternating moves between opponents. War in 2004 followed no such protocol. The enemy could move multiple pieces simultaneously or pummel us in quick succession, without waiting respectfully for our next move. > > They did so with such speed that it was soon apparent that their changes were not the outcome of deliberate decision making by seniors in the hierarchy; they were organic reactions by forces on the ground. Their strategy was likely unintentional, but they had leveraged the new environment with exquisite success. > > ...Our teams were crafted to be chess pieces with well-honed, predictable capabilities. Our leaders, including me, had been trained as chess masters, and we hoped to display the talent and skill of masters. We felt responsible, and harbored a corresponding need to be in control, but as we were learning, **we actually needed to let go**. ## The leader as gardener So what is a leader to do if not to figure out what's going on and give commands? The answer is counter intuitive and does not come naturally to most of us — gardening rather than chess. Rather than dictate action, the leader creates the ecosystem that generates the right response and action. The gardener model leverages the talents of individuals and teams, rather than rely on the talents of the leader. **Instead of one general, there are hundreds distributed across the network**. These could be individuals or teams. A distributed network of strong nodes is stronger and more agile than a concentrated network of one very powerful node but surrounded by weaker ones. The notion of a gardener is **not an altruistic or humanistic perspective,** but rather about optimizing for pure performance in how a network responds to external stimuli, and how quickly it adapts to changing conditions. > The **gardener creates an environment** in which the plants can flourish. The work done up front, and vigilant maintenance, allow the plants to grow individually, all at the same time. > > ...I began to view effective leadership in the new environment as more akin to gardening than chess. The move-by-move control that seemed natural to military operations proved less effective than nurturing the organization—its structure, processes, and culture—**to enable the subordinate components to function with “smart autonomy.”** It wasn’t total autonomy, because the efforts of every part of the team were tightly linked to a common concept for the fight, but it allowed those forces to be enabled with a constant flow of “shared consciousness” from across the force, and **it freed them to execute actions in pursuit of the overall strategy as best they saw fit.** > > Within our Task Force, as in a garden, **the outcome was less dependent on the initial planting than on consistent maintenance**. Watering, weeding, and protecting plants from rabbits and disease are essential for success. **The gardener cannot actually “grow”** tomatoes, squash, or beans—**she can only foster an environment** in which the plants do so. As McChrystal points out, the gardener in a way cannot take "direct action". They are essentially creating the conditions to [release the inherent energy of the system](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/) and helping it do what it's designed to do. It's indirect action through [controlling the context ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/)rather than the usual reaction of trying to directly control the situation. ## Leading as gardener is harder Most leaders understand this difference intellectually but find it hard to implement in practice. Why? Couple of reasons stand out: - It **requires unlearning** the very habits that made them successful in the past — problem solving and inclination to take quick action. - It **runs counter** to common beliefs about the leader's job — they are expected to be all-knowing and neither do [they don't want to appear incompetent](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/). However, these same strengths start impeding when working with highly talented teams who are capable of doing it themselves, but often need an overarching context aka ecosystem in order to operate at their highest levels. > Although I recognized its necessity, the mental transition from heroic leader to humble gardener was not a comfortable one. From that first day at West Point I’d been trained to develop personal expectations and behaviors that reflected professional competence, decisiveness, and [self-confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/). If adequately informed, I expected myself to have the right answers and deliver them to my force with assurance. Failure to do that would reflect weakness and invite [doubts about my relevance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/). I felt intense pressure to fulfill the role of chess master for which I had spent a lifetime preparing. > > ... But the choice had been made for me. I had to adapt to the new reality and reshape myself as conditions were forcing us to reshape our force. And so I stopped playing chess, and I became a gardener. ## What the shift looks like > First I needed to shift my focus from moving pieces on the board to shaping the ecosystem. Paradoxically, **at exactly the time when I had the capability to make more decisions, my intuition told me I had to make *fewer***. At first it felt awkward to delegate decisions to subordinates that were technically possible for me to make. If I could make a decision, shouldn’t I? Wasn’t that my job? **It could look and feel like I was shirking my responsibilities, a damning indictment for any leader**. My role had changed, but leadership was still critical—perhaps more than ever. > > Creating and maintaining the teamwork conditions we needed—tending the garden—became my primary responsibility. Without my constantly pruning and shaping our network, the delicate balance of information and empowerment that sustained our operations would atrophy, and our success would wither. **I found that only the senior leader could drive the operating rhythm, transparency, and cross-functional cooperation we needed**. I could shape the culture and demand the ongoing conversation that shared consciousness required. > > Leading as a gardener meant that I kept the Task Force focused on clearly articulated priorities by explicitly talking about them and by leading by example. **It was impossible to separate my words and my actions**, because the force naturally listened to what I said, but measured the importance of my message by observing what I actually did. If the two were incongruent, my words would be seen as meaningless pontifications. The equivalent of a gardener creating an ecosystem in an organization is culture. But too often we don't see culture as actionable. **How is a first line manager supposed to influence culture? Isn't that the CEO's job?** We feel we can't influence it because we don't think our actions are going to make a difference, leading to a "tragedy of the commons". But in fast evolving complex systems, even the smallest actions can have large scale effects. The best way to influence the system is through our own actions. You are not stepping outside the system and acting "on" it per se. Rather **you are what makes up the system, and thus any change you make also means the system changed, even if infinitesimally**. > **Gardeners plant and harvest, but more than anything, they *tend*.** Plants are watered, beds are fertilized, and weeds are removed. Long days are spent walking humid pathways or on sore knees examining fragile stalks. Regular visits by good gardeners are not pro forma gestures of concern—they leave the crop stronger. So it is with leaders. Tending takes a lot longer than planting and harvesting, and requires consistency and patience. There is no end or beginning to it. It's the day to day act of showing up, and responding to what shows up. That's also how culture and effective leadership are built — **one interaction, one conversation at a time**. ## The leader's main job > The primary responsibility of the new leader is to maintain a holistic, big-picture view, avoiding a reductionist approach, no matter how tempting micromanaging may be. Perhaps an organization sells widgets, and the leader finds that he or she loves *everything* about widgets—designing, building, and marketing them; that’s still not where the leader is most needed. **The leader’s first responsibility is to the *whole.*** > > ... A leader’s words matter, but actions ultimately do more to reinforce or undermine the implementation of a team of teams. Instead of exploiting technology to monitor employee performance at levels ..., the leader must allow team members to monitor *him.* **More than directing, leaders must exhibit personal transparency**. This holistic view is not that of a detached, removed approach where the leader focuses on everything "strategy". It's anything but that. In fact, it requires even [more ground level engagement](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/), but going about it in a different way than what we are used to. ## Related reading - Critical feedback is hard to come by especially a you go higher up in leadership. Practicing with tools like [The Johari Window Model ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/)can be useful. - Another analogy for how situations evolve and the pace of adapting is [thinking in terms of Tetris ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategy-as-tetris-not-chess/)rather than chess. There are dynamics unique to Tetris that is more relevant to modern work than chess. - Leaders, often by default, [think naturally in terms of control ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/)and content, rather than conte**x**t. [Managing context is a meta-skill](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) that unlocks several others both in leaders and their teams. Gardening is a fitting metaphor that captures the underlying dynamics of context and effective leadership. ### Sources 1. [Team of Teams](https://amzn.to/3WxnopI?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by General Stanley McChrystal with Tantum Collins, David Silverman, Chris Fussell. 2. [Tools of Titans](https://amzn.to/3WyFVlk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Tim Ferriss. ### Video: Gen. Stan McChrystal, The Leader as Gardener ### James MacGregor Burns on Self-Actualization, Self-Esteem and Effective Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/james-macgregor-burns-leadership/ Last updated: 2024-09-12T00:35:11.000Z [Can you teach leadership?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/) What is the link between self-esteem, or the lack thereof, and effective leadership? What about Maslow's notion of self-actualization? These are some of the many questions that American historian and leadership authority James MacGregor Burns explored in his seminal classic [*Leadership*](https://amzn.to/3Gdec31?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ## Can leadership be taught? > The most practical way to begin to answer this question is also the most theoretical: to define both education and leadership in the broadest and most fundamental way and to understand the vital relationship of the one to the other. > > We have conceived of leadership... as the tapping of existing and potential motive and [power bases](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/sources-of-power-in-organizations/) of followers by leaders, for the purpose of achieving intended change. We conceive of **education in essentially the same terms**. > > So viewed, education is **not merely the shaping of values, the imparting of “facts” or the teaching of skills**, indispensable though these are; it is the total teaching and learning process ... conducted by both teachers and learners, engaging with the total environment, and involving **influence over** **persons’ *selves* and their opportunities and destinies, not simply their minds**. > > Ultimately **education and leadership shade into each other to become almost inseparable**, but only when both are defined as the **reciprocal raising of levels of motivation rather than indoctrination or** [**coercion**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/). > Leaders are taskmasters and goal setters, but they and their followers share a particular space and time, a particular set of motivations and values. **If they are to be effective in helping to mobilize and elevate their constituencies, leaders must be whole persons**, persons with fully functioning [capacities](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/) for thinking and feeling. The problem for them as educators, as leaders, is not to promote narrow, egocentric self-actualization but **to extend awareness of human needs and the means of gratifying them,** to improve the larger social situation for which educators or leaders have responsibility and over which they have power. Is it too much to believe that it is “**the grand goal of all leadership—to help create or maintain the social harbors for these personal islands?**” > What does all this mean for the teaching of leadership as opposed to manipulation? “Teachers”—in whatever guise—treat students neither coercively nor instrumentally but as **joint seekers of truth and of mutual actualization.** ## Leading by being led — mutual actualization > Just as self-actualizers are potential leaders at all levels—because of their capacity to grow, their flexibility, their creativity, their competence—**the concept of self-actualization is a powerful one for understanding the processes of leadership**. Its applicability to leadership has been stultified, however, by **an overemphasis on self-actualization** rather than **mutual actualization** with others. > > ...I suggest that the most marked characteristic of self-actualizers as potential leaders goes beyond Maslow’s self-actualization; it is their capacity to ***learn from others and from the environment—the capacity to be taught.*** > > That capacity calls for an ability to **listen and be guided by others without being threatened by them**, to be dependent on others but not overly dependent, to judge other persons with both affection and discrimination, to possess **enough autonomy to be creative** without rejecting the external influences that make for growth and relevance. Self-actualization ultimately means the **ability *to lead by being led.*** > > It is this kind of self-actualization that enables leaders to comprehend the needs of potential followers, to enter into their perspectives, and to act on popular needs such as those for material help and for security and esteem. Because leaders themselves are continually going through self-actualization processes, they are able to rise with their followers, **usually one step ahead of them**, to respond to their transformed needs and thus to help followers move into self-actualization processes. ## On leadership and self-esteem > One generalization seems safe on the basis of both systematic and casual observation: **the most potent sources of political motivation**—*the key elements of political ambition*—***are unfulfilled esteem needs*** (both self-esteem and esteem by others). > > **Both power wielders and leaders have such needs**. “Because persons with a need for esteem have moved a considerable way up the need hierarchy towards self-actualization,” Knutson notes, “they are especially likely to be active in their social political environment, and to be found in leadership positions.” > And James David Barber believes that the decisive step of candidacy for office, involving great personal risk and sharp change in one’s life and commitments, “is most likely to be taken by **two kinds of people**: those who have such ***high* self-esteem** that they can manage relatively easily the threats and strains and anxieties involved in this change; and those who have such ***low* self-esteem** that they are ready to do this extraordinary thing to raise it.” > This potent need for esteem, for prestige, for reputation, for admiration—this need that dwarfs even as it produces the ambition for power—is evident in the careers of “great men,” whether brutal power wielders or leaders. Burns touches on some very essential and personal aspects of [effective leadership ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/)in his classic. All leaders and managers would benefit from taking a closer look at their own self-esteem needs, level of self-actualization, ability to enable mutual actualization, and understanding the [difference between teaching vs learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/) in their [style of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/). ## Related reading Getting better at leading and managing can be a minefield of confusing topics. Where do we start? One place to begin is by [understanding the overarching themes and contexts of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/three-pillars-and-two-contexts-of-modern-leadership/). A key theme in Burns's writing referenced above is of leaders [understanding what makes human beings tick](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). It's why mastering the [basics of the human domain](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/) is critical to becoming an effective leader. ### Source 1. [Leadership](https://amzn.to/3Gdec31?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by [James MacGregor Burns](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James%5FMacGregor%5FBurns?ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### EQ vs IQ: Misled and Oversold on Emotional Intelligence URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/ Last updated: 2025-08-08T22:54:28.000Z *How important is emotional intelligence to your career and where does EQ stand relative to IQ?* --- ## Overestimating the importance of EQ Ever since Daniel Goleman's 1995 bestseller Emotional Intelligence popularized the concept, EI(emotional intelligence) and EQ(emotional quotient) have become part of the common vernacular in companies. Thanks to clever marketing and well designed TED talks, its importance in some circles is gospel and beyond question. Almost every other article or in-house training touches on aspects of EQ in some form— most of them based on emotional intelligence as “science based”, “research backed”, and “proven” as a determinant of career success. But this popularity has also lead to the proliferation of correct sounding but potentially damaging misconceptions. For example, folks hear some version of **"*emotional intelligence is more important than technical ability*"**, or the commonly cited statistic that **"*emotional intelligence makes for 80% of success*"**. This leads many to mistakenly assume that technical skills do not matter as much as EQ, or that they are secondary. But this is only partially true, **completely misleading and far removed from the reality of workplace dynamics**. What often gets left out is that the studies backing up these claims are based on a highly self-selected sample, and it really depends on the stage of your career, your level in the hierarchy, and the context of your role. So what does the research actually say? ## Findings from EQ research In their book Primal Leadership, the authors(including Goleman) give a technical background on emotional intelligence research that offers some clues: > In recent years, we have analyzed data from close to 500 competence models from global companies, as well as from healthcare organizations, academic institutions, government agencies, and even a religious order. To determine which personal capabilities drove outstanding performance within these organizations, we **grouped capabilities into three categories**: > > **purely technical skills** such as accounting or business planning; **cognitive abilitie**s such as analytic reasoning; and traits showing **emotional intelligence**, such as self-awareness and relationship skill. Whichever method was used, this process resulted in lists of ingredients for highly effective leaders. > > ....Analyzing all the data from hundreds of competence models yielded dramatic results. To be sure, intellect was to some extent a driver of outstanding performance; cognitive skills such as big-picture thinking and long-term vision were particularly important. But calculating the ratio of technical skills and purely cognitive abilities (IQ) to emotional intelligence in the ingredients that distinguished outstanding leaders revealed that EI-based competencies played **an increasingly important role at higher levels of organizations, where differences in technical skills are of negligible importance.** > > … In other words, the **higher the rank of those considered star performers, the more EI competencies emerged as the reason for their effectiveness**. When the comparison matched star performers against average ones in senior leadership positions, about 85 percent of the difference in their profiles was attributable to emotional intelligence factors rather than to purely cognitive abilities like technical expertise. > > One reason has to do with the intellectual hurdles that senior executives jump in obtaining their jobs. It takes at least an IQ of about 110 to 120 to get an advanced degree such as an MBA. There is thus **a high selection pressure for IQ** in order to enter the executive ranks—and relatively little variation in IQ among those who are in those ranks. > > On the other hand, there is **little or no systematic selection pressure when it comes to emotional intelligence**, and so there is a much wider range of variation among executives. That lets superiority in these capabilities count far more than IQ when it comes to star leadership performance. > > While the precise ratio of EI to cognitive abilities depends on how each are measured and on the unique demands of a given organization, our rule of thumb holds that **EI contributes 80 to 90 percent of the competencies that distinguish outstanding from average leaders**—and sometimes more. > > To be sure, purely cognitive competencies, such as technical expertise, surface in such studies—but often as **threshold abilities**, the skills people need simply to do an average job. Although the specifics vary from organization to organization, EI competencies make up the vast majority of the more crucial, distinguishing competencies. In most popular interpretations of applying emotional intelligence, the important caveat of EQ being a differentiating factor *"*where differences in technical skills are of negligible importance"** gets left out either by design or by ignorance. ## Common misperceptions about EQ In 2005, a decade after Emotional Intelligence was first published, Goleman himself acknowledged exaggerations of the importance of EQ: ### EQ is not 80% of success > Unfortunately, misreadings of this book have spawned some myths, which I would like to clear up here and now. One is the bizarre—though widely repeated—fallacy that “EQ accounts for 80 percent of success.” This claim is preposterous. > > The misinterpretation stems from data suggesting IQ accounts for about 20 percent of career success. Because that estimate—and it is only an estimate—leaves a large portion of success unaccounted for, we must seek other factors to explain the rest. It does not mean, however, that emotional intelligence represents the rest of the factors in success. ### EQ is not more important than IQ > Another common misconception takes the form of recklessly applying this book’s subtitle—“Why it can matter more than IQ”—to domains like academic achievement, where it does not apply without careful qualification. The extreme form of this misconception is the myth that EI “matters more than IQ” in all pursuits. ### Domains where EQ shines primarily over IQ > Emotional intelligence trumps IQ primarily in those “soft” domains where intellect is relatively less relevant for success—where, for example, emotional self-regulation and empathy may be more salient skills than purely cognitive abilities. ### The “floor effect” of IQ at the highest levels > IQ scores predict extremely well whether we can handle the cognitive challenges that a given position demands. Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of studies have shown that IQ predicts which career rungs a person can manage. No question there. > > But IQ washes out when it comes to predicting who, among a talented pool of candidates within an intellectually demanding profession, will become the strongest leader. In part this is because of the “floor effect”: everyone at the top echelons of a given profession, or at the top levels of a large organization, has already been sifted for intellect and expertise. **At those lofty levels a high IQ becomes a “threshold” ability**, one needed just to get into and stay in the game. ### EQ is a discriminating competency only in certain situations > …EI abilities rather than IQ or technical skills emerge as the “discriminating” competency that best predicts who among a group of very smart people will lead most ably. If you scan the competencies that organizations around the world have independently determined identify their star leaders, you discover that indicators of IQ and technical skill drop toward the bottom of the list the higher the position. (IQ and technical expertise are much stronger predictors of excellence in lower-rung jobs.) > At the very highest levels, competence models for leadership typically consist of anywhere from 80 to 100 percent EI-based abilities. Clearly **emotional intelligence is not a slam dunk** as many would have us believe. Neither is it easy to clearly differentiate it from other factors in actual practice. ## You already have enough emotional intelligence Marc Effron in *8 Steps to High Performance*, takes it one step further. Based on more recent studies he outright rules out EQ as a predictor of success even at the highest levels: > **Emotional Intelligence Doesn’t Predict Leadership Success** > > It’s a wonderfully intuitive idea that our performance might improve if we better manage our emotions and more accurately perceive others’ emotions. What’s often sold as emotional intelligence (EI) is almost entirely from the fixed 50 percent factor of personality and **does not predict job performance any better than personality does**. > > Leading personality scientist Tomas Chamorro- Premuzic commented that **EI had simply repackaged very unsexy elements of personality in a nicer wrapper**, saying, “**Even if EQ \[emotional quotient\] is largely old wine in a new bottle, at least the wine is very drinkable**.” > > Turning up the dial too high on EI can even create a condition called **psychopathy**, where you’re so insightful about others’ emotions that you become manipulative and superficial. EI can make up for lower IQs in some situations, but if you’re missing IQ points, you have a much larger performance challenge ahead. > > **WHAT TO DO INSTEAD**. It is helpful to understand how people see you manage your own and others’ emotions and to correct any harmful behaviors. **Doing each of these things well enough to be successful isn’t a different type of intelligence than IQ**. It’s just about behaving in a way that your peers and coworkers value. ...there are people who are very successful despite what appear to be lower levels of EI. ## Key takeaways So where does this leave us and how should we factor emotional intelligence in developmental efforts? - Technical and cognitive skills are clearly "**threshold factors**" that cannot be ignored— they get you in the game and let you keep playing it. While they might not be sufficient, **they sure are a necessary condition** for success in most domains. - In order to stand out on your EQ skills **you have to be first competitive on your technical/cognitive skills**. It will be tough to compete just on your social skillset. - EQ is probably not a differentiator at lower levels and early stages of your career. Technical chops, cognitive skills and execution will probably help you stand out more. It's only when you move on to the managerial and executive ranks that EI/EQ starts becoming a differentiator, what Goleman calls a "**discriminating competency**". - Even at higher levels, **EQ is not a given**. Where it can probably make the most impact is in avoiding pitfalls once you get there, what researchers call “[leadership derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/)", rather than being an active mechanism in reaching there. Like any other widely accepted "advice" out there, EQ is no panacea, and its **applicability is highly contextual**. EQ might be very relevant to someone in a leadership role who wants to avoid [derailment](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-derailment/), but probably not as much for an individual contributor climbing the ladder early on in their career. As with a lot of intuitive sounding advice, "**it depends**". Caveat emptor — proceed cautiously. ## Related reading It's common to think of getting better at leadership, or any other interpersonal skill, in terms of positive abilities. Paradoxically, what might prepare leaders best for complexity and ambiguity is [John Keats's notion of negative capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). Most leaders already have a good baseline competence of emotional intelligence. What's often lacking is [skilled reflection and a practice of doing it regularly](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) and reflexively. ### Sources and references - [Primal Leadership](https://amzn.to/3WFRUx9?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Daniel Goleman, Richard Boyatsis, Annie Mckee - [8 Steps to High Performance](https://amzn.to/3GgBNkd?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Marc Effron - [Emotional Intelligence](https://amzn.to/3PSEbAT?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Daniel Goleman - John Antonakis, Neal M. Ashkanasy, and Marie T. Dasborough, "Does leadership need emotional intelligence?", The Leadership Quarterly. - D. L. Joseph, J. Jin, D. A. Newman, and E. H. O. Boyle, “Why Does Self-reported Emotional Intelligence Predict Job Performance? A Meta- Analytic Investigation of Mixed EI,” Journal of Applied Psychology. - Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, “Emotional Intelligence Is Not Quite Total B.S.,” Talent Quarterly. - D. L. Joseph and D. A. Newman, “Emotional Intelligence: An Integrative Meta-Analysis and Cascading Model,” Journal of Applied Psychology. ### Creative Leaders vs Controlling Leaders URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-leaders-vs-controlling-leaders/ Last updated: 2024-04-23T20:46:00.000Z In his classic [The Adult Learner](https://amzn.to/3VTNdQt?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Malcolm Knowles makes the distinction between creative leaders and controlling ones. By [understanding teams and organizations as systems](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/), and their energy as a parameter, one approach tries to *control* energy while the other works on *releasing* energy in the system. ## Leadership as controlling vs releasing a system's energy > Knowles undertook a personal intellectual adventure that paid high dividends in terms of understanding the role of leadership and in selecting more effective leadership strategies. The adventure consisted of seeing **what would happen if one conceptualized a social system (family, group, organization, agency, corporation...) as a system of human energy**. > > All at once a **set of questions very different from those typically asked** by leaders come to mind: > > • What is the sum total of the human energy available in the system? > • What proportion of this energy is now being used? > • Where is the unused energy located? Why is it not being tapped? > • What kinds of energy (physical, intellectual, psychic, moral, artistic, technical, social) are represented? > • What might be done to release this energy for accomplishing greater goals for the system and the individuals in it? > > By virtue of simply asking these kinds of questions, **you begin to think differently about the role of leadership**. Clouded by the era of Frederick Taylor’s “scientific management,” the role of leadership consisted primarily of controlling followers or subordinates. [Effective leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/), from this view, were those who were able to get people to follow their orders. > > The consequence of this doctrine is, of course, that **the output of the system was limited to the vision and ability of the leader**. Realizing this provokes **a rethinking of the leadership function**. > **The alternative function of leadership is releasing the energy of the people** in the system and managing the processes for giving that energy direction toward mutually beneficial goals. Perhaps a better way of saying this is that creative leadership releases the creative energy of the people being led. > **Tests of this view of leadership have been done in two ways**. First, by observing leaders of various sorts (teachers, business executives, educational administrators, and organizational and political leaders) through this frame of reference to identify characteristics that releasing leaders possess that controlling leaders don’t have. Second, by re-examining the research literature on human behavior, organizational dynamics, and leadership to find out what support it contains for this way of viewing the concept of leadership. > > The result of this bifocal inquiry is in the form of the following propositions... ## Behavioral characteristics of creative leaders ### They default to positive, not negative > Creative leaders make a **different set of assumptions (essentially positive)** about human nature from the assumptions (essentially negative) made by controlling leaders. It has been my observation that creative leaders have faith in people, offer them challenging opportunities, and delegate responsibility to them. > > Two of the clearest presentations of these contrasting assumptions in the literature are...by Douglas McGregor in the case of assumptions by managers and by [Carl Rogers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/) in the case of assumptions by educators. > > The validity of the positive set of assumptions is supported by research which indicates that when people perceive [the locus of control ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/)to reside within themselves, they are more creative and productive. The more they feel their unique potential is being used, the greater their achievement. ### They enable participation > Creative leaders accept as a law of human nature that people feel a commitment to a decision in proportion to the extent that they feel they have participated in making it. Creative leaders, therefore, involve their clients, workers, or students in every step of the planning process, assessing needs, formulating goals, designing lines of action, carrying out activities, and evaluating results (except, perhaps, in emergencies). The validity of this proposition is supported by locus of control studies and by research on organizational change, decision making , and organizational dynamics. ### They understand the Pygmalion effect > Creative leaders believe in and use the power of self-fulfilling prophecy. They understand that [**people tend to rise to the expectations of others**.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) The creative coach conveys to his team that he knows they are capable of winning; the good supervisor’s employees know that she has faith that they will do superior work; the good teacher’s students are convinced that they are the best students in school. > > The classic study demonstrating this principle, Rosenthal and Jacobson’s **Pygmalion in the Classroom** (1968), showed that the students of teachers who were told that they were superior students were superior students; whereas the students of teachers who were told that they were inferior students were inferior students. And, of course, there was no difference in the natural ability of the two groups of students. The **relationship between positive self-concept and superior performance** has been demonstrated in studies of students and in general life achievement . ### They value individuality > They sense that people perform at a higher level when they are operating on the basis of their unique strengths, talents, interests, and goals than when they are trying to conform to **some imposed stereotype**. They are comfortable with a pluralistic culture and tend to be bored with one that is monolithic. > > As managers, they encourage a team arrangement in which each member works at what he or she does best and enjoys most; as teachers they strive to tailor the learning strategies to fit the individual learning styles, paces, starting points, needs, and interests of all the students. This proposition is widely supported in the research literature . ### They enable self-actualization, not conformity > There is another dimension to this proposition—more of a philosophical note than a behavioral observation. It is that creative leaders probably have a different sense of the purpose of life from that of the controlling leaders. > > They see the purpose of all life activities— work, learning, recreation, civic participation, worship—as a way to enable each individual to achieve his or her full and unique potential. They seek to help each person become what Maslow calls a self-actualizing person, whereas the **controlling leader’s mission is to produce conforming persons**. ### They leverage creativity > Creative leaders stimulate and reward creativity. They understand that in a world of accelerating change, creativity is a basic requirement for the survival of individuals, organizations, and societies. They exemplify creativity in their own behavior and provide an environment that encourages and rewards innovation in others. They make it **legitimate for people to experiment and to** [**treat failures as opportunities to learn**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-failure-and-luck) rather than as acts to be punished . ### They understand the dynamics of change > Creative leaders are committed to a process of continuous change and are skillful in managing change. They understand **the difference between static and innovative organizations** and aspire to make their organizations the latter. They are well grounded in the theory of change and skillful in selecting the most effective strategies for bringing about change . ### They leverage intrinsic, not extrinsic motivators > Creative leaders emphasize internal motivators over external motivators. They understand the distinction revealed in Herzberg et al.’s research between **satisfiers** (motivators), such as achievement, recognition, fulfilling work, responsibility, advancement, and growth; and **dissatisfiers** (hygienic factors), such as organizational policy and administration, supervision, working conditions, interpersonal relations, salary, status, job security, and personal life. > > They take steps to **minimize the dissatisfiers** but concentrate their energy on **optimizing the satisfiers**. This position is strongly supported by subsequent research . ### They enable autonomy and self-mastery > Creative leaders encourage people to be **self-directing**. They sense intuitively what researchers have been telling us for some time—that a universal characteristic of the maturation process is movement from a state of dependency toward states of **increasing self-directedness**. > > They realize that because of previous conditioning as dependent learners in their school experience, adults need initial help in learning to be self-directing and will look to leaders for this kind of help. And, to provide this kind of help, they have **developed their skills as facilitators and consultants** to a high level. Knowles was ahead of his time with many of his ideas. They have aged well over the years and proven robust across multiple studies and research areas. It should not be mistaken for a "be good" morality based approach, but instead what enables peak performance and results, that organizations need and demand. ## What model do your actions reflect? Consider the default model of leadership and the underlying assumptions that you and your organization operate under. If not explicitly stated, it's implicit in your actions and stance. - Is it a default positive or a default negative [view of human beings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/)? - Does it [set high standards and push performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) to the next level? - Does it encourage individuality or does it force conformity? - Do you enable participation or are you dictating the terms? - Is it based on an abundance of trust or a lack of it? - Are deviating opinions encouraged or silenced? - Is it based on [extrinsic or intrinsic motivation](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/#7-intrinsic-autonomous-goals-vs-extrinsic-controlled-goals)? - Does it foster autonomy or dependence? Often, managers default to controlling energy because the opposite of releasing energy initially takes more effort and skill, and can be counterintuitive. But once it gets rolling it takes less energy to sustain the momentum. It's a fundamentally different approach to managing and leading. The shift is subtle and neither are the results immediate. But it's well worth the effort in the long run. ## Related Reading One way to release energy in your team is to operate more in terms of [enabling context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) rather than [enforcing control or dictating content](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). Understanding leadership in the context of a creative vs controlling framework of energy is a good way to discern between the approaches of context vs that of control. In modern times, [Netflix is a great example of building teams that foster creativity using context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/), as opposed to suppressing it by using control. ### Source 1. [The Adult Learner](https://amzn.to/3VTNdQt?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by [Malcolm Knowles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm%5FKnowles?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Elwood Holton and Richard Swanson. ### The Dark Side of Active Listening URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/ Last updated: 2026-02-25T18:50:41.000Z We're constantly told to be better communicators. As part of this push, courses and programs tell us to master what Carl Rogers called "[active listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/)". But this active approach towards listening **can actually be counter productive** and make your communication worse, not better. Consider some of the common recommedations of active listening: - Paying attention to words, tone, and body language. - Open-ended questions. - [Providing feedback](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-constructive-feedback/), reflecting, and mirroring back to build rapport. Nothing wrong with it, and certainly better than a self-centered, disconnected monologue. But notice how **the focus is on a whole bunch of "performing"**— it's a performative model and no wonder it's "active". In practice, it ends up being **a whole lot of *doing* and paradoxically, a lot less of *listening***. **William Isaacs of MIT Sloan School of Management** puts it this way: > For all the wonderful qualities of listening and the fully engaged participation that can be evoked through it, there is also an underside to this practice. > > ...we tend to think in ways that lead us away from wholeness and into fragmentation. Again, **fragmented listening** is *abstraction,* which literally means “extracting meaning from something.” > > A part of me can listen and be fully participative while another part can abstract and fail to attend to what I hear—or attend only selectively. It is only **by becoming aware of those parts of ourselves that *fail to listen* *,*** even as we try hard to listen well, that we may break through to a new experience. > > A part of me can, in other words, [remain high on the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/), and so have perceptions not grounded in directly observable experience. Instead of listening without resistance, I listen but resist what I hear, **selecting what I want and discounting what I do not want to hear**. When we have an ax to grind with someone, we tend to hear the grinding of the axes, not what the other person has to say. > > **Instead of allowing a quality of stillness** to pervade our listening, it is easy to be in motion, **seeking to “grasp” or “take in” what is being said**. Our listening becomes more intellectual. We are “here,” others are “there.” We try to “get” what they say. Our thought is doing the interpreting. We are separate from the person, and then [the “transmission” model of listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/#1-the-conduit-model-orientation) prevails. > > Have I received from them what I needed to perceive rather than what they were actually saying? Listening in this sense objectifies the other person. It is possible to listen in this way, but we end up **treating the other person as an object to manage** not a being with whom we can create new possibilities. > > What are we to do? The challenge is to become aware of the fact that especially **when we try hard to listen, we will often still have a part of us actively failing to do so**. The key is to simply become aware of this, to make conscious just what we are doing. Awareness is curative; as we stand still, our listening can open us into frontiers we did not realize were there. > > — William Isaacs in [Dialogue, The Art of Thinking Together](https://amzn.to/3FB6YFn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) As human beings, **we are naturally wired to listen if we are genuinely interested**. Consider your experience of **falling in love**. You didn't need a class on listening — you were the best natural listener because it was driven by genuine care and curiosity. Active listening, by definition, requires us to "latch onto" something, a "grasping for" that tends to force the issue instead of letting it naturally emerge and evolve. Too much focus on execution and getting it right makes us miss a whole range of "data" unfolding and evolving before us. Leaders and managers are especially prone to this kind of listening. After all, they became leaders by [jumping at problems and solving them](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). But often what gets said and what the person is trying to communicate are dramatically different. The dark side of "active" listening is that in our eagerness to listen and "tackle*"*, we forget to pay attention to the nuances, what's unsaid, and what is often [more important than the content](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) of the delivery. Even Richard Farson who along with Carl Rogers pioneered the notion of "active listening" highlights this problem: > Even though I pretty much agree with what we said then, I would not write such a piece today. The main reason is that **I no longer believe that genuine listening should be reduced to a technique**. To me, there is something graceless and manipulative in analyzing those special moments when we are enriched and exhilarated by someone's listening to us, or being honest with us, or praising us, and teaching them as human relations or management skills. > > It is like learning memory tricks so that you can call someone you barely know by name, or using [self-disclosure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-disclosure-in-leadership/) as a method of gaining someone's confidence. Unfortunately, the entire range of human emotional response has become fair game for the management technologists. > > — Richard Farson in [Management of the Absurd ](https://amzn.to/4hQLzLa?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What to do So what to do instead? Learn human communication rather than digital. Almost all communication training is based on the [Shannon-Weaver transmission model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Weaver%5Fmodel?ref=leadingsapiens.com) of communication. While a good start, its basis is digital transmission of information rather than human. [Human communication is fundamentally different](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/#1-the-conduit-model-orientation) but not as widely understood. One reason is because **it's easier to package and sell "doing" rather than "non-doing".** Isaacs talks about "seeking to grasp" and wanting to "take in" what's being said. One way to counter the need to jump at what's being said is to develop [what John Keats called Negative Capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). Isaacs also mentions the ladder of inference. I've written about [how leaders can use it for better decision making](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). In their classic, [Difficult Conversations](https://amzn.to/3ClVrw7?ref=leadingsapiens.com), the authors advise to "forget the words and focus on authenticity": > Scores of workshops and books on “active listening” teach you what you should *do* to be a good listener. Their advice is relatively similar — ask questions, paraphrase back what the other person has said, acknowledge their view, sit attentively and look them in the eye — all good advice. You emerge from these courses eager to try out your new skills, only to become discouraged when your friends or colleagues complain that you sound phony or mechanical. “Don’t use that active listening stuff on me,” they say. > > The problem is this: **you are taught what to say and how to sit, but the heart of good listening is congruence and authenticity**. People “read” not only your words and posture, but what’s going on inside of you. **If your “stance” isn’t genuine, the words won’t matter.** What will be communicated most powerfully is whether you are genuinely curious, whether you genuinely care about the other person and what they think and feel. If your intentions are false, no amount of careful wording or good posture will help. **If your intentions are good, even clumsy language is unlikely to derail you.** > > Listening is only powerful and effective if it is authentic. Authenticity means that you are listening because you are curious and because you care, not just because you are supposed to. And not because you are hoping to trick or “technique” them into feeling heard or listening to you. The issue, then, is this: ***Are* you curious? *Do* you care?** > > — [Difficult Conversations](https://amzn.to/444Wknn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Douglas Stone, Bruce Patton, Sheila Heen ## Related Articles on Active Listening [Active Listening: What It Originally MeantSensitive, active listening is exceedingly rare in our lives. We think we listen, but very rarely do we listen with real understanding, true empathy. Yet listening, of this very special kind, is one of the most potent forces for change that I know. — Carl Rogers Listen, or your tongue will![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-227.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Active-Listening---Carl-Rogers.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/active-listening/) [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-228.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-8.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-229.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1-7.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) [MBWA : The Lost Art of Managing by Wandering AroundManaging effectively using data is all the rage today. But most of it is shallow “hard data”. The real challenge is to get so called “soft data”. How do you get the real pulse of your teams, or your customer’s true opinion? There’s a simple method that can![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-230.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/President-Lincoln---MBWA-3.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) ### Singular Big Bet vs Multiple Small Bets-Two Contrasting Approaches to Strategy URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:47:34.000Z In their book, [Business Experimentation](https://amzn.to/3HOfxPZ?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Rob James and Jules Goddard highlight two approaches to strategy that are diametrically opposite to each other. ## The lone big bet is still the norm First is the traditional big bet approach characterized by centralized once a year planning, while the second is a culture of rapid, decentralized experimentation through [multiple small bets](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#10-designing-small-bets-rather-than-big-wins) leading to small wins that compound over time. One is slower to respond to real time changes, whereas the other is more nimble and adaptive. > For most companies, strategy is a single big bet. It is invented and formulated by quite a small team of senior executives. The view is that they are in the best position to see the future and create a winning formula. It is for the rest of the organization to implement it. There are, in effect, **a small number of thinkers and a large number of doers**. > > Implementation becomes the performance-defining issue, and when things go wrong it is assumed to lie in clumsy execution rather than misconceived strategy. Thus, the dominant values of the organization will tend to be those of loyalty, alignment and solidarity. They reflect a managerial mentality grounded in habits of centralization, control and compliance. Yet it remains the case that **‘betting the farm’ on an untested bold conjecture is a huge gamble**. Even in the third decade of the twenty-first century, the notion of "**small number of thinkers and large number of doers**" is still the dominant approach in spite of overwhelming evidence that it's not in fact the best strategy in a variety of scenarios. That notion is also the source of glaring disconnects between ivory tower ideas and [reality on the front lines](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). ## Leveraging serendipity Meanwhile, an [experimental small wins methodology](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) makes it easier to involve everyone and thus more responsive to and in tune with what's actually needed. > In contrast to the single big bet, **‘planned serendipity’** can be seen in the dramatic success of **the ‘marginal gains’ methodology** made famous by the Tour de France victories of Team Sky, coached by Sir Dave Brailsford. Applied to business, this is a technique of thinking that focuses on incremental changes to everything in the organization, 1 per cent at a time. > > Unlike the big bet strategy, it relies upon the compounding effect of multiple small wins. ...It is a form of piecemeal engineering. In earlier times, it was called evolutionary operation (EVOP), emulating the variation and selection method of Darwinian theory. > > Of the hundreds of experiments that led to British cyclists winning 178 world championships and 66 Olympic or Paralympic gold medals between 2007 and 2017, here are just a handful: > • Tires gained grip by being coated with alcohol. > • Racing suits were tested in wind tunnels to become more aerodynamic. > • Workouts were enhanced through biofeedback sensors. > • Muscle recovery was accelerated by certain massage gels. > • A good night’s sleep was improved by particular pillows and mattresses. > • Muscle temperature was optimized by wearing electrically heated overshorts. > • Finely tuned bikes were degraded even by small amounts of dust in the team truck. > > Marginal gains such as these should serve as an inspiration to any organization that aspires to excel. Strategy for the experimental company is managed as **an emergent process – more like a shower of arrows fired into the future than a preconceived plan** being remorselessly rolled out. ## Betting the farm vs Farming the bets They give a matrix of approaches and make the useful distinction of "betting the farm" vs "farming the bets", that's useful when thinking about rolling out initiatives. On one end is the big company wide push while on the other end are smaller, more frequent but localized experiments. While there is no one right answer, looking at our particular project on the spectrum can shed some new light. > Experiments can be big, **‘bet the farm’** type experiments: the entire company becomes the hypothesis and therefore, by definition, they are a rare occurrence for the firm adopting such an experiment. Equally, experiments can be small, ‘**farm the bets’** type experiments: each experiment is contained within a small part of the company and therefore many experiments can be running concurrently. ![Multiple Small Bets vs the Single Big Bet - 4 quadrants](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Pace-vs-Scale-of-experimentation.excalidraw-1.png) > Every new business is self-evidently a single bet. It is testing one big idea. But as the business grows, and as it becomes multi-divisional, the opportunity for multiple experimentation expands. Most of the examples in this book are **experiments conducted synchronously within different parts of the same organization**. This is what we mean by an experimental culture. > > In some organizations, such as booking.com and [Amazon](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/), **hundreds, if not thousands, of fast-paced, tightly designed experiments are running in parallel**. This style of experimentation lies at the heart of what has been called[ the ‘learning organization’](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-as-strategy/). It contrasts sharply with the organization that still relies solely upon a yearly strategic planning process to place its bets and steer its course. Where on the spectrum does your new initiative lie? Is it [an emergent small win](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) or is it a [top-down, perfectly planned](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) behemoth? Is it the best fit for what you are trying to achieve? How can you change the risk profile by changing your location on the spectrum? ### Sources 1\. [*Business Experimentation*](https://amzn.to/3HOfxPZ?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, A practical guide for driving innovation and performance in your business* by Rob James, Jules Goddard. ### John Doerr on OKR Hygiene URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/john-doerr-okr-hygiene/ Last updated: 2026-04-04T18:23:53.000Z > A successful \[OKR\] system needs only to answer two questions: > 1\. Where do I want to go? (The answer provides the *objective.*) > 2\. How will I pace myself to see if I am getting there? (The answer gives us milestones, or *key results.*) > > – Andy Grove in High Output Management OKRs(objectives and key results) and other [frameworks for setting goals and objectives](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) are a common aspect of organizational life. But familiarity doesn't necessarily mean competence and can easily end up becoming an academic exercise devoid of any power behind it. It's all too common for [leaders to botch the OKR process](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-mistakes-okr-strategy/). In [*Measure What Matters*](https://amzn.to/3WgCJKD?ref=leadingsapiens.com), John Doerr highlights some [common pitfalls when creating OKRs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-mistakes-okr-strategy/) that he learned from Intel CEO [Andy Grove](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) under what he calls "**Dr Grove's** **OKR hygiene**". ## 1\. *"Less is more"* > “A few extremely well-chosen objectives,” Grove wrote, “impart a clear message about what we say ‘yes’ to and what we say ‘no’ to.” A limit of three to five OKRs per cycle leads companies, teams, and individuals to choose what matters most. In general, each objective should be tied to five or fewer key results. A common mistake both in organizations and in personal arenas is setting too many goals. If everything is a priority then nothing is. Focusing on the important few and marshaling all resources behind them is grossly underrated. ## 2\. *"Set goals from the bottom up"* > To promote engagement, teams and individuals should be encouraged to create roughly half of their own OKRs, in consultation with managers. **When all goals are set top-down, motivation is corroded.** Often when executive teams set organizational level goals, there is a disconnect between realities on the ground and what gets discussed in boardrooms. Meanwhile middle managers while knowing those realities can't really affect change at the organizational level. This is where[ a good balance between a top-down and bottom-up approach](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) goes a long way. ## 3\. *"No dictating"* > OKRs are **a cooperative social contract** to establish priorities and define how progress will be measured. Even after company objectives are closed to debate, their key results continue to be negotiated. Collective agreement is essential to maximum goal achievement. Peter Drucker once said that strategy eats culture for breakfast. A top down strategy hatched by executives but disconnected from reality will always struggle to find traction. **Emotions and engagement are as important as logic** in the success of any initiative. Managing by decree and edict might work in the short term but tends to be unsustainable in the long run. ## 4. *"Stay flexible"* > If the climate has changed and an objective no longer seems practical or relevant as written, key results can be modified or even discarded mid-cycle. Von Clausewitz once said, "**No plan survives first contact with the enemy**". OKRs are usually designed for a one-year cycle but there is no reason to stick to them when change is warranted. Consistency for consistency's sake doesn't make sense. Realtime responsiveness and the willingness to make [necessary revisions and changes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/#leadership-reflection-and-performance) is a key aspect of adaptive strategy. ## 5\. *"Dare to fail"* > “Output will tend to be greater,” Grove wrote, “when everybody strives for a level of achievement beyond their immediate grasp. ... Such goal-setting is extremely important if what you want is peak performance from yourself and your subordinates.” > > While certain operational objectives must be met in full, **aspirational OKRs should be uncomfortable and possibly unattainable**. “Stretched goals,” as Grove called them, push organizations to new heights. This is one aspect of goal setting research that has been proven time and again. A [well designed stretch goal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) helps to push past our limits. There are other [critical dimensions of goal-setting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) as well that determine their effectiveness. ## 6\. *"A tool, not a weapon"* > The OKR system, Grove wrote, “is meant to pace a person—to put a stopwatch in his own hand so he can gauge his own performance. It is not a legal document upon which to base a performance review.” To encourage risk taking and prevent sandbagging, OKRs and bonuses are best kept separate. As Doerr notes, goals being coupled with performance reviews can have all kinds of unintended consequences including people not pushing the limits. OKRs are but only one aspect of someone's performance, and should not be used for punitive measures. Practical judgement is required on the manager's part to figure out the importance given to OKRs in the overall performance review. Another stumbling block is that OKRs are a means to an end but often end up being ends in themselves. As [Jeff Bezos](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-danger-of-processes-becoming-proxies) puts it, "It's always worth asking, **do we own the process or does the process own us?*"*** ## 7\. *"Be patient; be resolute"* > Every process requires trial and error. As Grove told his iOPEC students, Intel “stumbled a lot of times” after adopting OKRs: “We didn’t fully understand the principal purpose of it. And we are kind of doing better with it as time goes on.” An organization may need **up to four or five quarterly cycles** to fully embrace the system, and even more than that to build mature goal muscle. How many organizations have the patience to stick with a process for longer than a year before they see results? As is often the case, **strategy** tends to be similar from one organization to another. But **it's the commitment, alignment and consistency of the execution** that ends up being the difference maker. ## The 4 OKR superpowers Doerr's notion of OKR hygiene is an extension of what he calls the four superpowers of OKRs: focus, alignment, tracking and stretching. > **Superpower #1—Focus and Commit to Priorities** *:* > High-performance organizations home in on work that’s important, and are equally clear on what *doesn’t* matter. OKRs impel leaders to make hard choices. They’re a precision communication tool for departments, teams, and individual contributors. By dispelling confusion, OKRs give us the focus needed to win. > > **Superpower #2—Align and Connect for Teamwork** > With OKR transparency, everyone’s goals—from the CEO down—are openly shared. Individuals link their objectives to the company’s game plan, identify cross-dependencies, and coordinate with other teams. By connecting each contributor to the organization’s success, top-down alignment brings meaning to work. By deepening people’s sense of ownership, [bottom-up OKRs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) foster engagement and innovation. > > **Superpower #3—Track for Accountability** > OKRs are driven by data. They are animated by periodic check-ins, objective grading, and continuous reassessment—all in a spirit of no-judgment accountability. An endangered key result triggers action to get it back on track, or to revise or replace it if warranted. > > **Superpower #4—Stretch for Amazing** > OKRs motivate us to excel by doing [more than we’d thought possible](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). By testing our limits and affording the freedom to fail, they release our most creative, ambitious selves. ## Sources and references 1. [Measure What Matters](https://amzn.to/3WgCJKD?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by John Doerr 2. [High Output Management](https://amzn.to/3VUcF8q?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Andy Grove 3. For more classic OKR writing traps, check out Google's OKR playbook : [https://www.whatmatters.com/resources/google-okr-playbook](https://www.whatmatters.com/resources/google-okr-playbook?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 4. OKR 101 course: [https://www.whatmatters.com/get-started](https://www.whatmatters.com/get-started?ref=leadingsapiens.com) ### John Doerr's OKR Template ### Video: How Google sets goals with OKRs ### Video: John Doerr on OKRs and Measuring What Matters ### Barbara Kellerman on the Blindspots in Leadership Development URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/kellerman-on-the-problem-with-the-leadership-industry/ Last updated: 2026-03-03T17:08:30.000Z The leadership industry and its proponents (including yours truly) can often come across as religious fanatics and preachers spreading the good word. You will often hear terms like "good/great leaders" which have a moral undertone to them. Many of them draw clear lines between concepts that are often inseparable in practice. For eg leaders vs managers — [leaders as the ones with the vision while managers are focused on maximizing efficiency](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/differences-leaders-managers/) and execution. Of course, reality is not as neatly separated. It's rare for someone with deep knowledge in any industry, to have the ability to not just see blindspots clearly but to speak out about them. Barbara Kellerman at the Harvard Kennedy School of Public Leadership is that rare exception. In *The End of Leadership* she highlights some fundamental blindspots that the leadership industry and as an extension organizations suffer in the area of leadership development. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## The reality of leadership training > That notwithstanding the enormous sums of money and time that have been poured into trying to teach people how to lead, over its roughly forty-year history **the leadership industry has not in any major, meaningful, measurable way improved the human condition**. > ... > Bottom line: while the leadership industry has been thriving—growing and prospering beyond anyone’s early imaginings—leaders by and large are performing poorly, worse in many ways than before, miserably disappointing in any case to those among us who once believed the experts held the keys to the kingdom. ## While sounding different, they have common mistaken assumptions > The various ways to teach leadership are exciting, or intimidating, or simply confusing—take your pick. They range from courses that focus on content (what students need to know) to courses that focus on process (how change happens), to courses that focus on structure (conditions under which change takes place). > ... > To say that each of the pedagogies is different from the others is to say the obvious...What is less obvious is **how they are similar, how nearly every one is a variation on several recurring themes.** ## What are these mistaken assumptions? ### The "good leader" as the "savior" > The leadership industry assumes that **good outcomes depend on good leaders**; that good leaders are good people; and that good people can be trained, or educated, or developed, to be good leaders. Thus leadership development is the equivalent of individual development. ... the leadership industry is **dedicated to searching for a savior**, a single individual who is the apotheosis of the “great man” or great woman... ### A leader-centric view of the universe > **Most of the pedagogies are leader-centric.** This seems a given—after all, this is a handbook for teaching *leadership*. But as I have argued all along implicitly or explicitly, the model, **the fundamental model based on the leader at the center, is wrong**. Leader-centrism no longer explains, if it ever did, the way the world works. ### Followers do not matter > Most of the pedagogies are **oblivious to the fact that followers matter**. Why? > > First, because most of the pedagogies were developed in schools of business, where followers matter even less than they do in schools of government; second, because, as indicated, there is a lot of money to be made in developing leaders, and **not a lot of money to be made in developing followers**; and third, most important, because followers are still considered inconsequential. But as we we know full well by now, followers, matter. They cannot then, must not then, be excluded from the learning process. ### Maximizing "good" leadership while ignoring bad leadership > **Most of the pedagogies are concerned only with maximizing good leadership, as opposed to minimizing bad leadership**, an imbalance that can be explained only if you follow the money. Again, there is good money to be made teaching how to be a good leader; **there is no money to be made teaching how to stop or slow a bad one**. > > Still, a rough equivalent can be drawn to teaching medical students everything they should know about maintaining good health while teaching them nothing they should know about eliminating bad health—about how to remedy whatever it is that ails us. The first is important but so, equally, is the second. ### That leadership can in fact be taught > **Most of the pedagogies assume that good leadership can be taught, with little or no objective evidence** to support the assumption. To be sure, [the idea that leadership can be taught ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/)has been around since time immemorial. But one is struck by the fact that in the twenty-first century the leadership industry is still so bereft of empirical evidence to confirm or disconfirm whatever the pedagogical assumptions. This **lack of hard evidence** leaves unanswered the question of how exactly leader teachers should decide what exactly to teach leader learners. ### Forgetting that effective leadership is contextual > **Most of the pedagogies have a constrained rather than expansive conception of context**. To be sure, references to context are made in several places... But in part because of the way leader learning is structured—invariably the instruction is relatively short in duration and usually the presumption is one size fits all—context is usually treated hastily and superficially rather than over time and in depth. ## Questions to consider When taking your next leadership course or designing a leadership development program, consider the following: - Does it emphasize the role of the leader over everything else? - Is there enough focus and emphasis on the role of followers and how they influence leadership success? - Does it have any emphasis on minimizing bad leadership? This is akin to Charlie Munger's idea of **being intelligent by avoiding stupidity**. - Whatever "techniques" or "models" are being taught, are they backed by evidence and research? Is it consistent with your own real-world experience or **does it exist in its own ideal bubble**? - Is there any focus on [context and its role in successful leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/)? - In your own experience, how have these assumptions limited your learning of leadership reality? - How disconnected was your training from the realities of day to day leading and managing? ### ### References 1. [The End of Leadership](https://amzn.to/3HzDXwx?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Barbara Kellerman. ### The Case for Naive Leaders over Clever, Sophisticated Ones URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/naivete-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2024-11-11T14:52:27.000Z *Being naive has a default negative connotation —ignorant, uninformed, incredulous, or even incompetent. One class of people who exclusively avoid being seen as naive are leaders and managers.* **Naiveté is considered a liability. But is it really?* We've been oversold on the merits of sophistication and cleverness, meanwhile missing out on the benefits of a considered approach to naiveness.* *I examine naiveté in its positive but often counterintuitive dimensions — as something to be cultivated rather than eliminated, for effective leadership.* --- ## The downside of cleverness Competition is often seen as a zero sum game that makes us over-index for cleverness accompanied by a lack of trust. The solution is not to blindly trust everyone, but to avoid overcorrection towards cynicism and mistrust. James March highlighted **the problems of cleverness as a default strategy**: > Many popular applications of decision theory and game theory to problems of leadership emphasize the cleverness of strategic maneuver and practiced deception in bargaining. In these treatments, the secret to success is found in **misleading, outwitting, and outthinking opponents**. ‌‌‌‌Modern investigations in a game theoretic tradition have raised questions about such strategies, however. The issues are threefold:‌‌‌‌ > > **1\.** Strategic cleverness often **presumes that you are dealing with people who have substantially less intelligence** than you do, a presumption that rarely is accurate.‌‌‌‌ > > **2\.** Strategic cleverness **undermines trust**. As a result it precludes, or at least makes difficult, the long-term understandings and alliances that are necessary for long-term success in repeated games.‌‌‌‌ > > **3.** Strategic cleverness emphasizes the personal joys of being more clever than anyone else, thus **challenges the personal self-worth of others** and makes them willing to sacrifice their own interests in order to deny you victory. ‌‌‌‌ > > \- James March, Thierry Weil in On Leadership While strategic cleverness might afford us a competitive advantage in the short-term it might not be the best strategy in the long run at least when done exclusively. At the highest levels, **where cleverness is on a level playing field, naiveté might hold a slight advantage**. > An excess of cynicism appears to lead us to over-think the actions of others and make [negative attributions about their motivations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/fundamental-attribution-error/) without sufficient cause. In the process, **we may miss opportunities that greater trust might capture**. ‌‌‌‌…your stubborn cynicism may lead you to suboptimal outcomes in interactions requiring trust. Our myopic focus on ourselves and our failures to consider others and the situation itself can also lead us to both naive and cynical errors. ‌‌‌‌ > > \- Tsay, Shu and Bazerman \[4\] ## ‌The paradox of sophistication It might be cliched but consider why we don’t trust car salesmen or politicians. They are too slick to be trusted. Politicians are clearly masters of language, manipulation, and of course clever. But nevertheless those are the very reasons that create mistrust. In trying to *be* sophisticated we instead end up doing the opposite — being naive. TS Eliot captures this paradox in *The Rock*: > Where is the Life we have lost in living? ‌‌ > Where is the Wisdom we have lost in knowledge? ‌‌ > Where is the Knowledge we have lost in information? In contrast, **being considerately naive is a form of ultimate sophistication** only a self-assured leader can pull off. Being sophisticated per se is not necessarily the issue. It becomes one when it turns into rigid routines that close us off, and impedes being responsive to our direct experience. **Sophistication can create an external veneer that creates mistrust and distance**. For leaders, that’s the exact opposite of what they want. Leaders can become clever and sophisticated to the point where they are completely out of touch with their own humanity let alone that of others. Naïveté can be the heat that softens this dynamic enough to make them more adaptive. > Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery we need humanity; more than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. ‌‌‌‌ > > — Charles Chaplin (speech from Jewish barber in The Great Dictator) Charisma and [confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) are often mentioned in the context of having “leadership presence”. But people can sense false competence and hokey confidence, and won’t buy it. On the other hand, **cultivating naiveness is strategic and thus sophisticated in practice**. ‌ ## The evolution of our naïveté If sophistication and cleverness are not the answer what should we do instead? It’s helpful to think of **naiveté on an evolving spectrum**. Competence requires us to lose the initial naïveté that comes with ignorance of a given field. But it need not stop there or worse turn into cynicism and disengagement. Often when we think of naïveté it is of the kind that stems out of ignorance. The naïveté that I am referring to is less of the ignorant kind and more of a deliberate one. It stems from **deep knowledge and awareness** that you don’t in fact know everything. And the only way to keep learning and evolving is to have an open mind — aka being naive about a given topic or situation. John Dewey called this ***cultivated naiveté* :** > We cannot permanently divest ourselves of the intellectual habits we take on and wear when we assimilate the culture of our own time and place. ‌‌‌‌But intelligent furthering, ...demands that we take some of them off, that we inspect them critically to see what they are made of and what wearing them does to us. ‌‌‌‌ > > We cannot achieve recovery of primitive naiveté. But there is attainable a **cultivated naiveté** of eye, ear and thought, one that can be **acquired only through the discipline of severe thought**. ‌‌‌‌ > > \- John Dewey in Experience and Nature As Dewey hints at, achieving this stage is anything but natural or easy. Abraham Maslow and others have written about people at the **highest levels of self-actualization** exhibiting a childlike curiosity and approach to everything. Maslow called this childlike fascination and the willingness to appear naive as ***Second Naïveté***: > It was in this childlike sense that my subjects were creative…they had either **retained or regained at least these two main aspects of childlikeness**, namely, they were non-rubricizing or “open to experience” and they were easily spontaneous and expressive. ‌‌‌‌If children are naive, then my subjects had attained a “second naivete,” as Santayana called it. > > Their **innocence of perception and expressiveness was combined with sophisticated minds**. ‌‌‌‌‌‌… we are dealing with a fundamental characteristic, inherent in human nature, a potentiality given to all or most human beings at birth, which most often is **lost or buried or inhibited as the person gets enculturated**.‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > — Abraham Maslow in Toward a Psychology of Being Others have mentioned second naïveté as the ability to revisit a domain of expertise in a completely new light and engaging with it anew to uncover new ideas. **The banal becomes the sublime over time.** With each engagement the expert finds new nuances and distinctions they hadn’t seen before. In contrast, the layperson goes numb and becomes disengaged. While others become jaded by familiarity over time, the masters find ways to engage with renewed rigor and vitality. Thus naiveté can be seen as evolving from : **Crude Naiveté to Calculated Sophistication to Cultivated Naiveté.** In zen, this is the journey from beginner, to the expert know-it-all, to ultimately being the master and fool simultaneously. ![Graphic: How naivete evolves over time in effective leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Cultivated-Na-vet--2.png) > Study, learn, but guard the original naivete. It has to be within you, as desire for drink is within the drunkard or love is within the lover. > > ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌— Henri Matisse ‌ ‌ ## The upside of naïveté Culture trains us against being naive and thus we are very alert to it. We end up over-indexing for sophistication and cleverness, while under-indexing for naiveness. Let’s look at some of the positive but often counterintuitive aspects of **an active, cultivated stance towards naiveté**. ### 1\. As a requirement for genius When learning something new, it requires us to give up existing notions and surrender to the practice. In a sense, it’s a naive belief in what we are learning, and that we can actually learn. Without that naive belief, we won’t be spurred into action. > Our natural habit is to think associatively about what is salient to us in the immediate situation or what is immediately available from memory. It takes willpower and training to escape from **the ”dominance of the given”** and to actually think about events and relationships that are not salient and explicit in our experience. ‌‌‌‌ > > — Reid Hastie, Robyn Dawes in Rational Choice in an Uncertain World Naïveté is one way to escape this “dominance of the given” and the reason why it’s a key element of genius and creativity. Leadership at its essence is a creative act that requires stepping into an unknown and unknowable future. It’s also about constant learning, unlearning and relearning to stay ahead of the curve. And the only way to continuously learn and create is to have what the zen masters call ***the beginner’s mind.*** > As soon as we reflect, deliberate, and conceptualize, the original unconsciousness is lost and a thought interferes. … The arrow is off the string but does not fly straight to the target, nor does the target stand where it is. Calculation, which is miscalculation, sets in….Man is a thinking reed but **his great works are done when he is not calculating and thinking**. ‌‌‌‌**“Childlikeness” has to be restored**… ‌‌‌‌ > > — D.T. Suzuki in Zen in the Art of Archery Naiveté is about being able to see things anew or seeing the actual picture by not falling to preconceived notion or jaded mental models. As a leader this is hard to do. After all, we got to where we are today because of what we already know. But to see things differently, to see new things, or adapt to new emerging realities, requires a different kind of innocence and naiveness that's different from the primitive naïveté of ignorance. It’s a cultivated version that recognizes the limitations of what we already know and how it restricts from learning something new. **Geniuses are willing to look foolish** more than you and I are. Conventional wisdom got us “here” but to get “there” will require a completely different level of thinking and approaches. > How many times have you failed to try something new out of fear of being thought silly? How often have you censored your spontaneity out of fear of being thought childish? ‌‌‌‌‌‌I began to see more than **a casual relationship between learning and the willingness to be foolish**, between the master and the fool. By fool, to be clear, I don’t mean a stupid, unthinking person, but one with the spirit of the medieval fool,… signifying the fertile void from which all creation springs, **the state of emptiness that allows new things** to come into being.‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > What we frown at as foolish in our friends, or ourselves, we're likely to smile at as merely eccentric in a world-renowned genius, never stopping to think that **the freedom to be foolish might well be one of the keys to the genius's success**. > > ‌‌‌‌— George Leonard in Mastery ### 2\. As a requirement for innovation Companies tout innovation as a buzzword but typical systems are designed to discourage it. Conventional wisdom is abundant in business thinking perpetuated as best practices, efficiency, predictability, and so on. But in complex domains without clear answers or pre-proven solutions, these approaches become an impediment to innovation. Jim Collins, bestselling author of Good to Great and Built to Last highlights this notion: > Daniel Boorstin in his landmark work, The Discoverers (a detailed history of human discovery and invention), observed that many significant contributions came about because people were naive. In describing Ben Franklin’s electricity discoveries, for example, Boorstin explained:‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > "In fact his (Franklin’s) achievement illustrated the triumph of naivete over learning . . . . His [amateur and non-academic frame of mind](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-amateur/) was his greatest advantage; like many another discovering American, **he saw more because he knew much less about what he was supposed to see**.‌‌ ‌‌‌"‌ > > The same thing happens in business. When people become fat with conventional wisdom, they’re dangerous. A lot of being innovative in business is being willing to give something a try because you don’t know it flies in the face of conventional wisdom. ‌‌‌‌As Debi Colman, Apple VP of information systems and technology, puts it: “**The single biggest roadblock to creativity and innovation I’ve encountered in business is conventional wisdom**.” ‌‌‌‌ > > \- Jim Collins in Beyond Entrepreneurship Conventional thinking while promising efficiency and results limits breakthrough performance rather than enabling it. > Paradoxically, the more we act in terms of anticipated outcomes according to what James March called a “consequentialist theology”, the more likely we are to produce conformity and mediocrity in performance. The **more we crave public acceptance, recognition, and material achievement, the less we are able to produce great works** that withstand the test of time. This is the **paradox of performance. ‌‌‌‌**‌‌‌‌ > > — Robert Chia, Robin Holt in Wisdom as Learned Ignorance ### 3\. As a requirement for extraordinary performance There are no guarantees when we set out to do something. It requires a certain form of naivete to believe that our efforts will in fact lead to something. Being worldly and wise might be about understanding what works and what doesn’t, what makes for a good return on effort and what doesn’t. But extraordinary performance requires more than the usual calculations of input and output. It requires a borderline obsession with putting in the work without necessarily knowing the outcome in advance. The best real world example of this is **entrepreneurship, which requires a level of “foolishness” that ignores conventional wisdom**. It’s a form of naïveté that goes beyond the calculated rationalism of decisions and returns on investment. > The greatest successes…have come from products for which there was no initially proven demand. This uncompromising attitude echoes Ruskin’s insistence on “selfishly” seeking perfection regardless of popular public opinion. …underpinning all of this is the importance of **ignorance of orthodoxy and the unlearning** necessarily associated with it.‌‌‌‌ ‌‌‌‌ > > — Robert Chia, Robin Holt in Wisdom as Learned Ignorance **Audacity, courage, and obsession can be seen as varying levels of naiveness**. The naivete is in enjoying the journey itself more than the destination. ### 4\. As a requirement for operating in complexity Sophistication and competence often come coupled with ingrained thinking and behaviors developed over a lifetime. These can be hard to “unfreeze” and often impede good decision making. Developing naiveté actively can help buck this trend. Leadership is about stepping into the unknown and helping others navigate complex environments riddled with ambiguity. From this perspective, a certain degree of naiveness is almost a requirement to be effective. **Perfect knowledge can cause indecision and inaction**. Consider the following exchange: > **Calvin:** The more you know, the harder it is to take a decisive action. Once you become informed, you start seeing complexities and shades of gray. You realize that nothing is as clear and simple as it first appears. Ultimately, knowledge is paralyzing. Being a man of action, I can't afford to take that risk. ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > **Hobbes:** You're ignorant, but at least you act on it.‌‌‌‌ ‌‌‌‌ > > — Calvin and Hobbes, Bill Watterson Knowing less aka being naive can make it easier to take action in complex environments with incomplete information, contradicting inputs, or that of information overload. Karl Weick recognized this role of naïveté when operating in complexity in his classic paper on the [effectiveness and robustness of small wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/): > First, being **naive simply means that we reject received wisdom** that something is a problem….We are always naive relative to some definition of the situation.‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > Second, being naive probably does have a grain of denial embedded in it. But **denial can lower arousal to more optimal levels**, so that more complex actions can be developed and more detailed analyses can be made.‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > Third, **to be naive is to start with fewer preconceptions**. People with naive preconceptions will see a different set of features and are less likely to become fixated on specific features.‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > Fourth, **naive beliefs favor optimism**. Many of the central action mechanisms for small wins…gain their energy from the initial belief that people can make a difference. That belief is not naive when the world is tied together loosely. **Firm actions couple events**. And firm actions are more likely to occur when belief is strongly positive than when it is [hesitant, doubtful, or cynical](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/).‌‌‌‌ > > — Karl Weick in Small Wins ### 5\. As being politically savvy At the highest levels, politics and egos start playing a larger role in success and failure. > There are occasions when the highest wisdom consists in appearing not to know—you must not be ignorant but capable of playing it. It is not much good being wise among fools and sane among lunatics. **He who poses as a fool is not a fool.** The best way to be well received by all is to clothe yourself in the skin of the dumbest of brutes. ‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌ > > — Baltasar Gracián Robert Greene, in his underground bestseller The 48 Laws of Power, gives a strategic albeit dark use case for playing naive. He highlights how in highly competitive environments, naïveté can be used as a weapon of deception. His 21st law of power states : *“*play a sucker to catch a sucker—seem dumber than your mark*”*. > No one likes feeling stupider than the next person. The trick, then, is to make your victims feel smart—and not just smart, but smarter than you are. Once convinced of this, they will never suspect that you may have ulterior motives. > To reveal the true nature of your intelligence rarely pays; you should get in the habit of downplaying it at all times. If people inadvertently learn the truth—that you are actually much smarter than you look—they will admire you more for being discreet than for making your brilliance show. Greene highlights how this approach is more critical at higher rungs on the career ladder versus earlier when technical chops might get you ahead. > At the start of your climb to the top, of course, you cannot play too stupid: You may want to let your bosses know, in a subtle way, that you are smarter than the competition around you. **As you climb the ladder, however, you should to some degree try to dampen your brilliance**. ### 6\. As a bridge to credibility and trust **Owning mistakes upfront** might sound naive. But it has the opposite effect of increasing rather than decreasing trust. Acknowledging shortcomings builds trust faster than trying to put up a facade of confidence and competence. **Being candid is often considered naive.** Managers hesitate to state things as they really are and sugarcoat things. The manager hopes “they got the point”, but the person never hears what they really need to hear. This sugarcoating stems from the “social competence”we all learn. But in the context of helping, it’s essentially incompetence. Thus, **social competence in effect increases incompetence.** Truth doesn’t mean being blunt and inconsiderate. When in a respectful, empathetic manner and it can be one of the fastest ways to build credibility. ### 7\. An antidote to leadership derailment Leadership derailment and managerial incompetence are fairly well understood phenomena and there are four common failure modes: - lack of interpersonal skills - inability to get work done - inability to build a team - failure to transition into a new role after promotion Naïveté is an effective antidote against these. ### 8\. An antidote against expertise traps What got us here will not get us there. Strengths becomes weaknesses because they prevent us from seeing problems anew or to miss them completely. > Shakespeare teaches us moderns that in the face of an uncertain world, self-awareness—that much- vaunted leadership quality—is only worthy of the name when it is revelatory. And it can only be revelatory when we are willing to concede that we know ourselves only partially. > > Development, then, is less about changing ourselves by learning new skills than about discovering ourselves by giving something up—including some of our most cherished notions of the person we think we are—in order to discover the person we could become. > > — Declan Fitzimons in Harvard Business Review What we already know becomes our go-to routine until it starts becoming a crutch. It’s an old tool that is not applicable anymore but we continue to use it because of familiarity, plain habits, and the fear of appearing incompetent when learning something new. Staying naive prevents this hubris from stopping our evolution. ### 9\. An antidote to cynism Organizational life can be frustrating. Sophistication and knowhow can easily transform into cynicism over time. We know all the ways something won’t work.‌‌ It often masquerades as expertise but also means being closed to possibility. Cultivating naïveté is one way to counter this tendency towards cynicism especially amongst experienced managers. Cynicism applies **not just to ideas but people as well**. Hanlon’s razor states: *never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by carelessness or stupidity*. Essentially, give people a second chance. We are much more likely to be more forgiving with a naive stance than with a cynical one .‌ ‌ ## Leaders as coaches and masters of context Leadership [effectiveness often hinges on how effectively leaders are able to navigate and maintain context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) rather than delving directly in content and [trying to control everything](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). It’s fashionable these days to tout the notion of a “coaching style” of leadership or that great leaders are great coaches. But this is still pretty rare. Because as with anything effective, it’s simple but not easy. One place to start is to get more comfortable with asking simple questions that might appear naive or even dumb. > To be a teacher does not mean simply to affirm that such a thing is so, or to deliver a lecture,… No, **to be a teacher in the right sense is to be a learner**. ‌‌‌‌Instruction begins when you, the teacher, learn from the learner, put yourself in his place so that you may understand what he understands and in the way he understands it.‌‌‌‌ ‌ > > T**he disciple is the opportunity for the master to understand himself,** as the master is the opportunity for the disciple to understand himself. ‌‌‌‌ > > — Soren Kierkegaard, Philosophical Fragments A naive approach keeps us open and free from the limiting constraints of previous knowledge. It’s the naive question that often challenges the status quo and opens up options. Being too hung up on sophistication actively prevents us from asking seemingly dumb but potentially breakthrough questions. **Steve Jobs is someone who exemplified this “naive” stance**. He was famous for walking into meetings and asking dumb questions but that questioned the norms and surfaced underlying assumptions. Invariably, a seemingly lame line of questioning would often lead to exploring new avenues and options previously unconsidered leading the company in a new direction. Clearly under-indexing on naiveté is a mistake. In the short run cleverness and sophistication might work better, but, as Naval Ravikant put it, when “playing long term games with long term people” it pays to develop skills on the other end of the spectrum in a cultivated form of naïveté. ## Related reading [Another counter intuitive aspect of effective leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) is negative capability. Leadership is usually thought of as a positive capability and improvement is couched in additive terms— this skill or that competence. Subtraction can be equally effective but its subtler and hard to do. I examine the application of negative capability to leadership in [Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical to Effective Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). ### Sources and References 1. 48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene. 2. [Ambiguity And Accounting: The Elusive Link Between Information And Decision Making](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0361368287900043?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by James March. 3. On Leadership by James March, Thiery Weil. 4. [Naivete and Cynicism in Negotiations and Other Competitive Contexts](https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/19416520.2011.587283?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Chia-Hung Tsay,Lisa She, and Max Bazerman. 5. [Wisdom as Learned Ignorance](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260183865%5FWisdom%5Fas%5FLearned%5FIgnorance%5FIntegrating%5FEast-West%5FPerspectives?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Robert Chia, Robin Holt. 6. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World by Reid Hastie, Robyn Dawes. 7. Experience and Nature by John Dewey. 8. Towards a Psychology of Being by Abraham Maslow. 9. Zen in the Art of Archery by D.T. Suzuki. 10. Mastery by George Leonard. 11. Beyond Entrepreneurship by Jim Collins. 12. [Small Wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) by Karl Weick. 13. Philosophical Fragments by Soren Kierkegaard. ### Peter Drucker’s Memo to Elon Musk on Managing Knowledge Work URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/ Last updated: 2024-09-14T20:30:24.000Z The ongoing turbulence at Twitter under the mercurial and [coercive leadership ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/coercive-power-in-leadership/)of Elon Musk is perhaps one of the biggest and costliest social science experiments ever attempted at scale. Musk has broken almost every rule of well-understood and well-researched aspects of organizational performance. Peter Drucker is widely considered as the father of modern management. When he passed away in 2005, Twitter wasn’t born yet. An astute thinker and a prolific writer, his ideas on knowledge work were ahead of their time and have proven robust. Meanwhile, Musk’s actions at Twitter seem to take us back into the early 1900s. Drucker famously advised Jack Welch amongst many others. **What would he have told Elon Musk on how to manage people?** There’s no way to know for sure but we can speculate based on Drucker’s extensive writings on knowledge work. I have kept my own commentary minimal in order to emphasize the contrast between Drucker’s notions and Musk’s actions. --- ## Human beings, not things Drucker clearly recognized that managing people is a fundamental skill in itself that requires [understanding human beings and their unique needs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). More importantly management has to recognize this is in fact the case rather than treating people as an afterthought. > Organizing work according to its own logic is only the first step. The second and **far more difficult one is making work suitable for human beings** — and their logic is radically different from the logic of work. Making the worker achieving implies consideration of the human being as an organism having peculiar physiological and psychological properties, abilities, and limitations, and a distinct mode of action. It implies consideration of the human resource as **human beings and not as things**, and as having - unlike any other resource - personality, citizenship, control over whether they work, how much and how well, and thus requiring responsibility, motivation, participation, satisfaction, incentives and rewards, leadership, status, and function. > > **Management, and management alone, can satisfy these requirements.** For workers, whether machine tenders or executive vice-presidents, must be satisfied through their achievement in work and job - that is, within the enterprise; and management is the activating organ of the enterprise. ## Managing knowledge workers is a marketing job > Increasingly, employees have to be managed as partners—and **it is the definition of a partnership that all partners are equal**. It is also the definition of a partnership that **partners cannot be ordered**. They have to be persuaded. Increasingly, therefore, **the management of people is a marketing job**. > > And in marketing one does not begin with the question, “What do we want?” One begins with the question, “What does the other party want? What are its values? What are its goals? What does it consider results?” Musk's actions so far have been more anti-marketing than marketing. He might have created a challenge but I am not sure how clear his mission is. Ordering rather than persuading seems to be his default way of operating. ## Fear doesn't work > Managing knowledge work and the knowledge worker will require exceptional imagination, exceptional courage, and leadership of a high order. In some ways it will be a far more demanding task than managing the manual worker. > > **The weapon of fear—fear of economic suffering, fear of job security,** physical fear of company guards or of the state’s police power—which for so long substituted for managing manual work and the manual worker, **simply doesn’t work at all for knowledge work** and knowledge workers. > > Knowledge workers, except at the very lowest levels, **are not productive under the spur of fear**; only self-motivation and self-direction make them productive. They have to be achieving in order to produce at all. In contrast, Musk seems to use fear and coercion as a primary motivating mechanism. ## Knowledge workers as volunteers > They have to be **treated and managed as volunteers**, in the same way as volunteers who work for not-for-profit organizations. > ... > The first thing such people want to know is **what the company is trying to do and where it is going**. Next, they are interested in personal achievement and personal responsibility—which means they have to be put in the right job. Knowledge workers expect continuous learning and continuous training. > > **Above all, they want respect,** not so much for themselves but for their area of knowledge. In that regard, they have moved several steps beyond traditional workers, who used to expect to be told what to do, although later they were increasingly expected to “participate.” Knowledge workers, in contrast, expect to make the decisions in their own area. Musk's handling of employees so far has been considered not just disrespectful but even downright cruel. ## Knowledge work productivity Drucker highlighted six major factors affecting knowledge worker productivity. Consider three of those: > 2\. It demands that we impose the responsibility for their productivity on the individual knowledge workers themselves. Knowledge workers have to manage themselves. They have to have **autonomy.** > > 5\. Productivity of the knowledge worker is not—at least **not primarily—a matter of the quantity of output**. Quality is at least as important. > > 6\. Finally, knowledge-worker productivity requires that the knowledge worker is both seen and treated **as an “asset” rather than a “cost.”** It requires that knowledge workers **want to work for the organization in preference to all other opportunities**. > > Each of these requirements—except perhaps the last one—is almost the **exact opposite of what is needed to increase the productivity of the manual worker.** As Drucker stated, Musk’s behavior is more geared towards manual work than knowledge work. He's operating under a different paradigm with the following assumptions: - That he knows more about the work than the people who’ve been at it for years. - His insistence on eliminating work from home and putting in 12+ hour days seems to focus on quantity rather than quality of output. - His treatment of employees is the very definition of the knowledge worker as pure “cost”. There is no notion of “asset” in any of his behaviors. (albeit this is pretty common today thanks to quarterly stock market performance metrics) *Drucker's statement, “that knowledge workers want to work for the organization in preference to all other opportunities”* is prescient — **more than a third of the remaining employees voluntarily quit following an ultimatum from Musk**. ## Work as both productive and achieving > **Making a living is no longer enough**. Work also has to make a life. This means that it will be more important than ever to make work both productive and achieving. > > At the same time, both manual workers (with their deep psychological insecurity) and knowledge workers (with their new status) expect work to provide nonmaterial psychological and social satisfactions. They do not necessarily expect work to be enjoyable, but they do expect it to be achieving. The “achieving” dimension is probably one reason why people might stick around. Given Musk’s track record so far, that’s at least one selling point he does have. ## Knowledge work productivity is hard to define > **We cannot truly define, let alone measure, productivity for most knowledge work**….Achievement for knowledge workers is much harder to define. > > No one but the knowledge workers themselves can come to grips with the question of what in work, job performance, social status, and pride constitutes the personal satisfaction that makes a knowledge worker feel that she contributes, performs, serves her values, and fulfills herself. Musk insists on his employees coming into work and putting in 12 hour plus days. Perhaps "time in seat" equates to productivity in his book. ## Most valuable assets of a company > The most valuable assets of a twentieth-century company were its production equipment. **The most valuable asset of a twenty-first-century institution**, whether business or nonbusiness, **is its knowledge workers and their productivity.** Based on this definition, Musk has been actively destroying Twitter’s most valuable asset. His actions probably reduce productivity, not increase it. ## Management’s duty > Management’s duty is **to preserve the assets of the institution in its care**. > > What does this mean **when the knowledge of the individual knowledge worker becomes an asset** and, in more and more cases, the main asset of an institution? What does this mean for personnel policy? What is needed to **attract and to hold the highest-producing knowledge workers?** What is needed to increase their productivity and to convert their increased productivity into performance capacity for the organization? If this definition is taken at face value, Musk can easily be accused of gross negligence. ## Ability to attract and retain the best > We will have to redefine the purpose of the employing organization and of its management as both satisfying the legal owners, such as shareholders, **and** satisfying the owners of the human capital that gives the organization its wealth-producing power—that is, satisfying the knowledge workers. > > For increasingly the ability of organizations—and not only of businesses—to survive will come to depend on **their comparative advantage in making the knowledge worker productive**. And the ability to attract and hold the best of the knowledge workers is **the first and most fundamental precondition**. ## Incentives are different from disincentives > Of course knowledge workers need to be satisfied with their pay, because dissatisfaction with income and benefits is a powerful disincentive. The **incentives, however, are different.** > > The management of knowledge workers should be based on the assumption that **the corporation needs them more than they need the corporation**. They know they can leave. They have both mobility and self-confidence. Right now he seems to have created more disincentives than incentives. ## No allegiance to companies, let alone CEOs > Although the emergence of knowledge as an important resource increasingly means specialization, knowledge workers are highly mobile within their specialty. They think nothing of moving from one university, one company, or one country to another, as long as they stay within the same field of knowledge. > > There is a **lot of talk about trying to restore knowledge workers’ loyalty to their employing organization**, but such efforts will get nowhere. Knowledge workers may have an attachment to an organization and feel comfortable with it, but **their primary allegiance is likely to be to their specialized branch of knowledge**. ## Professionals not employees— knowledge is nonhierarchical > Knowledge workers…see themselves **as equal to those who retain their services**, as “professionals” rather than as “employees.” The knowledge society is a society of seniors and juniors rather than of bosses and subordinates. > > **Knowledge is nonhierarchical. Either it is relevant in a given situation or it is not.** > > An open-heart surgeon may be much better paid than, say, a speech therapist and enjoy a much higher social status, yet if a particular situation requires the rehabilitation of a stroke victim, then in that instance the speech therapist’s knowledge is greatly superior to that of the surgeon. This is why knowledge workers of all kinds see themselves not as subordinates but as professionals, and expect to be treated as such. ## Associates, not subordinates > Knowledge workers are not subordinates; they are “associates.” > > ...knowledge workers **must know more about their job than their boss** does— or else they are no good at all. In fact, that they know more about their job than anybody else in the organization is part of the definition of knowledge workers. > ...knowledge workers must know more about their job than their boss does—or else they are no good at all. In fact, **that they know more about their job than anybody else in the organization is part of the definition of knowledge workers**. Musk's modus operandi assumes a boss subordinate relationship accompanied by the clear assumption that he knows a lot more than his workforce. ## Money is not the ultimate yardstick > Money is as important to knowledge workers as to anybody else, but **they do not accept it as the ultimate yardstick**, nor do they consider money as a substitute for professional performance and achievement. In sharp contrast to yesterday’s workers, to whom a job was first of all a living, most knowledge workers see their job as a life. ## Eliminating distractions > The first requirement in tackling knowledge work is to find out what the task is so as **to make it possible to concentrate** knowledge workers on the task and **to eliminate everything else**—at least as far as it can possibly be eliminated. But this, then, requires that the knowledge workers themselves define what the task is or should be. And only the knowledge workers themselves can do that. > > Work on knowledge-worker productivity, therefore, begins with asking the knowledge workers themselves, What is your task? What should it be? What should you be expected to contribute? and What hampers you in doing your task and should be eliminated? Musk’s actions seem to **confound and confuse rather than clarify**. Instead of eliminating distractions, he seems to be creating them prodigiously that actively prevent “*concentrating on the task*” not just at the individual level but as an entire organization. --- Perhaps every manager can benefit by revisiting these key concepts about knowledge work that Drucker articulated . Now that we know what Drucker thinks I wonder what's the logic behind Musk’s actions and how he operates. **What’s his philosophy? How would he respond to Drucker?** ## Related reading [Performance in the human domain](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) is not as straightforward as we want it to be. Many [modern day organizations and their HR systems are still based in late industrial revolution principles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/). I wrote about it in **Leaders have to Master the Basics of the Human Domain**. Musk seems to epitomize those outdated ideas and hell bent on taking us back there. --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Sources and references 1. [Management](https://amzn.to/3iLgDla?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter F. Drucker 2. [Management Challenges for the 21st Century](https://amzn.to/3P6NRrl?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter F. Drucker 3. [The Practice of Management](https://amzn.to/3BFu6lh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter F. Drucker 4. [People and performance](https://amzn.to/3yiq143?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter F. Drucker 5. Drucker’s body of work is extensive. For a good concise introduction to his key ideas check out [The Essential Drucker](https://amzn.to/3VXDlEP?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. More on Drucker : \[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter\_Drucker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter%5FDrucker?ref=leadingsapiens.com)\] 7. For more context on Musk's actions at Twitter, check out [this NYtimes article](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/21/technology/elon-musk-twitter-management.html?action=click&pgtype=Article&state=default&module=styln-elon-musk&variant=show®ion=MAIN%5FCONTENT%5F1&block=storyline%5Ftop%5Flinks%5Frecirc&ref=leadingsapiens.com). ### Donald Schon on The Paradox of Real Learning URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/ Last updated: 2025-09-04T19:47:04.000Z Often in [leadership coaching](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/), clients are asked to "*try on*" a new behavior just as they would try on new clothes at the store so they get a "*feel*" for it. The pushback often comes in the form of "***but I don't know how to do that***". We've all been there : **how are you supposed to "do" something if you don't know to begin with?** Some expect prescriptive "playbooks" that can cover any eventuality. But this ignores and undermines our natural learning abilities. It also doesn't recognize a fundamental paradox — ***for me to learn something new, I have to first do something that I don't know yet***. If I already know how to do it, I am not really learning anything new. ## The predicament and tension of real learning Donald Schon, MIT professor emeritus and organizational learning expert, captured this dynamic in his classic [*Educating the Reflective Practitioner*](https://amzn.to/3UlO6je?ref=leadingsapiens.com). He cites the experience of the student in the architectural design studio: > The design studio shares in a general paradox attendant on the teaching and learning of any really new competence or understanding; for **the student seeks to learn things whose meaning and importance she cannot grasp ahead of time**. **Plato mentions this as well in *Meno*:** > She is caught in the paradox Plato describes so vividly in his dialogue the Meno. There, just as Socrates induces Meno to admit that he hasn't the least idea what virtue is, Meno bursts out with this question: > > "But how will you look for something when you don't in the least know what it is? How on earth are you going to set up something you don't know as the object of your search? To put it another way, **even if you come right up against it, how will you know that what you have found is the thing you didn't know?** " > Like Meno, the design student knows she needs to look for something but does not know what that something is. She seeks to learn it, moreover, in the sense of coming to know it in action. **Yet, at the beginning, she can neither do it nor recognize it when she sees it**. > > Hence, **she is caught up in a self-contradiction**: "looking for something" implies a capacity to recognize the thing one looks for, but the student lacks at first the capacity to recognize the object of her search. **The instructor is caught up in the same paradox:** he cannot tell the student what she needs to know, even if he has words for it, because the student would not at that point understand him. > > The logical paradox of the Meno accurately describes the experience of learning to design. It captures the very feelings of mystery, confusion, frustration, and futility that many students experience in their early months or years of architectural study. This **tension between *our wanting to know before acting* and *the need to act before knowing in order to learn*** is what Schon called *the predicament and paradox of learning*: > **The paradox of learning a really new competence is this:** > > that a student cannot at first understand what he needs to learn, can learn it only by educating himself, and **can educate himself only by beginning to do what he does not yet understand**. ![Paradox of learning: clarity is not a prerequisite to action. Action creates clarity.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Schon-Paradox-of-Learning2.png) ## Discarding preexisting notions A studio master in one of his studies termed it as a "*willing suspension of disbelief*": > It has to be a kind of contract between the two. The teacher must be open to challenge and must be able to defend his position. The student, in turn, must be willing to suspend his disbelief, to give the teacher’s suggestion a chance—to try the suggestion out. The student must be willing to trust that the faculty member has a programmatic intention which will be preempted or ruined by his requiring full justification and explanation before anything is done. … A good student is **capable of the willing suspension of disbelief**. > ...phrase originated with Samuel Taylor Coleridge, who used it to describe the stance essential to an understanding of poetry . **In order to allow a poem to do its work, Coleridge thought, the reader must enter into a kind of contract with the poet, willingly suspending his disbelief in utterances that seem false or even absurd**. > > The reader is not asked to will “belief,” because he cannot be expected to make an informed choice to believe until he understands, which depends, in turn, on his having the right sort of experience. Disbelief must be suspended until the reader (or student) has access to the information on which to base a good decision. But in order to get that information, **he must commit to the enterprise that yields the experience**. ## Real learning is painful Keep in mind, one of the reasons we are not willing to undergo this "suspension of disbelief" is because it comes with the psychological discomfort of being in unchartered territory and **the real risk of coming out empty** on the other side of the transaction. > What makes this situation into a predicament for the student is that he or she is **likely to find the costs of commitment greater than its expected rewards**. Perhaps the least of these costs is the opportunity cost of remaining in the studio. More important is the sense of being at risk. > > Swimming in unfamiliar waters, the student risks the loss of his sense of competence, control, and confidence. He must temporarily abandon much that he already values. If he comes to the studio with knowledge he considers useful, he may be asked to unlearn it. > As he willingly suspends disbelief, he also suspends autonomy—as though he were becoming a child again. In such a predicament, he is more or less vulnerable to anxiety, depending on the strengths and weaknesses he brings to the studio. > > If he is easily threatened by the **temporary surrender of his sense of competence**, then the risk of loss will seem to be high. If he comes with a distrust of those in authority, a readiness to see them as manipulating him, especially if he is unaware of his dispositions to perceive, then the willing suspension of disbelief may seem difficult or even impossible. ## Real learning is messy It also runs counter to [our modern day culture of wanting guarantees](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technology-dumbs-you-down/) exemplified by terms like "hack", "proven" and "research backed". Nothing wrong with this except the terms have their origins in the scientific and material domains. The human domain tends to be not as straightforward or linear. The success of coaching engagements is often dependent on the willingness of both parties to dabble in the mess of interpreting new experiences that eventually add up to transformative learning. > The student must begin to design before she knows what she is doing, so that the studio master's demonstrations and descriptions can take on meanings useful to her further designing. > > But this "virtuous circle" depends on the capacity of student and studio master to communicate effectively with each other, **in spite of the potential for vagueness, ambiguity, or obscurity inherent** in the things about which they try to communicate. ## Questions to consider - How many endeavors did we quit because the pain of discomfort was too high? - How many projects did we not start because of the risk of looking foolish? - When embarking on a new front, are you wanting to know everything before you start? How might that be limiting you? ## Further reading Schon's fellow Harvard researcher Chris Argyris wrote about [why professionals struggle with learning to learn](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/). Peter Senge took it one step further and highlighted how [learning can be a central part of organizational strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-as-strategy/). Learning is an essential aspect of our lives and careers and yet we don't understand the mechanics well. Knowing the underlying dynamics and related pitfalls can help accelerate our learning curves. ### Strategy as Tetris rather than Chess URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategy-as-tetris-not-chess/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:49:15.000Z *Is chess a good analogy to describe decision making and strategy in organizations? For most folks, probably not.* --- ## Less in control than we think One of the paradoxes of modern leadership is that **more responsibility also means less control**. You are responsible for results but don't have direct control over input. You have to work through others. Same goes for constantly changing external conditions outside your control but that nevertheless affect performance. Conventional treatments of decision making and strategy ignore this fact, at least implicitly. The underlying assumption is that you can step outside the system, figure out what's going on, and put things into motion that lead to desired outcomes. You can somehow extricate yourself outside the model and then rejoin the chaos at will. ## No bird's eye view This is where[ chess](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mcchrystal-leaders-as-gardeners/) comes into the picture in the context of strategy. The core ideals are of an overarching view, thinking ahead, and planning contingencies. But unlike chess, it's rare to have a clear view of everything that's going on. We might be intimate with our own team's issues but perhaps not so much with how it affects and interacts with others, let alone understanding it from their perspective. A bird's eye view by definition requires detachment and perspective which is a luxury at least at the lower managerial and executive levels. It's more fantasy than reality. **Strategy often** **emerges from the engagement with reality** rather than from a detached perspective. Thus **Tetris might be a better candidate to describe what managers actually face on a daily basis** — a constant barrage of undifferentiated issues, challenges, and crises that you are constantly tackling. ## Tetris thinking The **lack of space to think and breathe is more of a nature of the beast** rather than a problem to be eliminated. Recognizing this beforehand and adjusting accordingly can help. The uber prolific Venkatesh Rao calls this Tetris thinking: > When they get to subjects like risk, books on decision-making traditionally introduce analogies between life and games. Chess, Go, poker, casino games and football are the usual suspects. I prefer an unlikely candidate: Tetris. > > Like other games Tetris is a closed world, but it models the primary processes in open-world risk management – **dealing with increasing entropy** and consciously choosing your path to death — very well. Playing Tetris helps you hone **entropic decision-making skills**. > ... > > The purpose of the game is to position and stack blocks of various shapes that fall from the ceiling to the floor of a tall, rectangular game-play screen. Compact, filled rows at the bottom disappear by sinking through the floor, while poorly packed rows with holes persist. Over short periods, the height of the stack can go up or down, but over longer periods, it inevitably rises, and you have a gradually shrinking amount of vertical space above the stack to maneuver new blocks into place. > > There is a vicious cycle: **If your current decision is poor, your next decision becomes harder, since bad decisions raise the stack height, leaving you with fewer options and less time to make the next decision.** > > Eventually, the stack hits the ceiling, and you die. > > — Venkatesh Rao in [Tempo](https://amzn.to/3FjKV7p?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Proactive planning sounds good but is often not an available option. **Reactive responding** tends to be the norm. Tetris captures this reality of realtime responsiveness. ## Decision debt Tetris also better highlights the notion of ***decision debt*** — inefficiencies that are non-fatal by themselves but that accumulate overtime as a result of sub-optimal decision making and eventually end up being lethal. Consequences of our actions are often not immediate. They tend to play out over time and so do unintended second and third order effects. **Many mistakes start off as right actions in the moment. They become one only in hindsight.** It's an inevitable aspect of taking action in complex environments with [no clear cause and effect](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). Nothing wrong with this as long as we recognize that it is in fact the game we are playing. ## Actions as generating intelligence Another aspect of Tetris is **constancy of action and the feedback it generates**. Not taking action is an action itself and equates to elimination and death. Inaction is not an option and neither can you wish for anything different. [Action is what creates the intelligence ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/)to take further action and keep playing the game. You can't think *several moves ahead* either. At its essence you can only do one row at a time. > Reality keeps coming.... Wishing for certain shapes is of no help. Anxiety about future shapes and worry about previous moves have no direct effect on where the shapes fall. Only the player's behavior at the keyboard affects the rotation and placement of the shapes. Surely life is like that. > > **Act on reality and it responds. Merely think about it and reality cannot respond**. > > — David Reynolds in [Handbook for Constructive Living](https://amzn.to/3ulcQgQ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) It's one reason why sometimes the wrong but timely decisive action that can be course corrected is better than the perfect delayed action with no feedback. **Imperfect action is sometimes better than perfect inaction.** ## Balancing action with reflection - While Tetris highlights the importance of taking action, reflection is equally critical. Balancing action and reflection is a key challenge for managers and leaders. Executives and managers as a class a people tend to be biased towards action. Knowing [when to reflect and when to act](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) is a skill in itself with most of us skewed towards one or the other. - How do you make sure you are fully engaged with what's emerging? [MBWA or managing by wandering around](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/) — often ignored, it's an effective way to stay close to what's happening on the ground and being able to respond proactively. --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### Carl Rogers On Why Teaching is Overrated URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:49:31.000Z Carl Rogers, one of the most pre-eminent psychologists of the twentieth century, delivered a speech at Harvard in 1952 that created quite a ruckus at the time. Many of the controversial points he made about teaching are equally applicable to leaders and managers in how they instruct and influence. > a. My experience has been that **I cannot teach another person how to teach**. To attempt it is for me, in the long run, futile. > > b. It seems to me that **anything that can be taught to another is relatively inconsequential, and has little or no significant influence on behavior**. That sounds so ridiculous I can’t help but question it at the same time that I present it. > > c. I realize increasingly that I can **only be interested in learnings which significantly influence behavior**. Quite possibly this is simply a personal idiosyncrasy. > > d. I have come to feel that **the only learning which significantly influences behavior is self-discovered, self-appropriated learning**. > > e. Such self-discovered learning, **truth that has been personally appropriated and assimilated in experience, cannot be directly communicated to another**. As soon as an individual tries to communicate such experience directly, often with a quite natural enthusiasm, **it becomes teaching, and its results are inconsequential**. > > f. As a consequence of the above, I realize that I have lost interest in being a teacher. > > g. When I try to teach, as I do sometimes, I am appalled by the results, which seem a little more than inconsequential, because sometimes the teaching appears to succeed. When this happens I find **that the results are damaging**. It seems to **cause the individual to distrust his own experience, and to stifle significant learning**. Hence I have come to feel that **the outcomes of teaching are either unimportant or hurtful**. > > h. When I look back at the results of my past teaching, the real results seem the same—**either damage was done, or nothing significant occurred**. This is frankly troubling. > > i. As a consequence, I realize that **I am only interested in being a learner, preferably learning things that matter, that have some significant influence on my own behavior**. > > j. I find it very rewarding to learn, in groups, in relationships with one person as in therapy, or by myself. > > k. I find that **one of the best, but most difficult ways for me to learn is to drop my own defensiveness**, at least temporarily, and to try to understand the way in which his experience seems and feels to the other person. > > l. I find that **another way of learning for me is to state my own uncertainties**, to try to clarify my puzzlements, and thus get closer to the meaning that my experience actually seems to have. > > m. This whole train of experiencing, and the meanings that I have thus far discovered in it, seem to have launched me on a process which is both fascinating and at times a little frightening. It seems to mean **letting my experience carry me on**, in a direction which appears to be forward, toward goals that I can but dimly define, as I try to understand at least the current meaning of that experience. The sensation is that of floating with **a complex stream of experience**, with the fascinating possibility of trying to comprehend its ever changing complexity. > > ...by themselves these interpretations of my own experience may sound queer and aberrant, but not particularly shocking. It is when I realize the implications that I shudder a bit at **the distance I have come from the commonsense world that everyone knows is right**. > > I can best illustrate that by saying that if the experiences of others had been the same as mine, and if they had discovered similar meanings in it, many consequences would be implied. > > a. Such experience would imply that we would **do away with teaching**. People would get together if they wished to learn. > > b. We would **do away with examinations**. They measure only the inconsequential type of learning. > > c. The implication would be that we would **do away with grades and credits** for the same reason. > > d. We would **do away with degrees as a measure of competence** partly for the same reason. Another reason is that a degree marks an end or a conclusion of something, and a learner is only interested in the continuing process of learning. > > e. It would imply doing away with the exposition of conclusions, for we would realize that **no one learns significantly from conclusions**. > > — Carl Rogers in [On Becoming a Person](https://amzn.to/3EnsNaX?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Writing almost two decades later in 1969 he further clarified his position: > Teaching, in my estimation, is a vastly over-rated function. Having made such a statement, I scurry to the dictionary to see if I really mean what I say. > > **Teaching means “to instruct.”** Personally I am not much interested in instructing another in what he should know or think. > **"To impart knowledge or skill.”** My reaction is, why not be more efficient, using a book or programmed learning? > **“To make to know.”** Here my hackles rise. I have no wish to make anyone know something. > **“To show, guide, direct.”** As I see it, too many people have been shown, guided, directed. > > So I come to the conclusion that I do mean what I said. **Teaching is, for me, a relatively unimportant and vastly overvalued activity**. > > \- Carl Rogers in [Freedom to Learn](https://g.co/kgs/ozMk5s?ref=leadingsapiens.com) All of us carry this tension between wanting to learn and not wanting to be taught. Winston Churchill said it best: > *I am always ready to learn, although I do not always like to be taught.* Leaders have to constantly straddle this thin line between teaching and impeding learning. Donald Schon citing Rogers captured this dynamic: > Like Socrates in the Meno, Rogers believes that the most important things cannot be taught but must be discovered and appropriated for oneself. Like Socrates, he attributes to himself and others a capacity for self-discovery and functions as **a paradoxical teacher who does not teach** but serves as gadfly and midwife to others’ self-discovery—provoking in his interlocutors, like Socrates, a storm of anger and confusion. > > — Donald Schon in [Educating the Reflective Practitioner](https://amzn.to/3UlO6je?ref=leadingsapiens.com) [True learning is confusing and disorienting](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) by definition and can trigger defensive reactions. How many managers are willing to put up with this both in themselves and others? ## Questions to ponder - Are you preaching and teaching? Or are you leading and enabling learning? - Are you pushing or pulling? - Does your team understand the context and background? Don't assume they have the same context. - Do you come to the table already decided about something, or are you actually open to opposing opinions and inputs? Are you willing to challenge your own assumptions and being ok with the discomfort this causes? - Are you talking or listening? - Do you manage by decree or by influence? - In your leadership development program how much is it teaching and how much is [real learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/)? > This knowledge will not come from teaching but from questioning. He will recover it for himself. > > — Socrates ## Related Reading We think of leadership ability as a positive, additive notion. But the English poet John Keats in 1817 coined [the paradoxical term of Negative Capability, that's applicable to leaders now more than ever](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). --- 💡 Liked this post? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### Four Types Of Careers and their Learning Barriers URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/four-types-of-careers-and-learning-barriers/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:49:55.000Z In their book [Coaching with Colleagues](https://amzn.to/3TR6b8D?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Erik de Haan and Yvonne Burger identify four common but prominent career patterns: > • The ***bureaucratic career*** entails moves from rank to rank and job to job in a **succession of hierarchical positions**. In this pattern, people are not particularly attached to specific tasks or colleagues, but are often very loyal to the organization as a whole. Progress in this career is vertical — the only way is up! If progress stagnates it is usually because the person concerned does not understand the rules of the game, or does not apply them properly. > > • The ***entrepreneurial career* is focused on entrepreneurship**. In this script, professionals are entrepreneurial, creative, innovative and competitive. Once they have found their niche, they stay there. The more commercial success, the more income. Progress in this career is strongly linked to the extent to which someone is able to create new products or services. Progress stagnates when the business is not prepared to (continue to) grow. > > • The ***professional career* is a career based on expertise**. The person concerned acquires status and reputation by excelling in professional knowledge and skills, for example in academia. The professional is very loyal to his or her specialism, but less so to the organisation. Progress is assessed in terms of an individual’s response to increasingly demanding assignments. It stagnates when the professional notices, too late, that his or her specialism is no longer necessary and fails to develop a new specialism in time. > > • The ***boundaryless career*** **has no standardised script**. Professionals write their own script while working on projects – often in a self-employed capacity or in temporary networks. They create progress by continually developing new things, both in terms of form and content, and by renewing their own network. Each new project brings a new challenge. Progress in this career takes place when the person concerned feels ready to take on increasingly complex and uncertain assignments. Progress stagnates if (s)he makes choices without carefully considering his or her own interests, or lacks market discipline, resilience and/or powers of recovery. Each of these career types has its own set of **learning barriers**: > • In the **bureaucratic* career* there is a risk of passive, risk-averse learning behavior and it is particularly difficult to develop accommodative learning. > > • In the **entrepreneurial* career*, the usual focus on action and objectives is at odds with the calm and reflection of divergent learning, in particular. > > • In the **professional* career*, there are already so many intrinsic, content challenges that these ‘[knowledge workers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/)’ sometimes do not take on extrinsic challenges and may have difficulty with application-oriented, convergent learning. > > • In the **boundaryless* career* there is a lot of experience of meta- learning, but professionals may be so exposed to fragmentation, discontinuity and an excess of information that confusion results, and systematic assimilative learning in particular becomes difficult. [**Leadership and managerial effectiveness**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/) **are very contextua**l. A manager who was successful in one context can be an abject failure in another one. [Mismatch between our preferences and what a particular career type entails](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/) is a common stumbling block. Henry Mintzberg put it this way in *Managing*: > **Managers are not effective; matches are effective**. There is no such thing as a good husband or a good wife, only a good couple. And so it is with managers and their units. > > There may be people who fail in all managerial jobs, but there are none who can succeed in all of them. That is because a flaw that can be tolerable in one situation—indeed, be a positive quality—can prove fatal in another. It all depends on the match between the person and the context, *at the time*, *for a time*, *so long as it lasts.* The trick is to figure out environments that are ideally suited for your own set of strengths, learning preferences and[ leadership styles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/), and making adjustments accordingly. What career type are you currently in? Is it ideally suited for your talents and inclinations? What would an ideal scenario look like? --- 💡 Liked this post?You will dig ***The Managerial Mind on Mondays** newsletter. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ## References 1. [Coaching with Colleagues](https://amzn.to/3TR6b8D?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by *Erik de Haan and Yvonne Burger*. 2. Careers and the wealth of nations by *Rosabeth Moss Kanter* *in* *Handbook of Career Theory*. 3. The boundaryless career: a new perspective for organizational inquiry by *Michael B. Arthur in* *Journal of Organizational Behavior.* 4. Managing by Henry Mintzberg. ### Mintzberg on Managing the Flow of Information and Influence URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/managing-flow-of-information-and-influence/ Last updated: 2025-09-15T23:25:35.000Z ### Managerial effectiveness often hinges on how well their unit interacts not just internally but externally as well. In one definition, leadership and management is essentially about orchestrating the flow of information and influence. In his magnum-opus [Managing](https://amzn.to/3tWtKCx?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Henry Mintzberg uses the hydrological analogy of *channels, valves, sieves, dams, sponges, hoses, and drips*, to highlight this dynamic: > Managers are not just **channels** through which pass information and influence; they are also **valves** in these channels, which control what gets passed on, and how… managers are **gatekeepers and buffers in the flow of influence**. > > To appreciate the importance of this, consider **five ways by which managers can get it wrong**: > > Some managers are **sieves** who let influence flow too easily into their unit. This can drive their reports crazy, forcing them to respond to every pressure. We see this commonly these days when the demands of stock market analysts cause the chief executives of publicly traded companies to force everyone to manage for short-term performance. > > Other managers are **dams** who block out too much of the external influence—for example, from customers asking for product changes. This may protect the people inside the unit, but in so doing detaches them from the outside world—and external support. > > Then there are the **sponges**—managers who absorb most of the pressures themselves. This may be appreciated by others, but it is only a matter of time before these managers burn themselves out. I have seen this in some chiefs of hospital departments who are overprotective of the physicians. > > Managers acting as **hoses** instead put great pressure on the people outside, who may as a consequence become angry and less inclined to cooperate. This is common when a company squeezes its suppliers excessively. > > Finally, there are the **drips**, who exert too little pressure on the people outside, so that the needs of the unit are not well represented. Examples are those managers who ask too little of their suppliers and so get taken advantage of. > > [**The effective manager**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/) may act in each of these ways some of the time but does not allow any of them to dominate all of the time. In other words, managing on the edges—the boundaries between the unit and its context—is a tricky business: every unit has to be protected, responsive, and aggressive, depending on the circumstances. All of us fall into patterns over time. This is a great framework to think through biases and adjust for them. Which one of these [managing styles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/) is most like yours? What are you skewed towards? How can you make adjustments? One way leaders regulate information and influence is through [effective conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/) and [managing the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). Mintzberg's book is a tour de force on all aspects of leading and managing and should be required reading at all levels. For a more comprehensive look at [Mintzberg's managerial roles ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/)and managing model check out: [Mintzberg’s Managerial Roles: The Multifaceted Nature of LeadershipHenry Mintzberg was one of the first to identify a comprehensive set of managerial roles that captured the reality of managerial work. Later, he updated this original list into an overall management model. In this piece, I examine the importance of Mintzberg’s managerial roles and management model, and how![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Mintzberg---Managerial-Roles.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/) ### What is Implicit Leadership Theory and How it Affects Careers URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/ Last updated: 2025-02-20T18:49:50.000Z *What makes someone “leadership material”? We would like to think there’s an objective answer to that question. But often the correct answer depends on not just who’s answering the question but also on who’s asking. Why? Because everyone has what researchers call an *implicit leadership theory* (ILT).* *Since 1975, there have been hundreds of studies on various aspects of implicit leadership theory. Unfortunately, most of the findings are unknown outside academia.* *Not being aware of it can be a blindspot and stumbling block. A mismatch between your implicit leadership theory and that of your organization can mean missed promotion opportunities, not being considered for leadership roles, or worse, career derailment.* *This article covers:* - [What is Implicit Leadership Theory (ILT)](#what-is-implicit-leadership-theory) - [Test your awareness of Implicit Leadership Theory](#test-your-awareness-of-implicit-leadership-theory) - [Prototypical traits identified in Implicit Leadership Theory](#prototypical-traits-identified-in-implicit-leadership-theory) - [Key findings from research on Implicit Leadership Theory](#key-findings-from-research-on-implicit-leadership-theory) - [Career implications of Implicit Leadership Theory](#career-implications-of-implicit-leadership-theory) --- ## What is Implicit Leadership Theory According to ILT we perceive someone as a leader or non-leader based on the implicit images and perceptions about leadership that we carry. In other words **“leadership is in the eye of the beholder”**. Our implicit leadership theory is a generic collection of everyday conceptions and internalized beliefs about leaders and leadership, their traits, and expected behaviors. These implicit theories are essentially a group of **mental models and heuristics** about leadership that act as mental shortcuts. They influence how we respond to leaders and how we influence others as leaders. But they are implicit and thus by definition we are not aware of them. We use these theories to judge others’ leadership abilities. We classify people as leaders or non-leaders, as effective or ineffective leaders, based on how closely and consistently they match our implicit leadership theory. We form a prototype of a leader from our social and work interactions. **Stereotypes are an extreme version of ILT where it’s reduced to a caricature**. ### Implicit leadership theories consist of: - positive and negative traits of leaders - their behaviors - notions about power and influence ### Factors that influence ILT include: - professional backgrounds - social interactions - culture, family, early experiences - organizations and what they promote - good/bad personal experiences with leaders - the context: for eg direct manager vs a country’s president ### Implicit leadership theories are colored lenses we wear Laura Liswood in *The Loudest Duck* shares a story about Vigdis Finnbogadottir, the former president of Iceland, who was the first and longest serving woman president in the world: > After about eight years in office, she started to notice that **children under the age of eight often thought that *only* a woman could be president**. President Vigdis had many boys ask her if the president of Iceland could be male. Because the boys had only ever known a woman to be president, they didn’t understand that they could possibly be president of their country some day. > > …We quickly come to believe that our experiences and observations represent not only *how* the world works but also how it *should* work. I call this the **power of the mirror**. This is akin to what Thomas Kuhn calls ***paradigm blindness***: > Something like **a paradigm is prerequisite to perception itself**. What a man sees depends both upon what he looks at and also upon what his previous visual-conceptual experience has taught him to see. > > \- Thomas Kuhn in Structure of Scientific Revolutions Although not always as dramatic, everyone has similar unexamined notions about leadership. Our idea of an effective leader might be about being assertive or being thoughtful, being charismatic or being a tyrant, being a good listener or being a strong speaker, and so on. These notions are **less like a mirror and more like colored lenses that filter** everything we see. Just like the boys, we see leaders and our own capabilities as a leader through these lenses. They affect not just our behavior but how our actions get perceived by others. **Leadership ability often has less to do with an objective criteria** and more with the implicit theories about leadership that others carry. Since we have built these glasses through our experiences, each of us has a unique pair. We see the world through these glasses and make sense of it. --- ## Test your awareness of Implicit Leadership Theory Answers to the following questions can yield some clues about how aware you are about your own implicit leadership theory: - When you think of an **ideal leader** what comes to mind? What about an ineffective one? - What role did ILT play in your last promotion or the last interview? - What are your **background stories** about leadership and your leaders? How is that affecting your approach to work? - Does your ILT assume that leaders are **supposed to have all the answers**? Or that they should be extroverted? - What are other assumptions that might be counter-productive and holding you back? - What is **your organization’s ILT**? Do you see a pattern of implicit leadership theories in the people getting promoted in your organization? - How will your organization answer the question **“what makes an effective leader here is: …”** . How aligned or misaligned is your ILT compared to this? --- ## Prototypical traits identified in Implicit Leadership Theory In studies spanning over 4 decades across organizations and cultures, researchers found a set of positive and negative common traits in people’s implicit leadership theories. These are prototypes we have when we think of someone as a leader. They found eight primary attributes: 1. **Sensitivity**—sympathetic, sincere, warm, forgiving, helpful, compassionate, understanding 2. **Dedication**—motivated, goal-oriented, disciplined, hard working 3. **Charisma**—energetic, enthusiastic, inspiring, involved, dynamic 4. **Attractiveness**—classy, well groomed, tall 5. **Intelligence**—educated, intellectual, clever, knowledgeable, wise 6. **Strength**—forceful, bold, powerful, strong 7. **Tyranny**—domineering, pushy, dominant, conceited, loud, selfish, demanding, power hungry, manipulative 8. **Masculinity** In more recent research a ninth attribute of **creativity** has surfaced. Thus, people have both positive and negative notions about leaders in their implicit theories. Leaders can motivate, inspire, and support but can also be controlling and manipulative. As to what traits someone identifies with, it varies by individual experiences, culture, and demographics amongst other factors. The **traits that had the highest association with leaders were those of intelligence, masculinity, and dominance**. Clearly, the last two have implications for women in being identified for their leadership potential as these better fit the traditional stereotype of a man. --- ## Key findings from research on Implicit Leadership Theory Consider the following findings from a meta-analysis of hundreds of studies on implicit leadership theory \[1\] : > - Leaders who fit ILTs receive **higher performance evaluation**s than leaders who do not fit > - Leaders who fit followers' ILTs are rated higher on control > - Leaders who fit ILTs receive **higher general [leadership impressions](http://https//www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/?ref=leadingsapiens.com)** > - More [causal attributions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) and **attributions of influence and power** are made on leaders who fit ILTs > - Leaders who fit typical ILTs are **attributed more technical competence** > - Leaders are more liked if they fit followers' ideal ILTs > - Leaders receive **higher popularity ratings** when they fit ideal ILTs > - Leaders who fit an ideal leader image and do not fit a counter-ideal leader image are more respected > - The group is evaluated more favorably if the leader fits ILTs > - **Male leaders provide a better fit** with leadership prototypes than female leaders > - ILTs affect objective processes such as performance ratings and how leaders evaluate their employees. It's clear that implicit leadership theory pervades almost all aspects of organizational life. Consider some **common work scenarios where ILT is in play** : - Performance appraisals - You evaluating others - Evaluation of your leadership potential - Evaluation of your leadership effectiveness - Promotion recommendations and decisions - Being considered for leadership assignments - Interview and selection processes ## Career implications of Implicit Leadership Theory ILT demonstrates that there is often no universal agreed upon definition of what “effective leadership” is. It depends on the context, the organization, and the people involved especially those in power. Because they are implicit and we are usually not aware of them, uncovering our existing implicit leadership theory can help highlight blind spots and in taking corrective actions. ### 1\. Leadership is a social construct **Context and environment matters.** The [environment surrounding you is as important to your career trajectory](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/#6-environment) as is your personality. Your team and organization’s ILTs play a significant role in how you are perceived and the effectiveness of your leadership. Most traditional leadership development and coaching focuses on the individual leader and self-awareness but this is only one side of the story. While “leader” might be a one-person construct, “leadership” is a social construct that is inter-dependent. Most of us are unaware of our own implicit leadership theories (ILTs). More importantly, neither are we aware of our organization’s or our team’s ILTs. Thus **social awareness is equally important as self-awareness**. ### 2\. ILT can explain behavioral patterns ILT influences how you as a leader interpret your role and what meaning you make of your day to day events and interactions. If my implicit leadership theory is a dominating and tyrannical one that’s how my [leadership style](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/) is going to be. It shapes our expectations of leaders and leadership and thus how we respond to them. This is important to be aware of both as a leader and follower. ### 3\. Followers’ ILT matters Influence is a key aspect of leadership. Follower perceptions matters because this influences how receptive they are to you and how effective your overall team is. The more results you can deliver, the better your future prospects. ### 4\. Organizational ILT influences leaders As much as leaders influence their organizations, they are equally shaped by their organization. ILT plays a key role in what their organization expects from them and how they are expected to behave and carry themselves. When the organization’s ILT and yours are in alignment it can create ideal conditions for a flourishing career. Otherwise, it’s the opposite. ### 5\. ILT can uncover limiting assumptions Closely examining our ILT can highlight how we might be unknowingly limiting ourselves. For example consider the following notions: - that effective leaders are extroverts - that you have to be a strong orator - you have to be eternally confident While these can surely help, they are not limiting factors for effective leadership. ### 6\. Alignment of ILTs influences career prospects Your organization’s ILT plays a critical role in whether you ascend the leadership ladder or not. If everyone in the executive team is an engineer and you aren’t, the odds are stacked against you. But these criteria are often more subjective and harder to detect. A mismatch between your organization’s implicit theories of leadership and your personality characteristics means fewer career opportunities. Minorities and women are an obvious example but it’s equally applicable at more subtle levels. The better aligned your ILT is with that of your organization's, the higher your chances of success. **Find workplaces where you are ideally suited**. ### 7\. ILT plays a key role in leadership assessments Most assessments of leadership performance and ability are not necessarily based on objective reality but on subjective notions rooted in the person’s implicit theories about leadership. The **less objective the criteria and higher the degree of uncertainty, and more likely that ILT will play a factor**. Whether you got selected for a role has a lot to do with the interviewer’s ILT and a match/mismatch with yours. For example, if my ILT of an effective leader is that of someone who takes quick decisions, **a thoughtful leader who mulls over decisions can easily be seen as a weak, indecisive one**. The people making these decisions are flawed human beings swayed by their biases and notions about leadership. **We can either rail against the system or play the game accordingly**. ### 8\. Figure out your organization’s ILT Who gets promoted and who doesn’t? What’s encouraged and what’s not? What do leaders say but don’t do? There is often a pattern in who typically gets promoted or selected for leadership roles. These patterns point to the organization’s implicit leadership model. **“Success leaves clues” and so do leaders** in organizations. In some well run organizations the leadership philosophy is codified but more than often it’s not. Even when it’s explicitly codified there’s usually a **difference between what’s claimed and what’s practiced**. Our job to figure out the implicit leadership theory through close observation and in depth conversations. **Observe actions and behavior** rather than what somebody states about their leadership theories. Having a good grasp on what is generally accepted as “effective leadership” can offer clues into what you need to work on. Being blind to these factors limits career prospects. ### 9\. Tailor your ILT Your effectiveness as a leader is dependent on how congruent your ILT is with that of your team’s and the larger organization’s. What might have been perceived as **“leadership behavior” in one organization can easily be misinterpreted** as otherwise in a new one. For example your operating style might be different from what your manager perceives to be an effective leadership style. You have a democratic inclusive style while your manager has an autocratic, non-inclusive one. **Even though your objective performance is good, they might not see you as having “leadership potential”** because of the difference in ILTs. Tailor your ILT to map your organization’s. ### 10\. Widen your repertoire As a leader, the wider the repertoire of implicit leadership theories you have, the more versatile and effective you will be in a wide range of situations. The less diverse your concepts, the more rigid and thus not best adapted to varying situations. Develop flexibility and versatility in how you operate — try leadership behaviors that run **counter to what you are prone to doing**. Go through the list of traits found in ILT research and check for what you might be lacking. A wider range of ILT enables you to adapt better to changing conditions. --- > As a rule, we disbelieve all theories and facts for which we have no use. > > \- William James, father of American psychology Given its pervasiveness and potential implications, we cannot afford to ignore either our implicit leadership theories or of the organization’s. ILT is an important and inescapable part of organizational life. Understanding it and making adjustments can help avoid unnecessary frustrations and better position ourselves for career success. ## Related reading - Implicit leadership theory is just one type of hidden mental model amongst many others. Common discourse focuses on an additive approach of learning new models. Instead, a subtractive approach that focuses on updating or eliminating [soft but hidden mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) can be far more effective. [Mental Models - A Subtractive ApproachMost common discourse on mental models takes an additive approach. But there might be equal value, even more so, in a subtractive approach to mental models. The key is in understanding the difference between hard and soft mental models. How is the subtractive approach different and why is it more![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/02/Mental-Models---Hard-vs-Soft-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) - One useful tool to uncover hidden assumptions is [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) that shows how we reach conclusions and the common pitfalls. Understanding and slowing down the process can help with better decisions and also understanding the other's viewpoints. [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) - Often there is a difference between what we claim and what we actually do. This is true for organizations as well. Defensive routines are a key reason. You can find more details in [Learning to Learn - Why Professionals Struggle with this MetaSkill](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/). ### Sources and references 1. [Implicit theories in organizational settings: A systematic review and research agenda of implicit leadership and followership theories](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984314001039?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Nina Junker and Rolf van Dick. 2. The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership, Change, and Organizational Development. 3. The Bass Handbook of Leadership Theory Research and Managerial Applications. 4. Encyclopedia of Leadership Vol 1. 5. Leadership, A Communication Perspective by Craig Johnson and Michael Hackman. 6. [Teaching Implicit Leadership Theories to Develop Leaders and Leadership](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41318064?ref=leadingsapiens.com): by Birgit Schyns, Tina Kiefer, Rudolf Kerschreiter, Alex Tymon. 7. [The role of implicit leadership theories in the performance appraisals and promotion recommendations of leaders](https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/02610150610687836/full/html?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Birgit Schyns. 8. [Implicit theories of leadership: Stability and change over two decades](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1048984317304988?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lynn Offermann, Meredith R. Coats. 9. [The Mirror and the Window: Making Implicit Perceptions of Leadership Explicit](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1052562919851186?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Anne Greenhalgh, Christopher Maxwell. 10. The Loudest Duck by Laura Liswood. ### Why Developing Negative Capability is Critical in Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:40:11.000Z *We think of capability as a positive term— it’s active and additive rather than passive and subtractive. In leadership, it’s about proactive action, getting things done, leading the way, and delivering on results and desired outcomes.* *But this pre-occupation with action and results can also mean an inability to handle more complex, unknown situations where actions and outcomes might not be as clear. Ironically most leaders operate in conditions of complexity and uncertainty.* *How do we go about correcting this imbalance? How can we better position ourselves to operate effectively in uncertain conditions? One place to start is to develop *negative capability*.* In this article we cover: - [What is negative capability?](#what-is-negative-capability) - [What defines negative capability?](#what-defines-negative-capability) - [Why negative capability is critical in leadership](#why-negative-capability-is-critical-in-leadership) - [How good is your negative capability?](#how-good-is-your-negative-capability) - [What prevents negative capability?](#what-prevents-negative-capability) --- ## What is negative capability The English poet John Keats coined the term in 1817 in a letter to his brother George: > At once it struck me what quality went to form a man of achievement especially in literature and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously— I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason. While Keats was trying to capture the thought process of literary geniuses, the concept is equally applicable to modern leadership. Leaders today operate in complex environments rife with ambiguity and uncertainty. But the external expectations of being all-knowing works against operating efficiently in that kind of environment. What is needed is an openness to not-knowing and staying with the anxiety that it creates. Negative capability has two paradoxical aspects: 1. Of **“being in”/“being with”** : “*capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts*” and 2. Of **“being without”** : “*without any irritable reaching after fact and reason*” Capability at first glance is a positive term. Keats combined it with negative thus capturing its paradox. It’s a capability that **goes against human nature.** > It refers both to a set of skills that involve ‘not-doing’, as opposed to doing - a negative kind of capability - as well as to the fact that this skill involves confronting negative (as in ‘unpleasant’) thoughts, emotions, and situations. > > \- Oliver Burkeman in The Antidote 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## What defines negative capability Operating in uncertainty requires a different set of skills in contrast to known situations. Negative capability is **a way of operating in conditions of uncertainty** defined by an ability to stay with the discomfort and anxiety of doubt and not-knowing. The uncertainty is akin to the **negative space implied** by the latin root of capability – *capabilis*, which means “able to hold” or “to contain” . We can either rush in to fill it with what we already know, or let the empty space create something new. Do we rush in to resolve a situation with habitual activity, emotions, and thoughts, or do we stay with the discomfort long enough to yield different answers? **What are some distinguishing characteristics of negative capability and how is it different from “positive” leadership competencies?** ### 1\. A capacity to contain and tolerate anxiety and doubt Standard responses to anxiety can be rationalization, denial, panic, and regression to more primitive, less adaptive behaviors. In contrast, tolerating fear and staying in uncertainty allows for the emergence of new thoughts, perceptions, and solutions. Negative capability helps to **function effectively in new environments where our mental models are non-existent** or less developed. This includes uncertainty not just in the external environment but internal demons as well. By [changing our relationship with anxiety and doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) it enables not just surviving in uncertain conditions but also thriving in them as sources of creativity and innovation. ### 2\. Courage as a different relationship with incertitude The notion of [**bold leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) is almost a cliche. But bold can also mean a different relationship with a volatile, uncertain world. It means staying with the discomfort and continuing to play even when you don’t know where exactly it will lead, or what the correct solution looks like. Courage means resisting the pressure to resolve what might be unresolvable and the ability to recognize it as such. It’s an **active but non-defensive stance** towards change — a **surrender of control and knowing by accepting things as they are, but also coupled with the willingness to engage and respond**. ### 3\. Wisdom as not-knowing In a knowledge work economy not-knowing can be anathema. As a culture **we are allergic to the notion of not-knowing especially in leadership**. But novel situations by definition mean we do not know. Do we then embrace it and work with it or fall back to known but unhelpful patterns? Negative capability requires a **proactive acceptance** that there will be in situations where we don't know the answers. Situations where we have only partial information or even unknowable. Instead of getting flustered and anxious, staying with it and even reveling in it increases engagement which **paradoxically increases the likelihood of finding answers**. ### 4\. Cultivating proactive, deliberate openness Negative capability requires staying actively openminded by **resisting the habit of “reaching for” explanations or quick answers**. This requires large amounts of tolerance for ambiguity and patience. Below are some practices: - Embracing leaving issues unresolved as ***receptive inaction***.\[2\] - Resisting rushing into and actively delaying interpretations of someone’s behavior or a situation. - Staying open to nuances instead of falling victim to premature hubris and confidence. - Allowing room for new inputs and learning. - Allowing ourselves to be changed by others. - Being imaginative while avoiding the urge for closure. ### 5\. Doubt as a positive > Doubt is not a pleasant mental state but certainty is a ridiculous one. > > \- Voltaire Negative capability [gives doubt a positive role](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) in leadership. When we are absolutely sure of something, it also means other possibilities are ruled out. But doubt, rather than being an impediment to decision making, also means openness to other explanations. Negative capability is a **healthier version of doubt** — a proactive refusal and push against final conclusions to leave room for alternate approaches and explanations. ### 6\. Paying attention to non-attention Negative capability is about what our **attention** is on and by extension **what it’s not on**\- is it on the obvious in your face issues, or are we paying attention to nuances between the lines and the overall context of a given situation? ### 7\. Efficient is not necessarily effective In situations of uncertainty, it’s efficient to jump to pre-mature conclusions or interpret it based on past experience and assuming we understand. But in novel [complex scenarios](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#small-wins-are-essential-in-complex-domains), it pays to stay with the discomfort long enough in order to **unearth as many different perspectives** as possible. Do we let open-ended situations naturally evolve or do we move to close them prematurely? 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Why *negative capability* is critical in leadership Negative capability is especially relevant for leaders and managers as a group and almost a requirement for operating effectively. But leadership development by default tends to be positive and additive – the skills and competencies purported to make you a better leader that you layer one on top of the other. **The capacity of a vessel is determined more by its negative space** and less by the amount of “positive” material added. At the same time, one cannot exist without the other. **An exclusive focus on “positive” leadership competencies is only one side of the coin**. Equally important is to develop negative capability to handle situations when pre-learned competencies are not enough. ![Leaders need to have negative capability in addition to positive abilities.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Negative-Capability-Balance-1.png) ### 1\. Responding appropriately In disaster literature there is a **critical time period –** a window of opportunity during which actions either avert the disaster or accelerate conditions leading to it. The sense-making and decision-making during this time window determines outcomes and even lives. Two classic examples are the actions of the Apollo 13 crew vs that of the 3 Mile Island nuclear disaster with very different outcomes. While most leaders will not have to deal with such extreme conditions, almost every critical decision they make straddles this **spectrum between denial and panic**. One has a lack of actions while the other has too many. Both responses are **misaligned with what the situation requires**. Whether they respond appropriately or lean towards either extremes depends on their negative capability. ### 2\. Bucking the norm of organizational absurdity In organizations, **certainty is valued while uncertainty is treated as an anomaly** to be stamped out. Leaders are expected to not show doubt. Many put up a facade of certainty even when conditions are otherwise. There is no room for “not-knowing” which is often **misconstrued as ignorance** due to the **binary, dichotomous thinking** that pervades organizations. It’s either a success or a failure. You either know or you are ignorant. There is no middle ground of temporary “not knowing”. We are always “reaching for” understanding and figuring it all out. Negative capability recognizes that there are paradoxes that cannot be solved away. But being aware makes it possible to pay attention to them and thus respond appropriately. It’s the difference between a **reactive stance vs a responsive** one. The constraints, norms, unspoken rules, and other mechanisms of organizational life often go unquestioned and can be difficult to stand up against even when they are unhelpful and borderline stupid. Negative capability helps **build a backbone** and take a contrarian stance when needed. ### 3\. The myth of speed in decision making Acting decisively is prized in organizations and necessarily so. But quickness is often coupled with decisiveness. Slowing down is viewed in a negative light as indecision. This leads to the [**mistaken notion of speed as a positive**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/) in decision making. In his study of successful companies Jim Collins found this notion of speed one-sided and misleading: > Sometimes acting too fast increases risk. Sometimes acting too slow increases risk. The critical question is, “How much time before your risk profile changes?” Do you have seconds? Minutes? Hours? Days? Weeks? Months? Years? Decades? > > **The primary difficulty lies not in answering the question but in having the presence of mind to ask the question.** > > The 10X teams tended to take their time, to let events unfold, when the risk profile was changing slowly; yet equally, they prepared to act blindingly fast in the event that the risk profile began to change rapidly. > > One of the most dangerous false beliefs is that faster is always better, that the fast always beat the slow, that you are either the quick or the dead. **Sometimes the quick are the dead.** > > \- Jim Collins in Great by Choice Whether leaders stop to ask this critical question or fall prey to the wrongheaded notion of quick decision-making depends on their negative capability. **Do they respond to what the situation actually requires or do they fall prey to expectations removed from the context of the situation?** ### 4\. Enduring uncertainty vs enjoying it Leaders are often in entangled situations without clear solutions or even a clearly defined problem. What is needed is a capacity to grapple with reality but doing it with a sense of discovery and curiosity instead of something to get rid of. One of the hallmarks of modern leadership is the omnipresence of uncertainty and ambiguity. Which begs the question : would you rather endure it or enjoy it? **Enduring something implies it will come to an end** at some point. Except uncertainty is not going anywhere. This makes the case for reveling in uncertainty rather than enduring it. The sense of discomfort, insecurity, and not knowing causes us to revert to more primitive, less practiced behaviors. The ability to stay with the situation long enough comes from a well developed negative capability. ### 5\. Negative capability is a differentiator It makes top performers stand out from the crowd. At the highest levels everyone is already pretty good at positive capabilities — producing results and getting things done. But are they equally good at negative capability? Can they operate in environments of ambiguity, low definition, and lack of information? ### 6\. Developing leadership presence Leadership presence can be a misleading topic leading to an unnecessary preoccupation with how we are coming across to others. Often it ends up with the exact opposite of presence. Negative capability can be an effective way to access this elusive quality of leadership. Being present to what’s transpiring in the moment starts by being comfortable with the discomfort of not knowing . Paying undivided attention to what’s unfolding, and suspending preexisting notions and interpretations to clear space for a fresh take on what’s in front of us, **naturally develops presence**. ### 7\. Negative capability develops empathy Negative capability also helps engender the often vague notion of empathy. It has a dimension of acceptance that also means accepting people in their many facets which is required for developing empathy, trust, and respect. Without openness and acceptance, there is little chance of developing empathy beyond lip service. But it takes work and is not comfortable. It’s a lot easier to box people into categories and respond accordingly. Negative capability opens up the space for leaders to become more attuned to people and situations. ### 8\. Preventing leadership derailment One of the recurring themes of executive derailment studies is the failure to adapt to not just changing external conditions but also what the role requires. Thus what might have been a strength before in a previous role quickly turns into a liability in a new setting. > As McCall, Morgan, and Lombardo (1983) discovered in their findings on successful and unsuccessful business leaders, ‘the most frequent cause for derailment (along the path to the executive suite) was insensitivity to other people’. > > \- Manfred Kets De Vries in The Hedgehog Effect Negative capability helps buck this trend by its focus on responding anew to each moment instead of operating from what we already know and existing mental models. ### 9\. Battling heroic leadership The expectations of certainty and heroic leadership places unnecessary burden on modern day leaders. Negative capability acts as a check and bulwark against these misguided notions. It helps guard against unrealistic expectations from leaders like needing to know everything or quick decision making. ### 10\. Leadership as a creative act Are paradoxes and complexity seen as constrictive or generative? Underlying assumptions determine how leaders perceive organizations and situations: - Messy vs Polished - Evolving vs Already formed - Everything should be known vs we are still finding out - We should know everything vs we are still learning [Leadership is a creative act](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-and-creativity-as-decision/#leadership-is-a-creative-act) — a step into the unknown and helping others do the same. Ambiguity, uncertainty, change, and frustration are a part and parcel of the creative process. Negative capability helps leaders harness these ever present conditions. Its focus on engaging with reality can help attain the psychological condition of ***flow*** which is associated with high levels of creativity. **Flow requires losing the “you” in the process**. “Reaching for facts and reason” prevents flow and thus [creative breakthroughs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/) as well. ### 11\. Building resilience Reality in its full glory can be painful to grapple with. Somehow our culture conspires to convince us as otherwise. Negative capability helps recognize this and contain the emotional turmoil of opening up to the full realities of a given situation. --- ## How good is your negative capability Consider your instinctive responses to the following questions. Your answers will indicate how well developed your negative capability is. - Do you detest **operating in environments with lack of definition**, too many open loops, lack of information, and ambiguity? Or do you revel in them? - Do you see **ambiguity as an anomaly or as a nature of the system**, as something to be eliminated or as “conditions of the game”? - Do you **actively suspend judgment or do you rush to conclusions**? Often rushing to conclusions masquerades as competency in a given domain. - When encountering puzzling situations what’s your first reaction? Do you dismiss them or **do you impose certainty prematurely** by leaning on previous knowledge? - What is your **default attitude towards uncertainty**? Do you detest it, endure it, or enjoy it? - Can you continue operating without certainty or do you hurry to resolve the situation? - What’s your attitude towards **anxiety? Is it an anomaly and a negative signal?** - Do you get **over-anxious in unknown, unexplainable** situations? - Do you **stay with the discomfort** or do you actively work to eliminate it? - When coming across new ideas that challenge your existing position, are you naturally closed or open to them? Do you stay **open to the possibility of changing your mind**? - How developed are your **imaginative skills without needing a lot of specificity**? --- ## What prevents negative capability? Why are we naturally wired to resist negative capability? Why do few people have it naturally while the rest of us have to proactively work at it? And why is it especially hard to do in leadership? ### 1\. Anxiety is treated as an anomaly The primary mechanism that works against developing negative capability is what Jacob Needleman fittingly calls “**dispersal**”. Uncertainty causes anxiety, and **anxiety is a form of creative energy**. But too often in a world seeking perfection [we treat anxiety as a negative signal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) and disperse it away instead of harnessing its creative force. The primary ways we do this are : “**explanations, emotional reactions, or physical action**”. There is a tension between our desire to grapple with reality and the anxiety associated with a fear of the unknown. **What are the typical ways we disperse energy?** - Shutting out new ideas or new feelings that make us anxious or fearful. - Instead of staying with situations and letting them ripen, we speed things up and resolve them prematurely. We make them things linear, or choices as binary where they might not be. - [Listening to only what we want to hear](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/#two-recursive-loops-in-the-ladder) and dismissing any contradictory information. - Relying on previous knowledge which might not be applicable anymore. - Rushing in to take action because waiting is too painful or because that’s what we are expected to do. - Imposing a new certainty on evolving situations before a new pattern has emerged. - Oversimplifying complex problems into simpler ones by ignoring relevant primary issues. - Resisting any kind of “reflective inaction” or pausing by using lack of time as an excuse. - Treating patience, [listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/), and waiting as liabilities and signs of indecision and weakness. ### 2\. Existing habit patterns and notions Over a lifetime of interactions we develop habit patterns of responding to situations and people. Often we are not even responding to what’s in front of us but instead to pre-existing patterns. One illustration: > A man wants to hang a picture. He has a nail, but no hammer. The neighbor has one so our man decides to borrow it. But then a doubt occurs to him. > > “What if the neighbor won’t let me have it? Yesterday he barely nodded when I greeted him. Perhaps he was in a hurry. But perhaps he pretended to be in a hurry because he does not like me. And why would he not like me? I have always been nice to him; he obviously imagines something. If someone wanted to borrow one of my tools, I would of course give it to him. So why doesn’t he want to lend me his hammer? How can one refuse such a simple request? People like him really poison one’s life. He probably even imagines that I depend on him just because he has a hammer. I’ll give him a piece of my mind.” > > And so our man storms over to the neighbor’s apartment and rings the bell. The neighbor opens the door, but before he can even say “Good morning,” our man shouts. “And you can keep your damned hammer, you oaf!” > > \- Paul Watzlawick in The Situation Is Hopeless but Not Serious: The Pursuit of Unhappiness While clearly an exaggeration, we go through milder and sometimes more serious versions of this. Often we are not speaking with the person present but rather to their caricature we've built in our minds. We keep going back to habitual patterns because they are comfortable. They serve the **evolutionary purpose of relieving anxiety and discomfort**. Negative capability requires suspending judgment and engaging with situations anew. This means staying alert to habitual patterns and bypassing them as needed. ### 3\. Dynamics specific to leadership In addition to the above two main mechanisms, there are nuances specific to leadership that make negative capability harder to learn. - **Being seen as all knowing and all controlling.** Many leaders have the mistaken notion that you should always portray strength and an image of being all knowing and in control. Negative capability is often in direct conflict with this notion and thus hard to embrace. - **Reaching for certainty.** [Leadership is often equated with confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/) and certitude. We are “irritably reaching” for a fact or model to get us the always elusive certainty that we crave. - **Limiting expectations of the norm.** Leaders are expected to know, not-knowing is not an option. Teams might not be familiar with a leader who accepts they don’t know all the answers. This can increase their own anxiety and the leader needs to prepare them for it. Without mutual understanding this can look like *ineffective* leadership. - **Misunderstood as passiveness or submissive.** In a culture that values results and outcomes above everything else, any behavior that tends to delay action gets misunderstood as being passive. This is unfortunate and leaders have to actively manage this perception and dynamic. - **Lack of conviction and courage.** Embracing negative capability and developing it does not come naturally. Without the internal conviction and courage to follow through on it, it’s hard to stay with a program of developing it proactively. - **Commitment to development and change.** In addition to conviction and courage, commitment is key. You have to see its benefits and that its well worth the effort, or you won’t have the patience and the will to deal with the pain of uncertainty and not knowing. - **Misunderstood as lacking purpose.** While a stated purpose is good, it can also be emergent and evolving in the context of negative capability. This can easily get misconstrued as lacking a clear purpose or even clarity. Thus as beneficial as negative capability can be to effective leadership, it is equally hard to implement in practice. --- ## Conclusion > The true journey of discovery does not consist of searching for new landscapes, but in having ‘new eyes’. > > \- Marcel Proust Proust was talking about our [existing mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) of the world, and the only way to find or learn new ones is to temporarily suspend judgment, action, decision, and whatever our immediate impulse is to do. In some situations instead of “*Don’t just stand there, do something*”, it should be **“*Don’t just do something, stand there*”**. Staying alert to our habitual patterns, noticing what triggers them, and working proactively to install new patterns as replacements is one way to start developing negative capability. **Keats’s epitaph** on his gravestone does not bear his name. Instead it reads: > Here lies one whose name was writ in water. Organizational life and leadership are similar in fluidity, change, and sometimes even absurdly flippant. Instead of rushing to figure out the latest trend or learn a new technique, a more effective way to prepare for complexity and ambiguity is to develop negative capability. In closing, here’s another insightful piece from Keats that captures the paradox of **how reaching for something makes it ever more elusive**. > Dilke was a man who cannot feel he has a personal identity unless he has made up his mind about everything. **The only means of strengthening one’s intellect is to make up one’s mind about nothing—to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts**, not a select party. > > The genus is not scarce in population; all the stubborn arguers you meet with are of the same brood — They never begin upon a subject they have not pre-resolved on… Dilke will **never come at a truth as long as he lives, because he is always trying at it**. ## Articles related to negative capability [Paradoxes and contradictions are an inescapable part of organizational life](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and leadership. Recognizing them beforehand gives us a much better chance of responding effectively. I capture some of these paradoxes and contradictions in [Inherent Paradoxes in Management](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and [Types of Contradictions in Organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/). [Mastering context is a core leadership skill](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) but does not get as much attention. Developing negative capability is almost a requirement if you are to master it. I do [a deep dive into context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) in **The Importance of Mastering Context in Effective Leadership**. ## Sources 1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative\_capability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative%5Fcapability?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. [Keats and Negative Capability](https://amzn.to/3owVTQR?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Li Ou. 3. [Negative Capability in Leadership Practice](https://amzn.to/3H9YbMe?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Charlotte von Bulow and Peter Simpson. 4. [Strategy without Design](https://amzn.to/3mQ3kCw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Robert Chia, Robin Holt. 5. [The Antidote](https://amzn.to/3UY8atZ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Oliver Burkeman. 6. [The Hedgehog Effect](https://amzn.to/3oI4S1C?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Manfred Kets de Vries. 7. [Great by Choice](https://amzn.to/40yX0gp.?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Jim Collins. 8. [Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management](https://amzn.to/3L2PAfz?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Ralph Stacey. 9. [Negative capability:managing the confusing uncertainties of change](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242347331%5FNegative%5Fcapability%5FManaging%5Fthe%5Fconfusing%5Funcertainties%5Fof%5Fchange?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Robert French. 10. [Action learning, performativity and negative capability](https://doi.org/10.1080/14767333.2016.1168735?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by John Edmonstone. 11. [Negative Capability and the Capacity to Think in the Present Moment: Some Implications for Leadership Practice](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258168437%5FNegative%5FCapability%5Fand%5Fthe%5FCapacity%5Fto%5FThink%5Fin%5Fthe%5FPresent%5FMoment%5FSome%5FImplications%5Ffor%5FLeadership%5FPractice?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Simpson and Robert French. 12. [Leadership and negative capability](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247717666%5FLeadership%5Fand%5FNegative%5FCapability?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Simpson, Robert French and Charles E. Harvey. 13. [Reflections on Leadership and Career Developmen](https://amzn.to/41UHxYS?ref=leadingsapiens.com)t by Manfred Kets de Vries. 14. [Geeks & Geezers](https://amzn.to/41QOPwP?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Warren Bennis and Robert Thomas. 15. [Reconsidering Language Use in Our Talk of Expertise—Are We Missing Something?](https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198806639.003.0011?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by John Shotter. 16. [The critical period of disasters: Insights from sense-making and psychoanalytic theory](https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726704048354?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Mark Stein. 17. [The Situation Is Hopeless but Not Serious: The Pursuit of Unhappiness](https://amzn.to/3KY5cRD?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Paul Watzlawick ### A Strategy of Small Wins and Small Bets - Typical Mistakes and How to Get it Right URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:51:35.000Z *In 1984 Karl Weick published a seminal paper titled *Small Wins* in the American Psychologist Journal. Four decades later, the idea of small wins is fairly common.* *But many of the interpretations and implementations of small wins *miss critical nuances* that Weick highlighted. In fact some of them *completely misunderstand a key thrust* of his paper.* *Weick proposed the idea of *complexifying yourself rather than simplifying*. Instead his own paper was simplified. People focussed on the “small” and “wins” parts of it while leaving out important details.* *What are these critical nuances, what are the common pitfalls, and how can we better position ourselves to benefit from a strategy of small wins?* In this article we cover: - [Small Wins as commonly understood](#small-wins-as-commonly-understood) - [Mistaken assumptions in popular versions](#mistaken-assumptions-in-popular-versions) - [What is a strategy of small wins? What are the nuances?](#what-is-a-strategy-of-small-wins) - [The psychology of small wins - what makes them effective](#the-psychology-of-small-wins) - [Why small wins are essential in complex domains](#small-wins-are-essential-in-complex-domains) - [Examples of Small Wins](#examples-of-small-wins) --- ## Small Wins as commonly understood The notion of small wins is fairly common in business literature and elsewhere. There is an element of simplicity and obviousness to the term that belies its effectiveness. ### Small gains that accumulate The most common articulation is how small gains over time lead to big wins. It’s the idea of ***aggregation of marginal gains*** made famous by Sir Dave Brailsford who coached the victorious Team Sky in the Tour de France and later popularized in books like Atomic Habits. The punchline is this: get 1% better everyday and at the end of the year you are 37 times better than where you started. **You *only* have to get 1% better everyday**. ### The leadership version You will find some version of the below paragraph in many business books on leadership and change: *"Leaders make change happen. They focus on the small, incremental steps that lead to big changes. They accumulate wins. They challenge the status quo. They are willing to experiment. They learn from mistakes. They break it down into simpler steps, achievable goals, accumulate yesses, celebrate the small wins, give credit, and give and receive feedback. They have a clear plan. They have milestones to make regular progress. They take bold risks."* ### The problem There is nothing inherently wrong with any of the above statements. They are mostly true, well meaning, and appeal to our nobler selves. So what’s the problem? 1. **Reality is not as straightforward** and well-defined. The above descriptions are a derivative version stripped of the nuances. If it was simply a question of breaking it down into small steps and celebrating, all of us would have climbed the equivalent of Mt Everest by now. 2. Breaking a big goal down into smaller steps **assumes you know how to get there**. The concept doesn’t help when outcomes and the way to get there are unclear and unproven. In complex domains, often the “successful” path is not known in advance. So technically there is nothing to break down. The steps become obvious ***only in hindsight***. 3. Getting 1% better everyday **assumes you know what to measure and it in fact can be measured**. Neither does it account for any regression. Cycling is a complicated domain but it’s relatively easier to isolate cause and effects and measure them over time. Definitely not easy to do so in complex domains like leadership. --- ## Mistaken assumptions in popular versions Why do we keep falling for these simple definitions? For one, they make it look achievable and sound logical. But what is missing is a discernment for situations when such approaches work and when they don't. This goes down to not understanding the domain in play and the nuances of small wins. There are some fundamental underlying assumptions that are mistaken. ### Oversimplification In the face of big challenges or seemingly intractable problems there are two typical responses on opposite sides of the spectrum. Neither are helpful. The first is **paralysis**. The scale and complexity of the problem prevents us from doing anything about it. We are stuck in inaction. > The massive scale on which social problems are conceived often precludes innovative action because the limits of bounded rationality are exceeded and arousal is raised to dysfunctionally high levels. People often define social problems in ways that overwhelm their ability to do anything about them. > > When the magnitude of problems is scaled upward in the interest of mobilizing action, the quality of thought and action declines, because processes such as frustration, arousal, and helplessness are activated. But often, especially in organizational setups, it leads to the other extreme of **oversimplification**. It’s the notion that large, complex problems can actually be solved with overwhelming “strategy” from the top down. In oversimplification, **the tendency is to ignore complexities** and make the problem more straightforward that it really is. It gets us into action but like hamsters on a wheel we don’t get anywhere. This causes disappointment and disillusionment in the face of what looks like appropriate action. The focus is on one solution at the expense of other problems being ignored. We end up trying to box the problem into pre-determined solutions. Many of the common interpretations of small wins fall into this trap of oversimplification. They might get us moving but only on the road to nowhere. ### A bias for *exploit* rather than *explore* People and organizations go through phases during their life cycle, each of them dominated by a bias for explore or exploit strategies. > The basic problem confronting an organization is to engage in sufficient exploitation to ensure its current viability and, at the same time, to devote enough energy to exploration to ensure its future viability. Survival requires a balance, and the precise mix of exploitation and exploration that is optimal is hard to specify. > > \- James G March in The Myopia of Learning In **exploit** mode, the focus is on maximizing efficiency, minimizing failures, maximizing output, and on perfecting predictability and repeatability. The domain, its problems and solutions are well defined and proven. The focus is on production and maximizing the "find”. In contrast, **explore** situations demand a completely different skill set: an openness and willingness to experiment and fail, pushing the boundaries, innovating, and being prone to errors. The explore approach is unpredictable with no guaranteed returns. In mature organizations, the tendency is often to lean towards exploit rather than explore. This can be fatal in the long run. **Most common treatments of small wins have an underlying assumption of exploit rather than explore.** A strategy of small wins can help correct this imbalance. --- ## What is a strategy of small wins How did Weick define small wins and what are some key differences from other commonly understood notions? What are the nuances that get missed or even misunderstood and misrepresented? ### 1\. Concrete outcomes, not speculation > A small win is a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate importance. By itself, one small win may seem unimportant. A series of wins at small but significant tasks, however, reveals a pattern that may attract allies, deter opponents, and lower resistance to subsequent proposals. Small wins are controllable opportunities that produce visible results. Small wins are tangible in that they have already happened. This is different from planning or speculating wins in the future. They have already been implemented and can be identified only in retrospect. What can be done proactively, is designing experiments that increase the likelihood of small wins. Most treatments of small wins ignore this fact the fact that small wins become clear only in hindsight. You do not know beforehand if something is going to be a small win or not. The pattern is revealed rather than designed. Rather than looking into the future and speculating it’s about paying attention to what’s already working and what’s not. Moderate importance means they are not irrelevant while at the same time they are not so important that the stakes are unnecessarily high causing paralysis and inaction. ### 2\. Progress can be moving away from bad outcomes > Small wins are opportunistic steps that move in the same general direction but often are noteworthy because they move away from bad conditions. Progress does not have to be about moving towards success. It can also be about moving away from failures. Often outright problems are easier to work on than a stated idealistic state in the future. Nothing wrong with this, as long as we are paying attention to what’s working. At any point in time both individuals and organizations have already solved a series of problems to get to where they are today. They can hold clues to future action but often we are not paying attention to them. ### 3\. They unravel and reveal > Small wins often uncover achievable goals that were not envisioned before wins began to accumulate. > > Small wins have their impact through the tangible examples they provide for others, through the allies they attract and the opponents they deter, through doing something tangible, and through creating a context within which change is now seen as possible. Small wins uncover and reveal previously unseen opportunities and interventions. This is the very nature of complex domains. It’s one reason why small wins tend to build upon each other. The larger the number of experiments, more chances we have at finding something that works. Ongoing actions uncover properties of the system that were previously unknown or inaccessible. Once found they can be capitalized upon. ### 4\. They emerge as complete solutions to specific problem sets > Small wins often originate as solutions that single out and define as problems those specific, limited conditions for which they can serve as the complete remedy. > > I emphasize the importance of limits for both the solution and the problem to distinguish the solutions of small wins from the larger, more open- ended solutions that define problems more diffusely. The two keywords here are “emerge” and “limits”. Rather than being outlined upfront, they ***emerge*** as solutions. They serve as a complete, self-sufficient remedy for that particular ***limited*** condition instead of an overarching solution for the entire problem set. Notice the emphasis on limits for problems as well as solutions. Something might already be working but we don't recognize it because our problem definition is too large. For a more bounded problem, it might actually be a perfect solution. ### 5\. They are like experimental probes > Small wins provide information that facilitates learning and adaptation. > > Small wins are like miniature experiments that test implicit theories about resistance and opportunity and uncover both resources and barriers that were invisible before the situation was stirred up. Complex domains are like black boxes without clear inherent properties. The only way to figure it out is to run experiments that reveal the system’s characteristics. ### 6\. They require fewer preconceptions thus increasing accuracy Because they are a limited, smaller subset of a larger problem small wins require fewer underlying assumptions and preconceptions. This increases accuracy. Neither is it required to wait for perfect conditions or extensive analysis on every aspect. ### 7\. They cannot be planned or controlled Small wins are not directly under our control in terms of intended outcomes and knowing what will work. They emerge from the process of engaging. This makes them fundamentally different from a strategy of “best practices" or going for the “low-hanging fruit” and “easy wins”. > It is important to realize that the next solvable problem seldom coincides with the next “logical” step as judged by a detached observer. Small wins do not combine in a neat, linear, serial form, with each step being a demonstrable step closer to some pre- determined goal. > > More common is the circumstance where small wins are scattered and cohere only in the sense that they move in the same general direction or all move away from some deplorable condition. The future is unknowable and unpredictable and so are small wins. If they were in fact knowable and predictable we wouldn't necessarily need a strategy of small wins. What we can control instead is the **definition of the problem**, how we engage with it, the experiments we undertake, and the ability to identify these. ### 8\. Small wins are emergent The most counterintuitive aspect of small wins is that they become obvious only in hindsight. This lies at the root of many misunderstandings around small wins. Many versions, even by academics, conflate small wins with taking small steps and planning them upfront. This assumes you know the solution beforehand. Weick warned against such simplistic takes: > Organizational change involving small wins should not be confused with the idea that one way to accomplish a big task is to break it down into several small steps that are accomplished one by one. > They are **not necessarily logical, sequential steps** that lead steadily to a clear goal. Success using that kind of progression requires a stable environment, and that’s not what organizations face. Furthermore, small wins often uncover achievable goals that were not envisioned before wins began to accumulate. > Small wins have a **fragmentary character** driven by opportunism and dynamically changing situations. Small wins stir up settings, which means that each subsequent attempt at another win occurs in a different context. This emergent nature of small wins means that a detached, all-knowing, [top-down approach to strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) coming from the executive suite or an outside consultant should not be the only approach. **Real-time adaptations on the front lines are an equally rich source of emergent strategy**. An apt metaphor for this emergent nature of small wins is the difference between **wayfinding vs navigating**. It’s the difference between **knowing before you go vs knowing as you go** : > We know as we go, not before we go (ambulatory knowing). . .the world is not ready-made for life to occupy . . . It is rather laid out along paths of movement. . . To find one’s way is to advance along a line of growth, in a world. . .whose future configuration can never be fully known. > > \- Tim Ingold in The Perception of the Environment ### 9\. Focus on what’s working Our standard disposition is to be alert and looking for what’s not working. But what gets equally missed is paying attention to what *is* in fact working. We are already doing many things right now that are working well and are solutions to a problem set. > Careful plotting of a series of wins to achieve a major change is impossible because conditions do not remain constant. Much of the artfulness in working with small wins lies in identifying, gathering, and labeling several small changes that are present but unnoticed. Paying attention to what’s working and the exact problem that they are solving can give clues about where to double down. This removes speculation because you are focussing on tangible results. You are scanning for what’s already working instead of focussing on what’s not. ### 10\. Designing small bets rather than big wins [Going for the big win](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/) is a cultural norm. But what is more practical albeit less sexy is focusing on engineering a number of small bets that can turn into small wins eventually leading to a big win. We do not know beforehand what will work and won’t. Which is where small bets come in. They let you keep playing the game and all the while increasing your chances of success. The analogy of **rifle vs a shotgun** captures this nuance: > Reconnoitering a broad new opportunity is a bit like trying to shoot a game bird in a fast-flying flock. If you use a rifle, you’ll almost certainly miss. A rifle is fine if the target is big and slow. If the target is small and swift, a shotgun is your only hope. > > Too often a company makes a single, premature bet when confronting a new and under-defined opportunity. The greater the initial uncertainty about which customers will buy, what product configuration is best, what pricing scheme will work and which distribution channels will be most effective, the greater the number of experiments that should be launched. > > **Make small bets.** [**Make a lot of small bets**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-bets-vs-single-big-bet/)**. Think of your experiments as a portfolio of options.** > > \- Gary Hamel in Leading the Revolution ### 11\. Focusing on problem construction rather than resolution Our default approach tends to be jumping into the deep end of problem-solving and focussing on solution formation. But often paying more attention to the process of problem construction, and to inputs rather than outcomes, is more useful. **Problem definitions predetermine available solutions**. But often problems are assumed as a given and not looked at closely enough. We are too focussed on finding the solution. > The content of appropriate solutions is often implied by the definition of what needs to be solved. To focus on the process of problem definition is to incorporate a more substantial portion of psychology, specifically, its understanding of processes of appraisal, social construction of reality, problem finding, and definition of the situation. In complex domains, very rarely is the problem obvious and well defined. They tend to be vague and can have multiple interpretations and constructions. And same for solutions. How a problem is framed sets up the context for ensuing actions or the lack thereof. If problems look unsolvable they don’t warrant any actions. The Panama Canal is a great example of [how problem-setting is more crucial](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/#an-example-of-problem-setting) than problem-solving. ### 12\. Getting the small, mundane things consistently right Small wins are about getting the little things consistently right instead of the one-time record breaking performance. Weick cites the example of the Pittsburgh Steelers who consistently did well against teams with losing records than with winning records. > Against opponents who won more than half of their games, the Steelers won 29 and lost 26, or slightly more than half of these games (53%). However, against opponents with winning percentages below .500, the Steelers' record was 59-1, meaning they won 98% of these games. Thus a professional team renowned for its power got that way by consistently and frequently doing the easy stuff. > Winning teams distinguish themselves by more consistent behavior in games in which their skill advantage should make a difference, a condition that is part of the prototype for a small win. Thus, the best indication of good coaching may be the ability to induce consistent high performance against weak opponents rather than against strong opponents This notion is consistent with the Daniel Chambliss’s multi-year research about [what separates professional and amateur athletes at the highest levels](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). > Superlative performance is really a confluence of dozens of small skills or activities, each one learned or stumbled upon, which have been carefully drilled into habit and then are fitted together in a synthesized whole. There is nothing extraordinary or superhuman in any one of those actions; only the fact that they are done consistently and correctly, and all together, produce excellence. > > \- Daniel Chambliss in The Mundanity of Excellence Small wins can help identify the mundane details that add up to a superlative performance. More importantly, **they make winning more mundane and doable**. ### 13\. Qualitative vs qualitative improvements The best performers don’t necessarily work 10 times harder. [Excellence often means **doing things differently**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/#qualitative-vs-quantitative-improvements) aka *qualitative* rather than *quantitative*. Small wins are the ideal setup to make qualitative improvements that can then be scaled out and turned into larger scale quantitative improvements. > We need to begin to change from a mindset which says, doing more on a large scale is doing better (quantitative improvements) to a mindset which says doing different on a smaller scale is doing better. It is small qualitative improvements that may produce significant changes. ### 14\. Small does not mean less in importance, impact, or speed The term “small” is relative and can be misleading. It does not have to be meaningless, small in impact, or even slow. > The size of wins can be arranged along a continuum from small to large. A small change is either a change in a relatively unimportant variable or a relatively unimportant change in an important variable. When initiating change there are two key variables: 1. the size or scale of the change 2. the depth or importance of the change. Trying to change both at the same time can be hard if not impossible. What is more feasible is to focus on one dimension. Either take a small change and scale it out or implement a deep change on a limited scale. Small wins help to strike this balance. Small wins does not mean slow either: > A fast-moving sequence of small changes can more speedily accomplish a drastic alteration of the status quo than can an only infrequent major policy change. > > \- Charles Lindblom --- ## The psychology of small wins What makes small wins so effective? What are the key underlying mechanisms that makes them fundamentally different from large initiatives but also more potent and robust? > When a large problem is broken down into a series of small wins, **three things happen**. > > **First**, the importance of any single win is reduced in the sense that the costs of failure are small and the rewards of success considerable. **Second**, the size of the demand itself is reduced (e.g., all we need to do is get one city to discipline local polluters). And **third**, existing skills are perceived as sufficient to deal with the modest demands that will be confronted. ### 1\. Stress and performance are linked Stress gets a bad rap but it’s essential to peak performance and in fact aids in performance. But it helps only up to a certain point. Beyond that it starts hurting performance. The Yerkes-Dodson law captures this relationship : ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/10/HebbianYerkesDodson.JPG) Yerkes- Dodson curve via Wikimedia Commons Essentially peak performance requires stress. Too little of it and we are not sufficiently aroused. Too much and we go into shut down mode. But there is **another critical distinction between how this curve operates when performing tasks that are well understood vs when tasks are not clear**. There is a difference between complex tasks with unknown paths and solutions versus complicated tasks with known paths and previous training. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/10/OriginalYerkesDodson.JPG) Yerkes- Dodson curve via Wikimedia Commons When tasks are clear and well understood, the increased amount of stress actually helps and does not have a detrimental effect. This explains why often we do best when ”under time pressure”. In contrast, complex tasks that are not straightforward require operating in the sweet spot where there is enough stress but not too much. Solving complex problems requires openness to new inputs which increased stress tends to hinder. **At sufficiently high levels, stress impairs our mental capacity**. Small Wins enable staying in this **sweet spot of enough arousal** but not exceeding it: > To keep problem-related arousal at modest intensities, people need to work for small wins. Sometimes problem solving suffers from too little arousal. When people think too much or feel too powerless, issues become depersonalized. This lowers arousal, leading to inactivity or apathetic performance. The prospect of a small win has an immediacy, tangibility, and controllability that could reverse these effects. > A small win reduces importance (“this is no big deal”), reduces demands (“that’s all that needs to be done”), and raises perceived skill levels (“I can do at least that”). When reappraisals of problems take this form, arousal becomes less of a deterrent to solving them. This is also consistent with the mental state of **flow**. We work at our best when there is a good match between our skills and what the challenge requires of us. Too little challenge and we are bored. Too much of it and we go into anxiety and shut-down mode. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/10/Challenge_vs_skill_Commons.jpg) Flow State- Balancing Skill and Challenge. Via Wikimedia Commons. ### 2\. Small wins increase hardiness Why do some folks thrive under stress while others suffer? One reason is the psychological concept of hardiness composed of the three elements of commitment, control, and challenge. > **Commitment** refers to involvement and a generalized sense of purpose that allows people to impose meaning on things, events, and persons. > > **Control** is the tendency to act and feel as if one can have a definite influence (not the influence) on situations through the exercise of imagination, knowledge, skill, and choice. People with a sense of control tend to experience events as natural outgrowths of their actions rather than as foreign, overwhelming events. > > **Challenge** is the belief that change is an incentive to grow rather than a threat to security. Thus, incongruent events are opportunities rather than disasters. A strategy of small wins enables conditions that help increase hardiness and resistance to stress. > Deliberate cultivation of a strategy of small wins infuses situations with comprehensible and specific meaning (commitment), reinforces the perception that people can exert some influence over what happens to them (control), and produces changes of manageable size that serve as incentives to expand the repertory of skills (challenge). Small wins help you to be in control enough to be responsible for them, they have feedback built in given their size and shorter timeframes, and there are clear indicators of failure and success. In contrast, large initiatives that are seemingly beyond our control struggle to hit these criteria. ### 3\. They help operate within *bounded rationality* Small wins work because they help us operate even with limited information and understanding of a given problem. > Individuals have perceptual as well as information-processing limits, and even though they may intend to act rationally, they can do so only in a limited fashion. This limited fashion consists of acting on the basis of **sufficient knowledge rather than complete knowledge** (the concept of **satisficing**); of using simple, unlaborious rules to search for a solution when a problem arises ; and of using shortcuts whenever possible. > Given the reality of bounded rationality , small wins may be effective as much because they are “small” as because they are “wins.” The growing documentation of ways in which people take cognitive shortcuts on larger problems suggests that smaller wins may suffer less distortion from these heuristics. > Arousal is reduced because control and predictability increase. The mere problem is also seen more clearly, which improves the chances that a small, specific solution that fits it will be invented. The resulting small win becomes a visible change in a highly inertial world. The change was made **possible because the bounds of rationality were not exceeded**. ### 4\. Increasing risk asymmetry in our favor Small wins and small bets are an excellent mechanism to implement what Nassim Taleb calls a ***barbell strategy*** to limit downside while maximizing upside. > Your strategy is to be as **hyperconservative and hyperaggressive** as you can be instead of being mildly aggressive or conservative. > > Instead of putting your money in “medium risk” investments… you need to put a portion, say 85 to 90 per­ cent, in extremely safe instruments, like Treasury bills. The remaining 10 to 15 percent you put in extremely speculative bets, as leveraged as possible, preferably venture capital-style portfolios. That way you do not depend on errors of risk management; no Black Swan can hurt you at all, beyond your “floor,” the nest egg that you have in maximally safe investments. > > Make sure that you have plenty of these small bets; avoid being blinded by the vividness of one single Black Swan. **Have as many of these small bets as you can conceivably have**. > > \- Nassim Nicholas Taleb in The Black Swan ### 5\. They enable other additional wins Small wins can set off a positive feedback loop and have a **snowball effect** that leads to even larger wins. > Once a small win has been accomplished, forces are set in motion that favor another small win. When a solution is put in place, the next solvable problem often becomes more visible. This occurs because new allies bring new solutions with them and old opponents change their habits. Additional resources also flow toward winners, which means that slightly larger wins can be attempted. ### 6\. Small wins help overcome severe *loss aversion* When it comes to taking calculated risks the phenomenon of loss aversion can stop us cold. By reducing the size of the risks and limiting downside, small wins help overcome the fear of failure and the negative effects of loss aversion. ### 7\. They reduce interdependent variables By limiting the scope and size of the problem, interdependent variables are reduced thus simplifying the system and reducing its complexity. > To gain some control over interdependent problems, people can disconnect the parts so they don’t affect each other. Problems escalate only because they are tied together in a circular fashion and become vicious circles. A system with fewer interdependent events is a simpler system. It is easier to comprehend, easier to control, easier to improve. ### 8\. They limit generalizations from failure In complex domains with uncertain outcomes staying in the game to live another day and continuing with efforts is a key determinant of success. Thus **compartmentalizing failures** becomes an essential skill. > Disconfirmation often leads people to abandon their expectations and adopt skepticism and inaction as inoculation against future setbacks. The important tactic for dealing with the flops implicit in trying for small wins is to localize the disconfirmation of expectations. After unsuccessful attempts, the default reaction is to generalize failure that seeps into other aspects of our lives. This is even more likely if we attempt something big in an all or nothing bid. In contrast, an approach of small wins **helps isolate losses** so we can cope better and continue playing the game to increase the chances of other small wins. ### 9\. They help increasing the surface area of luck > To view optimism as a duty rather than as something tied to unsteady expectations of success is to position oneself in a sufficient variety of places with sufficient confidence that events may be set in motion that provide substance for that hope. Beauty is often in the eyes of the beholder when it comes to complex domains. There is no one correct version of reality. The same situation or problem can be interpreted in different ways. Small wins give us the incentive and the encouragement to interpret reality favorably and notice the nuances that might get missed otherwise. ### 10.They attract less opposition making them politically savvy > Opponents often assume that big effects require big causes, which means that they discount the importance of small wins. Opponents also often assume that attempted solutions cluster. Since small wins are dispersed, they are harder to find and attack than is one big win that is noticed by everyone. **Organizational politics perhaps kill more initiatives** than everything else combined. One reason is because most organizations are built around efficiency, reducing failure and maximizing success. Small wins thrive in this environment because they fly under the radar and are also more likely to be efficient and proven. > Incremental steps can be made quickly because they are only incremental. They do not rock the boat, do not stir up the great antagonisms and paralyzing schisms, as do proposals for more drastic change. > > \- Charles Lindblom in Still Muddling, Not Yet Through ### 11\. They are self-reinforcing As humans we are not wired for handling failure. Success, regardless of how small in scope, has a positive loop that feeds on itself which in turn spurs us to take more action. > Small wins may amount to little, but they are after all wins, and wins encourage us to put the most favorable construction on actions and events. > Firm actions couple events. And firm actions are more likely to occur when belief is strongly positive than when it is hesitant, doubtful, or cynical. ### 12\. Empirical validation, not optimistic speculation Small wins and small bets are based on **empirical validation rather than conjecture** which them a solid foundation to attract more resources and build upon. Jim Collins in *Great by Choice* calls this strategy **bullets before cannonballs**: > First, you fire bullets to figure out what’ll work. Then once you have empirical confidence based on the bullets, you concentrate your resources and fire a cannonball. After the cannonball hits, you keep 20 Mile Marching to make the most of your big success. > The history of the 10X companies is like a battlefield pockmarked with craters, and littered with bullets that never hit anything and lodged themselves in the ground. **Retrospective accounts tend to focus on only the big cannonballs, giving the false impression** that 10X achievements come to those with the guts to go always for the big bet, the huge cannonball. But the historical research evidence presents a different story, a story of dozens of small bullets that thumped into the dirt, punctuated by a handful of cannonballs that smashed into their targets. > If you knew ahead of time which bullets would merit cannonballs, you’d fire only those. But of course, you don’t know, so you need to fire bullets, knowing full well that a number of them will never hit anything. He goes on to give **three characteristics of a bullet**: > A bullet is an empirical test aimed at learning what works and that meets three criteria: > > 1\. A bullet is **low cost**. ...the size of a bullet grows as the enterprise grows; a cannonball for a $1 million enterprise might be a bullet for a $1 billion enterprise. > > 2\. A bullet is **low risk**. ...low risk doesn’t mean high probability of success; low risk means that there are minimal consequences if the bullet goes awry or hits nothing. > > 3\. A bullet is **low distraction**. ...this means low distraction for the overall enterprise; it might be very high distraction for one or a few individuals. A small wins, small bets strategy is an effective way to satisfy all three criteria. ![Small Wins Strategy- the four quadrants](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Small-Wins--Pace-vs-Scale.png) --- ## Small wins are essential in complex domains In addition to the psychological aspects that make small wins effective, their characteristics make them especially suited when operating in complex domains. **How are complex domains different from complicated and simple ones?** Complicated domains like cycling while difficult tend to have proven solutions. On the other hand complex domains don’t have any clearly defined solutions or even problems. The snippet below captures this quandary perfectly: > Consider **three related tasks, one simple, one complicated, one complex**. > > Building a pleasure **boat** can be relatively straightforward—it’s about such things as the ratio of displacement to length. Building an **aircraft carrier** is far more complicated, involving the coordination of all kinds of subsystems and supply networks. Yet even here the component parts can be readily understood and the necessary behaviors made rather predictable. But a decision on **whether or not to deploy that aircraft carrier** can be truly complex: Who is to say with any certainty what is the right thing to do, or even what is the best thing under the circumstances? > > \- Henry Mintzberg, Jonathan Gosling in Five Minds of a Manager When operating in complex domains, a strategy of small wins is often the most viable strategy. Why are small wins especially suited for complex domains? ### 1\. They scale down problem environments into smaller controlled microcosms > When people initiate small-scale projects there is less play between cause and effect; local regularities can be created, observed, and trusted; and feedback is immediate and can be used to revise theories. Events cohere and can be observed in their entirety when their scale is reduced. One aspect that stops us from tackling large projects is the lack of direct cause and effect. Complex domains are replete with paradoxes and [causal loops that are invisibly intertwined](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/). The time lag between cause and effects makes it even more unclear. All these factors combine to effectively hide any obvious courses of action. By scaling down the problem environment, feedback loops are shortened. Cause and effects tend to become more visible and thus seemingly more controllable. You are creating smaller, self-contained microcosms that are more predictable. This in turn helps initiate action. > Since a small win creates a completed outcome, feedback occurs which enables people to see the effects of the action and whether they should repeat it. ### 2\. They create order Small wins help create a sense of order around what is often felt as chaos. They help define the undefined. What was before amorphous and unwieldy becomes something people can “wrap their heads around” and helps put their best foot forward. > Having imposed the logic of small wins on a situation cognitively, the person then wades into the situation and **acts with persistence, confidence, and forcefulness**. > > Even though the actions associated with small wins are brief, specific, and localized, they can have a **deterministic effect** on many problem situations, because those situations are often even less coherent than the actions directed at them. > > Small wins induce a degree of certainty that allows **greater access to the very resources** that can insure more positive outcomes. ### 3\. They let you take immediate action > In most situations, you can learn a lot faster by doing than by watching, but unfortunately, action also exposes you to more near-term risk than watching. This is because most environments, even dangerously unstable ones, are relatively quiescent unless disturbed. They do not reveal much under normal circumstances. > > This creates a bootstrapping conundrum: how can you act meaningfully when you don’t know much about the situation, and do not have relevant, well-developed mental models? The answer… is that you cannot. **You must act meaninglessly, or in other words, randomly**. > > \- Venkatesh Rao in Tempo Acting “meaninglessly” or “randomly” on a large scale is often not feasible and can be borderline foolish at least in perception. In contrast, a strategy of small wins and small bets let you do just that while limiting downside risk. Taking action and resulting feedback gives more clues about the properties of the domain we are operating in. Small wins let you take action faster even when you don’t know what’s the best course of action. > People have limited analytical power when they deal with indeterminate, nonroutine settings. Action facilitates learning in nonroutine settings and small wins get people into action more quickly. Small wins help people understand more about uncertain settings. ### 4\. They are more robust Uncertainty and change dominate complex domains. Small wins are more resilient to changing conditions because of their size, and being emergent and organic in nature. They are more robust compared to system-wide changes and less subject to the vagaries of changing macro conditions. Weick uses the analogy of a **short stack** for the robustness of small wins: > Your task is to count out a thousand sheets of paper, while you are subject to periodic interruptions. Each interruption causes you to lose track of the count and forces you to start over. > > If you count the thousand as a single sequence, then an interruption could cause you, at worst, to lose a count of as many as 999\. If the sheets are put into stacks of 100, however, and each stack remains undisturbed by interruptions, then the worst possible count loss from interruption is 108\. That number represents the recounting of the nine stacks of 100 each plus the 99 single sheets. Further, if sheets are first put into stacks of ten, which are then joined into stacks of 100, the worst possible loss from interruption would be 27\. That number represents nine stacks of 100 plus nine stacks often plus nine single sheets. > > Not only is far less recounting time lost by putting the paper into "subsystems" of tens and hundreds, but the chances of completing the count are vastly higher. > > \- Alfred Kuhn, Robert Beam in The logic of organizations. > A series of small wins is also more structurally sound than a large win because **small wins are stable building blocks**. Small wins are like short stacks. They preserve gains, they cannot unravel, each one requires less coordination to execute, interruptions such as might occur when there is a change in political administration have limited effects, and subparts can be assembled into different configurations. ### 5\. They are key to successful entrepreneurship Entrepreneurship is one of the truest instances of operating in unknown, complex environments with no guarantees of success. The work of professor Saras Sarasvathy at the Darden school of business is one of the few research-backed frameworks that examines what makes entrepreneurs successful. There are two key concepts in what she calls ***effectuation***: 1. **The bird in hand principle**: Work with your means first and let the goals emerge from it instead of the other way around. Don’t wait for the perfect opportunity. Instead start working with what you already have. 2. **The principle of affordable loss**: What is the most acceptable downside? Instead of focussing on successful outcomes, figure out what is the potential loss that you can endure and base your decisions accordingly. Thus limiting downside drives your decision making rather than maximizing the upside. The small wins framework checks off on both these criteria. By paying more attention to what’s already working and emerging from your experiments you are essentially working with your means first. And given the smaller scale of your experiments and wins, you are capping the downside risk whilst increasing upside potential. > *Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.* > > *—Theodore Roosevelt* --- ## Examples of Small Wins Weick cites many examples of small wins in his paper. Below are some interesting ones: ### 1\. The first strike in space > An example of scaling down problems to more manageable size is an incident that occurred during the Apollo 13 mission when the astronauts staged what some regard as the first strike in space on December 27, 1973\. Mission control had been sending more and more directions, corrections, and orders to the astronauts until finally Commander Gerald Carr said, “You have given us too much to do. We’re not going to do a thing until you get your act in better order.” > > **He then shut off communications for 12 hours** and the astronauts spent their day catching up and looking out the windows. They regained control over their circumstance. They did so partly by complicating themselves—an astronaut who both disobeys and obeys mission control is a more complicated individual than one who merely obeys, and partly by simplifying their system—they cut off one whole set of demands and reduced their problems simply to dealing with their own preferences. Their system became simpler because they had fewer demands to accommodate and simpler schedules to follow. > > **To gain some control over interdependent problems, people can disconnect the parts so they don’t affect each other.** Problems escalate only because they are tied together in a circular fashion and become vicious circles. A system with fewer interdependent events is a simpler system. It is easier to comprehend, easier to control, easier to improve. > > Small wins disconnect incomprehensible systems such as the Library of Congress, a DuPont factory, EPA, or NASA. Once the system is disconnected, people then focus their attention on specific events that have been stripped out of their context… What is common in instances such as these is that the “mere problem” that people finally end up with becomes manageable, understandable, and controllable by fallible individuals and stays that way until the larger system is reconnected. ### 2\. Minor improvements vs major advances > Microeconomic study of decreases in production costs of viscose rayon yarn manufacturing at five DuPont plants between 1929 and 1960 demonstrates that minor technical changes—rather than major changes—accounted for over two thirds of the reductions. > > A technical change is a change “in the technique of production of given commodities by specific plants, designed to reduce unit production costs”. Major technical changes (e.g., introduction of compensation spinning) differ from minor changes (e.g., introduction of forklift trucks) in time, skill, effort, and expense required to produce them. > > The minor technical changes were small improvement inventions, rather than major inventions, made by people familiar with current operations. **Experience with the process was crucial**, since the very acts of production that created the problems in the first place were also the sources of the minor improvements that could solve the problem. People learned by doing. ### 3\. Improvers vs inventors > A technological invention is a big step forward in the useful arts. Small steps forward are not given this designation; they are just “minor improvements” in technology. But a succession of many minor improvements add up to a big advance in technology. It is natural that we hail the big, single step forward, while leaving the many small steps all but unnoticed. It is understandable, therefore, that **we eulogize the great inventor, while overlooking the small improvers**. > > Looking backward, however, it is by no means certain that the increase in productivity over a longer period of time is chiefly due to the great inventors and their inventions. **It may well be true that the sum total of all minor improvements, each too small to be called an invention, has contributed to the increase in productivity more than the great inventions have.** > > \- Fritz Machlup in The Production and Distribution of Knowledge in the U.S. --- 💡 Liked this article? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related reading A parallel idea to small wins is understanding [**the mundanity of excellence**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). Greatness and excellence are about mastering the basics and getting several little things right over long periods of time. What is under-appreciated is that[ **coping with the mundanity is a bigger challenge**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) than the challenge itself. While the challenge and destination might be glamorous, the process of actually getting there is anything but. I examine this idea in **The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the Mundane**. One of the [best examples of adopting failure and small wins as a strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/) in recent times is Jeff Bezos. > You need a culture that high-fives small and innovative ideas. > > *— Jeff Bezos* Scaling failure is one of his key mental models at Amazon. I captured this along with a host of others in [How Bezos thinks-all his frameworks](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/). ### Sources and References 1. Small wins: Redefining the scale of social problems by Karl Weick. You can access a free version of the paper [here](https://asset-pdf.scinapse.io/prod/2067525094/2067525094.pdf?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. Managing the Unexpected by Karl Weick and Kathleen Sutcliffe. 3. Organizing on a Global Scale by Karl Weick and Paul W Van Orden. 4. Little Bets by Peter Sims. 5. A small wins framework to overcome the evaluation paradox of governing wicked problems by Catrien J.A.M. Termeer & Art Dewulf 6. Strategic planning: Big wins and small wins by John Bryson. 7. Leading the Revolution by Gary Hamel. 8. The Relation of Strength of Stimulus to Rapidity of Habit-Formation by R. M. Yerkes and J. D. Dodson, Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology. 9. Emotionality and the Yerkes-Dodson Law by P. L. Broadhurst in Journal of Experimental Psychology. 10. The temporal dynamics model of emotional memory processing by David M Diamond, Adam M Campbell, Collin R Park, Joshua Halonen and Phillip R Zoladz. 11. [The Five Minds of a Manager](https://hbr.org/2003/11/the-five-minds-of-a-manager?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Jonathan Gosling and Henry Mintzberg. 12. [Yerkes-Dodson law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes%E2%80%93Dodson%5Flaw?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 13. [Loss aversion](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss%5Faversion?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 14. [The Myopia of Learning](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235737533%5FThe%5FMyopia%5Fof%5FLearning?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by James G March and Daniel A Levinthal. 15. The logic of organizations by Albert Kuhn, Kuhn, A., & Beam, R. D. . 16. Tempo by Venkatesh Rao. 17. Effectuation by Saras Sarasvathy. 18. Black Swan by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. 19. Great by Choice by Jim Collins. 20. [The Science of Muddling Through](https://doi.org/10.2307/973677?ref=leadingsapiens.com) and [Still Muddling, not yet through](https://doi.org/10.2307/976178?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Charles Lindblom. ### Metanoia-Learning as a Strategy URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-as-strategy/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:51:48.000Z Organizational learning as one of the central pieces of strategy is still not as common as one would think. It's a cliche to say we live in a world full of volatility, ambiguity, uncertainty, and change. Learning is a powerful anti-dote that can help leaders and organizations thrive in uncertainty. ## Metanoia Peter Senge, in his 1990 classic *The Fifth Discipline*, outlined five disciplines of learning organizations. In an insightful passage, he highlights how an emphasis on learning can have a direct effect on the people in an organization. > *METANOIA—A SHIFT OF MIND* > > *When you ask people about what it is like being part of a great team, what is most striking is *the meaningfulness of the experience*.* > > *People talk about being part of something larger than themselves, of being connected, of being generative. It becomes quite clear that, for many, their experiences as part of truly great teams stand out as singular periods of life lived to the fullest. Some spend the rest of their lives looking for ways to recapture that spirit.* > > *The most accurate word in Western culture to describe what happens in a learning organization is one that hasn’t had much currency for the past several hundred years. \[…\] *The word is “metanoia” and it means a shift of mind*. \[…\]* > > *To grasp the meaning of “metanoia” is to grasp the deeper meaning of “learning,” for *learning also involves a fundamental shift or movement of mind*.* > > *The problem with talking about “learning organizations” is that the “learning” has lost its central meaning in contemporary usage. Most people’s eyes glaze over if you talk to them about “learning” or “learning organizations.” The words tend to immediately evoke images of sitting passively in schoolrooms, listening, following directions, and pleasing the teacher by avoiding making mistakes.* > > *In effect, in everyday use, *learning has come to be synonymous with “taking in information.*” “Yes, I learned all about that at the training yesterday.” Yet, taking in information is only distantly related to real learning. It would be nonsensical to say, “I just read a great book about bicycle riding—I’ve now learned that.”* > > **Real learning gets to the heart of what it means to be human.* *Through learning we re-create ourselves. Through learning we become able to do something we never were able to do.* Through learning we reperceive the world and our relationship to it. Through learning we extend our capacity to create, to be part of the generative process of life. There is within each of us a deep hunger for this type of learning.* > > *As anthropologist Edward Hall says, *“Humans are the learning organism par excellence. The drive to learn is as strong as the sexual drive—it begins earlier and lasts longer.”** > > *This, then, is the basic meaning of a “learning organization”—an organization that is continually expanding its capacity to create its future.* ## Learning and the human OS This passage hits on many of the [core needs of our human OS](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) : - to be part of something larger than ourselves - to create meaning and lead meaningful lives - to learn and achieve mastery - our need to create - to be engaged fully with the project of our work and lives And these same needs go unmet in modern organizations for a variety of reasons. Over 3 decades after the publication of The Fifth Discipline and scores of other related books and journals, learning is often relegated to the HR or L&D departments and never really gets center stage attention. But if looked at in terms of creativity, innovation, retention, motivation, morale, and perhaps 10 other buzzwords, learning suddenly takes on a different aura. It becomes a central piece, or at least one of the central pieces of the puzzle. ### Further reading [Can you teach leadership? More importantly can you learn it?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/) I examine some core ideas in [Leadership can be learned but cannot be taught](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/). In a seminal HBR article, Chris Argyris highlighted some of the [challenges with learning especially amongst well paid, highly educated professionals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/). I examined some of his key ideas in [Learning How to Learn](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/). --- 💡 Liked this post? You will dig ***The Managerial Mind on Mondays** newsletter. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ### 35 Essential Mid Career Change Frameworks URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/ Last updated: 2025-09-25T14:04:25.000Z *Changing or quitting careers is hard. Doubly so in mid-career. Should I quit or stay? I grappled with that question for almost 4 years.* *In early 2021, I walked away from a lucrative corporate role and a successful 20 year career to start my solo practice. The decision didn't happen overnight. Neither was it easy or obvious. Often it was gut wrenching and confusing as hell.* **I also realized no spreadsheet will ever help me make the decision.* If anything spreadsheets make it harder — the numbers can be mind boggling to voluntarily walk away from.* *Looking back, it was a series of *small decisions that eventually added up*. And these could be traced back to a key framework or mental model I had read, discussed, or stumbled upon. Fortunately I kept extensive notes.* In this article I share **35 frameworks and mental models** for a midlife career change that helped me get out of my own way. - [Cutting the gordian knot of our thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#cutting-the-gordian-knot-of-our-thinking) - [Some pointers when considering a midlife career change](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#some-pointers-when-considering-a-midlife-career-change) - [a. Limbo is a drag on performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#a-limbo-is-a-drag-on-performance) - [b. Look for frameworks rather than answers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#b-look-for-frameworks-rather-than-answers) - [c. Design a compass rather than a map](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#c-design-a-compass-rather-than-a-map) - [d. There is no right answer](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#d-there-is-no-right-answer) - [35 of the best frameworks and mental models for a midlife career change](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#35-of-the-best-frameworks-and-mental-models-for-a-midlife-career-change) - [1\. Choose enlargement over happiness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#1-choose-enlargement-over-happiness) - [2\. Choose trajectory over optimization](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#2-choose-trajectory-over-optimization) - [3\. Foresight is limited. Hindsight is unlimited.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#3-foresight-is-limited-hindsight-is-unlimited) - [4\. Anxiety or ambivalence is the wrong criteria](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#4-anxiety-or-ambivalence-is-the-wrong-criteria) - [5\. Memento Mori](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#5-memento-mori) - [6\. Bezos’ regrets minimization framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#6-bezos-regrets-minimization-framework) - [7\. Buridan’s ass](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#7-buridans-ass) - [8\. There is no inner ring](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#8-there-is-no-inner-ring) - [9\. Bezos’ reversible vs irreversible decisions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#9-bezos-reversible-vs-irreversible-decisions) - [10\. We cannot outsource accountability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#10-we-cannot-outsource-accountability) - [11\. Time is not money](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#11-time-is-not-money) - [12\. Freedom and security don’t go together](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#12-freedom-and-security-dont-go-together) - [13\. Forget success and happiness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#13-forget-success-and-happiness) - [14\. Deciding is doing, not thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#14-deciding-is-doing-not-thinking) - [15\. Ambitions have expiration dates](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#15-ambitions-have-expiration-dates) - [16\. Gradatim Ferociter](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#16-gradatim-ferociter) - [17\. The right path doesn’t exist, for now](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#17-the-right-path-doesnt-exist-for-now) - [18\. Money is the cheapest](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#18-money-is-the-cheapest) - [19\. Don’t look for purpose. Create it.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#19-dont-look-for-purpose-create-it) - [20\. Test the extremes to find the mean](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#20-test-the-extremes-to-find-the-mean) - [21\. BENTO framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#21-bento-framework) - [22\. Satisficing vs maximizing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#22-satisficing-vs-maximizing) - [23\. Risk and uncertainty are different](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#23-risk-and-uncertainty-are-different) - [24\. Forget planning, try crafting instead](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#24-forget-planning-try-crafting-instead) - [25\. Objective risk vs subjective risk](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#25-objective-risk-vs-subjective-risk) - [26\. Don’t get hung up on the “how”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#26-dont-get-hung-up-on-the-how) - [27\. Pursuing what matters runs counter to culture](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#27-pursuing-what-matters-runs-counter-to-culture) - [28\. Grace doesn’t come cheap](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#28-grace-doesnt-come-cheap) - [29\. The safest choice can be the riskiest](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#29-the-safest-choice-can-be-the-riskiest) - [30\. Being vs “having” and “seeming”](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#30-being-vs-having-and-seeming) - [31\. The four primary human drives](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#31-the-four-primary-human-drives) - [32\. Sunk costs can sink us](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#32-sunk-costs-can-sink-us) - [33\. Writing your version of the story](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#33-writing-your-version-of-the-story) - [34\. Uncover hidden assumptions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#34-uncover-hidden-assumptions) - [35\. Try sensemaking instead of decision making](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#35-try-sensemaking-instead-of-decision-making) - [The best framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#the-best-framework) - [Further Reading](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#further-reading) - [References](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/#references) --- ## Cutting the gordian knot of our thinking Quitting or changing is especially difficult when you are a well-paid professional with 15 plus years into a career. We are paralyzed by the weight of the decision.The stakes seem too high to even consider a change let alone making one. And when we do try, we go down the same neural pathways never really getting anywhere, and stuck in a quagmire of mental cobwebs with no clarity. Fortunately, some of the greatest minds from Franklin to Bezos have been grappling with the same questions. Hopefully these frameworks will help cut through the knots of your choices and indecisions. ## Some pointers when considering a midlife career change Before we jump into all the frameworks here are some key considerations: ### a. Limbo is a drag on performance Optionality is not always a positive. Having the option to walk away but never exercising it can grind at you. **The default has an invisible price** when we are ambivalent. Quitting is not the only answer either. Deciding to stay and not entertaining other options can in itself be liberating. But the worst thing you can do is stay in limbo. **Making a decision either way and owning it outright is underrated**. Instead we tell ourselves that we don’t have options. ### b. Look for frameworks rather than answers One time-tested device that can help break the logjam is a question or framework designed to help see the situation anew. They are not necessarily answers, but different orientations to look at our quandary. They question the very questions we are asking, and can give a different vantage point with different views and different answers. ### c. Design a compass rather than a map By definition quitting a job or starting something new means unknown territory. And in unknown, unexplored territories, maps or prescriptions are not helpful. What’s more helpful instead is a compass that helps to orient and explore the terrain. ### d. There is no right answer I don’t glamorize entrepreneurship. Neither am I convinced by the creator economy or fire movement. There is no right or wrong answer when it comes to making difficult choices. The only right answer is whatever we in fact end up choosing. [Not exercising our choice](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/#3-are-we-taking-ownership-of-our-choices) is when we feel powerless and frustrated. --- ## 35 of the best frameworks and mental models for a midlife career change ### 1\. Choose enlargement over happiness Oliver Burkeman shared this framework in his last column in the Guardian: > *When stumped by a life choice, choose “enlargement” over happiness…. major personal decisions should be made not by asking, “Will this make me happy?”, but “*Will this choice enlarge me or diminish me?*”* > > We’re terrible at predicting what will make us happy: the question swiftly gets bogged down in our narrow preferences for security and control. But the enlargement question elicits a deeper, intuitive response. > > You tend to just know whether, say, leaving or remaining in a relationship or a job, though it might bring short-term comfort, would mean cheating yourself of growth. > > Relatedly, don’t worry about burning bridges: **irreversible decisions tend to be more satisfying**, because now there’s only one direction to travel – forward into whatever choice you made. > > — Oliver Burkeman ### 2\. Choose trajectory over optimization When making long-term decisions it’s more useful to look at trajectory. While in temporary absolute terms quitting might not be smart, what does your overall life trajectory look like? Are we optimizing the short-term at the cost of a more compelling and satisfying long-term? Are you optimizing for this year or for this decade? Is it helping or hurting your intended trajectory? > Long-term thinking levers our existing abilities and lets us do new things we couldn’t otherwise contemplate. It supports the failure and iteration required for invention, and it frees us to pioneer in unexplored spaces. > > Seek instant gratification—or the elusive promise of it—and chances are you’ll find a crowd there ahead of you. > > — Jeff Bezos What good is it to be optimizing but in the wrong direction? Given a long-enough timeframe, [small actions can have outsized effects](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). Are you giving yourself enough time? What assumption of time are you making? ### 3\. Foresight is limited. Hindsight is unlimited. We have a little of one and an abundance of the other. The mistake is to wish for more foresight. It’s not coming. > Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. > > \- Soren Kierkegaard Many of the actions we think of as mistakes did not start out as one. They became one only in hindsight. They started out the same as any of your other successful moves. **Just because it didn't pan out, does not mean it was the wrong decision.** In wanting to take the leap and start in a new direction I wanted a "proven solution". A guarantee that it would all work out. There isn't any. Uncertainty can be a hard one for STEM professionals. We work to stamp out unpredictability which makes it harder to embrace uncertainty proactively as opposed to circumstances or someone else imposing it upon us. ### 4\. Anxiety or ambivalence is the wrong criteria > Our anxiety does not empty tomorrow of its sorrows, but only empties today of its strengths. > > — C H Spurgeon Anxiety gets a bad rap in our modern world. We use it as a negative indicator. But Kierkegaard described it as the ‘dizziness of freedom’. We back off from decisions because we take anxiety to be a signal of whether something is worth undertaking and if we can handle the ensuing challenges. Same for being ambivalent, for not being one hundred percent certain. But **anxiety is the other side of decision making.** Decide comes from “cide” which literally means cutting off. Whichever path we take has consequences thus making us responsible for them. Regret is also baked in for good measure regardless of which path we take. We can only physically inhabit one path out of the many available. Thus **the paths not taken and their possibilities will always be an unknown**. The real question is which one we want to live with and are ok with in the long run. ### 5\. Memento Mori That's latin for “remember you shall die”. It’s what servants used to tell parading Roman Generals being feted. Covid perhaps was the ultimate crowd sourced reminder of this framework. The thought of death can be terrifying and equally clarifying. > *Writing your obituary is a startlingly effective way to help avoid a corrosive feeling of regret that you did not take your life in new directions when you had the chance.* > > *\- Roman Krznaric, How to find meaningful work* Perhaps owing to the feeling of immortality that goes with younger age I never took these seriously. These can come as a personal wakeup call or from the loss of a close friend. But we can proactively design this into our lives instead of waiting for fate to shake us out of stupor. ### 6\. Bezos' regrets minimization framework > When I’m eighty, I want to have minimized the number of regrets that I have in my life, and **most of our regrets are acts of omission**, things we didn’t try, the path untraveled. Those are the things that haunt us. > > \- Jeff Bezos > If there is anything worth fearing in the world, it is living in such a way that gives one cause for regret in the end. > > \- A. C. Grayling Regret is a powerful lens to look at our impending decision and its potential impact. Research has proven that **the choices we didn’t make tend to loom larger with passing time**. ### 7\. Buridan’s ass Put exactly midway between a stack of hay and a pail of water, Buridan’s ass died from hunger and thirst as it could not make up its mind. Not making a choice is a choice in itself. The default has consequences, often hiding in plain sight. In conditions of uncertainty, [**imperfect action**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/#3-they-let-you-take-immediate-action) **is better than perfect inaction.** ### 8\. There is no inner ring Entire lives are spent chasing what CS Lewis calls *the inner ring*. We've been outsiders throughout and we want to be the insider, whether that's becoming the VP or a NY Times bestselling author. And once inside we find another ring further inside. We are an outsider again. **We would rather be anywhere but where we are today**. > .. one of the most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside. > > The torture allotted to the Danaids ... that of attempting to fill sieves with water... is the very mark of a perverse desire that **it seeks what is not to be had**. The desire to be inside the invisible line illustrates this rule. > > As long as you are governed by that desire you will never get what you want. You are trying to peel an onion: if you succeed there will be nothing left. **Until you conquer the fear of being an outsider, an outsider you will remain**. > > If all you want is to be in the know, your pleasure will be short lived. The circle cannot have from within the charm it had from outside. **By the very act of admitting you it has lost its magic**. > > You merely wanted to be “in.” And that is a pleasure that cannot last. As soon as your new associates have been staled to you by custom, you will be looking for another Ring. The rainbow’s end will still be ahead of you. The old ring will now be only the drab background for your endeavor to enter the new one. > > — C S Lewis, Inner Ring ### 9\. Bezos' reversible vs irreversible decisions > Some decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible—one-way doors—and these decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation. If you walk through and don’t like what you see on the other side, you can’t get back to where you were before. We can call these **Type 1 decisions**. > > But most decisions aren’t like that—they are changeable, reversible—they’re two-way doors. If you’ve made a suboptimal **Type 2 decision**, you don’t have to live with the consequences for that long. You can reopen the door and go back through. > > \- Jeff Bezos Is your decision reversible or irreversible? ### 10\. We cannot outsource accountability > We want someone else to assure us of a safer tomorrow. We want to know how: how to do it, how much it costs, how long it will take, how to get those people to align with us, how to measure it, and who else is doing it. > > All of this is **a wish to go to heaven and not have to die**. We want certainty before we act. **As long as we wish for safety, we will have difficulty pursuing what matters**. > > \- Peter Block, Answer to How is Yes This is the promise of almost every online marketing scam: here's the answer, the hack, or the formula so you don't have to "waste" time trying to figure it out. Often implicit, we want the upside but not the associated downside. ### 11\. Time is not money > *Why risk the things he had limited amounts of to increase the quantities of things he had unlimited amounts of?* > > *\- Manfred Kets de Vries, CEO Whisperer* [Franklin's advice of time being money distorts how we see it](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/#money-is-only-one-form-of-exchange). They are anything but the same. It's a false comparison. Because money can be quantified easily, we tend use it as a default measure. But money is infinite and replaceable whereas time aka our life is not. We only have a finite amount of time. So what are we really trading off? ### 12\. Freedom and security don’t go together > Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. > > \- Benjamin Franklin George Monbiot in his essay Choose Life invokes Franklin’s framework of choosing liberty over security: > Whenever you are faced with a choice between liberty and security, choose liberty. Otherwise you will end up with neither. People who sell their souls for the promise of a secure job and a secure salary are spat out as soon as they become dispensable. The more loyal to an institution you are, the more exploitable, and ultimately expendable, you become. > > \- George Monbiot, Choose life > *So many people live with unhappy circumstances and yet will not take the initiative to change their situation because they are conditioned to a life of security, conformity, and conservatism, all of which may appear to give one peace of mind, but in reality nothing is more damaging to the adventurous spirit within a man than a secure future.* > > *\-Roman Krznaric* ### 13\. Forget success and happiness > *Don’t aim at success—the more you aim at it and make it a target, the more you are going to miss it. For success, like happiness, cannot be pursued; it must ensue and it only does so as the unintended side-effect of one’s dedication to a cause greater than oneself or as the by-product of one’s surrender to a person other than oneself.* > > *Happiness must happen, and the same holds for success: *you have to let it happen by not caring about it*.* > > *\- Viktor Frankl* **Obliquity** can be more effective than directness when it comes to success and happiness. We are most happy when we are not chasing them directly. ### 14\. Deciding is doing, not thinking > *Then indecision brings its own delays, And days are lost lamenting o’er lost days. Are you in earnest?* > *Seize this very minute;* > *What you can do, or dream you can, begin it;* > *Boldness has genius, power and magic in it.* > > *— Johann Wolfgang von Goethe* Thinking of important decisions can easily end up being a futile mental exercise on the road to nowhere. We often “decide” but don't take action. We forget that the real decision and choice is [taking action in physical reality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/), not just mental rumination. > *We are what we do.* > > *\- David Reynolds* Choices can muddle reality whereas actions clarify it. **Decisions per se don’t generate feedback from the real world whereas actions do**. ### 15\. Ambitions have expiration dates > *Whoever in middle age, attempts to realize the wishes and hopes of his early youth invariably deceives himself. Each ten years of a man’s life has its own fortunes, its own hopes, its own desires.* > > *\- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe* There’s a limited half-life to our intrinsic motivations and fires. It can take work and patience to bring them out. But too many of us are really good at drowning them. Do this long enough and over time the fire eventually dies out. This is the key flaw in any early retirement movement - ***I will do it and "then"***. The "then" might be very different from what we have imagined today. The projects that inspire you today might not do so 5 years from now or even a year from now. Humans are anything but static. **What is more likely is losing interest and regretting you didn't take action earlier**. ### 16\. Gradatim Ferociter > *Resist the temptation to start by making a big decision that will change everything in one fell swoop. Use a* [*strategy of *small wins**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/)*, in which incremental gains lead you to more profound changes in the basic assumptions that define your work and life. *Accept the crooked path*.* > > *The biggest mistake people make when trying to change careers is to delay taking the first step until they have settled on a destination.* > > \- Herminia Ibarra The trap is of “all or nothing thinking” where we want to make drastic changes overnight and discount the small actions and changes that eventually add up to a big change. An apt statement to counterbalance this tendency is Blue Origin’s latin motto **“Gradatim Ferociter” — step by step, ferociously**. ### 17\. The right path doesn't exist, for now Often we start off looking for a clear path. But for most worthwhile things in complex domains aka life, there is none. The path tends to emerge over time as we take action. Just like the escalator that doesn't start until we take the first step, so is often the case with our next project. **It becomes clear only in hindsight.** ### 18\. Money is the cheapest Money is only one measure but also [the lowest form of value exchange](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/#money-is-only-one-form-of-exchange). There are other higher forms — time, energy, and identity. Can you consider your decision in light of these? Will you get your time back? Is the experience timeless? Does your work energize you? Who are you becoming(identity) in the process. More importantly do you like the person you are becoming? ### 19\. Don't look for purpose. Create it. > *This is the true joy in life, the being used for a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one; the being a force of nature instead of a feverish selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.* > > *\- George Bernard Shaw in Man and Superman* Reminding ourselves of an overarching purpose can give some much needed perspective. If we don’t have one or haven’t figured it out yet, that’s a clue. But **the biggest mistake is to “look for” a purpose**. This implies it lies elsewhere. Instead we have to “manufacture” our purpose and keep refining it. ### 20\. Test the extremes to find the mean Thinking of options in the extremes sheds better light on them. One example is fear. In Aristotle’s list of vices and virtues, the virtue of **courage sits in the middle of the vices of recklessness and cowardice**. If fear is paralyzing us, looking at our decision from the extreme perspectives of recklessness and cowardice can yield different answers. Where does your decision fall on that continuum? What would you do differently if you switched to the other extreme? ### 21\. BENTO framework > *The now matters. The future matters. The challenge and opportunity is to hold onto both at once.* > > *\- Yancey Strickler, founder of Kickstarter* Strickler has a decision making framework called BENTO - BEyond Near Term Orientation. Like the Japanese bento box, it’s a 2x2 matrix along the axes of self-interest and time. This creates the four boxes of Now me, Now us, Future me, and Future us. The values of Now Me are security, pleasure, and autonomy whereas that of Future Me are mastery, purpose, and grit. How can you approach it as **an "and" instead of an "or"**? Both present *and* future rather than present *or* future. Often we see it as a **false dichotomy** \- one at the expense of the other. ### 22\. Satisficing vs maximizing > The alternative to maximizing is to be a satisficer. To satisfice is to settle for something that is good enough and not worry about the possibility that there might be something better. A satisficer has [criteria and standards.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) She searches until she finds an item that meets those standards, and at that point, she stops. > > \- Barry Schwartz in The Paradox of Choice Choices often paralyze us because we are trying to optimize rather than satisfice. We don't want to "settle". But too many options also means we can never be sure what we pick is in fact the best. So we never make the choice which means ensuing indecision and inaction Are we wanting our next choices to be perfect? Are we letting go of what might be possible for the fear of imperfection or making a mistake? ### 23\. Risk and uncertainty are different Risk can be minimized and mitigated whereas uncertainty is ever-present and cannot be eliminated. Have we set ourselves the impossible goal of eliminating uncertainty completely? > As humans, we are engaged in a perennial search for certainty, safety, and to feel secure against the backdrop of a world that is replete with uncertainties and unpredictability. We struggle continuously and fight against this reality, trying to eke out some semblance of meaning, some form of security, against which we can measure ourselves as constant and safe. > > Paradoxically, searching for security in itself generates ‘existential anxiety’. > > \- Alison Strasser Uncertainty is a given in any undertaking including the default one we're already on right now. The search for certainty where there isn’t any is a recipe for frustration and being stuck. ### 24\. Forget planning, try crafting instead > *Management guru Henry Mintzberg once contrasted what he called “planning” and “crafting” strategies. When we think of planning, he argued, we think of a person who “sits in an office formulating orderly courses of action derived from a systematic analysis that precedes implementation.”* > > *Crafting is completely different, involving “not so much thinking and reason as involvement, a feeling of intimacy and harmony with the materials at hand, developed through long experience and commitment. Formulation and implementation merge into a fluid process of learning through which creative strategies evolve.”* > > — *Herminia Ibarra, Working Identity* We want the perfect plan before we start. In contrast, approaching it as crafting where the plan emerges as we engage is a much more practical approach. ### 25\. Objective risk vs subjective risk Jim Koch of the Boston Beer Company uses the mountain climbing distinction of objective risk vs subjective risk. Too often we don't differentiate between the two. > An objective risk is something that can kill you. A subjective risk is something that just frightens you. The two are often extremely different, but, unfortunately, things that frighten you are often not the real dangers, and the real dangers are often things that don’t frighten you. > > The objective risk was wasting years of my life stuck in something that appeared attractive but that I really didn’t enjoy. A lot of entrepreneurship and innovation seems perilous, but it’s not. And a lot of things that seem safe and comfortable are, in fact, profoundly risky. > > — Jim Koch in Getting There ### 26\. Don’t get hung up on the "how" > *Confusion usually comes from focusing on process, or solution, and not being able to see where you are going. When you are considering what you want, your ability to focus your attention toward desired results eliminates this confusion.* > > *When you are confused, it is usually not about where you want to go but how to get there.* > > *\- Seth Godin* We often get flummoxed because we don't know how or at least cannot imagine today how we would get to our desired goal. We get hung up on the how, the process. But the more important question is "why", because the "how", the process can be figured out. There are many different *hows* whereas there might be only a few or just one *why*. ### 27\. Pursuing what matters runs counter to culture > *The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become so absolutely free that your very existence is an act of rebellion.* > > — Albert Camus, *The Outsider* Living life on your terms can come with the downside of going against the herd. This goes against how we are biologically programmed. > *Acting on what matters means that we will consistently find ourselves feeling like we are living on the margin of our institutions and our culture. This calls for some detachment from the mainstream.* > > *The choice to not seek societal approval, parental pride, and institutional safety is a very difficult and personal matter. It may be possible to be ambitious and not lose control over our own lives while pursuing the ideals of another, but I have rarely seen it work.* > > *\- Peter Block, Answer to How is Yes* It's also worth **examining our ambitions more closely to understand their source**. Are they truly ours? Are we playing our own game or someone else’s? ### 28\. Grace doesn't come cheap > *When we zero in on cost too soon we constrain our capacity to act on certain values. There is no such thing as cheap grace. When we consider cost too early or make it the overriding concern, we dictate how our values will be acted upon because the high-cost choices are eliminated before we start. The dilemma is that we do not want to pay for our freedom.* > > *\- Peter Block* Often unknowingly, we want the upside but not necessarily the downside. Are we afraid of taking the next step because we think the “cost” of doing so is too much? **Perhaps we are not as serious or as committed as we thought**. ### 29\. The safest choice can be the riskiest > *The most common form of despair is not being who you are.* > > \- Soren Kierkegaard > *“What are the “riskiest” choices? Those that don’t allow you to become the person you want to be, to live your life full measure.* > > *Survey results confirm that people’s biggest fear is neither death (ranks third) nor public speaking (second) but “failing to live a meaningful life.” That’s our greatest fear, our biggest risk. And it all begins with not living your life.* > > *\- Mark Albion* What we assume to be the safest choice from one perspective might be the riskiest when looked at from another. ### 30\. Being vs "having" and "seeming" > *The basic practical-moral problem in life is not what to do but what to be.* > > *\- John Shotter* Culture programs us to focus on *having* and *seeming*.We want to have certain things so we can seem a certain way. But who are we *being* in order to *have* and *seem*? ### 31\. The four primary human drives In *Driven*, the authors list four primary innate drives that dominate human thinking and shape our choices : **the drive to *acquire*, the drive to *bond*, the drive to *learn*, and the drive to *defend***. Our struggle with balancing careers and lives is often because one or more of these drives are going either unsatisfied or in direct conflict with each other. We are often **skewed towards one at the cost of the others**. ### 32\. Sunk costs can sink us > Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everybody gets busy on the proof. > > \- John Kenneth Galbraith We are naturally biased towards options that we've invested a lot of time and money into, aka the sunk cost fallacy. Are we overweighting what’s already been done and underweighting the possibilities of this other path? ### 33\. Writing your version of the story > *You know the business plan won’t survive its first encounters with reality. But the discipline of writing the plan forces you to think through some of the issues and to get sort of mentally comfortable in the space.* > > *\- Jeff Bezos* Humans are meaning-makers and meaning-seekers. We do this through the stories we tell ourselves. However they tend to be in the background and almost invisible. One way to gain perspective is **making them explicit** by writing down our “situation”. Why bother? To make distinct and coherent what is indistinct and incoherent right now. It creates physical separation from our thoughts. And makes us realize that **our story is but one construction or interpretation amongst many possible ones**. ### 34\. Uncover hidden assumptions > Even though our basic assumptions often remain hidden from our conscious awareness, they nevertheless determine how we manage our careers. Too often we fail to question them, even if they are obsolete or wrong. > > Precisely because they are taken for granted, basic assumptions are very hard to change. When they remain implicit, we only make incremental change. We only move from one situation into another that is superficially different. > > \- Herminia Ibarra in Working Identity Implicit assumptions by their very makeup are hard to identify. But once made obvious they can loosen their grip on you and your decision making. These could be assumptions and notions about yourself, about others or a certain career path. ### 35\. Try sensemaking instead of decision making Sensemaking is a more practical approach than decision making when operating in complex domains with high uncertainty. Aka life. Often they are not decisions per se. Rather we are trying to make sense of who we are, where we are, what we have, what that means, and so on. We are **feeling our way forward** rather than choosing between clearly marked options. It's not classical decision making as many would have us think. It's more of **wayfinding and less of navigating**. --- ## The best framework I hope you found these mental models as useful as I did. Whatever framework we end up using, it's worth asking whether our particular approach increases or decreases our **capacity for action. Whatever increases it is the best framework.** Does it stop us in our tracks or does it mobilize us? Does it create any movement? It can be easier to change direction when moving than at a standstill. Are you moving? ## Further Reading I have explored other aspects of careers in the below articles: - [If Van Gogh was your career coach:](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/) [If Vincent van Gogh Was Your Career CoachMost of us have heard of Vincent van Gogh the artist but not many are aware that he was an equally prolific writer. The most well known are his letters to his brother Theo, and they are a treasure trove of wisdom on art, life, work, and everything in between.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-92.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1024px-Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Dr_Paul_Gachet_-_Google_Art_Project-1-1.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/vincent-van-gogh-quotes-careers-leadership/) - [Two critical questions when considering a midlife career change ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/) - [Common mistakes to avoid in mid career ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/) - [Challenges of transitioning from technical into management/leadership ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/) Three of [Jeff Bezos' mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/) made this list. There are many others. I captured them all [here](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/). ### References 1. Oliver Burkeman's [last piece](https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/sep/04/oliver-burkemans-last-column-the-eight-secrets-to-a-fairly-fulfilled-life?ref=leadingsapiens.com) in Guardian. 2. [Inner Ring](https://www.lewissociety.org/innerring/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by CS Lewis. 3. [Choose Life](https://www.monbiot.com/2000/06/09/choose-life/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by George Monbiot. 4. [Aristotle’s virtues/vice ](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjc54LGys75AhWPgmoFHdbYC1QQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cwu.edu%2F~warren%2FUnit1%2Faristotles%5Fvirtues%5Fand%5Fvices.htm&usg=AOvVaw2h4Qav860Cs0jBfw2nYjC%5F) 5. [Buridan's Ass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan's%5Fass?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 6. [Cynefin framework for decision making](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin%5Fframework?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 7. [Sensemaking](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 8. [Four drives of human nature](https://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/driven-the-four-drives-underlying-our-human-nature-driven-how-human-nature-shapes-organizations?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 9. [Satisficing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisficing?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 10. [Sunk cost fallacy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk%5Fcost?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 11. [Amazon shareholder letters ](https://ir.aboutamazon.com/annual-reports-proxies-and-shareholder-letters/default.aspx?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 12. Working Identity by Herminia Ibarra. 13. How to Find Fulfilling Work by Roman Kzarnic. 14. Invent and Wander by Jeff Bezos, Walter Isaacson. 15. Answer to How is Yes by Peter Block. 16. CEO Whisperer by Manfred Kets de Vries. 17. The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz ### The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the Mundane URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/ Last updated: 2026-01-23T15:04:32.000Z *Greatness and mastery always look shrouded in mystery from the outside. But look closely and it's more about mastering the mundane basics, and doing them consistently over long periods of time, rather than doing something extraordinary once. Excellence and greatness are more mundane than we usually think.* *What are the common mistakes and myths, and how can we avoid them on our journey towards mastery? How can we increase our chances of success?* *Are there deeper, well-researched truths rather than the typical pop psychology mumbo-jumbo?* --- ## Mastery is pain Consider your failed efforts at mastering something difficult. In fact, let's pick something easier. Consider where you are at with your new year's resolutions from last year. More than likely you have either forgotten or abandoned them completely. This includes yours truly. What happened? Some common explanations are degree of difficulty, lack of talent, or a lack of discipline. On the surface, this sounds true. But all of us have well developed talents in some areas and significant discipline in others. So what gives? **The challenge lies in not understanding the nuances of what we are attempting, and thus being underprepared for what it actually takes.** > We like to think of our champions and idols as superheroes who were born different from us. We don't like to think of them as relatively ordinary people who made themselves extraordinary. > > —Carol Dweck in Mindset: The New Psychology of Success \[9\] Too often, we have grandiose notions about the terms greatness, mastery, or even being good at something. As a result we either don’t attempt it or give up too early. Dan Pink \[10\] puts it very bluntly in Drive: > **Mastery is pain.** Mastery of sports, music, business requires effort (difficult, painful, excruciating, all-consuming effort) over a long time (not a week or a month, but a decade). > > ...mastery often involves working and working and showing little improvement, perhaps with a few moments of flow pulling you along, then making a little progress, and then working and working on that new, slightly higher plateau again. > > It's grueling, to be sure. But **that's not the problem; that's the solution**. David Brooks calls this "**digging the damn ditch**": > Sometimes, if you are going to be a professional, you just have to dig the damn ditch. … All real work requires a dedication to engage in deliberate practice, the willingness to do the boring things over and over again, just to master a skill. > > *– David Brooks in The Second Mountain \[5\]* If we actually had a clearer idea of what's entailed, it would significantly increase our chances of staying in the game longer, thus increasing our odds of success. A **more thorough grasp on the realities of achieving greatness goes a long way.** So where can we take a closer, more objective look at what constitutes excellence? **What does "ditch digging" actually look like** and what can we learn from it? --- ## The Mundanity of Excellence Daniel Chambliss, in a seminal study, examined the routines and results of swimmers at all levels, including Olympic swimmers, in a cross-sectional multi-year study. \[1\] His research highlighted counter-intuitive facts and busted myths about excellence and performance at the highest levels. We'll examine key findings from the paper and how to apply them to work and careers. Chambliss's work from 1989 is a little dated. The field of peak performance and expertise has come a long way since then. **K Anders Ericsson of 10,000 hours fame** was one of the foremost experts in that field. His findings captured in his magnum opus *Peak* are consistent with Chambliss's. ### What does NOT produce excellence? Chambliss rules out **three common myths about excellence: social deviance, quantitative changes, and talent.** > (1) Excellence is not, I find, the product of **socially deviant personalities**. You don't need to be a social recluse or go to extraordinary lengths of devotion at the expense of everything else. > (2) Excellence does not result from **quantitative changes** in behavior. Increased training time, per se, does not make one swim fast; nor does increased “psyching up”... Simply doing more of the same will not lead to moving up a level in the sport. Excellence is not just about doing more of something, or simply hard work. It's more nuanced than that. > (3) Excellence does not result from some special inner quality of the athlete. **“Talent”** is one common name for this quality; sometimes we talk of a “gift,” or of “natural ability.” > > These terms are generally **used to mystify the essentially mundane processes of achievement** in sports, keeping us away from **a realistic analysis of the actual factors** creating superlative performances, and **protecting us from a sense of responsibility for our own outcomes**. Our most common explanation of greatness is that of extraordinary talent. But chalking something up to just talent is a missed opportunity and a misrepresentation of what it actually takes. **The notion of talent can be disempowering and not actionable**. In contrast, **skill puts the onus on us to figure it out.** ### What does in fact produce excellence? What differentiates the pros from the amateurs? Qualitative differences between the pros and the amateurs follow along **three "dimensions" of what constitutes excellence : technique, discipline, and attitude.** > **(1) Technique**: The styles of strokes, dives, and turns are dramatically different at different levels. Their skill is at another level compared to amateurs. Notice the focus on technique rather than talent. Too often we clump highly technical skills into talent. > (**2) Discipline**: The best swimmers are more likely to be strict with their training, coming to workouts on time, carefully doing the competitive strokes legally, watch what they eat, sleep regular hours, do proper warmups before a meet, and the like. Their **energy is carefully channelled**. > > Diver Greg Louganis, who won two Olympic gold medals in 1984, practices only three hours each day — not a long time — divided up into two or three sessions. But during each session, he tries to do every dive perfectly. **Louganis is never sloppy in practice, and so is never sloppy in meets**. Here discipline is not a moral or an enforced perspective, but rather that of a "practice" that someone undertakes and sticks with over time in line with their long-term goals. Their approach to their practice is at an entirely different level of commitment and dedication. A common stumbling block is **to look at discipline as innate**. We somehow assume that “they” have it and we don’t. In reality, *they* simply have better systems, better support, and a more nuanced understanding of what it actually entails. Also note that **it's easier to be "disciplined" when routines are well defined.** Most of work and life happen in the grey and routines are harder to define. But there lies the opportunity. If we can in fact identify and isolate routines, it's easier to stick with them aka stay disciplined. This changes discipline **from a character flaw to be fixed to something that needs more attention and careful engineering**. > **(3) Attitude**: At the higher levels of competitive swimming, something like an **inversion** of attitude takes place. **The very features of the sport which the “C”swimmer finds unpleasant, the top-level swimmer enjoys.** > > What others see as boring swimming back and forth over a black line for two hours, say-they find peaceful, even meditative, often challenging, or therapeutic. They enjoy hard practices, look forward to difficult competitions, try to set difficult goals. > > **It is incorrect to believe that top athletes suffer great sacrifices** to achieve their goals. Often, they don’t see what they do as sacrificial at all. They like it. Here attitude is not the typical pop-psychology version but rather the experience of practice itself. **What might look like boring practice to the amateur, the professional savors it.** The pros enjoy the process as much as the outcome itself. This is not about being in flow or being easy, it's anything but. It's more in terms of a **satisfaction gained from doing the small but important things over and over**. This makes sense because otherwise it would be hard for anyone to maintain effort for such long stretches of time. It has to offer intrinsic satisfaction and engagement. > Researchers who have studied long-distance runners have found that amateurs tend to daydream or think about more pleasant subjects to take their minds off the pain and strain of their running, while elite long-distance runners remain attuned to their bodies so that they can find the optimal pace and make adjustments to maintain the best pace throughout the whole race. > > \- Anders Ericcson in Peak \[2\] ### Excellence is mundane Great performance is not boring. But the long term execution of what it takes to get there often is. A great performance on its own might be extraordinary. But the activities, skills, and practice that lead up to it is ordinary. They are ordinary in the sense that anyone could have done those specific activities. **What is extraordinary, is that most don't do it long enough or consistently enough** to actually get there. > Excellence is mundane. Superlative performance is made of small skills or activities, each one learned or stumbled upon, which have been carefully drilled into habit and then are fitted together in a synthesized whole. > > There is **nothing extraordinary or super-human in any one of those actions; only the fact that they are done consistently and correctly, and all together,** produce excellence. > > *\- Daniel Chambliss, The Mundanity of Excellence* This is equally true for [breakthrough inventions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/), creativity and innovation: > Researchers who study how the creative geniuses in any field—science, art, music, sports, and so on—come up with their innovations have found that it is always a long, slow, iterative process. > > There are no big leaps, only developments that look like big leaps to people from the outside because they haven’t seen all of the little steps that comprise them. Even the famous “aha” moments could not exist without a great deal of work to build an edifice that needs just one more piece to make it complete. > > \- Anders Ericcson in Peak \[2\] ### Doing mundane things long enough is the biggest challenge > In the pursuit of excellence, maintaining mundanity is the key psychological challenge. > > *\- Daniel Chambliss, The Mundanity of Excellence* This is perhaps the most obvious yet eye-opening finding. Our unsuccessful attempts at something probably have more to do with our **inability to do mundane things for long periods of time rather than the difficulty of what we are attempting**. Maintaining the mundane routines of day to day practice over long periods of time is what gets someone to Olympic level performance. **Most of us cannot cope with the boredom and associated psychological stress that comes with the repetition and mundanity.** Staying disciplined is essentially about making hundreds of small choices that get made over the course of days, weeks, and years. The consistency of decision making ends up being a key differentiator: > Every time a decision comes up, the qualitatively "correct"choice will be made. **The action, in itself, is nothing special; the care and consistency with which it is made is.** > > *\- Daniel Chambliss, The Mundanity of Excellence* ### Outcomes are glamorous. Practice is not. Outcomes are glamorous and inspire us to action. We see the successful author, the athlete, the CEO, or the singer, and decide to reach for the same heights. But what is actually visible is the most glamorous and shortest part of the whole endeavor. Meanwhile, the processes to get there are equally mundane and require significant investment of time. Perhaps **if someone showed us a highlights reel of that reality we might not in fact sign up for it**. > Ignorant of all of the specific steps that have led to the performance and to the confidence, we think that somehow excellence sprang full grown from this person, and we say he or she “has talent” or “is gifted.” > > But of course there is no secret, there is only the doing of all those little things, each one done correctly, time and again, until excellence in every detail becomes a firmly ingrained habit, an ordinary part of one’s everyday life. > > *\- Daniel Chambliss, The Mundanity of Excellence* In some ways, it’s good that we don’t see the actual reality. If we did, we might not even try. ### Process is hidden We want the outcome but not the mundanity of what it takes to get there. What makes this dynamic insidious is that process tends to be hidden. Meanwhile the outcomes are what we see all the time. What we don't see is the years of hard practice and the actual day to day mundane things required to actually get there. In essence, we are **process blind**. But it’s the process where the athlete or the super star spends the most time at. All that we see is the .01% time spent in the final performance. > ... the rubric of "talent" obscures rather than illuminates the sources of athletic excellence. > > It's easy to do this, especially if one's only exposure to top athletes comes once every four years while watching the Olympics on television, or if one only sees them in performances rather than in day-to-day training. > > *\- Daniel Chambliss, The Mundanity of Excellence* This is one reason [why 99% of goal setting fails](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/) in the first 6 months. Most of the goal setting is around outcomes, but not around setting the processes and systems that will ensure that we do in fact get there. **Visualizing processes** is also proven in research as being more effective compared to only visualizing outcomes. \[3\] **Visualizing “*how can I do it*” rather than “*I can do it*”.** \[9\] > Amateurs talk about strategy. Professionals talk about logistics. > > \- Gen Omar Bradley who lead US troops on D-Day) By only visualizing outcomes, we set ourselves up for failure because there is a disconnect between the fantasies of success and the reality of actually getting there. By visualizing the process, reality and expectations are more closely aligned. This ensures we stay in the game for the long run rather than naive beginners who quit at the first signs of distress. ### Qualitative vs Quantitative improvements Working harder or more starts to become less of a differentiator at higher levels because everyone is. Simply increasing quantity does not translate into increased performance. Instead what is needed is [a qualitative shift in what and how we are doing something](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). This might mean better execution, better skills, better coaching, more nuance, and so on. Also, we make the mistake of thinking that top performers are working 10X harder. Not necessarily. What they are doing in fact is working *differently*. > Athletes move up to the top ranks through qualitative jumps: noticeable changes in their techniques, discipline, and attitude, accomplished usually through a change in settings, e.g. joining a new team with a new coach, new friends, etc, who work at a higher level. > > Without such qualitative jumps, no major improvements (movements through levels) will take place. > > > *\- Daniel Chambliss, The Mundanity of Excellence* A new team, coach, or friends are essentially changes in the social setup that surrounds you. Not easy in sports, and even harder elsewhere. Research has proven out this idea of qualitative and quantitative differences. > Research has shown that, generally speaking, once a person reaches that level of “acceptable” performance and automaticity, the additional years of “practice” don’t lead to improvement. > > If anything, the doctor or the teacher or the driver who’s been at it for twenty years is likely to be a bit worse than the one who’s been doing it for only five, and the reason is that these **automated abilities gradually deteriorate in the absence of deliberate efforts to improve**. > > \- Anders Ericcson in Peak, The New Science of Expertise ### Motivation is mundane We think that Olympic performances require olympic levels of motivation. But that's not necessarily true. What they do have instead are better systems and support to sustain their motivation. Motivation is more ordinary that we think. Simple things that help us keep showing up regularly at bat can go a long way. Another mistake is to think that the size of the goal is the primary driver of action. Often it's the opposite. Smaller interim achievements and daily mundane targets are much more effective at keeping us motivated than a one time large goal further out in the future. Karl Weick highlighted this notion in his seminal paper [Small Wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). It's easy to shut down thinking about the enormity of the tasks in front of us. Instead, small wins along the way make the end goal more doable and more likely. > A small win is a concrete, complete, implemented outcome of moderate importance. By itself, one small win may seem unimportant. A series of wins at small but significant tasks, however, reveals a pattern that may attract allies, deter opponents, and lower resistance to subsequent proposals. Small wins are controllable opportunities that produce visible results. > > \- Karl Weick in Small Wins Thus designing and engineering small, consistent wins is key. But this also highlights **one of the biggest differences between sports and real life**. Sports training can in fact be broken up, whereas life and work are much harder to do so. In sports, the different levels are clearly stratified, identifiable, and can be worked towards. **It tends to be less obvious in other domains.** This idea is captured powerfully in **the final scene of Hurt Locker \[11\]**, where Jeremy Renner an explosive expert who is back home after several deployments in Iraq, struggles to make the simple decision of picking a brand from the cereal aisle. From his perspective, working with explosives is easier than picking a cereal brand. The former is well defined with immediate feedback, whereas the latter is vague, amorphous, and laden with too many choices. ### Movie time versus human time > Viewing Rocky or Chariots of Fire may inspire one for several days, but the excitement stirred by a film wears off rather quickly when confronted with the day-to-day reality of climbing out of bed to go and jump in cold water. > > If, on the other hand, that day-to-day reality is itself fun, rewarding, challenging, if the water is nice and friends are supportive, the longer-term goals may well be achieved almost in spite of themselves. > > \- Daniel Chambliss, The Mundanity of Excellence Most of us have **a version of the Rocky montage** playing in our head when we think of getting good at something. This is often implicit. In the 5 minute montage \[12\] (usually accompanied by inspiring music), Rocky starts off as weak and unskilled. At the end of the montage he emerges strong and highly skilled. Of course we all know it’s not overnight and yet our implicit expectations are often in “movie time” rather than “human time” aka reality. When our simplistic notions meet head on with hard realities, they get shattered. Perhaps a more useful strategy is **to make our notions more robust by keeping them as close to reality as possible**. ### Top performers as "different" rather than “better” Here different is not as more talented but rather their ability to stick with the routines and requirements that it takes to build that kind of proficient talent. While innate talent might be a myth, some people are probably naturally better at what it takes to build that kind of talent. We can reduce this gap by educating ourselves about what it actually takes. Classifying it as skill also means given enough time and training, one can in fact become better at it. --- ## Two clues from philosophy Social science research is one place to look for clues about excellence and mastery. Another potent source is philosophy. Consider two ideas from philosophers, 100 years apart. ### Mundanity, grit and Nietzsche Our tendency to glorify talent and peak performance might have some darker reasons. Nietzsche’s writings from the late 1800s capture these notions and were particularly predictive of Chambliss’s research findings a 100 years later. Angela Duckworth \[6,7\] puts it this way in Grit: > *“With everything perfect,” Nietzsche wrote, “we do not ask how it came to be.” Instead, “we rejoice in the present fact as though it came out of the ground by magic.”* > > **“No one can see in the work of the artist how it has become,”* Nietzsche said. “That is its advantage, for wherever one can see the act of becoming one grows somewhat cool.”* > > *In other words, we want to believe that Mark Spitz was born to swim in a way that none of us were and that none of us could. We don’t want to sit on the pool deck and watch him progress from amateur to expert. We prefer our excellence fully formed. *We prefer mystery to mundanity*.* > > *But why? What’s the reason for fooling ourselves into thinking Mark Spitz didn’t earn his mastery?* > > *“Our vanity, our self-love, promotes the cult of the genius,” Nietzsche said. “*For if we think of genius as something magical, we are not obliged to compare ourselves and find ourselves lacking*. . . . *To call someone ‘divine’ means: ‘here there is no need to compete.*’* *”* > > *In other words, *mythologizing natural talent lets us all off the hook*. It lets us relax into the status quo. …* > > *So what is the reality of greatness? Nietzsche came to the same conclusion Dan Chambliss did.* > > *Great things are accomplished by those “people whose thinking is active in one direction, who employ everything as material, who always zealously observe their own inner life and that of others, who perceive everywhere models and incentives, who never tire of combining together the means available to them.”* > > *And what about talent? Nietzsche implored us to consider exemplars to be, above all else, *craftsmen*:* > > *“Do not talk about giftedness, inborn talents! One can name great men of all kinds who were very little gifted. They acquired greatness, became ‘geniuses’ (as we put it). . . . They all possessed that *seriousness of the efficient workman* which first learns to construct the parts properly before it ventures to fashion a great whole; they allowed themselves time for it, because *they took more pleasure in making the little, secondary things well than in the effect of a dazzling whole*.”* > > \- Angela Duckworth citing Neitzsche(Human, all too Human) in Grit ### The Stockdale Paradox Admiral James Stockdale was a Vietnam era fighter pilot who endured 8 years of torture. What helped him endure and survive this ordeal was his insistence on combining two seemingly opposing ideals: **unflagging optimism + clear recognition of the realities** of his situation. Jim Collins calls this[ the Stockdale Paradox](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stockdale-paradox/): > *Confront the Brutal Facts (Yet Never Lose Faith):* > > ... a former prisoner of war had more to teach us about what it takes to find a path to greatness than most books on corporate strategy. Every good-to-great company embraced what we came to call the Stockdale Paradox: > > You must **maintain unwavering faith** that you can and will prevail in the end, regardless of the difficulties, AND at the same time have the discipline to **confront the most brutal facts of your current reality**, whatever they might be. > > \- Jim Collins in Good to Great \[8\] For our discussion, ***the brutal facts* means taking good stock of what we are attempting and being intimately familiar with the mundane routines** for what it will take to get there. Facing the reality of the situation is as much a requirement of success as it is with being an optimist. Being optimistic without a realistic assessment of the situation does not prepare us well for the journey. > One should…be able to see that things are hopeless and yet be determined to make them otherwise. > > — F. Scott Fitzgerald Too often we spend more time on figuring out the destination, instead of really understanding what it entails. Unlike vacations, journeys in life require us to spend most of our time in “getting there” — the process and its mundane realities. The “there”, our target or destination is the shortest part of the journey. --- ## Applying it to careers and workplaces How can we apply these core concepts to the realm of work? Here are some ideas: - **Put yourself in situations and circumstances that require a higher level of performance**. No amount of prepping can simulate real world conditions. Preparation cannot compensate for a lack of experience in high stakes situations. - In careers, this means **getting on rocket ships** as early as you can and to keep looking for experiences and roles that push you to the limits. For most, this happens by accident rather than by design. If you can seek out and engineer opportunities, it will only be a matter of time before your career takes off. - Is there a higher chance of failure? Absolutely. But without that you are guaranteed to stay in your current range of performance. **Qualitative leaps required qualitative changes in systems and environments**. - **Figure out the mundane activities** required to get to your desired outcomes. If it's not something you will enjoy doing day in and day out, you do not stand a chance to compete at the highest levels. What are the routines and practices you need to develop in order to crack that next level? - I don’t think mundanity is the issue here. Mundanity is a given, as we have already seen. Thinking otherwise is naivette or plain ignorance. The real question is, **what kind of mundanity can we choose to do** that we can get good at and want to keep doing? - If everything is in fact mundane, doing something that we actually do not like doing is clearly **stacking the odds against us**. The day to day routines are going to be hard regardless. If we do not want to do those mundane activities or if they are out of alignment with our strengths, we are making it unnecessarily harder. - Recognize that the different outcomes you are gunning for require **different levels of dedication.** It's not just you, but also your family and everyone else around you. - You have to clearly recognize what you are going for, and what you are willing to sacrifice in your pursuit of that ideal. Not having clarity in this produces confusion, frustration, and false starts. In short, **clearly identify the game you are playing and what it takes**. - **Work is a social domain**. Compared to swimming, the [standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) are more arbitrary and prone to human misjudgment. So play and adjust accordingly. - This means understanding[**the rules of the game of your particular organization**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/). If you look at your organization as a social world unto itself, what are the “rules of the game” that define how it operates. You will not find this in any company handbook, but they exist regardless. - All organizations have **unsaid rules**. You learn these only by participation, careful observations, and conversations. If what you see is not something you like, then change the organization. You can change yourself, but you cannot change the organization overnight. **How do you figure out the “rules of the game”?** By conversing with people already playing the game and participating in the game. This is much easier and visible in sports. In real life and workplaces this is much harder because the rules and stratifications are not as visible or clean cut as in sports. But they exist regardless. Think back in your own experience of workplaces, and you can think of people who appeared predestined in their careers. Usually there are patterns to this, often invisible. Regime changes at the top can often affect how these patterns affect you overnight. But **without the tailwind of these patterns behind you, it’s extremely hard to rise up** through the organization. ### Workplace effectiveness as greatness Consider what mundane aspects of your work can be turned into a deliberate practice. In an organizational context, greatness can be equated to effectiveness. The equivalent of an elite athlete is what Peter Drucker calls “the effective executive" and the required skills as “practices”. > . . . to be effective also does not require special gifts, special aptitude, or special training. Effectiveness as an executive demands doing certain and fairly simple things. It consists of a small number of practices. > > I have not come across a single “natural”: an executive who was born effec- tive. All the effective ones have had to learn to be effective. And all of them then had to practice effectiveness until it became habit. > > \- Peter Drucker in The Effective Executive One of Drucker's 9 practices is of making meetings productive. Writing followup memos is one way to do so. On the surface this is pretty basic and mundane. But approaching it as a practice gives it a completely different tone and meaning. He gives an example: > Good follow-up is just as important as the meeting itself. The great master of follow-up was Alfred Sloan, the most effective business executive I have ever known. > > Sloan, who headed General Motors from the 1920s until the 1950s, spent most of his six working days a week in meetings-three days a week in formal committee meetings with a set membership, the other three days in ad hoc meetings with individual GM executives or with a small group of executives. > > At the beginning of a formal meeting, Sloan announced the meeting’s purpose. He then listened. He never took notes and he rarely spoke except to clarify a confusing point. At the end he summed up, thanked the participants, and left. > > Then he immediately wrote a short memo addressed to one attendee of the meeting. In that note, he summarized the discussion and its conclusions and spelled out any work assignment decided upon in the meeting (including a decision to hold another meeting on the subject or to study an issue). He specified the deadline and the executive who was to be accountable for the assignment. He sent a copy of the memo to everyone who’d been present at the meeting. > > **It was through these memos-each a small masterpiece- that Sloan made himself into an outstandingly effective executive.** > > \- Peter Drucker in *What Makes an Effective Executive* Many clients who have ambitions to become a CEO do not consider memo-writing a critical piece of their strategy. But from a mastery perspective, it’s another mundane detail that adds up to a masterful performance. Just like the swimmers executing multiple skills simultaneously, writing effective memos can be thought of as a skill that executives have to master. The point is not whether memo writing will get you to the C-suite or not. Rather that the path towards the C-suite is laden with mundane, non-glamorous actions, that add up over time and eventually give you the competitive advantage. Our work has both its high points and low points. Masters turn even the mundane into a game to be mastered. What aspect of your work looks mundane? How can you turn it into a game to be mastered? ## Related reading [Effective conversations are a critical aspect](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/) of leadership. But they are often perceived as mundane. Here’s one way to turn it into a [deliberate practice](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). Daniel Chambliss references Karl Weick's seminal paper [Small Wins](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/). Goal setting is one of the most researched areas in the social sciences but most of us are familiar with the SMART framework. There are[ deeper nuances that can help in setting more effective goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/). In this article I explore the [14 most important types and nuances of goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/). [Work is Not School: Surviving Institutional StupidityFor 16+ years, we master the rules of school. Study hard, get good grades, follow the formula and ultimately merit wins. Then we enter the workforce and none of it works quite like we thought. This becomes painfully obvious as you rise higher in the org. Even seasoned veterans forget![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-153.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Surviving-Institutional-Stupidity-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/surviving-institutional-stupidity/) [The Stupidity of My SMART Goals - Mistakes and LearningsSMART goals are anything but smart. They assume a mechanical, linear stance instead of the iterative, dynamic, ever changing terrain we face everyday.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-154.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Wall-of-Frustration.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/) [The Deliberate AmateurWould you rather be a pro or an amateur? How about choosing between sophistication and naiveté? Most of us choose to be sophisticated pros. But consider the fact that expertise comes with its own pitfalls, while deliberately staying an amateur has its counter-intuitive upsides. The trick is in balancing the![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-155.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Evolution-of-Na-vet---1-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-amateur/) ## Sources/References 1. The Mundanity of Excellence by Daniel Chambliss. This paper is a true gem and worthy of a close read in its entirety. You can find it [here](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi23If1qqb5AhUyjYkEHTAUADEQFnoECAoQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Facademics.hamilton.edu%2Fdocuments%2Fthemundanityofexcellence.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2p6hhpARGFgUZXgVw4zsTI). 2. [Peak](https://amzn.to/3Q9q1KB?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Anders Ericcson. 3. [Decoding Greatness](https://amzn.to/3PQ8o2J?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Ron Friedman. 4. [The Effective Executive](https://amzn.to/3Q8VU6b?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker. 5. [The Second Mountain](https://amzn.to/3Q9TOTt?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Brooks. 6. [Grit](https://amzn.to/3JtAA9l?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Angela Duckworth. 7. [Human, All too Human](https://amzn.to/3cUGFPV?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Friedrich Nietzsche. 8. [Good to Great](https://amzn.to/3zjwrjE?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Jim Collins. 9. [Mindset](https://amzn.to/3d0SOCM?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Carol Dweck. 10. [Drive](https://amzn.to/3zDWKBI?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Daniel Pink. 11. [From Thought to Action: Effects of Process- Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167299025002010?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Lien Pham, Shelley Taylor. ### 11\. Video: Life is often not as well defined as other domains like sports — Hurt Locker supermarket scene ### 12\. Video: We unknowingly expect life to unfold like the Rocky training montage ### Strategic Agility - Balancing Long Term Focus with Short Term Actions URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/ Last updated: 2025-09-19T18:19:12.000Z *Leadership, management, and* [*organizations are riddled with paradoxes*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/)*. The more we recognize them the more we can be effective in operating amidst them rather than being frustrated or worse being limited by them.* *One such paradox is that of balancing the present and future strategic timeframes in planning and decision making.* --- ## Immediate vs long range timeframes Leaders have to take care of what’s in front of them and at the same time position the business for future success. And often these are conflicting agendas. > The second specific task of managers is to **harmonize in every decision and action the requirements of the immediate and long-range future. Managers cannot sacrifice either without endangering the enterprise.** > > They must, so to speak, keep their noses to the grindstone while lifting their eyes to the hills - which is quite an acrobatic feat. Or, to vary the metaphor, they can neither afford to say: “We will cross this bridge when we come to it,” nor “It’s the next hundred years that count.” > > **They not only have to prepare for crossing distant bridges - they have to build them long before they get there**. And if a manager does not take care of the next hundred days, there will be no next hundred years; indeed, **there may not even be a next five years**. > > ... **A manager lives and acts in two time dimensions**, and is responsible for the performance of the whole enterprise and of his or her component. > > \- Peter Drucker in People and Performance What is profitable in the short term might not position us well in the long term and vice versa. But every leader has to learn to manage the present with the future. [Sometimes strategy is more like tetris](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategy-as-tetris-not-chess/) than chess. At other times, it's the opposite. ## Establishing the right timeframe — the *proper present* In his classic *Managing for Results*, Peter Drucker gives one such example. While the example is a little dated, the challenges are the same as they were 75 years ago. He talks about establishing ***the proper present*** for your business aka the strategic timeframe. This could be the next month, the next year, or the next decade. It's the timeframe within which we think when setting goals and objectives as part of strategy, which in turn drives actions in the present. > One important element in the ideal-business design is establishment of the time period which is **the proper “present” for any given business**; it varies greatly. > > The best illustrations are the contrasting fortunes of two companies in the aircraft industry. Curtiss Wright and the Martin Company. > > Curtiss Wright, in the late forties, was the stronger company: the second-largest aircraft- engine builder in the United States, solidly established as a leader in both civilian and military engines, with a heavy backlog of orders and great financial resources. > > Martin by contrast was an ailing airframe builder without a product of distinction, deeply in debt, and altogether, it seemed, an aging “war baby” without a future. > > But a new management at Martin came up with **a present of eight to ten years** as the time needed to develop a new technology in large-scale systems work. Research of shorter duration made not much sense and could not pay off. This also meant that the business had to be something that did not exist in 1950: a space business rather than an improved aircraft business. > > Curtiss Wright without an analysis of this kind stayed with the time period of World War II, when the emphasis was on production rather than on new design. **Its present was one to two years.** > > Although it spent perhaps more money than any other aircraft company on research and development, Curtiss Wright had all but disappeared as a business a decade later. > > Its definition of the present made management reject any project that did not promise a pay-off within twenty-four months. As a result not one of its many research projects produced anything. > > The Martin Company, by contrast, established a leading and successful space systems business with a relatively modest research outlay. He goes on to address the challenges of how to navigate this paradox of balancing long strategy with demands in the short term. > Determining the time-span that is the present of a company or industry largely determines what kind of efforts will be made. **Efforts that promise results in less time are likely to be a waste** not only of time, but of resources and money. > > To set too short a time-span and ban all efforts exceeding this period (as Curtiss Wright did) is to condemn a company to sterility. > > Perhaps the best way to go about designing the ideal business is to **start with a broad sketch and to correct and refine as one goes along**. Otherwise one may still be rewriting, polishing, and refining when the design has already become obsolete. It's easy to tackle what's directly in front, and equally hard to keep the long-term in focus. One logic is that if we take care of the present it should take care of the future. In entire organizations, the markets make this worse by rewarding short-term behavior because of Wall Street’s focus on quarterly results. ## The future as context However the future is the context for actions in the present. Changing the strategic timeframe actively changes the version of the future we are pursuing. > Long-range planning does not—and cannot—aim at the elimination of risks and uncertainties. That is not given to mortal man. The one thing he can try is to find, and occasionally to create, the right risk and to exploit uncertainty. > > The purpose of the work on making the future is not to decide what should be done tomorrow, but **what should be done today to have a tomorrow**. > > \-Peter Drucker in Managing for Results Leaders need to be adept at navigating this dynamic based on what the situation entails. Some initiatives might require thinking 3 quarters ahead and others might require thinking 3 years or even 3 decades. It's easy for leaders to forget [the malleability of time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). A linear, mechanical interpretation of time can unknowingly limit options and the potential avenues explored. On the other hand, realizing that time is malleable, can open up opportunities previously unseen or unviable. > The future is not going to be made tomorrow; it is being made today, and largely by the decisions and actions taken with respect to the tasks of today. > > Conversely, what is being done to bring about the future directly affects the present. The tasks overlap. > > They require one unified strategy. Otherwise, they cannot really get done at all. > > \- Peter Drucker in Managing for Results ## A default timeframe is already in play Whether we are aware of it or not, every decision has an **already defined “proper present”** that is influencing decision making and our resulting actions. The trick is to be aware of this dynamic and adjust it based on what the situation requires. There is no one right answer. ## Uncovering assumed timeframes How have you defined the “proper present” for your business or project? What is the “proper present” for your life? Whatever decision or project you are currently tackling, **what is the assumed timeframe** or “proper present”? Often this is invisible because it’s taken for granted. Have you examined it closely? Is it the correct one for this particular project? > Uncovering the assumed timeframe and testing it at the extremes can yield surprising answers. Drucker gives an additional question to consider: > To make the future happen one has to be willing to do something new. One has to be willing to ask: **What do we really want to see happen that is quite different from today?** > > One has to be willing to say: “This is the right thing to happen as the future of the business. We will work on making it happen.” --- ## Further Reading In previous posts I have talked about the elasticity of time, how the future influences the present actions, and how the timeframe of goals can influence our actions in the present. Essentially, leadership requires [a different understanding of time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). Zooming in and out is a key skillset. It is also a key aspect of goal setting. Check out [the different dimensions of setting goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/). ### References 1. [People and Performance, The Best of Peter Drucker on Management](https://amzn.to/3N5WGiz?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker. 2. [Managing for Results](https://amzn.to/3tOsbH4?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker. ### How Bezos Thinks - All his Frameworks and Mental Models URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:32:59.000Z *In 1994 Amazon was just an idea in someone’s head, that of Jeff Bezos. Today it's a trillion dollar behemoth. But that’s not the interesting bit. What's fascinating is how Bezos thinks and evaluates everything.* *Usually, this process is opaque and we don't get to see or understand it in real time. Often CEOs write books post retirement. But Bezos has been writing a chapter every year — *his shareholder letters*.* *They are a masterclass in all aspects of business and leadership. Each letter is a clear exposition of some core ideas. They are some of the densest in wisdom and worthy of close study. There are also additional clues in* [*Amazon's leadership principles*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/)*.* *In this article I have tried to capture *all of his thinking frameworks and mental models in one place*.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 --- My intent is not to replicate but to capture his core philosophy on everything from failure and decision making to life itself. It's divided into two parts. In part 1, I delve into why we should even bother. In [part II](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#part-ii-how-bezos-thinksall-his-mental-models-and-frameworks), I capture all the models by theme. Only the titles are mine; everything else is Bezos’ own words. I gave it an overarching context by giving them titles. - [Part I — Why bother?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#part-i-why-bother) - [Luck and failure feature prominently](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#luck-and-failure-feature-prominently) - [No benefit of hindsight](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#no-benefit-of-hindsight) - [His decision making models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#his-decision-making-models) - [A philosophical framework, not formulas](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#a-philosophical-framework-not-formulas) - [Part II — How Bezos Thinks: All His Mental Models and Frameworks](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#part-ii-how-bezos-thinks-all-his-mental-models-and-frameworks) - [**On Failure and Luck**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-failure-and-luck) - [Scaling failure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#scaling-failure) - [Experimental vs Operational failures](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#experimental-vs-operational-failures) - [Winning in Baseball vs in Business](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#winning-in-baseball-vs-in-business) - [Wandering vs Efficiency](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#wandering-vs-efficiency) - [Failure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#failure) - [Builder’s mentality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#builders-mentality) - [Mistakes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#mistakes) - [Bold Bets](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#bold-bets) - [The role of luck](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-role-of-luck) - [**Decision Making Frameworks**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-making-frameworks) - [Intuition and instinct](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#intuition-and-instinct) - [Type 1 vs Type 2 decisions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#type-1-vs-type-2-decisions) - [Decision Quality and Velocity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#decision-quality-and-velocity) - [Math-based vs Judgement-based decisions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#math-based-vs-judgement-based-decisions) - [The allure of math-based decisions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-allure-of-math-based-decisions) - [Minimizing regret as a framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#minimizing-regret-as-a-framework) - [Living in the future and fewer decisions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#living-in-the-future-and-fewer-decisions) - [Why vs Why Not](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#why-vs-why-not) - [**On Strategy**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-strategy) - [Skills forward vs Working backward](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#skills-forward-vs-working-backward) - [A Heavier Company](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#a-heavier-company) - [On Long Term thinking](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-long-term-thinking) - [On Competition](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-competition) - [Bold rather than timid](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#bold-rather-than-timid) - [On Innovation and Gatekeepers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-innovation-and-gatekeepers) - [Customer obsession as a business model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#customer-obsession-as-a-business-model) - [Customer Obsession vs Competitor Obsession](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#customer-obsession-vs-competitor-obsession) - [On brand](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-brand) - [On being afraid of customers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-being-afraid-of-customers) - [On being internally driven](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-being-internally-driven) - [The danger of processes becoming proxies](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-danger-of-processes-becoming-proxies) - [On embracing external trends](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-embracing-external-trends) - [On patience, discipline, and nurturing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-patience-discipline-and-nurturing) - [Strategy around stable things](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#strategy-around-stable-things) - [**People and Culture**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#people-and-culture) - [Missionaries vs Mercenaries](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#missionaries-vs-mercenaries) - [Working hard, long, and smart](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#working-hard-long-and-smart) - [3 Critical Questions when Hiring](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#3-critical-questions-when-hiring) - [On Setting High Standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-setting-high-standards) - [On durability of corporate cultures](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-durability-of-corporate-cultures) - [On trust](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-trust) - [**Financial Measures**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#financial-measures) - [On Controllable Inputs vs Financial Goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-controllable-inputs-vs-financial-goals) - [The ultimate financial measure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-ultimate-financial-measure) - [**On Life**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-life) - [Creation vs consumption](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#creation-vs-consumption) - [On writing as the first step](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-writing-as-the-first-step) - [Being yourself is not free](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#being-yourself-is-not-free) - [Output measures vs wealth](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#output-measures-vs-wealth) - [On problems and resourcefulness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#on-problems-and-resourcefulness) - [The fallacy of work-life balance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#the-fallacy-of-work-life-balance) - [We are our choices](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#we-are-our-choices) - [Further reading](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#further-reading) - [Footnotes and References / Sources](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/#sources) ## Part I-Why bother? Why bother reading the letters? How are they different from reading any other business bestseller? Here’s why I think they are unique and should be required reading. ### Luck and failure feature prominently There are not many CEOs who will openly admit that there is a **good chance of failure in what they are attempting** let alone mention luck anywhere. But in his writings you see both luck and failure featured prominently. As a result what you get is a highly original philosophy that accounts for both at every step. This is rare in the business world. It's refreshingly different from either wishful thinking or playing the know-it-all in hindsight. And neither is he gambling or flirting with failure. He clearly accounts for it in his strategy and plays the game accordingly. ### No benefit of hindsight It’s easy to look at Amazon and forget that back in 1997 when Bezos wrote his first shareholder letter there was no guarantee of things working out. His letters don’t suffer from hindsight bias as is typical of the business book genre. He was writing the playbook as he was playing the game rather than **back-fitting his model** to what worked. They are a rare opportunity to understand the philosophy of someone who didn’t necessarily know that it was in fact going to work out. At the same time, he had a well-articulated philosophy right from the beginning. Many business books suffer from **survivorship bias**, especially ones written by successful CEOs post retirement. Bezos’ shareholder letters **don’t have that myopia**. And this makes for some fascinating reading. ### His decision making models Decision making frameworks are one too many and few are practical. Even fewer have a proven record. Invariably, they make it more complicated than necessary. Any **framework’s potency and utility** hinges on the following: 1. **Ease of use**. How often, and how likely are you to use it? 2. **Applicability**. Is it widely applicable? 3. **Clarity**. Does the framework clarify, or does it muddle your situation? Most specialized approaches to decision making don't do these basics well. You shouldn’t have to go learn 20 new mental models in biology in order to become a better decision maker. At least not for someone who does not work at a hedge fund. They suffer from **diminishing returns on time** invested. But Bezos’ models are the exception. What is striking is their **simplicity**. You can take any of his frameworks and apply it to your own situation. They are equally applicable to a billion dollar company or a scrappy startup. ### A philosophical framework, not formulas Most business books promises formulas. Here's what worked, do x to get y, and so on. Very rarely you get someone who is writing *before* they actually knew whether it’s going to work out or not. Equally rare is someone who articulates a clear philosophy and sticks with it for 25+ years. He focusses on frameworks rather than prescriptive techniques. **Frameworks tend to be infinitely more robust and useful than prescriptive formulas**. Let’s jump in. ## Part II. How Bezos Thinks - All His Mental Models and Frameworks You can skip to a specific theme using the links below. - [Failure and Luck](#on-failure-and-luck) - [Decision Making Frameworks](#decision-making-frameworks) - [Strategy](#on-strategy) - [People and Culture](#people-and-culture) - [Financial Measures](#financial-measures) - [Life](#on-life) ## On Failure and Luck ### Scaling failure > As a company grows, **everything needs to scale, including the size of your failed experiments**. If the size of your failures isn’t growing, you’re not going to be inventing at a size that can actually move the needle. Amazon will be experimenting at the right scale for a company of our size if we occasionally have multibillion-dollar failures. > > Of course, we won’t undertake such experiments cavalierly. We will work hard to make them good bets, but **not all good bets will ultimately pay out**. This kind of large-scale risk taking is part of the service we as a large company can provide to our customers and to society. The good news for shareowners is that **a single big winning bet can more than cover the cost of many losers**. ### Experimental vs Operational failures > I always point out that there are two different kinds of failure. > > There’s **experimental failure**—that’s the kind of failure you should be happy with. > > And there’s **operational failure**. We’ve built hundreds of fulfillment centers at Amazon over the years, and we know how to do that. If we build a new fulfillment center and it’s a disaster, that’s just bad execution. That’s not good failure. > > But when we are developing a new product or service or experimenting in some way, and it doesn’t work, that’s okay. That’s great failure. And you need to distinguish between those two types of failure and really be seeking invention and innovation. > > To sustain it you need the right people; you need innovative people. Innovative people will flee an organization if they can’t make decisions and take risks. You might recruit them initially, but they won’t stay long. Builders like to build. > > **A lot of this stuff is very simple, really. It’s just hard to do.** And the other thing about competition is that you do not want to play on a level playing field. This is why you need innovation. ### Winning in Baseball vs in Business > Outsized returns often come from betting against conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom is usually right. Given a ten percent chance of a one hundred times payoff, you should take that bet every time. But you’re still going to be wrong nine times out of ten. > > We all know that if you swing for the fences, you’re going to strike out a lot, but you’re also going to hit some home runs. **The difference between baseball and business, however, is that baseball has a truncated outcome distribution.** > > When you swing, no matter how well you connect with the ball, the most runs you can get is four. **In business, every once in a while, when you step up to the plate you can score one thousand runs.** > > This **long-tailed distribution of returns** is why it’s important to be bold. **Big winners pay for so many experiments**. > > AWS, Marketplace, and Prime are all examples of bold bets at Amazon that worked, and we’re fortunate to have those three big pillars. > > We’ve made mistakes, doozies like the Fire Phone and many other things that just didn’t work out. I won’t list all of our failed experiments, but the big winners pay for thousands of failed experiments. ### Wandering vs Efficiency > Sometimes (often actually) in business, you do know where you’re going, and when you do, you can be efficient. Put in place a plan and execute. > > In contrast, wandering in business is not efficient—but **it’s also not random**. It’s guided—by hunch, gut, intuition, curiosity, and powered by a deep conviction that the prize for customers is big enough that it’s worth being a little messy and tangential to find our way there. **Wandering is an essential counterbalance to efficiency.** You need to employ both. The outsized discoveries—the “nonlinear” ones—are highly likely to require wandering. > > **The biggest needle movers will be things that customers don’t know to ask for.** We must invent on their behalf. We have to tap into our own inner imagination about what’s possible. > > AWS itself—as a whole—is an example. No one asked for AWS. No one. Turns out the world was in fact ready and hungry for an offering like AWS but didn’t know it. We had a hunch, followed our curiosity, took the necessary financial risks, and began building—reworking, experimenting, and iterating countless times as we proceeded. ### Failure > Most large organizations embrace the idea of invention but are not willing to suffer **the string of failed experiments necessary** to get there. > In addition to good luck and great people, we have been able to succeed as a company only because we have continued to take **big risks**. To invent you have to experiment, and if you know in advance that it’s going to work, it’s not an experiment. Outsized returns come from betting against conventional wisdom, but conventional wisdom is usually right. > > A lot of observers characterized Amazon Web Services as a risky distraction when we started. “What does selling compute and storage have to do with selling books?” they wondered. No one asked for AWS. It turned out the world was ready and hungry for cloud computing but didn’t know it yet. > > We were right about AWS, but the truth is we’ve also taken plenty of risks that didn’t pan out. In fact, Amazon has made billions of dollars of failures. **Failure inevitably comes along with invention and risk-taking**, which is why we try to make Amazon the best place in the world to fail. ### Builder’s mentality > From very early on in Amazon’s life, we knew we wanted to create **a culture of builders**—people who are curious, explorers. They like to invent. Even when they’re experts, they are “fresh” with a beginner’s mind. They see the way we do things as just the way we do things now. > > **A builder’s mentality** helps us approach big, hard-to-solve opportunities with a humble conviction that success can come through iteration: invent, launch, reinvent, relaunch, start over, rinse, repeat, again and again. They know the path to success is anything but straight. ### Mistakes > We won’t always choose right, and **we won’t always succeed**. But we will be choosy, and we will work hard and patiently. > > We will have to make many conscious and deliberate choices, some of which will be bold and unconventional. Hopefully, some will turn out to be winners. **Certainly, some will turn out to be mistakes**. > As proud as I am of our progress and our inventions, I know that we will make mistakes along the way—some will be self-inflicted, some will be served up by smart and hard-working competitors. > > Our passion for pioneering will drive us to explore narrow passages, and, unavoidably, many will turn out to be blind alleys. But—with a bit of **good fortune**—there will also be a few that open up into broad avenues. > We’ve made mistakes, doozies like the Fire Phone and many other things that just didn’t work out. I won’t list all of our failed experiments, but **the big winners pay for thousands of failed experiments**. ### Bold Bets > A dreamy business offering has at least four characteristics. Customers love it, it can grow to very large size, it has strong returns on capital, and it’s durable in time—with the potential to endure for decades. When you find one of these, don’t just swipe right, get married. > > Well, I’m pleased to report that Amazon hasn’t been monogamous in this regard. After two decades of **risk taking** and teamwork, and with **generous helpings of good fortune** all along the way, we are now happily wed to what I believe are three such life partners: Marketplace, Prime, and AWS. > > Each of these offerings was **a bold bet at first**, and sensible people worried (often!) that they could not work. But at this point, it’s become pretty clear how special they are and **how lucky we are** to have them. ### The role of luck Referring to AWS: > And then a business miracle that never happens happened—the **greatest piece of business luck** in the history of business, so far as I know. We faced no like-minded competition for seven years. It’s unbelievable. > > When you pioneer, if you’re lucky, you get a two-year head start. Nobody gets a seven-year head start, and so that was unbelievable. > **Luck plays an outsized role in every endeavor, and I can assure you we’ve had a bountiful supply.** > > We **could not foresee with certainty** what those programs would eventually look like, let alone whether they would succeed, but they were pushed forward with intuition and heart, and nourished with optimism. > While we have a tremendous amount of work to do and **there can be no guarantees,** we have a plan to get there, it’s our top priority, and every person in this company is committed to helping with that goal. --- ## Decision Making Frameworks ### Intuition and instinct > We have some very specific ideas about what we want to do, but I believe in **the power of wandering.** > > **All my best decisions in business and in life have been made with heart, intuition, and guts, not analysis.** > > When you can make a decision with analysis, you should do so, but it turns out **in life that your most important decisions are always made with instinct, intuition, taste, and heart.** > You have to **use heart and intuition**. There has to be risk taking. You have to have instinct. All the good decisions have to be made that way. You do it with a group. You do it with great humility because, by the way, getting it wrong isn’t that bad. ### Type 1 vs Type 2 decisions > We want to be a large company that’s also an invention machine. We want to combine the extraordinary customer-serving capabilities that are enabled by size with the speed of movement, nimbleness, and **risk-acceptance mentality normally associated with entrepreneurial start-ups**. > > There are some **subtle traps that even high-performing large organizations can fall into** as a matter of course, and we’ll have to learn as an institution how to guard against them. > > One common pitfall for large organizations—one that hurts speed and inventiveness—is **“one-size-fits-all” decision making.** > > Some decisions are consequential and irreversible or nearly irreversible—**one-way doors**—and these decisions must be made methodically, carefully, slowly, with great deliberation and consultation. If you walk through and don’t like what you see on the other side, you can’t get back to where you were before. We can call these **Type 1 decisions.** > > But most decisions aren’t like that—they are changeable, reversible—they’re **two-way doors**. If you’ve made a suboptimal Type 2 decision, you don’t have to live with the consequences for that long. You can reopen the door and go back through. **Type 2 decisions** can and should be made quickly by high judgment individuals or small groups. > > **As organizations get larger, there seems to be a tendency to use the heavy-weight Type 1 decision-making process on most decisions, including many Type 2 decisions.** > > The end result of this is slowness, unthoughtful risk aversion, failure to experiment sufficiently, and consequently diminished invention. We’ll have to figure out how to fight that tendency. ### Decision Quality *and* Velocity > Day 2 companies make high-quality decisions, but they make high-quality decisions slowly. To keep the energy and dynamism of Day 1, you have to somehow make **high-quality, high-velocity decisions**. > > Easy for start-ups and very challenging for large organizations. Speed matters in business. > > First, **never use a one-size-fits-all decision-making** process. Many decisions are reversible,two-way doors. Those decisions can use a light-weight process. For those, so what if you’re wrong? > > Second, **most decisions should probably be made with somewhere around 70 percent of the information you wish you had**. If you wait for 90 percent, in most cases, you’re probably being slow. Plus, either way, you need to be good at quickly recognizing and correcting bad decisions. If you’re good at course correcting, **being wrong may be less costly than you think, whereas being slow is going to be expensive for sure**. > > Third, use the phrase **“disagree and commit.”** This phrase will save a lot of time. If you have conviction on a particular direction even though there’s no consensus, it’s helpful to say, “Look, I know we disagree on this, but will you gamble with me on it? Disagree and commit?” By the time you’re at this point, no one can know the answer for sure, and you’ll probably get a quick yes.” > > Fourth, **recognize true misalignment issues early and escalate them immediately.** Sometimes teams have different objectives and fundamentally different views. They are not aligned. No amount of discussion, no number of meetings will resolve that deep misalignment. > > Without escalation, **the default dispute resolution mechanism for this scenario is exhaustion**. Whoever has more stamina carries the decision. “You’ve worn me down” is an awful decision-making process. It’s slow and de-energizing. Go for quick escalation instead—it’s better. > > We can have the scope and capabilities of a large company and the spirit and heart of a small one. But **we have to choose it.** > **\[Y\]ou can drive great people away**—for example, by making the speed of decision making really slow. Why would great people stay in an organization where they can’t get things done? They look around after a while, and they’re, like, “Look, I love the mission, but I can’t get my job done because our speed of decision making is too slow.” So large companies like Amazon need to worry about that. ### Math-based vs Judgement-based decisions > Many of the important decisions we make at Amazon.com can be made with **data.** There is a right answer or a wrong answer, a better answer or a worse answer, and math tells us which is which. These are our favorite kinds of decisions. \[These\] decisions require us to make some assumptions and judgments, but in such decisions, judgment and opinion come into play only as junior partners. **The heavy lifting is done by the math**. > > However, not all of our important decisions can be made in this enviable, math-based way. Sometimes we have little or no historical data to guide us and proactive experimentation is impossible, impractical, or tantamount to a decision to proceed. Though data, analysis, and math play a role, **the prime ingredient in these decisions is judgment**. > > Math-based decisions command wide agreement, whereas judgment-based decisions are rightly debated and often controversial, at least until put into practice and demonstrated. > > Any institution unwilling to endure controversy must limit itself to decisions of the first type. In our view, doing so would not only limit controversy—it would also **significantly limit innovation and long-term value creation**. ### The allure of math-based decisions > “The Structure of ‘Unstructured’ Decision Processes” is a fascinating 1976 paper by Henry Mintzberg, Duru Raisinghani, and Andre Theoret. They look at how institutions make strategic, “unstructured” decisions as opposed to more quantifiable “operating” decisions. > > Among other gems you will find in the paper is this: > > “Excessive attention by management scientists to operating decisions may well cause organizations to pursue **inappropriate courses of action more efficiently**.” > > They are not debating the importance of rigorous and quantitative analysis, but only noting that **it gets a lopsided amount of study and attention, probably because of the very fact that it is more quantifiable**. The whole paper is available at www.amazon.com/ir/mintzberg. ### Minimizing regret as a framework > When I’m eighty and reflecting back, **I want to have minimized the number of regrets** that I have in my life. > > And **most of our regrets are acts of omission**—the things we didn’t try, the paths untraveled. Those are the things that haunt us. > > And I decided that if I didn’t at least give it my best shot, I was going to regret not trying to participate in this thing called the internet that I thought was going to be a big deal. > I always project myself forward to age eighty, but as I get older, I’m starting to do ninety—so I know that when I’m ninety, it’s going to be one of the things I’m most proud of. ### Living in the future and fewer decisions > As a senior executive, what do you really get paid to do? You get paid to make **a small number of high-quality decisions**. Your job is not to make thousands of decisions every day. > > When Amazon was a hundred people, it was a different story, but Amazon’s not a start-up company, and all of our senior executives operate the same way I do. **They work in the future. They live in the future.** > > None of the people who report to me should really be focused on the current quarter. When I have a good quarterly conference call with Wall Street, people will stop me and say, “Congratulations on your quarter,” and I say, “Thank you,” but what I’m really thinking is **that quarter was baked three years ago.** > > You need to be **thinking two or three years in advance**, and if you are, then why do I need to make a hundred decisions today? If I make, like, three good decisions a day, that’s enough, and they should just be as high quality as I can make them. **Warren Buffet says he’s good if he makes three good decisions a year**, and I really believe that. ### Why vs Why Not > When something seems like an opportunity—it seems like you have the skills, and maybe some kind of advantage, and you think it’s a big area—you will always get asked the question, ‘Why? Why do that?' > > But **‘Why not?’ is an equally valid question**. And there may be good reasons why not—maybe you don’t have the capital resources, or parts of your current business require so much focus at this key juncture that it would be irresponsible. In that case, if somebody asked, ‘Why not?’ you would say, ‘Here’s why not …’ **But that question doesn’t get asked**. --- ## On Strategy ### Skills forward vs Working backward > “Working backward” from customer needs can be contrasted with a “skills-forward” approach where existing skills and competencies are used to drive business opportunities. > > **The skills-forward approach** says, “We are really good at X. What else can we do with X?” That’s a useful and rewarding business approach. > > However, if used exclusively, the company employing it will never be driven to develop fresh skills. Eventually the existing skills will become outmoded. > > **Working backward from customer needs** often demands that we acquire new competencies and exercise new muscles, never mind how uncomfortable and awkward-feeling those first steps might be. > Listen to customers, but don’t just listen to customers—**also invent on their behalf.** ### A Heavier Company > \[W\]e constantly remind ourselves of an important point—as I frequently quote famed investor Benjamin Graham in our employee all-hands meetings—“In the short run, the market is a voting machine but in the long run, **it is a weighing machine**.” > > We don’t celebrate a 10 percent increase in the stock price like we celebrate excellent customer experience. We aren’t 10 percent smarter when that happens and conversely aren’t 10 percent dumber when the stock goes the other way. > > We want to be weighed, and we’re always working to build a heavier company. ### On Long Term thinking > We will continue to make investment decisions in light of long-term market leadership considerations rather than short-term profitability considerations or short-term Wall Street reactions. > > Because of our emphasis on the long term, we may make decisions and weigh trade-offs differently than some companies. > Long-term thinking is both a requirement and an outcome of true ownership. **Owners are different from tenants.** > > We emphasized our long-term views in our 1997 letter to shareholders, our first as a public company, because that approach really does drive making many concrete, non-abstract decisions. > > Long-term thinking levers our existing abilities and lets us do new things we couldn’t otherwise contemplate. It supports **the failure and iteration required for invention**, and it frees us to pioneer in unexplored spaces. > > Seek instant gratification—or the elusive promise of it—and chances are you’ll find a crowd there ahead of you. ### On Competition > Zero-sum games are unbelievably rare. Sporting events are zero-sum games. Two teams enter an arena. One’s going to win; one’s going to lose. Elections are zero-sum games. One candidate is going to win; one candidate is going to lose. > > In business, however, **several competitors can do well**. That’s very normal. > > The most important thing for doing well against competition—in business and also, I think, with military adversaries—is to be both robust and nimble. And it is scale. > > So it’s great to be in the US military because you’re big. Scale is a gigantic advantage because it gives you robustness. You can take a punch. But it’s also good if you can dodge a punch. And that’s the nimbleness. And as you get bigger, you grow more robust. > > The **most important factor for nimbleness is decision- making speed**. The second-most important factor is being **willing to be experimental**. You have to be willing to take risks. You have to be willing to fail, and people don’t like failure. > > When it comes to competition, **being one of the best is not good enough**. Do you really want to plan for a future in which you might have to fight with somebody who is just as good as you are? I wouldn’t. ### Bold rather than timid > We will make **bold rather than timid investment decisions** where we see a sufficient probability of gaining market leadership advantages. Some of these investments will pay off, others will not, and we will have learned another valuable lesson in either case. > > You can count on us to combine a strong quantitative and analytical culture with a willingness to make **bold decisions**. As we do so, we’ll start with the customer and work backward. In our judgment, that is the best way to create shareholder value. ### On Innovation and Gatekeepers > Invention comes in many forms and at many scales. The most radical and transformative of inventions are often those that empower others to unleash their creativity—to pursue their dreams. > > With AWS, FBA, and KDP, we are creating powerful self-service platforms that allow thousands of people to boldly experiment and accomplish things that would otherwise be impossible or impractical. > > I am emphasizing the self-service nature of these platforms because it’s important for a reason I think is somewhat nonobvious: **even well-meaning gatekeepers slow innovation.** > > **When a platform is self-service, even the improbable ideas can get tried,** because there’s no expert gatekeeper ready to say, “That will never work!” > > And guess what—many of those improbable ideas do work, and society is the beneficiary of that diversity. ### Customer obsession as a business model > There are many ways to center a business. You can be **competitor** focused, you can be **product** focused, you can be **technology** focused, you can be **business model** focused, and there are more. But in my view, **obsessive customer focus** is by far the most protective of Day 1 vitality. ### Customer Obsession vs Competitor Obsession > The core of the company is customer obsession as opposed to competitor obsession. > > The advantage of being customer focused is that customers are always dissatisfied. They always want more, and so they pull you along. Whereas if you’re competitor obsessed, if you’re a leader, you can look around and you see everybody running behind you, maybe you slow down a little. > > Many companies describe themselves as customer-focused, but few walk the walk. **Most big technology companies are competitor focused**. They see what others are doing, and then work to fast follow. In contrast, 90 to 95 percent of what we build in AWS is driven by what customers tell us they want. > > \[O\]ur energy at Amazon comes from the desire to impress customers rather than the zeal to best competitors. > > We do work to pay attention to competitors and be inspired by them, but it is a fact that **the customer-centric way is at this point a defining element of our culture**. ### On brand > We hold as axiomatic that customers are perceptive and smart, and that **brand image follows reality and not the other way around.** ### On being afraid of customers > I constantly remind our employees to be afraid, to wake up every morning terrified. Not of our competition, but of our customers. Our customers have made our business what it is, they are the ones with whom we have a relationship, and they are the ones to whom we owe a great obligation. And we consider them to be loyal to us—right up until the second that someone else offers them a better service. ### On being internally driven > One advantage—perhaps a somewhat subtle one—of a customer-driven focus is that it aids a certain type of proactivity. When we’re at our best, we don’t wait for external pressures. We are **internally driven** to improve our services, adding benefits and features, **before we have to**. We lower prices and increase value for customers before we have to. We invent before we have to. > > These investments are **motivated by customer focus rather than by reaction to competition**. We think this approach earns more trust with customers and drives rapid improvements in customer experience—importantly—even in those areas where we are already the leader. ### The danger of processes becoming proxies > As companies get larger and more complex, there’s **a tendency to manage to proxies**. This comes in many shapes and sizes, and it’s dangerous, subtle, and very Day 2. > > A common example is **process as proxy**. Good process serves you so you can serve customers. But if you’re not watchful, **the process can become the thing**. This can happen very easily in large organizations. The process becomes the proxy for the result you want. **You stop looking at outcomes** and just make sure you’re doing the process right. > > The process is not the thing. It’s always worth asking, **do we own the process or does the process own us?** ### On embracing external trends > The outside world can push you into Day 2 if you won’t or can’t embrace powerful trends quickly. If you fight them, you’re probably fighting the future. Embrace them and you have a tailwind. > > These big trends are not that hard to spot (they get talked and written about a lot), but **they can be strangely hard for large organizations to embrace**. ### On patience, discipline, and nurturing > At Amazon’s current scale, planting seeds that will grow into meaningful new businesses takes some discipline, a bit of patience, and **a nurturing culture.** > > Like any company, we have a corporate culture formed not only by our intentions but also as a result of our history. For Amazon, that history is fairly fresh and, fortunately, it includes several examples of tiny seeds growing into big trees. > > The culture demands that these new businesses be high potential and that they be innovative and differentiated, but it **does not demand that they be large on the day that they are born**. > > In our experience, if a new business enjoys runaway success, **it can only begin to be meaningful to the overall company economics in something like three to seven years**. ### Strategy around stable things > *I very frequently get the question: ‘What’s going to change in the next 10 years?’ And that is a very interesting question; it’s a very common one.* > > *I almost never get the question: ‘*What’s not going to change in the next 10 years?*’* > > *And I submit to you that that second question is actually the more important of the two — because you can build a business strategy around the things that are stable in time.* --- ## People and Culture ### Missionaries vs Mercenaries > When I meet with the entrepreneur who founded the company, I’m always trying to figure out one thing first and foremost: Is this person a missionary or a mercenary? > > The mercenaries are trying to flip their stock. The missionaries love their product or their service and love their customers, and they’re trying to build a great service. > > By the way, the great paradox here is that **it’s usually the missionaries who make more money**, and you can tell really quickly just by talking to people. > You want people to stay for the mission. **You don’t want mercenaries at your company**. You want missionaries. > > Missionaries care about the mission. It’s actually not very complicated. And you can confuse people with free massages. Like, “Oh, I don’t really like the mission here, but I love the free massages.” > > How do you hire great people and keep them from leaving? By giving them, first of all, a great mission—something that has real purpose, that has meaning. > > **People want meaning in their lives**. And this is a giant advantage that the US military has because its people have a real mission. They have meaning. And that is huge. And so that’s a big recruiting advantage. ### Working hard, long, and smart > **Setting the bar high in our approach to hiring** has been, and will continue to be, the single most important element of Amazon.com’s success. > > It’s not easy to work here (when I interview people I tell them, “You can work long, hard, or smart, but at Amazon.com **you can’t choose two out of three**”),but we are working to build something important, something that matters to our customers, something that we can all tell our grandchildren about. Such things aren’t meant to be easy. ### 3 Critical Questions when Hiring > During our hiring meetings, we ask people to consider **three questions before making a decision:** > > 1\. Will you admire this person? > 2\. Will this person raise the average level of effectiveness of the group they’re entering? > 3\. Along what dimension might this person be a superstar. ### On Setting High Standards > \[T\]he **four elements of high standards** as we see it: > > they are teachable, they are domain specific, you must recognize them, and you must explicitly coach realistic scope. For us, these work at all levels of detail. Everything from writing memos to whole new, clean-sheet business initiatives. I did a deeper dive on this particular aspect of his thinking. You can find it[ here](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). ### On durability of corporate cultures > \[F\]or better or for worse, they are enduring, stable, hard to change. They can be a source of advantage or disadvantage. **You can write down your corporate culture, but when you do so, you’re discovering it, uncovering it—not creating it.** > > It is created slowly over time by the people and by events—by the stories of past success and failure that become a deep part of the company lore. If it’s a distinctive culture, it will fit certain people like a custom-made glove. > > **The reason cultures are so stable in time is because people self-select.** Someone energized by competitive zeal may select and be happy in one culture, while someone who loves to pioneer and invent may choose another. ### On trust > The way you earn trust, the way you develop a reputation is by **doing hard things well over and over and over**. The reason, for example, that the US military, in all polls, has such high credibility and reputation is because, over and over again, decade after decade, it has done hard things well. > > It really is that simple. It’s also that complicated. It’s not easy to do hard things well, but that’s how you earn trust. And trust, of course, is an overloaded word. It means so many different things. > > It’s integrity, but **it’s also competence**. It’s doing what you said you were going to do—and delivering. And so we deliver billions of packages every year; we say we’re going to do that, and then we actually do it. > > And **it’s also taking controversial stances**. People like it when you say, “No, we’re not going to do it that way. I know you want us to do it that way, but we’re not going to.”And even if they disagree, they might say, “We kind of respect that, though. They know who they are.” > > It is also helpful to have **clarity**. If we are clear that we are going to do this and we aren’t going to do that, then people can opt in or opt out. They can say, “Well, if that’s Amazon’s position or Blue Origin’s position or AWS’s position on something, then I don’t want to be part of that.” And that’s okay. > > We live in a big democracy with lots of opinions, and I want to live in that world. I want to live in a place where people can disagree. What I want, too, is to live in a place where people can disagree and still work together. I don’t want to lose that. People are entitled to their opinions, but **it is the job of a senior leadership team to say no**. --- ## Financial Measures ### On Controllable Inputs vs Financial Goals > Senior leaders that are new to Amazon are often surprised by how little time we spend discussing actual financial results or debating projected financial outputs. > > To be clear, we take these financial outputs seriously, but we believe that focusing our energy on the **controllable inputs** to our business is **the most effective way to maximize financial outputs** over time. > > For 2010, we have 452 detailed goals with owners, deliverables, and targeted completion dates. A review of our current goals reveals some interesting statistics: > > • 360 of the 452 goals will have a direct impact on customer experience. > > • The word revenue is used eight times and free cash flow is used only four times. > > • In the 452 goals, the terms net income, gross profit or margin, and operating profit are not used once. ### The ultimate financial measure > Our ultimate financial measure, and the one we most want to drive over the long-term, is **free cash flow per share**. > > Why not focus first and foremost, as many do, on earnings, earnings per share or earnings growth? The simple answer is that earnings don’t directly translate into cash flows, and shares are worth only the present value of their future cash flows, not the present value of their future earnings. > > Cash flow statements often don’t receive as much attention as they deserve. Discerning investors don’t stop with the income statement. --- ## On Life ### Creation vs consumption > If you want to be successful in business (in life, actually), you have to **create more than you consume**. Your goal should be to create value for everyone you interact with. > > Any business that doesn’t create value for those it touches, even if it appears successful on the surface, isn’t long for this world. It’s on the way out. ### On writing as the first step > You know the business plan won’t survive its first encounters with reality. But **the discipline of writing the plan** forces you to think through some of the issues and to get sort of mentally comfortable in the space. > > Then you start to understand, if you push on this knob, this will move over here and so on. So, that’s the first step. ### Being yourself is not free > Differentiation is survival and **the universe wants you to be typical**. > > In what ways does the world pull at you in an attempt to make you normal? How much work does it take to maintain your distinctiveness? To keep alive the thing or things that make you special? > > But, at the same time, it’s also true that things would often be easier – take less energy – if we were a little more normal. > > This phenomenon happens at all scale levels. Democracies are not normal. Tyranny is the historical norm. If we stopped doing all of the continuous hard work that is needed to maintain our distinctiveness in that regard, we would quickly come into equilibrium with tyranny. > > We all know that distinctiveness – originality – is valuable. We are all taught to “be yourself.” What I’m really asking you to do is to embrace and **be realistic about how much energy it takes to maintain that distinctiveness**. > > The world wants you to be typical – in a thousand ways, it pulls at you. Don’t let it happen. > > **You have to pay a price for your distinctiveness**, and it’s worth it. The fairy tale version of “be yourself” is that all the pain stops as soon as you allow your distinctiveness to shine. That version is misleading. > > **Being yourself is worth it, but don’t expect it to be easy or free**. You’ll have to put energy into it continuously. > > The world will always try to make \[you\] more typical – to bring us into equilibrium with our environment. It will take continuous effort, but we can and must be better than that. ### Output measures vs wealth > It's something people are naturally curious about, but I have never sought the title of “world’s richest man.” I was fine being the second-wealthiest person in the world. I would much rather be known as inventor Jeff Bezos or entrepreneur Jeff Bezos or father Jeff Bezos. Those kinds of things are much more meaningful to me, and **it’s an output measure**. ### On problems and resourcefulness > The whole point of moving things forward is that you run into problems, failures, things that don’t work. You need to back up and try again. Each one of those times when you have a setback, you get back up and try again. You’re using **resourcefulness;** you’re using self-reliance; you’re trying to invent your way out of a box. > > We have tons of examples at Amazon where we’ve had to do this. We’ve failed so many times—I think of this as a great place to fail. We’re good at it. We’ve had so much practice. > > My wife, much to her credit, has this great saying: “I would much rather have a kid with nine fingers than a resourceless kid,” which is a great attitude about life. ### The fallacy of work life balance > I don’t even like the phrase “work-life balance.” I think it’s misleading. I like the phrase **“work-life harmony"**. I know if I am energized at work, happy at work, feeling like I’m adding value, part of a team, whatever energizes you, that makes me better at home. It makes me a better husband, a better father. > > Likewise, if I’m happy at home, it makes me a better employee, a better boss. There may be crunch periods when it’s about the number of hours in a week. But that’s not the real thing. > > Usually it’s about whether you have energy. **Is your work depriving you of energy, or is your work generating energy** for you? > > **It’s a flywheel, a circle, not a balance**. That’s why that metaphor is so dangerous, because it implies there’s a strict trade-off. > > You could be out of work, have all the time in the world for your family, but be really depressed and demoralized about your work situation, and your family wouldn’t want to be anywhere near you. They would wish you would take a vacation from them. ### We are our choices > Cleverness is a gift; kindness is a choice. Gifts are easy—they’re given, after all. Choices can be hard. > > You can seduce yourself with your gifts if you’re not careful, and if you do, **it’ll probably be to the detriment of your choices**. How will you use these gifts? And will you take pride in your gifts or pride in your choices? > > How will you use your gifts? What choices will you make? > > Will inertia be your guide, or will you follow your passions? > > Will you follow dogma, or will you be original? > > Will you choose a life of ease, or a life of service and adventure? > > Will you wilt under criticism, or will you follow your convictions? > > Will you bluff it out when you’re wrong, or will you apologize? > > Will you guard your heart against rejection, or will you act when you fall in love? > > Will you guard your heart against rejection, or will you act when you fall in love? > > Will you play it safe, or will you be a little bit swashbuckling? > > When it’s tough, will you give up, or will you be relentless? > > Will you be a cynic, or will you be a builder? > > Will you be clever at the expense of others, or will you be kind? > > I will hazard a prediction. When you are eighty years old and, in a quiet moment of reflection, narrating for only yourself the most personal version of your life story, the telling that will be most compact and meaningful will be **the series of choices you have made**. > > In the end, **we are our choices**. Build yourself a great story. ## Further reading His 2017 shareholder letter is an especially lucid one focused on how to go about building a culture of high standards. I took a closer look at it in [Setting High Standards in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). If you had to pick only 3, I would suggest reading the 1997 (the very first one), 2017, and 2020 (the very last one) versions. ### Footnotes and References #### Sources - You can find all the shareholder letters[ here](https://ir.aboutamazon.com/annual-reports-proxies-and-shareholder-letters/default.aspx?ref=leadingsapiens.com). - For a more thorough coverage on everything he’s said and written, I recommend Walter Isaacson’s [Invent and Wander](https://amzn.to/3tIAm7F?ref=leadingsapiens.com). Most of his non-shareholder material is taken from that book. #### Structure and limitations - Part II started as a collection of notes that stood out to me from his writings. I wanted everything conveniently in one place. Then I noticed that the clippings started falling into certain themes. In order to capture themes, I have had to remove the original context. While all the words in Part II are his, they are not all chronological or written together. I have pieced together disparate pieces but that were consistent on themes. If it doesn’t flow well, it's my fault. - Due to the format, it is biased by what I select. You might find something very different in your own reading. #### Working at Amazon - This article is not an endorsement of Bezos or Amazon. It's a peek into one of modern business world’s most extraordinary minds at work. I am well aware of all the labor issues and dynamics of working at Amazon. But that's a different topic altogether. ### Linear Causality vs Circular Causality in Decision Making URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:29:22.000Z *The "if...then" way of thinking about cause and effect is common in business. Circular causality is often missed in the decision making process.* --- ## Simple explanations Pick up any business book, especially the not so enlightened ones, and the "if...then" model is dominant. The promise follows the pattern of *“*if* you do *x*…*then*…you will get *y* result”.* Same goes for the genre of personal development. We are always searching for the holy grail of efficiency and execution. This model is attractive because it's easy to understand and gives us a false sense of control. To be fair, the good ones can be effective to a certain extent. But when somehow our particular initiative does not pan out as planned, we tend to blame it on our skillset, our discipline, or worse our teams and organizations. It's often not as straightforward as we are prone to think. ## Not so simple All models and formulas suffer from the limitations of abstraction and ideal assumptions. Our own situations are uniquely complex and nuanced in their own ways. To make it worse, **complex domains do not have repeatable cause and effects** and most organizations do not understand how to operate in them. One common mistake is to assume linear causality where in fact circular causality might be at play as well. Here's how Ralph Stacey and Chris Mowles put it, > *One way of thinking about the relationship between cause and effect in Western culture is *linear and unidirectional*. There is some variable Y whose behaviour is to be explained.* > > *It is regarded as dependent and other ‘independent’ variables, \_X\_1, \_X\_2 . .., are sought that are causing it.* > > *Linear relationships mean that if there is more of a cause then there will be proportionally more of the effect. This is *the efficient ‘if . . . then’ theory of causality.** > > *For example, in organisations, a frequent explanation for success is that it is caused by a particular culture, a particular* [*management style*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/)*, or a particular control system. The more that culture, style or control system is applied, the more successful the organisation will be.* > > *Opposition parties always say that the government of the day has caused recession and inflation. More of the government’s policies will, they say, lead to more recession and more inflation. All of this is what is meant by straightforward unidirectional, linear connections between cause and effect.* > > *Many scientists, both social and natural, are increasingly realising that *this view of the relationship between cause and effect is far too simplistic* and leads to an inadequate understanding of behaviour. They hold that greater* [*insight*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/) *comes from thinking in terms of mutual or circular causality.* > > *The demand for a product does not depend simply on customer behaviour; it also depends upon what the producing firm does in terms of price and quality. In other words, *the firm affects the customer who then affects the firm.** > > **Management style may cause success but success affects the style managers adopt*. The government’s policies may cause recession and inflation, but recession and inflation may also cause the policies they adopt.* > > *When organisms and organisations are thought of as systems, complex forms of causality to do with interconnection and interdependence become evident, where *everything affects everything else*.* ## The game is fluid and ever changing While clearly there are linear cause and effects, we cannot ignore the circular causal effects either. **Our actions change the very nature of the game as we play it.** This is one reason why a static approach to strategy can backfire. The conditions that were true at the beginning of a campaign or initiative might not be true anymore. Consistency for consistency’s sake is not always prudent. Sticking to the old strategy instead of adapting it based on current emergent conditions, can be deadly for an initiative. The same is true for our lives and careers as well. > *A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.* > > *\- Ralph Waldo Emerson* --- What assumptions do we need to re-examine? How does that change our approach? Given what we know now, would we undertake the same actions? ## Further Reading Want to become a better decision maker? Consider two ideas: - First is the *ladder of inference*. It's a model developed by Harvard organizational theorist and practitioner Chris Argyris that shows how we go about making decisions and taking action. I did[ a deep dive into the ladder of inference here](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/). - Second is *deliberate practice*. It's one of the few proven research-backed strategies for improvement but not used in leadership as much. I [examine one way to change that here](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). Combining deliberate practice with the ladder of inference is a proven way to get better at decision making. Try it. ### References/Footnotes 1. [Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics](https://amzn.to/3Np4GPj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Ralph D Stacey and Chris Mowles. ### Leadership can be learned but cannot be taught — the role of coaching URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/ Last updated: 2025-09-04T19:45:05.000Z *Leadership as with any skill is something we can learn. Paradoxically though, it cannot be taught. How do we navigate this conundrum? What is the role of* [*leadership coaching*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-coaching/) *and how can it help?* --- ## The two extremes We typically come across two extremes of leadership development. One is that of being as simple as following a list of characters and traits, taking an hour-long course, or even doing an MBA. The other extreme is that of innate ability and thus beyond the reach of those who are not naturally talented at it. Neither of these views are helpful. There is a third alternative, only if you are willing to put in the work. > One of the problems with standard leadership courses is that they focus exclusively on skills and produce managers rather than leaders, when they produce anything at all. Managerial skills can, of course, be taught. And they are useful skills for leaders to have. > > **The ingredients of leadership cannot be taught, however. They must be learned.** > > \- Warren Bennis in On Becoming a Leader \[2\] ## The *how* of becoming a leader In my work, I often get asked about how coaching can help with developing as a leader. This can involve a combinations of the below: - How exactly does leadership coaching work? - Does it even work? - What is the “technique” that I teach or the “method” that I use? - What “school/model of leadership” do I subscribe to? - What are the characteristics of "successful" leadership? - Can an MBA program help in becoming a better leader? The underlying assumption in all these questions is **that there is some formula or technique** that people learn to become better leaders. Most business books and MBA programs want you to believe that they have the answers to these questions and the correct answer is the one they have or at least the better option. This view in my opinion is misinformed and even harmful. ## Reality is not as nicely defined Consider infographics that tout the differences between [managers and leaders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/differences-leaders-managers/). They list out traits of each and contrast them with each other. The differences are clear and the boundaries well defined. These come directly from the traits/competency based schools of teaching leadership. The premise is that - here are the 10 things that leaders do, go do these and you are a leader. But notice your own behavior when we see these infographics. More often than not we ignore them. It's because we know that reality is not as straightforward and well-defined as the infographic suggests. ## Leadership cannot be taught Leadership lies in the human domain as opposed to the material or natural/scientific domain and thus is not amenable to the same rules and laws. > One mistake people make is to believe that leadership is a skill that they can learn by reading, sitting through talks, or taking classes. > > .. **the fact is that no book, consultant, class, or series of classes, including an MBA, can teach anyone how to lead a small team, let alone a big organization.** > > It is a craft you can learn only through experience. This lesson about leadership is evident throughout history, and remains true despite all the training and business knowledge that has been amassed. > > — Jeffrey Pfeffer, Robert Sutton in Hard Facts \[4\] As Donald Schon put it, leadership is learnable but cannot be taught. In his masterful *Educating the Reflective Practitioner*, there’s an especially insightful passage that highlights this paradoxical aspect of leadership. \[1\] He explains what he calls “**a design-like practice**”. While he is writing in the context of designing in architecture, the same is equally applicable to the domain of leadership development and the process of becoming leaders. > A design-like practice cannot be conveyed to students wholly or mainly by classroom teaching: > > - The gap between a description of designing and the knowing- in-action that corresponds to it must be filled by reflection-in-action. > - Designing must be grasped as a whole, by experiencing it in action. > - Designing depends on recognition of design qualities, which must be learned by doing. > - Descriptions of designing are likely to be perceived initially as confusing, vague, ambiguous, or incomplete; their clarification depends on a dialogue in which understandings and misunderstandings are revealed through action. > - Because designing is a creative process in which a designer comes to see and do things in new ways, no prior description of it can take the place of learning by doing. There is obviously a place for theory, definitions, and descriptions but they can only do so much. Here’s how Schon puts it: > *In order for such descriptions to become useful for action, students must be engaged in*[ *learning by doing*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) **and* in dialogue with someone in the role of coach.* ## Leadership can be learned Below is an interpretation of the above passage applied to leadership. This can help illuminate some of the *how* of becoming a leader and the role that leadership coaching plays in this process. ### Reflection is the catalyst in learning > *A designlike practice cannot be conveyed to students wholly or mainly by classroom teaching.* Leadership cannot be learned in the class or any setting removed from reality. Reality is too complex and varied to be simulated inside a classroom or even using case-studies. It has to be learned through what Warren Bennis calls “crucible” experiences out in the real world with real time feedback. \[2\] What accelerates the process is the skilled use of reflecting upon those crucible experiences. This is where coaching can play a pivotal role. ### The map is not the territory > *The gap between a description of designing and the knowing- in-action that corresponds to it must be filled by reflection-in-action.* A coach or mentor can only provide a “description” of reality. In fact, if they are any good , they will focus more on distinctions rather than descriptions. Distinctions open up possibilities and options, more so than descriptions. They help you see things differently and see different things which were invisible before. However, the map is not the territory. We have to figure out and navigate the territory ourselves. Regardless of how good a coach is, knowing-in-action by definition requires a *doing*. The coachee has to fill in the blanks with skilled reflection that happens both in the midst of action and afterwards. This process is natural and we are naturally skilled at this. What comes in the way is our preconceived notions and unexamined mental models. ### The whole is greater than its parts > *Designing must be grasped as a whole, by experiencing it in action.* It's the same for leadership. The whole is often exponentially more than the sum of it’s parts. The only way to grasp leadership as a whole is through our own experiences in action. It is in action that we actually experience the whole instead of a construct that examines only one part of reality. The learning is more embodied and visceral rather than a theoretical one. ### Intelligence is developed through doing, learning, reflecting > *Designing depends on recognition of design qualities, which must be learned by doing.* No list of leadership competencies or leadership traits is ever complete. Every leadership situation is contextual and specific to what that particular situation requires. At the same time, we all know when we see a competent leader. All of us know when we ourselves are doing a good job leading or otherwise. There are qualities inherent to good leadership that we develop and recognize through our doing, learning, and reflecting. ### The process can be frustrating > *Descriptions of designing are likely to be perceived initially as confusing, vague, ambiguous, or incomplete; their clarification depends on a dialogue in which understandings and misunderstandings are revealed through action.* This is common in my coaching interactions. People who are looking for a formula or an easy path tend to get frustrated in the process. Because the process is not linear. One passing comment or discussion emerges later on as the pivotal thing. Although at the time, it did not sound important and didn’t come across that way. A big part of leadership coaching is this ongoing dialogue, and the intelligence that is generated through taking action in the real world and reflecting skillfully on the generated intelligence. ### Leadership is a creative act > *Because designing is a creative process in which a designer comes to see and do things in new ways, no prior description of it can take the place of learning by doing.* Leadership is a creative act as well. Regardless of domain it requires us to step out of what we already know and into the unknown where there are no guarantees. Leaders are literally creating a version of reality through their actions and responses. They are both figuratively and literally, bending reality through their conversations and by engineering a context. This cannot be taught and can only be learned by doing. What the coach can do is show a general direction in which to look and what to look for. ### Turning experience into wisdom > *In order for such descriptions to become useful for action, students must be engaged in learning by doing *and in dialogue with someone in the role of coach.** The most important word in the above sentence is *and*. Many of us have taken courses, attended seminars, and read books to get better at leadership. But the missing piece in all of this is **skilled reflection** on our learning and experience. > Experience connects theory and practice, but it is only skilled reflection that turns that experience into wisdom. Leadership coaching helps engineer and expedite this process of skilled reflection. Here's how the world's foremost expert on peak performance and expertise put it: > The hallmark of purposeful or deliberate practice is that you try to do something you cannot do—that takes you out of your comfort zone—and that you practice it over and over again, focusing on exactly how you are doing it, where you are falling short, and how you can get better. > > Real life—our jobs, our schooling, our hobbies—seldom gives us the opportunity for this sort of focused repetition... > > **Much of what a good teacher or coach will do is to develop such exercises for you**, designed specifically to help you improve the particular skill you are focused on at the moment. > > \- Anders Ericsson in Peak \[3\] Consider your own assumptions about leadership. Do you think it’s teachable? Is it learnable? What has worked for you and what hasn’t? Why so? ## Further Reading A proven method commonly used in sports coaching is *deliberate practice*. But it's not typically associated with leadership development. [Here's one way to change that](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). Staying on top of your own development is a key leadership skillset. I examine this notion in [**Self Development in Leadership**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). Skilled reflection is a key mechanism behind the effectiveness of coaching in accelerating leadership development. I do [a deep dive into reflection here](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). Leadership coaching is a process and it takes time. Human change is different from machine change. [Speed is not necessarily the best criteria](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/) when it comes to engineering change in ourselves and in others. I examine this notion in **Speed as the Wrong Criteria**. [Making something formulaic also robs us of the richness of the experience](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technology-dumbs-you-down/). As a Chinese curse goes, the worst thing that can happen to you is getting everything you want instantly. This is equally true in leadership. ### Footnotes/References 1. *Educating the Reflective Practitioner* by Donald Schon. 2. *On Becoming a Leader* by Warren Bennis. 3. *Peak* by Anders Ericcson. 4. *Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truth & Total Nonsense* by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton. ### 5\. Video: Want to get great at something? Get a coach by Atul Gawande ### Using Deliberate Practice to Increase Leadership Effectiveness URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:55:01.000Z *Deliberate practice is one of the few proven research-backed frameworks to improve performance. But it's not used enough in leadership development. Here's one way to implement it to increase leadership effectiveness.* --- ## Getting better at conversations Language is the medium of leadership and conversations are its core building blocks. It follows that adding more rigor to our conversations can increase our effectiveness as leaders. One way to increase rigor is **to learn and implement a typology of conversations** in communications. How many times have we heard that as leaders and managers we need to be excellent communicators. The word communication can be very vague and all encompassing causing us to go numb to it every time we read or hear about it. And yet it’s the most important, and at the same time common, action that we managers do on a daily basis. **Managerial work can be thought of as a series of conversations and management of those conversations**. [Conversations are the doing of the manager](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/). Engineers engineer, designers design and managers manage. But the action of managing happens through conversations. > Conversations are the instrument through which managers move things forward. But most of the time this instrument is blunt and ineffective due to lack of attention and lack of awareness. While most of us might intuitively recognize the importance of conversations, it does not get the attention that it deserves either due to lack of awareness or just being taken for granted. It does not occur to us as an opportunity for improvement. One way of changing this **non-actionable stance towards communication** is to learn and implement a typology of conversations. It's not necessarily a formula for getting better at this most basic function of managing, but rather about learning the distinctions and vocabulary of conversations so that we can get better at this skill. ## Using deliberate practice in conversations Ron Friedman in Decoding Greatness cites the research of K. Anders Ericcson into how world-class experts get to the top of their game. \[1\] > The less attention we pay to our actions, the harder it becomes for us to elevate our performance or acquire new skills. And herein lies a paradox. > > Experience begets automaticity. And automaticity stifles learning. How, then, do you improve on a task you already perform reasonably well? > > The answer comes to us from the work of the late cognitive psychologist K. Anders Ericsson. Ericsson, a distinguished researcher, was best known for a 1993 study of violinists that became the basis for the “10,000-hour rule”—the popular notion that mastering a skill requires focused, feedback-rich practice over a lengthy period of time. > > Drawing on decades of research into the lives of top performers, Ericsson identified the precise features of practice that contribute most to skill building and expertise. > > The most effective practice, Ericsson found, tackles perceived weaknesses, or elements of an activity that you find especially difficult to execute. > > **Another key is to break down complex tasks and isolate specific aspects, focusing on them one at a time.** > > Ideally, feedback is immediate, enabling you to make incremental adjustments and try again, thereby ensuring that the time you invest practicing translates into gradual improvement and growth. \[1\] There is an element of automaticity and familiarity when it comes to conversations. We assume because we are doing it often that we are relatively good at it and this is true for most leaders. But being good enough at it might not help us stand out or be more effective. Some of the **core elements of deliberate practice** are isolation, repetition, immediacy of performance, feedback, focus and metacognition. Having a conversational typology addresses several of these elements that Ericsson mentions in his research. ## How practicing conversations can increase leadership effectiveness Learning a typology of conversations, and practicing these [different types of conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/) can accelerate the learning curve of being an effective leader and manager. What are the different ways this type of practice helps? ### 1\. Builds awareness and metacognition around conversations The first step in getting better at anything is awareness and attention. As human beings, whatever we pay attention to gets stronger over time, and whatever we don’t, tends to atrophy. Human beings are expert learners provided we recognize something as worth learning and start paying attention to it. We cannot improve at something we are unaware of. ### 2\. Helps build a vocabulary of meaningful distinctions One of the key elements of deliberate practice is *isolation* where one picks out specific aspects of a skill to be practiced. These aspects can be thought of as building a vocabulary to increase awareness or more accurately building our meaningful distinctions about a particular subject or skill that we are trying to master. Tiger Woods has a lot more meaningful distinctions and vocabulary about a golf swing compared to an amateur. These distinctions are not only cognitive but also embodied that one develops over time with practice. Having a conversational typology gives us the vocabulary to start building meaningful distinctions about conversations and communication. ### 3\. Makes communication more tangible Rather than having a vague, amorphous sense of what conversations or communications entail, a typology gives actionable access to the domain of communication that can help increase rigor. It’s almost a cliche when we hear that as leaders one should communicate more and communicate better. How can one do that? Just increasing the volume cannot be the answer if it is not effective to begin with. Our communication needs to translate into results and the conversational typology helps do just that, by taking the vague notion of communication and converting into more actionable conversations based on what the situation requires. A typology can open up possibilities and give an increased capacity for action that was not necessarily available before. It makes the whole concept of “leadership communication” more actionable and thus more accessible. ### 4\. Helps build a common context Context is decisive and even more so when it comes to communication. Context is what builds shared understanding in conversations. Without a context two people can walk away with completely different notions of what the conversation was about and what the resulting actions and commitments were if there were any. Having a typology sets a context and common ground for all parties involved. Identifying the particular type sets the context for the conversation rather than just focussing on the content. You are zooming out in order to get a better view of what that conversation is meant to achieve. ### 5\. Enables feedback and measurement Everyone tends to have a bias for certain kinds of conversations. Some managers operate primarily in the domain of **performance* *conversations** while others might be spending more time in ***understanding* conversations**. In line with the oft quoted cliche of “what gets measured, gets done”, having a typology gives us a measurable way to track progress. Often we might not be making progress simply because we are having more of a certain type of conversation and less of the other, while the situation demands otherwise. Thus paying attention to the types of conversation that we are having gives managers an actionable way to approach communication. \[4\] The typology turns the everyday and mundane act of conversations into a form of deliberate practice with feedback built into it. ### 6\. As a framework to increase effectiveness Regarding deliberate practice, David Brooks emphasizes the importance of structuring creative activities. \[2\] > The more creative the activity is, the more structured the work routine should probably be. > > \- David Brooks in The Second Mountain This applies to a large extent to conversations. Speech and conversations are inherently more creative and open-ended and therefore harder to control than written communications. You can rewrite something before you send but you cannot retract what you have already said. Neither can you control how the other person responds. Speech is more primitive and conversations have an emergent property. Having a typology helps by giving a structure to something that is fundamentally unstructured and should be kept that way. The idea is not to prescribe a script for every conversation but that of an underlying framework that makes conversations more effective. ### 7\. Making it effortful by design While focussing on a typology in your conversations can initially make the process inherently difficult, this is also the pathway to increased performance and expertise. > Deliberate practice slows the automatizing process. As we learn a skill, the brain stores the new knowledge in the unconscious layers (think of learning to ride a bike). > > But the brain is satisfied with good enough. If you want to achieve the level of mastery, you have to learn the skill so deliberately that when the knowledge is stored down below, it is perfect. > > Some music academies teach pianists to practice their pieces so slowly that if you can recognize the tune you’re playing too fast. **Some golf academies slow down their pupils so it takes ninety seconds to finish a single swing** (try it sometime). > > \- David Brooks in The Second Mountain Deliberate practice is supposed to be effortful. ## Deliberate practice in leadership is a competitive advantage Perhaps leadership and communication not being seen as actionable can be an advantage for discerning folks. Cal Newport has talked about how doing deliberate practice in a field that does not have established training routines can be a competitive advantage. \[3\] > Here’s what struck me as important about deliberate practice: It’s not obvious. > > **Outside of fields such as chess, music, and professional athletics, which have clear competitive structures and training regimes, few participate in anything that even remotely approximates this style of skill development.** > > When I first encountered the work of Ericsson and Charness, this insight startled me. It told me that in most types of work—that is, work that doesn’t have a clear training philosophy—most people are stuck. > > This generates an exciting implication. > > Let’s assume you’re a knowledge worker, which is a field without a clear training philosophy. **If you can figure out how to integrate deliberate practice into your own life, you have the possibility of blowing past your peers in your value**, as you’ll likely be alone in your dedication to systematically getting better. > > \- Cal Newport in So Good They Can't Ignore You Leadership and communication happen to be such domains where there are no widely established training routines and are not even being thought of in terms of deliberate practice. Thus developing your ability in conversations can be a definite competitive advantage. Learning and practicing a typology of conversations is one place to start on this path towards mastery. --- 💡 Liking this article? ****Try** ****my newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form. 📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Further Reading One example of a specific type of conversation is [closure conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/). I examine them in this [article](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/). Another blindspot for leaders is delving in content and control while not leveraging the opportunity they have in using context. I explore these ideas in [Mastery of Context in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) and [The Tyranny of Content](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). Additionally, most leaders are unaware of [the hidden dimensions of language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). This is an area ripe with opportunities for improvement. ### Sources 1. Decoding Greatness by Ron Friedman. 2. The Second Mountain by David Brooks. 3. So Good They Can't Ignore You by Cal Newport. 4. The Four Conversations by Jeffrey and Laurie Ford. ### The Ladder of Inference: A Tool for Better Decisions URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:30:28.000Z *Decisions are heavily influenced by our existing mental models of the world. What makes it tricky is that most of these are hidden. We are looking at the world through colored glasses without realizing it all along. One way to uncover these hidden mental models is using *Chris Argyris' Ladder of Inference*. It's a powerful tool to increase the quality of your decision making.* In this article I cover: - [What is The Ladder of Inference](#what-is-the-ladder-of-inference) - [Steps on the ladder of inference](#steps-on-the-ladder-of-inference) - [Two recursive loops in the ladder](#two-recursive-loops-in-the-ladder) - [How the ladder of inference helps with decisions](#how-the-ladder-of-inference-helps-with-decisions) - [How leaders can use the ladder of inference](#how-leaders-can-use-the-ladder-of-inference) - [Reflective questions for better decisions based on the ladder of inference](#reflective-questions-for-better-decisions-based-on-the-ladder-of-inference) - [Video explaining the ladder of inference](#references) --- ## What is The Ladder of Inference Developed by Harvard professor Chris Argyris, an organizational learning theorist and practitioner, it's a model that shows **the stages we go through** in making meaning of our experience, reaching conclusions, and taking action. The **stages of our thinking process** are visualized as increasing steps on a ladder. It's a continuum that starts on the ground of objective and observable reality, and increases in abstraction and personal dimensions as we go higher up on the ladder. At the top, it ends with actions resulting from our conclusions. The ground is where neutral, objective reality lies whereas the higher rungs on the ladder are where our particular versions of reality full of meanings, assumptions and inferences lie. It shows how through a process of simplification, we create **simplified internal maps** of an otherwise complex external reality. ![Steps on the ladder of inference](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference-1.png) 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## Steps on the ladder of inference ### Step 0: The ground of reality This is where we find testable, verifiable data. Something that a camera can record and play back. It could be an email, a meeting, a report, a spreadsheet, what someone said or someone’s body language. But it is objective, neutral and verifiable. This is what we might call reality as it happened. It is separate from our experience, our version of reality. **Steps 1 through 5 is where I create my personal version of reality.** ### Step 1: I select data This is where simplification starts and the beginning of the simple logical story that is built from the chaos of reality. Given the complexity of reality our brains cannot pay attention to every bit of information that comes in through our senses. We pick and choose the information that stands out for us ignoring the rest. What we pick is based on a set of pre-existing filters or mental models that we have developed over time. These [filters](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) can include: - Previous beliefs and inferences from previous journeys up the ladder. - State of mind at that point in time. - Previous experiences. Our history. - The language and vocabulary we have for the given situation. - Our cultural biases and notions. - Any relevant training we've had. ### Step 2 : I add meanings From the data I select, I create personal meaning out of it even where there might not be any. We start fitting the selected data into a cogent story that makes sense to us. ### Step 3: I make assumptions Because reality by itself is neutral and does not have any meaning, we have to add assumptions in order to make sense of the meaning we are attaching to the story. This is where I am attaching my own interpretation and creating my personalized version of the story. ### Step 4: I draw conclusions Based on the meanings and assumptions, I come to conclusions. Conclusions tend to be more abstract and less open to interpretation. They are narrower in scope and easier to hold onto. They make sense to us. A logical extension of how it looks to us. ### Step 5: I adopt beliefs Cobble together enough conclusions over time and we create beliefs that are hard to change. And the conclusions and beliefs form the basis of my actions. This is where the story is fully formed and leads me to take action. ### Step 6: I take action This is the concluding step of the ladder where I take action based on my beliefs and conclusions. \[4\] ## Two recursive loops in the ladder **First recursive loop** is between my beliefs and the data I select. My inferences and beliefs make me look for information to confirm them and ignore any disconfirming data. This in turn reinforces my beliefs. This is also known as **confirmation bias** and why it's so hard to change our beliefs. Left unexamined this is how we can have two opposing well-entrenched views that do not recognize each other’s “reality”. The **second recursive loop** is between our actions and data from the resulting emerging reality. Our[**actions change the very data we are working with**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/). Different actions create different data and vice versa. For eg our actions influence the ladder of inference of the other person thus reinforcing their own recursive loops and their conclusions about us. Argyris and Schon's framework of [double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) goes further into the mechanics of these loops. ![Two recursive loops in the ladder of inference](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference---Recursive-Loops.png) ## How to use the ladder of inference for better decisions > *One critical failing of our existing decision-making processes is that they tend to be conclusion oriented. We argue for the right answer, but we have little incentive to question why or how we believe in it, nor to question our inferences and note gaps in our logic.* > > *A superior decision-making process would require that we make our data and reasoning more explicit, to us and to others.* > > *It would challenge us to understand the following:* > *How did we reach this conclusion? What data did we select? How did we make sense of it? And where did we make a big leap from concrete data to abstract inference? And how might we make our logic clearer and our conclusions richer?* > > *\-Roger Martin in Creating Great Choices \[1\]* Reflection is an indispensable part of the learning cycle and decision making. Experience on its own is not enough. Reflection is what turns experience into learning and wisdom. Part of [**developing a reflective mindset**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) is to train our minds to be more aware of our reasoning process. Just like a muscle that has not been used, most of us are not trained to use our reflective mindset. By creating awareness of our process of reaching conclusions we can start training this muscle. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ### 1\. Slowing down the process of decision making One way to train this muscle is to deliberately slow down the process of how we reach conclusions and decisions. > *Deliberate practice slows the automatizing process. \[…\]* > > *Some music academies teach pianists to practice their pieces so slowly that if you can recognize the tune you’re playing too fast. Some golf academies slow down their pupils so it takes ninety seconds to finish a single swing.* > > *\- David Brooks in Second Mountain \[2\]* Going through the steps of the ladder of inference forces us to slow down and break up the thought process that happens inside our heads in a matter of milliseconds. What might have been obvious before turns out to have several layers of assumptions. ### 2\. Developing awareness of action The model gives us **a way to reflect *on* action**; the action of our thinking. A process that's although invisible but nevertheless plays an important role in our decision making and behavior. The **change comes naturally if we observe it non-judgmentally**. As William Issacs puts it, *“The key is to simply become aware of this, to make conscious just what we are doing. Awareness is curative.” \[3\]* By giving more granularity to how we process information and our resulting actions, it forces us to take a closer look at **not just the *what* of our conclusions but also the *how***. By going “up and down” on the ladder, leaders can understand how they reach conclusions and **bring rigor to their thinking process**. It helps develop *skilled reflection* as opposed to just plain rumination. It gives a methodology to trace back the steps in how we reached a certain conclusions and potentially open up new perspective and views that we might have missed. It highlights how the ideas we think of as immutable facts, are in fact interpretations that we generate and thus more malleable. It’s a powerful tool to **track the internal processes of our thinking**. This awareness helps us become more critical thinkers and in increasing the complexity of our thinking process. > *It is impossible to begin to learn that which one thinks one already knows.* > > —Epictetus ### 3\. The ladder shows how stories are collapsed versions of reality First there is our experience. Then there is the meanings and inferences we make about this experience. Most of the time we don't notice the difference. Humans are meaning making machines. We collapse and simplify our experience into stories and narratives that make logical sense. We cannot pay attention to every detail of reality coming in through our senses. **Simplification is how our brain operates efficiently without using up precious resources**. All of us have our own personal collection of heuristics and mental models we have developed over time. The ladder of inference breaks down this process of how we go about building these stories and models. We are **constructing our own reality** all the time. And because the process is fast and so close to us, we don’t realize it. ## How leaders can use the ladder of inference ### 1\. Your position on the ladder Higher up I'm on the ladder, more removed I am from reality and more likely that it's full of assumptions. Each rung of the ladder is more abstract than the one before it and further removed from objective observable reality. It's also more private and less examined as one moves further up. Higher up on the ladder is also where most disagreements lie. **The likelihood of different interpretations increases as one goes up the ladder**. Lower down on the ladder is where we are likely to find mutual ground. One way to break an impasse is to move everyone further down the ladder. There is limited room to maneuver both literally and figuratively at the top of the ladder. Whereas at the bottom there is more room and common ground which is easier to agree and build upon. ### 2\. Private versions of reality Notice how ground zero has nothing to do with me but everything on the ladder is unique to me. Thus I am creating my own version of reality. This also explains why two persons or teams can have entirely different experiences and come to very different conclusions from the same set of “data”. Each of us is living in our own private version of reality. These can be the same or the opposite of that of others. > *“We never have sex,” Alvie Singer complains.* > *“We’re constantly having sex,” says his girlfriend.* > *“How often do you have sex?” asks their therapist.* > *“Three times a week!” they reply in unison.* > > *\- From the movie Annie Hall, cited in Difficult Conversations \[7\]* ### 3\. A framework for building relationships Understanding another persons’s unique point of view is half the game in influencing others. Humans have an innate need to be seen and heard, and the model gives an actionable framework to do just that. Often, we don't really know what the act of seeing and hearing actually means in practice. By asking questions at various points on the ladder, you build your own understanding and in the process build relationships and credibility with others. ### 4\. The role of language [Language plays a key role](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/) in all the steps. From the chaos of reality **we are more likely to notice and pick things that we already have a language for**. What I do not have a language for, I am not likely or unable to pick out. Lower up on the ladder is where we have the most opportunity for improvement and influencing change. One way to change what data we focus on, is to change our framing of the problem itself using language. [The frame](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/) forces us to look for certain parts of the data rather than others. There is less opportunity to do so the further along we are in the process. ### 5\. Speed of travel Most of the process is invisible to us and others. Only the extremes are visible: the facts of what actually happened, and my conclusions or the actions that I took based on my conclusions. And because they are invisible, most of it goes unexamined. The more experienced we are in a particular area in life, the more likely we are to travel faster on the ladder and thus jump to conclusions quickly without checking how we got there. This closes us off to new viewpoints or experiences. **What might look as efficient might actually be imprudent** and not as efficient in the long run. ### 6\. Accuracy is painful In order to build an accurate map of reality I have to proactively seek disconfirming evidence and viewpoints. This creates both discomfort and insecurity. **Accurate map building is a painful process, jumping to conclusions is not**. > *Unless one has considered alternatives, one has a closed mind.* > > *This, above all, explains why effective decision-makers deliberately disregard the second major command of the textbooks on decision-making and create dissension and disagreement, rather than consensus.* > > *Decisions of the kind the executive has to make are not made well by acclamation. They are made well only if based on the clash of conflicting views, the dialogue between different points of view, the choice between different judgments.* > > **The first rule in decision-making is that one does not make a decision unless there is disagreement.** > > *\-Peter Drucker, The Effective Executive \[8\]* ### 7\. Discerning between inferences vs facts The trouble is not that we come to conclusions or draw inferences. This is an inevitable part of being human. The trouble starts **when our inferences and conclusions become incontrovertible, uncontested facts**. When we cannot see the process of how we arrived at our conclusion, **the whole ladder collapses into one solid fact**. We end up having no differentiation between reality and our interpretation of it. > Everyone driving slower than you is an idiot and everyone driving faster than you is a maniac. > > \- George Carlin Pay attention to where on the ladder you are in a discussion. **If you are constantly staying on top of the ladder**, it might be an unwillingness to understand or fear of opposing viewpoints. We are trying to protect ourselves and our viewpoints. It might indicate an unwillingness to learn and not being willing to subject our reasoning to scrutiny and inquiry. We have to be better at[ balancing advocacy with inquiry](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/). ### 8\. Being decisive as a weakness Decisiveness and resoluteness is valued in our culture to the point where anything against the contrary is perceived as weakness. But decisiveness can also mean traveling fast up on the ladder without checking assumptions. **Resoluteness can also mean not looking at disconfirming information**. In evolving situations that are ambiguous and complex, this behavior can backfire. Leaders need to be able to take an objective look at their decision making process. > *The two biggest barriers to good decision making are your ego and your blind spots.* > > *Together, they make it difficult for you to objectively see what is true about you and your circumstances and to make the best possible decisions by getting the most out of others.* > > *If you can understand how the machine that is the human brain works, you can understand why these barriers exist and how to adjust your behavior to make yourself happier, more effective, and better at interacting with others.* > > *\- Ray Dalio in Principles \[5\]* ## Reflective questions for better decisions based on the ladder of inference Often in the fast paced world of managers and executives we operate on autopilot and do not have to check our assumptions at every step. Neither is this practical. However, more often than not, managers will find themselves in crisis situations or situations that are complex and ambiguous with no clear answers, and where resolution will require leveraging the minds of several others. This is where reflection plays a key role. Critical thinking can make or break the situation. As Henry Mintzberg puts it, **reflection is an antidote to the** [**typical paradoxes of managerial life**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/): > *It has been said of great athletes such as a Wayne Gretzky in hockey that they see the game just a bit slower than the other players, and so they are able to make that last-second maneuver.* > > *Perhaps this is also characteristic of effective managers: faced with great pressure, they can cool it, sometimes just for a moment, in order to act thoughtfully.* > > *\-Henry Mintzberg in Managing \[6\]* But slowing down on its own might not yield us the answers. What is needed is **a mind trained for skilled reflection**. Below are some critical questions designed to slow down the thinking process based on the ladder of inference. Managers and leaders should ask themselves these questions especially in a crisis, and in complex, ambiguous situations. - What aspect of testable reality leads me to my current conclusion? - What conclusion or explanation is closer to testable data? - Am I further down or further up on the ladder of inference? - How can I go further down the ladder? - Is there a more generous interpretation I might not have considered? - Can I make a lower level conclusion until I find more about this issue? - How can I test out the inferences and associated assumptions that I am making? - What are the consequences of making the wrong conclusions? - What is the story I am telling myself? - How far is my story removed from reality? This can look deceptively simple but it's not easy and takes dedicated attention over time to build a habit and muscle memory. However, it's well worth the effort and can have a **ratcheting effect on multiple aspects of your leadership**. ## Related Articles on the Ladder of Inference [Ground rules for effective meetingsHow can you run more effective meetings? One way is to study folks who are masters at running effective meetings, and get paid for it — professional facilitators. Roger Schwarz is one of the world’s leading experts on facilitation. He has a set of what he calls ground rules for![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-214.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Ground-Rules-for-Effective-Meetings.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/) [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame films and![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-213.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1-5.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) [Balancing Advocacy and InquiryMost advice on leadership communication focuses on getting better at advocacy – crafting the message, effective delivery, and so on. What leaders forget is to balance their advocacy with equal amounts of inquiry. How are the two different and why does it matter? I take a closer look at the critical![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-215.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1-5.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/advocacy-and-inquiry/) [Problem-Solving is Overrated. Problem-Setting is More Critical.Almost everyone has the term “problem-solving” featured prominently in their resumes. Conversely, barely anyone uses the term “problem-setting”. Except in complex domains like leadership, problem-setting is often more critical than problem-solving. What is problem-setting, how is it different from good old problem-solving, and why is it critical to effective leadership?![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-216.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Problem-Setting-vs-Problem-Solving-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/problem-setting-problem-solving/) [The Systems Thinking IcebergThe systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on your radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-217.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/2-1-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) [The Johari Window: A Guide for LeadersJohari Window is a 2x2 matrix that captures how we communicate based on self-knowledge and how others see us. It’s a disclosure-feedback model of awareness based on principles of feedback and learning. It can be used for increasing levels of openness, self-awareness, and self-understanding. This makes the Johari Window a particularly relevant tool for leaders and managers.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-218.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1--Johari-Window---A-guide-7.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) ## Sources 1. [Creating Great Choices](https://amzn.to/3mzRnRf?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Roger Martin, Jennifer Riel. 2. [The Second Mountain](https://amzn.to/41eyVg4?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by David Brooks. 3. [Dialogue](https://amzn.to/3UK5m3h?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by William Issacs. 4. [The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook](https://amzn.to/41r8sLU?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Senge, Art Kleiner, Charlotte Roberts. 5. [Principles](https://amzn.to/40gU0ow?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Ray Dalio. 6. [Managing](https://amzn.to/3MRjupM?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Henry Mintzberg. 7. [Difficult Conversations](https://amzn.to/3mLxaaX?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Bruce Patton, Douglas Stone, Sheila Heen. 8. [The Effective Executive](https://amzn.to/3GPfVwi?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker. ### Three Pillars and Two Contexts of Modern Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/three-pillars-and-two-contexts-of-modern-leadership/ Last updated: 2024-10-25T16:23:35.000Z *Modern leadership can be a confusing minefield of topics. At the same time anyone can become good at it by paying attention to and mastering some basics.* *What are these basics? Are there clues? Is there a signal in all the noise around leadership development?* --- ## A Dozen Favorite Problems > You have to keep a dozen of your favorite problems constantly present in your mind, although by and large they will lay in a dormant state. Every time you hear or read a new trick or a new result, test it against each of your twelve problems to see whether it helps. Every once in a while there will be a hit, and people will say, “How did he do it? He must be a genius! > > – Richard Feynman quoted in Design your Work by Tiago Forte \[1\] Both my practice and articles have one overarching goal: How can clever, conscientious, practicing managers and aspiring leaders become more effective at the art, science, and practice of leadership? Just as Feynman had 12 overarching themes he always kept on his radar, there are some primary themes that my practice is oriented around. Most of my articles address these themes in some form. Over the years, I have practiced, stumbled upon, and experienced these through my own triumphs, mistakes, and tribulations in leading people within organizations. The themes of Language, Human OS (operating system) and Self-Mastery form the core of my practice. Additionally, leaders today are operating in a VUCA environment with exponentially increasing complexity. They are also managing highly specialized technical teams or have a specialist/technical background themselves. These themes can be thought of as **lenses** through which I look at leadership and management and that informs my approach when working with teams and individuals. Let’s take a closer look at each of them. ![The Three Pillars and Two Contexts of Modern Leadership](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/05/3-Pillars-of-Modern-Leadership-model.001.png) The Three Pillars and Two Contexts of Modern Leadership ## The Three Pillars of Modern Leadership Your leadership sits at the intersection of the mastery of three domains: language, the human os, and the self. ### 1\. Mastery of the human OS Understanding the human OS (operating system) is essential for leadership both in leading others and yourself. In our modern, fast-paced world of work, we as leaders tend to forget that both our teams and ourselves are human *beings* and **not human *doings* or resource**s. **We are homo-sapiens not homo-economicus.** > Too many executives treat their organizations as rational, rule-governed systems, perpetuating the illusion of the economic man as an optimizing machine of pleasures and pains, while ignoring the multifarious peculiarities that come with being human. > > – Manfred Kets de Vries in CEO Whisperer \[2\] This is obvious and yet easy to forget. It's also the very thing that can add the highest leverage and impact in our leadership. Looking back at our own careers, we might notice that some of the most challenging and intractable problems could invariably be linked to ineffective leadership when working with people and teams or an inability to cope with the rising complexities of getting results through others. > The main challenge of leaders of organizations is talent and culture management—having an understanding of what makes people “tick” and giving them the opportunities to be the best that they can be. It will make you more effective in deciphering what motivates others. This approach is what differentiates run-of-the-mill from high-performing organizations. > > – Manfred Kets de Vries in CEO Whisperer \[2\] We are all unique and at the same time as humans we are all similar, we operate with the same OS . There are basic attributes of the human OS that we as leaders need to be intimate with. We can ignore that at our own peril. **As you go higher up the organizational ladder, two things become evident:** 1. First is the nature of challenges and problems that you tackle. They tend to be **more complex and less technical** in nature. Understanding the human OS is directly tied to working in complex environments where there are no straightforward, pre-existing technical solutions. 2. Second, tied to the first, is that our **ability to get things done through and with people** gets increasingly critical as we go higher up in the organization. Getting better at skills in the human domain becomes more important with increasing responsibilities and leadership profile. Here’s how Henry Mintzberg puts it, > \[M\]anagers get things done largely through other people—those in the unit who formally report to them as well as others around it who do not. \[…\] But especially in large organizations and those concerned with “knowledge work,” the manager has to help bring out the best in other people, so that they can know better, decide better, and act better. > > – Henry Mintzberg in Managing \[3\] #### What is the Human OS? Psychology pervades business literature and is often not as helpful. What is more helpful is studying how human beings actually are. What is their *being*? In other words, the **ontology** of human beings. This is what is common to all of us just by the sheer fact that we exist. To use a computer term, it is how our operating system (OS) is designed. We are also different from other living creatures because we have language, we have consciousness, and we simultaneously live in the past, present and future. We are free to choose and create our own meanings. But these superpowers also come packaged with a whole host of challenges. We live in **a world of meaning and purpose that is different from the world of machines.** Trying to replicate and expecting the same standards of the machine domain to the human domain is an exercise in futility. This is even more important in [knowledge work](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/) where human creativity and ingenuity are paramount to success. Nothing I am stating is new but most organizations are designed around ignoring these basics. **Many of the prevailing HR paradigms are over 100 years old dating back to the early 20th century.** Even the ones that do claim to understand the human OS, do so at a superficial level without a deep understanding how human beings operate. Many of them bring **the same ethos of machine like predictability and performance in their efforts to apply it to the human domain.** > My argument for working with the human OS is not a normative one, ie whether it is good or bad. It is directly from the perspective of performance and results. The more we work with our OS the better we are able to perform. The inverse is equally true. **Articles I have written on the human OS and leadership:** - In[ Leaders have to Master the Basics of the Human Domain](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/), I examine why leaders just cannot afford to ignore the human domain. In [Hidden Drivers of Human Performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) I do a deep dive into the key drivers in the human domain and how leaders miss it most of the time - Human time is different from mechanical, clock time. This fact often gets missed. I explore some of the core ideas in [Leadership Requires Understanding Time Differently](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/), [Pulled by the Future vs Pushed by the Past](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/), and [Authentic Leadership and Time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/). - Humans are wired to learn but we have gone numb to this basic fact. I use a couple of classics to examine this idea in Leveraging Learning as a Strategy and [Learning How to Learn](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/). ### 2\. Mastery of language Language is the all pervasive and yet paradoxically hidden medium of leadership One prevailing zeitgeist of our times is an overload of information. Another prevailing but unexamined assumption is that the more information or knowledge you have the more effective you can be. But is this really true? If information or knowledge is all we needed, all of us should have been geniuses by now as everything we could possibly need to know is available at the other end of a determined google search. Instead of accumulating more knowledge, the question is **how do we *access* more effectiveness in our leadership?** One way is through language. On first glance there is no obvious link between language and leadership. Language is taken for granted most of the time, or gets a cursory treatment rather than as one of the central pieces of leadership. For example, some experts have written about conversations while others have focussed on being effective at speeches and so on. But upon closer examination, **language is the very medium of leadership**. It is through language that managers and leaders make things happen. Their doing happens in language. The doing for engineers might be through designs, for architects it might be through blueprints, and for surgeons it might be through surgeries. For leaders and managers their primary medium of action is language. Whether it is through conversations, presentations, speeches, meetings, performance appraisals, persuasion, phone calls or even how one listens, the work of a leader or manager is primarily done through language. A non-psychological, accessible way to leadership and managerial effectiveness is through the mastery of language. It is based on how we already are, our being**(ontology), rather than delving into our psychology**. As ubiquitous and obvious language is, it is hidden in plain sight and a vastly underutilized leadership tool. Most leaders are either unaware of its power or do not know how to leverage it. > “Strategic Listening” is arguably Core Competence/Competitive Advantage #1 for organizations of all flavors and sizes. I am deadly serious. > > What do we— leaders— do? Talk. (Present.) Listen. (Question/ Interview.) > > – Tom Peters \[4\] **Mastering the domain of conversations is one way to leverage language.** Our effectiveness as leaders is directly tied to the effectiveness of our conversations. An organization is fundamentally a network of conversations and commitments that are built in language. Effective leaders are coaches who lead and coach by leveraging language and being masters of the conversational domain \[2\]\[4\] > Communicating is not simply what managers spend a great deal of time doing but the medium through which managerial work is constituted. > > **–** Henry Mintzberg in Managing \[3\] > Traditional corporate communication must give way to a process that is more dynamic and more sophisticated. Most important, that process must be CONVERSATIONAL. > > – Boris Groysberg & Michael Slind in Harvard Business Review \[5\] **Articles I have written on language and leadership:** - Language continues to be misunderstood or ignore in the context of leadership. I do a deep dive into the hidden role of language in [Leadership Communication- The Hidden Role of Language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). - Effective leadership can start by being effective at the core unit of conversations. I examine this idea in [Effective Leadership as Effective Conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/). - Isolating certain kinds of conversations and employing deliberate practice can be very efective. I explore these ideas in [Deliberate Practice and Leadership Effectiveness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). One such specific kind of conversation is conversations for closure. I do a deep dive into them in [Communicating Effectively using Closure Conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/). - Controlling the context through language is a big leadership lever that often goes under utilized. I do a deep dive into this idea in [Mastery of Context in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). ### 3\. Mastery of the self Unlike other professions, the primary tool of leadership is the leader herself. This is different from that of engineering or medicine where you have a well-defined set of available tools & procedures. This is why continuous learning and development while cliched is more important in leadership than perhaps any other profession. Effective leaders lead themselves first. Leaders, if they want to stay ahead in the game, have to take responsibility for their own self-development. > To create best places to work, it is important that members of organizational teams are familiar with the mystery that is themselves. Only by studying human motivation from the inside will they be able to truly understand what is happening on the outside. > > – Manfred Kets de Vries in CEO Whisperer \[2\] As important as continued development of leaders is, they cannot rely on their organizations or on pure accident for that. Self-development is as much a core skill as any other. It is **a meta-skill that underlies others.** > Self-development of the effective executive is central to the development of the organization. > > Development is always self-development. Nothing could be more absurd than for the enterprise to assume responsibility for the development of a person. The responsibility rests with individuals, their abilities, their efforts. > > – Peter Drucker \[7\] \[8\] Development cannot be relegated to an MBA program or a one-off course either. It is a never-ending, incremental process. As a practicing manager myself for over 12 years and deciding not to pursue an MBA, my general take is that practicing managers do not need to do an MBA to lead effectively. While they ostensibly purport to teach leadership, MBA programs primarily prepare their students to run businesses or at least understand businesses. MBA programs are businesses in and of themselves and the extent to which they actually create leaders is questionable. Here’s Henry Mintzberg in *Managers not MBAs* : > Hill concludes from her own research that “the education many business schools provide does little to prepare managers for their day-to-day realities”. Asked for one improvement in the MBA, the respondents called for more teaching of the “soft skills.” They always do. These calls for soft skills seem well founded. After all, managing is mostly about the soft stuff—working with people, doing deals, processing vague information, and so forth. > > – Henry Mintzberg in Managers, not MBAs \[6\] Often our unwillingness to learn also stems from whether we know where and what to look for. Leadership can be a very hazy term with vague notions that are not actionable. It can also take on a normative, good vs bad tone. What we do not have awareness or language for, it is almost impossible to get better at. But the more we increase our awareness and vocabulary in a given field, the more we are likely to naturally get better at it over time. One of my aims with my articles and coaching is to increase this awareness and vocabulary by exposing you to frameworks and models that can help orient you in the right direction. This is the first step towards mastery. ### My articles on self-mastery and leadership: - [Self-Development in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) - [Can we eliminate self-doubt? Can it be a positive indicator instead?](Can we Eliminate Self-Doubt? Should we Even Bother?) - [Authentic Leadership and Time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/) - [Pulled by the Future vs Pushed by the Past](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/) - [Leadership Identity Development as Choices and Actions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/) - [Nine Practices of the Effective Executive](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/) - [Greatness as Mastering the Mundane](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) - [How Choice can Turbocharge Goal Setting and Performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/) - [Two Questions for a Midlife Career Change](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/) - [Changing your Mindset by Taking Action](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/) - [How Technology Dumbs you Down](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technology-dumbs-you-down/) - [The Set of Our Sail in Work and Life](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/the-set-of-our-sail-in-work-and-life/) - [The Importance of Reflection in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) ## The Two Contexts of Modern Leadership There are two overarching contexts in modern leadership that do not get enough attention : increasing complexity and managing knowledge work. ### 1\. Increasing complexity and information overload We live and work in environments of increasing complexity where complex-adaptive problems cannot be solved with pre-existing technical approaches or approaches that worked in more predictable cause and effect environments. Leadership is not formulaic; it is as much art as science because being human is not formulaic. We are non-deterministic, open-ended systems and any method assuming otherwise is doomed to fail. How do we stay effective and nimble in an environment of increasing complexity and information overload? How do we become better thinkers and build our muscle of thinking and reasoning in an environment of incomplete or competing/contradicting information? > \[A\]s managers advance to senior positions, they “deal increasingly with predicaments, not problems.” These “require interpretative thinking . . . \[because of\] paradoxical courses and consequences. Alas, predicaments cannot be handled smoothly. > > – Henry Mintzberg in Managing \[3\] Complex environments are also where simple, straight forward cause and effect based tools and techniques tend to stop working. This leaves us wondering as to what recourse we have in terms of learning. > The tools and techniques… are second order abstractions. \[T\]hey always have to be particularized in specific situations which are never exactly the same as other situations, and this means ambiguity, uncertainty and unpredictability in how the tools and techniques are used. The tools and techniques in practice do not, therefore, take the clear-cut simplicity of their presentation. > > – Ralph Stacey in Tools & Techniques of Management and Leadership \[9\] ### **2\. Knowledge Work- Technical leaders/teams have a distinct set of challenges** Leaders and managers who rose through the ranks on the strength of their technical prowess in their specialization, whether in finance, sales or engineering, have their own set of unique challenges that might not be obvious. Additionally, leading teams that are themselves technical has its own set of challenges. Are there helpful frameworks that underlie these unique situations? One classic example is that of leaders with STEM backgrounds who struggle with switching from technical to [managerial roles ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mintzberg-managerial-roles/)because of the accompanying lack of depth and definition that is characteristic in managing. > It has been said that an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until finally he or she knows everything about nothing. The manager’s problem is the opposite: knowing less and less about more and more until finally he or she knows nothing about everything. > > – Henry Mintzberg in Managing \[6\] One particular challenge that is common in people with specialist backgrounds whether in engineering, technology or finance, is the inability to operate in the grey because managerial work sometimes can entirely be in the grey with no obvious start and finish lines. > The engineer completes the design of a bridge on a particular day; the lawyer wins or loses a case at some moment in time. The manager, in contrast, must always keep going, never sure when success is truly assured or that things might come crashing down . As a result, managing is a job with a perpetual preoccupation: the manager can never be free to forget the work, never has the pleasure of knowing, even temporarily, that there is nothing left to do > > – Henry Mintzberg in Managing \[6\] ### My articles on complexity and knowledge work: - [Challenges of Experts Transitioning into Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/) - [Setting High Standards in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) - [Linear Causality vs Circular Causality in Decision Making](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) - [Balancing long term focus with short term actions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/) - [Inherent Paradoxes in Management](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) - [Types of Contradictions in Organizations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/) - [Learning How to Learn](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/) - [The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the Mundane](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) - [Strategy of Small Wins and Small Bets](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/small-wins-small-bets/) - [Strategy as Tetris not Chess](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategy-as-tetris-not-chess/) - [Are managers different from leaders?](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/differences-leaders-managers/) ## Upstream principles & frameworks vs downstream techniques & tactics I try to stay away from techniques and formulae as much as possible especially when it comes to people and leadership. Besides, it will be easy for you to find posts of that kind- 5 ways to do this, 7 ways to do that. We humans have a remarkable ability to pick up BS and any of us who has tried techniques on people only to find later that it does not work anymore knows this very well. Unless we are working with underlying principles and frameworks, the effects tend to be short-lived and superficial. > Leadership is as much an art and practice as science, if it is even one. It is an emergent phenomenon very much tied to the particular and thus cannot be formulaic. Any attempt to make it formulaic needs to be questioned. At the same time, there are frameworks lying further upstream that underlie everything like the basics of the human OS and language which are helpful to understand. You can then **devise your own techniques and tactics** based on what the particular situation dictates instead of trying to fit a generic technique onto your situation. Fundamental principles and frameworks are more powerful, reliable, and long-lasting than techniques. They help you understand the lay of the land and navigate the terrain. > Frameworks and principles can be likened to a compass while prescriptive techniques and tactics can be likened to maps. For unknown, unexplored, or changing terrains, a compass tends to work better than inaccurate or incomplete maps. There is also the theme of “**somebody should have told us**”. These are frameworks and practices that when I first came across irritated me as much as they were eye-opening and effective. We were either not taught or were completely unaware of their existence because of the amount of noise, selection bias, and the lack of time that surrounds us. ## Key Questions Some of the questions that I try to address are, - Are there proven learning methods that can help us master leadership and ensure we adapt successfully to never-ending change and complexity? - How do we build ourselves to handle higher levels of complexity and uncertainty? - How do we go about developing the “Managerial Mind” and “Managerial Wisdom”? - How do we build our personal leadership philosophy and practice? - What does “leading yourself” mean and how do you go about it? - How can you use language to “lead yourself” and develop yourself? --- 💡 Liked this article? You will dig ***The Managerial Mind on Mondays** newsletter.It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ## Footnotes/References 1. *Richard Feynman as quoted in Design your Work by Tiago Forte.* 2. *The CEO Whisperer by Manfred Kets de Vries.* 3. *Managing by Henry Mintzberg.* 4. *Tom Peters in* [*Presentation Excellence*](https://tompeters.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/AppendixFive%5FPresentationExcellence.pdf?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 5. [*Leadership is a Conversation*](https://hbr.org/2012/06/leadership-is-a-conversation?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Boris Groysberg & Michael Slind.* 6. *Managers, Not MBAs by Henry Mintzberg.* 7. *The Effective Executive by Peter Drucker.* 8. *The Practice of Management by Peter Drucker.* 9. *Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management by Ralph Stacey.* ### Leaders have to Master Basics of the Human OS URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:56:05.000Z *The recent mass exodus of employees even from well-paid professional jobs has come as a wake-up call to the corporate world in the race to retain talent. But this should not come as a surprise to anyone.* *Leadership and management happen in the human domain. But most organizational systems are still based in 100 year old mechanical paradigms. Managers cannot afford to ignore the basics of the human OS that drive performance and retention.* --- > The most exciting [breakthroughs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/) of the twenty-first century will not occur because of technology, but because of an expanding concept of what it means to be human. > > *– John Naisbitt* \[1\] ## Current technical-rational paradigm ignores how human beings are We are in the third decade of the twenty first century and yet many of the practices in management derive from models dating back to pre World War II. For almost a 100 years the corporate world has operated under a technical-rational paradigm which gained momentum during the early twentieth century advent of machines and then infiltrated into all areas of work and life including the human domain. > In time, the new science method was applied to the management of human behavior and became the authoritative way of determining practice in the human realm. > > *\-Donald Polkinghorne* in Practice and the Human Sciences \[2\] This techno-rational orientation essentially ignores the fact that human beings are different from the world of machines and matter, and **expects the same kind of predictability** from them. It's common amongst managers to assume or at least behave with the assumption that organizations and teams exist in a mechanical, newtonian cause-effect world. Any experienced leader knows from hard-earned experience that **it's never that straightforward or predictable** when working with people and organizations. James Flaherty likens this to **a mechanic operating on a car :** > \[Leaders\] live in a very different world than other people who are working on improving situations. > > For example, an auto mechanic who works on Volvos really does not have to be concerned with the individuality of a car that shows up at his garage. Knowing that it will be a 1993 850 Turbo with 37,000 miles is all he really needs to know. Of course, **working with human beings is much different**. > > Should \[leaders\] consider their \[people\] to be biocomputers that they need to program, or are they **stimulus response machines that merely need the correct stimulus**? Or are they products of historical, political, and economic courses? > > – James Flaherty in Coaching \[3\] The stance is always that of “being separate from” and “doing something to”. > Practical action in the human realm requires working with others who are themselves actors with their own goals and intentions. > > **Practice in the human realm cannot be regarded as simply the implementation of techniques or the administration of a program to passive entities who submit to the \[leader’s\] efforts.** > > Its goals are accomplished, not by doing something to people, but by assisting them to reach their own practical goals. > > *\-Donald Polkinghorne*in Practice and the Human Sciences \[2\] The approach is to “implement this technique/that strategy”. In other words “doing something to” instead of the alternative of “working with” as in working with a system to see what emerges. Managers want to boil it down to a technique that is repeatable and has **predictable results with machine-like efficiency**. Of course this ends up being a frustrating endeavor because the underlying expectation is for the human domain to work and react predictably in the same way as material domains, which doesn't always pan out as planned. At least not in the long-term. > The ideology of leadership and management that underpins large-scale human organizations today is as limiting to organizational success as the ideology of **feudalism** was limiting to economic success in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. > > *– Gary Hamel* \[4\] ## Leadership and management are in the human domain, not of matter and machines > *Imagine how hard physics would be if particles could think.* > > \- Murray Gell-Mann So what's this *different world* of leadership that Flaherty is talking about? Human beings simultaneously live in the physical, organic, and human domains. **Language and meaning are paramount in the human domain** making us radically different from not just matter and machines but also other living creatures. Leadership thus lives in [the domain of human meaning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) and consists of *languaged interactions* through which this meaning is accessed, enabled, and modified. \[2\] But it's easy to forget this. Savio Kwan, former President and COO of Alibaba, put it this way: > As business leaders we have an innate feeling that we have to have our team follow us and through them we achieve extraordinary results together. > > Unfortunately our **business training and education all tend to focus on the tangible** – results, KPIs, budgets and measurements, and through time these turn the focus upside down and our **people somehow become means to an end** rather than ends themselves and we become trapped in inhumane work environments over and over again. > > – Savio Kwan, former President and COO of Alibaba \[5\] Perhaps inhumane is going to one extreme, but research has extensively shown that managerial soft-skills have a direct influence on the performance of their organizations . Working against the human OS instead of leveraging it doesn't bode well for peak performance and results that directly affect the bottomline. > The **difference between efficiency and effectiveness** is as important in this realm as it is in any other, and it is a bad bargain to gain the first at the expense of the second. > > It means …not forgetting that people bring their humanity to work with them every single day, and that until we find a way to engage the emotional life of the workplace we will not succeed in meeting our most important goals. > > It means recognizing that **hard-and-fast divisions between the public and the private**, between “the work realm” and “the personal,” are naive and unproductive > > *– Robert Kegan & Lisa Laskow Lahey* in Immunity to Change \[6\] The challenge is that organizations try to impose rules from the physical domain of matter and machines assuming that the same tactics would work in the domain of human beings. But **humans operate in a different domain, the domain of meaning and language**. ## Most complex challenges that leaders face involve the human OS Richard Kilburg while writing about the complexity that leaders face every day emphasized the role of the human domain in adding to that complexity. > I have come to believe that leaders and management teams function as **human shock absorbers** for organizations. Coping with internal and external problems forms the foundation of managerial work, and these problems almost always consist of some form of human conflict. > > Adding the internal dynamics and personal histories of everyone involved, the complexity and difficulty of managerial work should cease to surprise anyone. > > *– Richard Kilburg in Executive Wisdom* \[7\] Most of the challenges with leading people and organizations, beyond the more straight-forward and well-defined technical issues, tend to be in the human domain. Thus, leaders cannot afford to be out of alignment or unaware of the basics of the human OS . ## Leaders have direct access to the human OS While human beings are not mechanical and predictable, there certainly are aspects of our existence common to all of us. Managers have to be both aware of and competent in leveraging these aspects in both their teams and themselves. The good news is that leaders have direct access to this domain because they go through those exact same challenges and use the same “operating system”. Leaders know this instinctively if they are patient and quiet enough inside their own heads. The constraints and possibilities of the human OS apply equally to leaders as much as it applies to organizations and teams. > Superb leadership begins with understanding the being aspect of human being. What it is to be a leader is inextricably linked to what it is to be human. > > You … have direct access to what it is to be human. It’s the only entity to which you have direct access. And through accessing what it is to be human-and who you really are—you can access what it is to be a leader. > > *– Wiley Souba* in The Phenomenology of Leadership \[8\] Another pleasant side effect is that once you understand and become competent in these human dimensions, your effectiveness as a leader increases not just at work but in your personal life as well. ## Understanding the human OS underlies leadership and is directly tied to performance Over the past couple of decades there is a mounting evidence of research linking soft skills with leadership effectiveness and organizational performance. Soft skills are the most sought after but also one of the most difficult ones to obtain. \[9\] Mastering the basics of the human OS is an opportunity for improvement for most leaders. By being extremely focussed on delivering results and still operating in the technical-rational paradigm they end up ignoring the basics of the human OS and inadvertently hurting performance and results. Alan Hedman puts it this way: > This so-called soft stuff (empathy, trust, listening, and communication skills) has consistently been shown to produce gains, innovations, and accomplishments by individuals, teams, and organizations. > > Its absence is frequently the cause of organizational mediocrity and even disintegration. If you think about it, most of the embarrassing gaffes described in Dilbert cartoons are directly related to problems of empathy, trust,[ authenticity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/), genuineness, and communication. > > *– Alan Hedman in Psychology of Executive Coaching* \[10\] So what are these [aspects of the human OS](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) that leaders need to master and how do you go about accessing them? Why is it that [we continue to ignore them](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/)? ## A good result Below is one of many examples of how organizations and people flourish when leadership understands the basics of the human OS and lets people be human beings. While not applicable to all setups it highlights the enormous ground to be gained by moving from a technical-rational stance to a more human-centered one. > By dispensing with control, with management, \[Perutz\] was purposefully placing the emphasis on the individual scientist to perform according to his own or her own passion and ambition. He was treating people as individuals with their own personal agency. > > The lab was successful not because attention was focused on its performance, but because everything revolved around the individual and the conditions that were most conducive to their practice – their specialism and natural desire to develop mastery of their subject. Perutz did not perceive his colleagues as human resources. They were persons, who would surely flourish if treated as persons. > > – *Reynolds, Houlder, Goddard & Lewis* \[11\] Leaders have to ask : **what model of human beings are we assuming to be working with**? Is it one of humans as machines aka human doings/resources, or is it one of humans as beings aka human beings/homo sapiens? --- 💡 Liked this article?You will dig ***The Managerial Mind on Mondays** newsletter. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ## Footnotes & References 1. *John Naisbitt as quoted in Reinventing Organizations by Frederic Laloux.* 2. *Practice and the Human Sciences by Donald Polkinghorne.* 3. *Coaching by James Flaherty.* 4. *Gary Hamel as quoted in* [*Reinventing Organizations*](https://amzn.to/3KLY09S?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Frederic Laloux.* 5. *Savio Kwan as quoted in What Philosophy can Teach You About Being a Better Leader by Alison Reynolds, Dominic Houlder, Jules Goddard & David Lewis.* 6. *Immunity to Change by Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey.* 7. *Executive Wisdom by Richard Kilburg.* 8. [*The Phenomenology of Leadership*](https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2014.34008?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Wiley Souba.* 9. [*Self-awareness and leadership*](https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.11.001?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Arthur Rubens, Gerald Schoenfeld, Bryan Schaffer, Joseph Leah.* 10. *Alan Hedman in The Psychology of Executive Coaching by Bruce Peltier.* 11. *What Philosophy can Teach You About Being a Better Leader by Alison Reynolds, Dominic Houlder, Jules Goddard & David Lewis.* ### A Framework for Year End Reviews URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/year-end-review-framework/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:56:20.000Z *Doing regular reviews at midyear or yearend with ourselves are a good exercise. Frameworks can help us orient and ask better questions during these reviews. Here I focus on one that emphasizes qualities rather than outcomes.* --- ## Seeking clarity Mid career can be an especially fruitful period where you are experiencing the heights of your abilities and harvesting the fruits of your labor. It can also be disorienting if you suddenly find yourself realizing what you set out to do was not really what you wanted. But often it is never that well defined. It is very much in the gray. There is an insidious element to the malaise that creeps up over time. A high-performer suddenly finds herself getting multiple mediocre performance ratings in a row or finds that suddenly he is not motivated by the typical corporate goals and incentives system. Just as our cars need regular maintenance, a good inspection under the hood can be equally clarifying for us. A year end review is a good time to reappraise goals and where we are heading. ## Qualities rather than Outcomes While outcome goals can help motivate us, it is also equally useful to understand the quality that we are trying to cultivate in ourselves. **What is the underlying value that we are trying to pursue in each of our outcome goals**? Frameworks can help orient our goals and annual reviews in the right direction and open up new insights.But often there are one too many. Some are too simplistic while others are unnecessarily complicated. This particular one below is a simple but comprehensive one. The list is short but it has enough depth that prompts meaningful questions. Daniel Goleman cites it in another context, but it serves equally well for our purposes of midyear or year-end reviews. > *University of Wisconsin psychologist … Carol Ryff, drawing on Aristotle among many other thinkers, posits a model of well-being with six arms:* > > **Self-acceptance*, being positive about yourself, acknowledging both your best and not-so-good qualities, and feeling fine about being just as you are. This takes a nonjudgmental self-awareness.* > > **Personal growth*, the sense you continue to change and develop toward your full potential—getting better as time goes on—adopting new ways of seeing or being and making the most of your talents.* > > **Autonomy*, independence in thought and deed, freedom from social pressure, and using your own* [*standards to measure yourself*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/)*.* > > **Mastery*, feeling competent to handle life’s complexities, seizing opportunities as they come your way, and creating situations that suit your needs and values.* > > **Satisfying relationships*, with warmth, empathy, and trust, along with mutual concern for each other and a healthy give-and-take.* > > **Life purpose*, goals and beliefs that give you a sense of meaning and direction. Some philosophers argue that true happiness comes as a by-product of meaning and purpose in life.* > > *Ryff sees these qualities as a modern version of eudaimonia—Aristotle’s “highest of all human good,” the realization of your unique potential.* > > – Carol Ryff as cited in [The Science of Meditation](https://amzn.to/3OfGQU0?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Daniel Goleman, Richard Davidson ## Holistic rather than siloed One common mistake in goal-setting is to look at areas of our life in isolation. For eg I might have certain goals at work and then separate goals for my relationship. There is nothing wrong with this and it works for the most part. But we also need to look at underlying frameworks. What this model forces you to do it to look at our lives as a whole rather than in disconnected pieces. Notice how all the categories are equally applicable regardless of what area of life and work you are looking at. They are equally applicable to getting the next promotion, winning the next game of soccer in the local league, outlining [OKRs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/john-doerr-okr-hygiene/) at work, or planning next year’s vacation plans with your spouse. ## Rebalancing our portfolio This model is consistent with other well-researched theories and at the same time balanced. It covers a decent amount of ground without leaving out any major pieces. When you sit down for your year end review or setting goals, check against this list to see where you might need some adjustment. For high-achieving managers and leaders, it is easy to lose perspective when we are narrowly focussed. Zooming out a little can help. This is what Ron Heifetz calls *rebalancing your portfolio*. Which of the above aspects need some rebalancing? Are the particular challenges we are facing connected with one of these areas? ### Further Reading For an exhaustive deep dive into various aspect of setting goals, check out [Effective Goal Setting Using 14 Different Dimensions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) and [How Choice can Turbocharge Goal Setting and Performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/). Other posts where I explore career conundrums include [Good Careers Gone Bad - Subtle but Lethal Mistakes in Mid Career](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/) and [Two Questions when Making a Career Change](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/). --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### Leadership Communication- The Hidden Role of Language URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/ Last updated: 2025-08-21T14:32:29.000Z *Language, because of its ubiquity and obviousness, does not get much attention from leaders and organizations as an area for improvement. But this is a missed opportunity.* *Even when they do focus on communication, courses and training programs take a simplistic view far removed from the realities and complexities of organizations. In this article, we take a deep dive into the hidden role of language in effective leadership communication.* --- ## Leadership happens in language Leadership happens in the social and human domain and language underlies both of these domains. Ignoring language and communication and assuming it as a given is a missed opportunity for leaders. While most of us can get through our day without having to pay attention to these aspects, as leaders rise higher in their organizations, the numbers of constraints, coupled with the high levels of uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, increases. This is where understanding language in its several dimensions can be a game-changer for leaders seeking to increase their effectiveness. > Our research in this area and our applied work in the area of leadership development have led us to understand the phenomenon as a process of social influence that is **very much informed by and shaped by communication.** > > The process involves both verbal and nonverbal communication and is defined by followers as much as by leaders. > > We believe that there is also **a need to advance a more expansive view of communication**, one that represents communication as a symbolic process that **shapes the human experience.** > > – Brent Rubens & Ralph Gigliotti \[1\] I am not a philosophy or language major, but as I understood more about the pervasiveness and hidden dimensions of language, I was surprised how most schools and courses do not talk about or emphasize it’s potential applications in leadership. Even when they do, these aspects are taken for granted and not sufficiently illuminated. Below are ten different “orientations” to language and leadership communication that can radically change your approach to organizations and people, and increase your effectiveness in working with them. By orientation I mean **an approach to, or a framework of language.** Your approach to navigating earth would be different if you had a framework of a flat earth vs that of a round earth. This goes back to Thomas Kuhn’s notion of paradigms and paradigm shifts. \[14\] Some of these will not be intuitive and will take some getting used to. I suggest approaching it as “trying something on” when you are at a store. Try and see “whether it fits” with your own reality and experience. As you understand and see more for yourself, you will start noticing the nuances. ## 1\. The conduit model orientation > The single biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place. > > \- George Bernard Shaw The traditional way of looking at language and communication is that of a tool or series of symbols to represent reality. This is the standard default orientation for all of us and this is how we intuitively look at language and communication- as a way to describe a pre-existing, pre-determined reality and as a way to convey information. Even the jargon that we use on a daily basis reflects this bias. For example we use the terms “convey” and “communication channels” as if information is like water that needs to be transported. The underlying model in this orientation is that of the radio transmitter and receiver model also known as the sender-message-receiver model put forth by Shannon and Weaver in 1949\. \[2\] You have a certain set of information, I have my own, and we use communication as a conduit to exchange this information. If both the sender and receiver are in good working order and the “fidelity of the data” is good we have good communication. Unfortunately this is an oversimplification when it comes to human communications. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/04/Shannon-Weaver_model.png) This orientation drives the bulk of the “communication improvement” efforts where we try to perfect the “sender” of the information by working on the sender’s communication skills, delivery and so forth. ## 2\. The interpretation/meaning model orientation Unlike the receiver in the radio-transmitter model, the receiver in this case is another human being. And human beings are self-enclosed, meaning-making machines themselves. This means we cannot “transmit” meaning to each other. We have to make our own meaning. We interpret whatever is being said through our [own set of filters](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) made up of stories, meanings, and mental models that we have acquired over time. This is why, as all managers know, the same set of statements for a given situation can be interpreted very differently based on who is[ listening](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dark-side-active-listening/) on the other end. > \[I\]t is apparent that in some situations, the **communication “luggage”** of one individual does not necessarily align all that well with the expectations, attributes, outlooks, states, and orientations of others with whom they are engaging. > > Generally speaking, **the greater the extent of mismatch, the less the likelihood that message sent will equal message received.** > > – Brent Rubens & Ralph Gigliotti \[1\] This is where the “interpretation model” of listening comes in. The receiver is a human being who is “interpreting” the “information” that is being transmitted. While this is obvious to a large extent, most of the time when we communicate as leaders and managers, we tend to ignore or forget this basic fact. The interpretation model is also another reason why we cannot expect our message to be understood, let alone embraced, from one great speech or presentation. If it is behavior change or culture change that we are seeking, it has to happen over several exchanges and through several modes and methods. > A systems approach, along with the more recent work in CCO(communicative constitutive organizations), underscores the limitations of the linear meaning-transmission or information-exchange views of communication and reminds us that **single messages and single message-sending events seldom yield momentous message reception outcomes.** > > Rather, communication and social influence are parts of an ongoing process through which messages wash over individuals—somewhat analogous to waves continually washing upon the shore. > > While the influence of any single wave is likely to be limited, over time, these messages shape the sensibilities and responses of receivers, much as waves shape a shore- line. > > The exceptions to this subtle process are those rare, life-changing messages that can have a tsunami-like impact on message reception. > > – Brent Rubens & Ralph Gigliotti \[1\] ## 3\. Language is pervasive yet hidden Like fish in water, we are surrounded by it but don’t pay attention to it. We see through the lens of language unaware of it’s presence. As Martin Heidegger put it, language uses us rather than us using language. \[9\] > Language is not only content; it is also context and a way to recontextualize content. > > **We do not just report and describe with language; we also create with it.** And what we create in language “uses us” in that it provides a point of view (a context) within which we “know” reality and orient our actions. > > – David Boje, Cliff Oswick, Jeffery Ford \[10\] We cannot describe something or discuss something without having the language for it. Even for terms we do not have language for, we still have to express it using language. Thus as leaders, it is worth paying attention to the language we use that creates our reality. Reality is more malleable than it appears at first, especially in social systems like leadership and organizations. This is the core difference that Korsybski pointed out between “engineering systems” and “social systems” . He coined the famous distinction of “the map is not the territory”. \[15\] The map is but one description or one attempt at representation of the territory but it can never be the same as the territory. There is a lot more to the territory than what’s depicted on the map. It’s the same for language. Whatever descriptions and explanations we have for a given situation is but one attempt at it. Once leaders understand this, it opens up a new set of opportunities for seeing situations differently; situations that earlier looked immutable and unchangeable. ## 4\. Reality is created through language Another hidden aspect of language is that we create our own reality through language. Reality that is constructed by us and constructed in language. For any given situation, there are multiple possible interpretations of it. Your understanding of yourself and your myriad situations and projects lives in language. This includes your understanding of your teams, organizations, customers, stakeholders, and so on. > Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. > > In our endeavor to understand reality, we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. > > He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious, he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he will never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. > > He will never be able to compare his pictures with the real mechanism, and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. > > – Albert Einstein & Leopold Infeld in The Evolution of Physics \[3\] How we understand and portray a given situation determines to a large extent how our teams perceive it. This is true especially in complex situations where there is no one clear solution or preconceived answers. ## 5\. The action and commitment orientation This is the language-action philosophy of JL Austin and John Searle, where we create action through language instead of just representing and describing something. \[7\] \[8\] \[13\] When you ask someone out for lunch you create something in your future that did not exist before and you create it through the use of language. It is a specific usage of language called *Requests*. And when the person receiving the request accepted your offer they were using a specific type of language called *Promises*. They were making a *Promise* to you by accepting your *Offer*. We do this everyday without even realizing it. The trick is to learn to leverage these aspects of language to [design a future](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/) that we want to build rather than by accident or pure luck. We also make commitments through our use of language in conversations. And it is these commitments that drive our actions and consequently our results and performance. Thus language is directly tied to our performance. Setting objectives and goals is a good example of making commitments through language except we can be much more effective once we know how to leverage language. Setting objectives is all but one use of this particular orientation of language. ## 6\. The generative orientation This is the aspect of language where you are creating a new reality, a new world, or a new future using language. You are bringing forth possibilities that did not exist before that particular utterance. This type of use of language is called a ***Declaration*** and they are one of the most powerful ways to use language, but one that we use sporadically and not as effectively. The ultimate example of the power of this type of language is the US Declaration of Independence. Using a declaration the US declared itself as independent of the crown and as a result created a new reality. **The world before the declaration and after the declaration was completely different**. But the only thing that changed was language. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/04/Declaration-of-independence-broadside-cropped.jpg) Before the declaration, the Americans were rebelling subjects, and after the declaration, they became entities on their own and an enemy nation to the Crown. The range of opportunities and potential for action was completely redefined by the declaration. ## 7\. The temporal orientation Human beings are the only living creatures that experience life as having a past, present, and future. For all the others there is only the present moment. Even for us, physical reality is the only way to access the present. Neither the past nor the future exist as physical realities. The past is a series of present moments that are gone and the future is a series of present moments that have not happened yet. And yet, the past and future is accessible to us through language. They “exist” as memories and concepts. Both of them are built in language, and thus accessible to us. Human beings are meaning-making and story-telling machines. We need to have meaning in everything we do and stories are our primary means of making sense of situations. The way we act in the present moment is based on the stories we have of our past and [the future that we think we are going into](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). Our actions are directly correlated to how a certain situation, our present and our future, occurs to us. And this is built in language. ## 8\. Our mental models are built in language The concept of mental models is well known in the cognitive science and neuroscience arenas. Essentially our brain is a predicting machine that predicts based on preexisting models that it has created over time. > The normal human brain that is the subject of study in neuroscience is a “languaged” brain. It has come to be the way it is through a personal history of language use within an individual’s lifetime. > > It also actively and dynamically uses linguistic resources (the categories, constructions, and distinctions available in language) as it processes incoming information from across the senses. > > – Lera Boroditsky \[4\] These models are “built in language”. There’s a certain story we are telling ourselves about a given situation and it is but one version. And that story is built in language. This means that by changing the language we can change the story. This is easier said than done as these are ingrained patterns and habits we have learned over several years. Each of us over time has built what Kenneth Burke calls “terminisitic screens”.\[11\] \[12\] > Words link together and form filters, or screens, that allow us to see in certain ways and blind us to the alternatives, just as a red filter allows us to see some colors and not others. > > Burke said: “Even if any given \[terministic screen\] is a reflection of reality, by its very nature…it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent, it must also function as a deflection of reality.” > > – David Logan & Halee Fischer Wright \[12\] These are a large collection of stories, words, and concepts that we know and understand, and through which we perceive and make sense of all the sensory inputs that come in. Some neuroscientists call these our “vocabulary” of concepts. While we cannot operate without these concepts or mental models, we do not have to have a particular one. ## 9\. Organizations as constituted of language Our usual way of understanding organizations is through organizational charts, job roles and designations, the products, the processes, and the people involved. And this is a useful way of looking at them. But another way of looking at organizations is through the lens of language – as made up of a network of conversations, commitments and processes that happen through language. There is a new understanding of organizations that is gaining traction which is called CCO or communicative constitutive organizations- understanding of the organization as being constituted of its conversations and thus its language Leaders need to understand how language is all pervasive and is an underlying framework in everything they do. In fact some of the most intractable problems tend to have their roots in the unsaid, the “undiscussables” and the “background conversations” that constitute the culture of an organization. > Organizations, despite their apparent preoccupation with facts, numbers, objectivity, concreteness, and accountability, are in fact saturated with subjectivity, abstraction, guesses, making do, invention, and arbitrariness . .. just like the rest of us. > > **Much of what troubles organizations is of their own making**. > > – Karl Weick in Social Psychology of Organizing \[5\] While decreeing a certain behavior using our positional authority is one way to approach culture change, it tends to be short-lived. A more sustainable path is to examine and change underlying conversations and ensuing behaviors. ## 10\. Accessibility of language for more effectiveness Perhaps most important for leaders is the accessibility of language, because this is what makes language such a powerful tool to effect change and increase effectiveness. Everything else being the same , what really makes a difference in someone’s leadership is *“the network of unexamined ideas, beliefs and taken-for-granted assumptions”* that go unexamined. \[16\] The good news is that these are “constructed in language” and thus can be worked on and rebuilt. > Human beings are the only beings who think about themselves and their actions. Other animals “are unable to separate themselves from their activity and thus are unable to reflect upon it” . > > – Bruce Hyde & Jeffery Bineham \[6\] Because language is recursive, we can talk about talk, we can write about writing and so on. It is a powerful tool for observation, analysis, and ongoing improvement which is not possible in other mediums. Language is accessible by everyone because it is pervasive and we are constituted in it. This makes it equally available to everyone without specialized training. --- ## A challenge and opportunity The big challenge for leaders is not just to understand these different orientations but to employ them in practice. > To those in the discipline of speech communication, the notion that language is not merely representational, but provides the world with its meaning, is not a new one. But we suggest that while many of us understand this theory, far fewer of us live it. > > In large part, most human beings are commonsense Cartesians. **We spend much of our lives struggling with the way things “are,” rather than savoring the malleability that a constitutive view of language**, fully distinguished, might lend our world. > > To gain access to the generative nature of dialogue, one must be open to the power of language to create meanings. > > – Bruce Hyde & Jeffery Bineham \[6\] Understanding the role of language is essential if leaders want to leverage their role as meaning-managers, meaning-makers, sense-makers, and co-constructors of reality. This in turn is directly tied to leadership effectiveness. The next time we are in “communication” it is worth considering which of these orientations we are using in practice and what our underlying assumptions are. Are these assumptions true and how can we change them? Which understanding of language can be more helpful to solve the particular challenge that we are facing? Which understanding makes us more effective? ## Related Reading [Competing Languages of LeadershipLeadership advice often focuses on communication style: how to be clearer, more persuasive, etc. While valuable, these tactics eventually hit a ceiling. You learn techniques but revert to old patterns under pressure, or the improved “delivery” somehow doesn’t create the changes you hoped for. That’s because language operates at a![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-52.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Seven-Competing-Languages---Kegan--Lahey.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/) [Mastering Context: Leadership is a Context SportContext is a powerful tool in leadership but goes underutilized and misunderstood - a deep dive into why mastering context is essential to effective leadership.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-53.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/1024px-Van_Gogh_from_Space-1.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership) [Communicating Effectively using Closure ConversationsImplementing a framework of conversations can improve leadership communication and effectiveness. Closure conversations are one such type.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-54.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/photo-1486520299386-6d106b22014b-5)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations) ## Footnotes and References 1. [*Communication: Sine Qua Non of Organizational Leadership and Practice*](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F2329488416675447?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Brent Rubens and Ralph Gigliotti* 2. [*Shannon-Weaver model of communication.*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Weaver%5Fmodel?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 3. [*The Evolution of Physics*](https://amzn.to/3KJZ0eL?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Albert Einstein & Leopold Infeld.* 4. [*Language and the brain*](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaz6490?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Lera Boroditsky.* 5. [The *Social Psychology of Organizing*](https://amzn.to/3rsoKoa?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Karl Weick.* 6. [*From Debate to Dialogue*](https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940009373168?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Bruce Hyde & Jeffery Bineham.* 7. [*Speech Acts*](https://amzn.to/3KJd7kg?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by John Searle* 8. [*How to do things with Words*](https://amzn.to/3rrNdtX?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by JL Austin* 9. [*Being and Time*](https://amzn.to/3vkbaV1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Martin Heidegger* 10. [*Language and Organization*](https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.14497609?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by David Boje, Cliff Oswick and Jeffrey Ford* 11. [*Language as Symbolic Action*](https://amzn.to/3xpF4tH?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Kenneth Burke* 12. [*Rhetoric Unlobotomized* ](https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.915321?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by David Logan & Halee Fischer-Wright* 13. [*https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/*](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/speech-acts/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 14. [The *Structure of Scientific Revolutions* ](https://amzn.to/3jDZGq7?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by Thomas Kuhn* 15. [The map is not the territory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map%E2%80%93territory%5Frelation?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 16. Jensen, Michael C., Werner Erhard, and Kari L. Granger. “[Creating Leaders: An Ontological/Phenomenological Model](https://ssrn.com/abstract=1681682?ref=leadingsapiens.com).” Chap. 16 in [*The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being*](http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235126?ref=leadingsapiens.com), edited by Scott Snook, Nitin Nohria, and Rakesh Khurana. ### Types of Goals - Understanding the Nuances of Effective Goals URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/ Last updated: 2026-01-27T15:40:29.000Z *Goals and objectives are part of modern organizational reality. They are common parlance to the point where we often take them for granted. But understanding the different types of goals can dramatically improve the effectiveness of the process and increase the likelihood of success.* --- > What keeps me going is goals. > > – Muhammad Ali \[1\] ## The importance of goals and objectives Context, and the language we use to [frame that context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/), can be pivotal in how we perceive a given situation, our approach to, and our experience of it. Skillset in a given area is a direct function of awareness and vocabulary in that area. Setting goals and objectives is one such area. By shaping the language and conversations in organizations, goals and objectives are a powerful tool for [managers to set the context and tone](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) for their organizations. Thus they deserve a closer, more nuanced look. > A two-year Deloitte study found that no single factor has more impact than “ clearly defined goals that are written down and shared freely… . Goals create alignment, clarity, and job satisfaction. > > *– John Doerr, Measure What Matters* Setting goals is a standard exercise in modern organizations. Your organization might call them targets, key results, outcomes, objectives or something else. These come in various flavors and the process ranges from wide-open to very prescriptive. **But what is common to all systems is the assumption that managers and leaders understand how to go about setting goals.** ## Understanding the different types of goals While there is a common sense aspect to goals where everyone understands the intent, there are nuances to setting goals that can make or break the whole process and define the whole experience. It can influence how teams and entire organizations approach the process, whether it is with engagement or with apathy, as one more thing to get out of the way. [The SMART framework](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/) is widely used in organizations and the core ideas behind it are well researched and proven. \[9\] However, while acronyms like SMART are a good start and can speed up the process, they also drive superficial behavior and a lack of engagement. After all setting goals is the means and not the end. ## How understanding the types of goals helps Looking through the lens of these different types of goals will invariably give you more insight and highlight what you might have missed out. Each type highlights a particular aspect . We need to ask **where on the spectrum our particular goal lies**. The intent is not whether it’s right or wrong but to get more perspective and break impasse. We tend to have habits and orientations which make us more likely to prefer one type over the other. Research has shown that certain types like approach-based and process-based goals tend to have advantages but this should not be taken as gospel. What works for one person or a team in a given situation might not work for the other. We need to figure out our own styles and the list below can help uncover and balance some of our biases and blindspots when setting goals and objectives. ## Types of goals ### 1\. Approach Goals vs Avoidance Goals Are we moving towards a certain goal or are we trying to move away or stay away from a certain outcome? Many researchers consider this as one of the most important type and recommend leaning towards approach goals rather than avoidance goals. Avoidance goals tend to focus on avoiding an outcome or state which invariably tends to be negative. An example might be avoiding failure in something vs achieving success. While there are clear indicators of whether we succeeded at something or not, the prospect of failure is always there and thus we might not ever reach that goal. We are in a limbo forever. Avoiding problems or the expectation of a lack of problems is similar. When we solve a given set of problems, there arises a different set. Thus the avoidance of problems or non-existence of problems perhaps is not the best way to approach issues. On the other hand Approach goals tend to have clear markers of feedback. Avoidance is less likely to leave us with a sense of achievement compared with Approach goals. ### 2\. Outcome vs Performance vs Process Goals Outcome goals tend to be singular events or results whereas performance goals tend to be ongoing measurements and process goals tend to be focussed just on actions regardless of the results or performance. In the corporate world outcome and performance goals can be thought of as trailing indicators or output measures whereas process goals can be thought of as leading indicators or input measures Picking outcome goals vs process goals really depends on what stage of development the person or team is in. For a seasoned team that already knows the game, an outcome goal on its own might be perfect motivation. On the other hand for someone who is still learning and the priority is on learning and mastery, process goals can be more effective. > The best goals are process goals, which, in layman’s language means “how to get there” goals, and they are important because they are controllable. Outcome goals are not controllable, and putting too much focus on them can be detrimental to a player’s overall performance because oftentimes outcome goals are not realistically attainable. > > *– Bob Tewksbury in Ninety Percent Mental* \[3\] Winning a 5k run is an outcome, running it at a pace 8min/mile is a performance goal, whereas showing up 3 times a week for a practice run is a process goal. As you move from outcome to performance to process the degree of control you have significantly increases. I have much less control on outcome and performance and almost complete control over the process. Additionally, we have much more opportunities for feedback and correction in process and performances goals than in outcome goals. ### 3\. Creating New Realities vs Solving Existing Problems Are we solution-focussed or problem-focussed? Are we trying to solve an existing problem or are we trying to create a new future/new reality? Problem-solving is inherently energy-draining while visualizing new realities is inherently energy-building and generative. This is especially relevant during the process of setting goals. The idea is not that of avoiding facing existing problems but rather of approaching them from a completely different set of assumptions. When we look at solving problems our context remains the same, whereas the context has to be different when creating new realities. ### 4\. Performance Goals vs Learning,Mastery Goals Performance goals are focussed on execution whereas learning goals are focused on mastery of a given skill or task. Learning goals tend to be more concrete, within our control and ultimately lead to the performance we seek. Setting outright performance goals, while motivating, without supporting learning goals can be demotivating when not reached. Performance goals tend to work better in situations where you have simple tasks or tasks that have been already figured out beforehand. But in complex situations which require creativity with no predetermined answers, learning goals tend to work better. ### 5\. Importance & Commitment – Strong vs Weak Connection How strongly do we feel about a given goal when compared with others? How strongly is one goal pulling us compared to the other? What evokes more powerful emotions? How committed are we to a certain outcome? How important is this goal when compared to others? How likely are we to drop this when competing goals arise? This can be a good litmus test when picking amongst multiple competing goals. A short list of 3–4 well chosen goals that we feel strongly about is much more effective than a long list we are partially committed to. Also there is a **spillover effect** where doing well in one area invariably leads to improvement in other areas as well, whereas distributing our commitment over a large number of goals makes us ineffective at all of them. > The one thing an MBO system should provide par excellence is focus. This can only happen if we keep the number of objectives small. In practice, this is rare, and here, as elsewhere, we fall victim to our inability to say “no”—in this case, to too many objectives. > > We must realize—and act on the realization—that if we try to focus on everything, we focus on nothing. A few extremely well-chosen objectives impart a clear message about what we say “yes” to and what we say “no” to—which is what we must have if an MBO system is to work. > > *– Andy Grove in High Output Management* \[5\] ### 6\. Challenge,Degree of difficulty. Stretch Goals vs Shift Goals Goals that are relatively easy to achieve do not motivate as much as [goals that are relatively harder](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). This is where the directive for being achievable and realistic in one version of the acronym [SMART does not help](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/). > One of the strongest and most consistent findings in the goal- setting literature is that people tend to show greater progress when they act towards more difficult goals compared with easier ones. > > *– Mick Cooper in The Psychology of Goals* \[6\] **Stretch goals** are extreme and “exist on the fringes of possibility”\[4\]. While thinking about and ideating about these can be great, they can often end up acting as a demotivator and reason for procrastination because they don’t look actionable. **Shift goals** on the other hand are not only challenging but they are realistic as well. Perhaps a series of cascading shift goals can get us to our stretch goal. The trick is to balance ambitious goals that drive engagement with actions to followup on the promise. > We need stretch *and* SMART goals. It doesn’t matter if you call them by those names. It’s not important if your proximal goals fulfill every SMART criterion. What matters is having a large ambition and a system for figuring out how to make it into a concrete and realistic plan. Then, as you check the little things off your to-do list, you’ll move ever closer to what really matters. You’ll keep your eyes on what’s both wise and SMART. > > *– Charles Duhigg in Smarter, Faster, Better* \[7\] ### 7\. Intrinsic, Autonomous Goals vs Extrinsic, Controlled Goals Research has proven that we are much more likely to stick with our intrinsic goals than extrinsic. It also tends to be more satisfying and self-generating in them long run. We need to aim for more self-concordance(alignment with our intrinsic values and motivations). > Intrinsic goals are defined as those most directly associated with the pursuit of what is inherently valued, such as close relationships, personal growth, and contributing to one’s community. Extrinsic goals, in contrast, are those focused on instrumental outcomes, such as money, fame, power, or outward attractiveness. These goals can therefore be understood as lying along an axis from intrinsic to extrinsic. > > *– Richard Ryan & Edward Deci in Self-Determination Theory \[8\]* In organizational contexts, it’s important to link organizational objectives to the person’s own values and goals so that it appeals to their intrinsic motivations rather than coming across as handed down from up above. This is also why keeping a healthy [balance of ideas that are bottom-up from all ranks and those that came top-down](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/andy-grove-balancing-top-down-vs-bottom-up-approaches-leadership/) is much more effective at driving engagement. Ryan and Deci, originators of intrinsic motivation theory, put it this way: > Intrinsic goal framing, relative to no-goal framing, led to higher autonomous motivation and better test performance, and it also resulted in greater persistence in both the short and long term. In contrast, extrinsic goal framing, relative to no-goal framing, undermined participants’ autonomous motivation, performance, and long-term persistence. > > Motivators can frame goals in more extrinsic versus intrinsic terms. The latter will be more likely to produce sustained engagement and, ultimately, wellness. > > *– Richard Ryan & Edward Deci in Self-Determination Theory \[8\]* ### 8\. Internal vs External Locus of Control To what degree are the goals within our [internal locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/), or are they dependent on other external factors. We can always control our own actions and choices but the outcomes of those actions and choices is typically not in our control. ### 9\. Time Horizon-Proximal vs Distal The time-frames we use for our goals can have a huge influence on whether or not they look doable. Given an infinite timeframe almost anything can get done. Proximal goals are closer in [timeframe](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/strategic-agility-balancing-long-term-focus-with-short-term-actions/), in the coming days and weeks, compared to distal goals which can be in terms of months, years or a lifetime. Both goals are equally important and having a balance of both has been proven to be more effective. It’s an excellent tool to break impasse when stuck in just one view. Proximal goals tend to be more action oriented whereas distal goals tend to be more values oriented. ### 10\. Metalevel- Complexity and Connectedness The complexity and connectedness varies for each of our goals. Some goals sit higher on a value hierarchy and more complex. As a result these will have a slew of related or sub-goals associated with them. ### 11\. Specificity- Concrete vs Abstract Consider whether the goal is too specific or too fuzzy. Either one is not good or bad. Sometimes when stuck and frustrated in the details of something, its worth zooming out and reminding ourselves of the overarching goal that we set out to do. ### 12\. Congruence and Concordance **Vertical** [**Congruence**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/): Are our goals consistent with our higher-order values or goals? Most of our frustrations and lack of motivation tend to happen when what we are pursing either is not in alignment with our higher-order values/goals or we actually have not connected that goal with a higher-order value/goal. We need to discern the reasons behind why we set those goals. Are we doing it because we “want to” or is it because we are “supposed to, ought to or have to”? **Horizontal congruence**/ Competing vs Complementary goals : Is the gamut of our goals self-reinforcing or do they act against each other? Do they complement or counteract each other? ### 13\. Conscious, Known Goals vs Unconscious, Unknown Goals In theory, every one of our actions and thus behavior is undertaken in support of some goal. Unknown goals are the hidden motivations and desires that drive our actions and sometimes these can be in direct conflict with what we explicitly set out to do. This can be hard to figure out on our own because by definition we are blind to them. One way to approach this is to do a factual inventory of all our behaviors and asking ourselves what was the intent or goal behind those behaviors. This can give some clues. Working with a trusted coach or colleague can be transformative in this area. ### 14\. Behavioral/Competency Goals vs Outcome Goals Is it a certain outcome we are trying to achieve or is it a consistent behavior or a particular competency that we are trying to develop? Being clear on our intent can drive more clearer action whereas muddled, unclear goals can frustrate action. --- ## Balancing the types of goals Hopefully, this list gave you insight into how you can look at your goals differently by understanding the different types. The idea is not to set the perfect goal but to enable agility in thinking about them and to make the process more effective. One great example of balancing goals is how Google divides its OKRs (objectives, key results) into two categories of **committed and aspirational**. > **Committed objectives** are tied to Google’s metrics: product releases, bookings, hiring, customers. Management sets them at the company level, employees at the departmental level. In general, these committed objectives—such as sales and revenue goals—are to be achieved in full (100 percent) within a set time frame. > > **Aspirational objectives** reflect bigger-picture, higher-risk, more future-tilting ideas. They originate from any tier and aim to mobilize the entire organization. By definition, they are challenging to achieve. Failures—at an average rate of 40 percent—are part of Google’s territory.” > > *– John Doerr in Measure What Matters* \[2\] ## Most important types Amongst all the types of goals listed, the most important ones are the process vs outcome, approach vs avoidance, and intrinsic vs extrinsic. In multiple research studies and meta-analyses, these have been proven to be significantly associated with the effectiveness of goals. They directly influence how we experience the process and whether or not we stick with them long-term. ## **Related Reading** Goal setting can turn into dogma without actually understanding what lies further upstream. I explore these themes in the following articles: - Setting goals is only one side of the equation. One aspect that gets forgotten is the [role of choice in goals and its effect on performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/). Asking some basic questions to understand our role and choice in the process can make the process more effective. - I have made a ton of [mistakes in setting goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/stupidity-of-smart-goals/) myself. This article captures some key learnings from my mishaps. - [Good Careers Gone Bad - Subtle but Lethal Mistakes in Mid Career](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/) - [Two Questions for a Midlife Career Change](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/) ## ### Footnotes & References 1. Attributed to Muhammad Ali. 2. [Measure What Matters](https://amzn.to/3EdYEKS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by John Doerr. 3. [Ninety Percent Mental ](https://amzn.to/3jGBaEG?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Bob Tewksbury. 4. [Goal-setting in Coaching](https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003089889-11/goal-setting-coaching-ruth-price?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Ruth Price in [The Coaches’ Handbook](https://amzn.to/3M0KfUS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Jonathan Passmore. 5. [High Output Management](https://amzn.to/3veTg62?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Andy Grove. 6. [Working with Goals in Pscyhotherapy & Counseling](https://amzn.to/3EhrMRj?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Mick Cooper & Duncan Law. 7. [Smarter, Faster, Better](https://amzn.to/37QcC9w?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Charles Duhigg. 8. [Self-Determination Theory](https://amzn.to/3JN1s2y?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Richard Ryan & Edward Deci. 9. SMART Acronym definition. There are numerous versions of these floating around but the most common version is Specific, Measurable, Actionable/Ambitious, Realistic and Timebound. 10. **Additional references on goals:** - [An integrated model of goal-focused coaching](https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781119656913.ch7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Anthony M Grant. - [Handbook of Coaching Psychology](https://amzn.to/3Efvcnw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Stephen Plamer & Alison Whybrow. - [The Psychology of Goals ](https://amzn.to/37TlZFi?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Gordon Moskowitz & Heidi Grant. - [With Goals, FAST Beats SMART ](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/with-goals-fast-beats-smart/?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Donald Sull & Charles Sull. - [The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation](https://amzn.to/3xuoJDR?ref=leadingsapiens.com) edited by Richard Ryan. - [New Developments in Goal Setting & Task Performance](https://amzn.to/3uJq87U?ref=leadingsapiens.com) edited by Edwin Locke & Gary Latham. ### Paradoxes of Leadership and Management URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:57:28.000Z *Leading and managing can be stressful and frustrating because of inherent paradoxes built into the nature of the beast. One common mistake is not differentiating between *paradoxes and problems*.* *What are these common paradoxes and how can we become more effective at navigating them?* --- ## Paradoxes are different from problems > A paradox is not a conflict within reality. It is a conflict between reality and your feeling of what reality “ought to be.” > > — Richard Feynman Problem-solving features prominently on almost all resumes, but in leadership it can in fact become a liability. A common cause of frustration is the inability to differentiate between problems and paradoxes. This is especially true with **leaders who come from a specialist or technical background**. Their primary orientation is that of problem solving. Problems by definition exist in a **binary state** — solved vs unsolved. They tend to have solutions but paradoxes don't. Instead, paradoxes are more on a spectrum of **polarities** where both opposites exist simultaneously and are not going anywhere — aka cannot be solved away. The idea is not to avoid paradoxes but rather to engage with them and work within the constraints. Contrast that approach with treating them as an anomaly and getting frustrated by our inability to solve them. So **what are these paradoxes and can you recognize them beforehand?** There are some common patterns that they fall under. Many sources of frustration in organizational setups can be traced upstream to one of these patterns. ## Common paradoxes in leadership and management Organizational life is complex. Knowing and recognizing paradoxes is a key skillset for leaders. Let's look at three lists of paradoxes I refer to most often. In *Being the Boss*, Linda Hill and Kent Linebeck outline some key ones: > **Direct Control vs Indirect Influence** > (*You are responsible for what others do.*) > > **Work/Deliverables vs People/Meaning** > (*To focus on the work, you must focus on people doing the work.*) > > **Support vs Judgement** > (*You must both develop your people and evaluate them.*) > > **Group vs Individual** > (*You must make your group a cohesive team without losing sight of the individuals on it.)* > > **Team vs Organization** > (*To manage your group, you must manage the larger context beyond your group.*) > > **Urgent vs Important** > (*You must focus on today and tomorrow.*) > > [**Action vs Reflection**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/#leadership-reflection-and-performance) > (*You must execute and innovate.*) > > **Inflicting pain vs Giving sustenance** > (*You must sometimes do harm in order to do a greater good.*) > > **Your Team vs Your Organization** > (*Serving the sometimes conflicting needs of your team and the organization.)* > > **Intimacy vs Distance** > (*Caring, even close, but focused on the work.*) > > [**Clarity/Answers vs Doubt/Questions** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/) > (*The need to be clear—“here’s how we do what we do”—while remaining flexible in the midst of rapid change.*) > > **Chaos vs Order** > (*Management and planning require both chaos and order.*) > > **Us vs the Other** > (*Your personal success now requires that you find satisfaction in the success of those who work for you.*) Another useful list of paradoxes can be found in David Dotlich and Peter Cairo's *The Unfinished Leader*: > - Long term (investments) versus short term (profitability) > - Company versus function > - Local versus global > - Stability versus change > - Hierarchy versus flat structure > - Diversity versus meritocracy > - Core growth versus innovation > - Control versus delegation > - Honoring people versus demanding performance > - Work versus family In his book Managing, Henry Mintzberg highlights how paradox is built into the nature of managerial work. He calls these **conundrums of managing,** and puts them poetically under the categories of thinking, information, people and action conundrums: > **Thinking Conundrums:** > > - The Syndrome of Superficiality - How to get in deep when there is so much pressure to get it done? > - The Predicament of Planning - How to plan, strategize, just plain think, let alone think ahead, in such a hectic job? > - The Labyrinth of Decomposition - Where to find synthesis in a world so decomposed by analysis? > **Information Conundrums:** > > - The Quandary of Connecting - How to keep informed when managing by its own nature removes the manager from the very things being managed? > - The Dilemma of Delegating - How to delegate when so much of the relevant information is personal, oral, and often privileged? > - The Mysteries of Measuring - How to manage it when you can’t rely on measuring it? > **People Conundrums:** > > - The Enigma of Order - How to bring order to the work of others when the work of managing is itself so disorderly? > - The Paradox of Control - How to maintain the necessary state of controlled disorder when one’s own manager is imposing order? > - The Clutch of Confidence - How to maintain a sufficient level of confidence without crossing over into arrogance? > **Action Conundrums:** > > - The Ambiguity of Acting - How to act decisively in a complicated, nuanced world? > - The Riddle of Change - How to manage change when there is the need to maintain continuity? ## Becoming more effective at navigating paradoxes Given the universal nature of paradoxes in organizations and management, leaders can adopt four primary strategies to get better at navigating them: 1. Changing how you view paradox 2. Understanding and recognizing them 3. Adjusting for predispositions 4. Getting better at reflection ### 1\. Changing how you view paradox Mintzberg makes it plenty clear that paradoxes are not going anywhere and managers have to learn to navigate them instead of trying to wish them away: > These paradoxes and predicaments, labyrinths and riddles, are built into managerial work—they are managing—and there they shall remain. They can be alleviated but never eliminated, reconciled but never resolved. To try and escape them is to fall into the managerial dogma of which we have had more than enough already. Managers have to face them, understand them, reflect on them, play with them. If you have a fundamentally problem solving orientation, not being able to solve something can be frustrating. Not realizing that these are part of the *nature of the beast* can lead to endless questioning and frustration. Approaching paradoxes as conditions of the game rather than obstacles or problems to be removed, can change perspective and increase effectiveness in navigating them. > Many theories of organization emphasize either/or choices. They prescribe either stability and success, or instability and failure. They usually do not recognize **paradox as fundamental** and, when they do, they prescribe some kind of harmonious, equilibrium or balance between the choices. In this way the paradox is in effect eliminated; its existence is a nuisance that is not fundamental to success. > ... > The way one perceives paradox says much about the way one understands organisational dynamics. The idea that, for success, paradoxes must be resolved, and that the tension they cause must be released or harnessed, is part of the paradigm that equates success with the dynamics of stability, regularity and predictability. > > The notion that **paradoxes can never be resolved, only lived with and explored**, leads to a view of organisational dynamics couched in terms of continuing tension-generating behaviour patterns that are both regular and irregular, both stable and unstable and both predictable and unpredictable, all at the same time, but which lead to creative novelty. > > – Ralph Stacey, Chris Mowles in Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics How do you define success? Is the absence of contradictions a key requirement? If it is, you might be setting yourself up for failure. In contrast, paradoxes and conflicts can be a rich source of creative ideas and innovation. ### 2\. Understanding and recognizing paradox As discussed before, understanding the differences between problems and paradoxes, and recognizing them beforehand can prevent a lot of undue frustration. Revisiting the above lists on a regular basis can be a good way to identify patterns that needlessly hamper our efforts. Experience and time play a factor as well. Over time we naturally get better at identifying and operating within them, provided we have awareness to begin with. Another benefit of understanding and recognition is avoiding the common mistake of overindexing on one polarity. If you are too focused on exercising control for example, you might end up doing the exact opposite. Recognition also prevents unnecessary frustration which often leads to burnout. ### 3\. Adjusting for predispositions What paradoxes highlight is that there are polarities in how we approach situations. And all of us out of habits are predisposed towards one polarity more than the other. There's nothing wrong with this, it's what makes the world interesting. However, being alert to our own predispositions can help uncover angles that we might not have considered. For example, an autocratic [style of leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/) while universally decried, might be exactly what the situation requires. ### 4\. Getting better at reflection An effective but often underutilized method to get better at navigating paradoxes is skilled [reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). Except, most leaders don't deem it as a good utilization of their time. Without reflection, you won't have the bandwidth to build your muscle of judgement to figure out what the situation truly requires. You are more likely to act out of common habits and predispositions, which are not always optimal in whatever context you find yourself. > Effective managers figure out **how to be reflectively thoughtful in a job that naturally discourages it**. In a job that rarely allows managers uninterrupted time on complex issues, reflective managers attend to such issues intermittently and incrementally, giving themselves time to learn as they proceed. > > \- Henry Mintzberg in Managing --- 💡 **Trymy* ***weekly email** **\- learn the* ***mental models and frameworks** *the* ***top executive coaches** **in the world teach their clients.*📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related reading - Reflection is a key part of getting better at paradoxes and leadership in general. I examined it closely in [Importance of Reflection in Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/). - If you are curious about the mechanics of reflection and actually finding time, it's helpful to keep in mind some basic [design principles for practicing reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/). - Polarities and paradoxes exist within leadership styles as well. A good diagnostic tool to unearth these polarities is the [Blake Mouton Leadership Grid](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/blake-mouton-leadership-grid-styles/). - For a framework for understanding contradictions check out [Navigating Contradictions and Paradoxes in Organizations.](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/) ### Sources 1. Being the Boss by Linda Hill and Kent Linebeck. 2. Managing by Henry Mintzberg. 3. The Unfinished Leader by David Dotlich and Peter Cairo. 4. Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics by Ralph Stacey and Chris Mowles. ### Types of Contradictions in Organizations URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/navigating-contradictions-paradoxes/ Last updated: 2024-04-26T17:19:54.000Z *Trying to eliminate something that by definition cannot be eliminated, can be a source of constant frustration. Understanding the nature of the challenge and building our vocabulary can give us more opportunities to intervene effectively.* *One such thing that cannot be eliminated is paradoxes that are built into the nature of leadership and management.* --- Organizational life is [full of paradoxes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and contradictions. Whether we get frustrated by them or leverage them depends on how we view them. Do we view them as obstacles or do we view them as part of the nature of the game? > *Paradox I now see to be inevitable, endemic, and perpetual. . . . We can, and should, reduce the starkness of some of the contradictions, minimize the inconsistencies, understand the puzzles in the paradoxes, but *we cannot make them disappear, or solve them completely, or escape from them.* Paradoxes are like the weather, *something to be lived with* . . . the worst aspects mitigated, the best enjoyed and used as clues to the way forward.* > > *\- Charles Handy in* [*The Age of Paradox*](https://amzn.to/3JKVS0y?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Below is a useful framework to understand and discern **the different types of contradictions**. It can influence how we go about thinking about them. In [Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics](https://amzn.to/3MnIgKL?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Stacey and Mowles outline and differentiate between 4 types of contradictions. ## 1\. Dichotomy > *The first is to regard them as a dichotomy, which is a polarised opposition requiring an ‘either . . . or’ choice. For example, managers faced with the need to improve quality, requiring an increase in costs, may also be faced with the need to cut costs. If they think in terms of a dichotomy then they choose one or the other of these opposing alternatives.* > > – Ralph Stacey, Chris Mowles in Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics ## 2\. Dilemma > *Secondly, they could think of the choice facing them as a dilemma, which is a choice between two equally unattractive alternatives. Improving quality is unattractive because it increases costs, and cutting costs means destroying jobs, which is unattractive for humanitarian reasons. Dilemmas also present ‘either . . . or’ choices.* > > – Ralph Stacey, Chris Mowles in Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics ## 3\. Dualism/Duality > *Thirdly, a contradiction may be thought of in terms of a dualism or a duality. For example, managers may be faced with the need to customise their products to meet localised customer requirements, but they may also be faced with the need to standardise their products to meet global competition.* > > *If those managers think about this in dualistic terms then they might come up with the resolution or elimination of the contradiction through ‘both thinking globally and acting locally’. The mode of thinking in dualistic terms has a ‘both . . . and’ structure. Instead of choosing between one or the other, one keeps both but locates them in different spaces or times.* > > *So, in the above example, one pole of the contradiction is located in thinking and the other in acting. The ‘either . . . or’ thinking of dichotomies and dilemmas and the ‘both . . . and’ thinking of dualisms/dualities all satisfy a precept of Aristotelian logic, which requires the elimination of contradictions because they are a sign of faulty thinking.* > > – Ralph Stacey, Chris Mowles in Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics ## 4\. Paradox > *\[P\]aradox may mean a state in which two diametrically opposing forces/ ideas are simultaneously present, and which are co-constituting: the one suggests and defines the other, neither of which can ever be resolved or eliminated. There is, therefore, no possibility of a choice between the opposing poles or of locating them in different spheres.* > > – Ralph Stacey, Chris Mowles in Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics They go on to highlight how the elimination or the non-existence of paradox is equated with success. However, reality is far more nuanced and trying to eliminate paradoxes might not be the best use of our time. > *Many theories of organisation emphasise *either/or choices*. They prescribe either stability and success, or instability and failure.* > > *They usually *do not recognise paradox as fundamental* and, when they do, they prescribe some kind of harmonious, equilibrium or balance between the choices. In this way the paradox is in effect eliminated; its existence is a nuisance that is not fundamental to success.* > > *Alternatively they argue that paradox can somehow be harnessed for the good of the company, again assuming that managers or leaders can take up a position outside the paradox and manipulate it to given ends.* > > – Ralph Stacey, Chris Mowles in Strategic Management and Organizational Dynamics This kind of “either/or approach” to challenges and being “allergic” to paradoxical problems can be pervasive in organizations including consultants brought from the outside. This is also why often our organizations can get cynical, because people on the ground know the actual realities of the situation. They know that the situation is not as straightforward as what the change leader or consultant is trying to portray. The real opportunity might be in [embracing the paradox](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and delving in it rather than trying to eliminate it. --- Liked this article? You will dig ***The Managerial Mind on Mondays** newsletter. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ### Can we Eliminate Self-Doubt? Should we Even Bother? URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:58:16.000Z *Self-doubt is often seen as an impediment to effective leadership or succcess in any other arena. We have an image of effective leaders or successful folks as being supremely confident.* *The reality is that self-doubt goes hand in hand with any worthwhile endeavor. So how do we go about handling it? Should we even try to eliminate it? Or can it be a positive indicator?* --- ## Doubt as a criteria Many of us operate under the notion that we are not fully competent *yet* at something, and as a result either wait on the sidelines or second-guess. We hold ourselves back from doing the very thing that we know needs done to unlock what we are capable of. We question our ability to get something done when it is beyond our perceived notions of competence and capability. Aka self-doubt. Leaders need to be aware of this tendency both in themselves and in their teams. This is especially true in domains of high complexity, high variation, and low definition like that of leadership. These domains are complex adaptive rather than the opposite of technical domains with proven solutions and **widely agreed upon measures of competence**. ## **A non-psychological take on self-doubt** A psychological interpretation of this inaction or doubt is a lack of courage, lack of willpower, or even worse a weak character. But there might be a simpler explanation. Often assessments do not have[**clear benchmarks**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). Upon closer examination though, many of our notions lack grounding. Paying attention to language, and [how we come to conclusions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) can be illuminating. For example, if you don’t consider yourself an “ok manager” where is that assessment coming from and what is it based on? What's your baseline benchmark? What's the definition of “ok”? How do you quantify it? We also tend to give others the benefit of doubt while not extending the same courtesy to ourselves. **We find it easier to assume others as experts while being equally hard on ourselves.** > Kings and philosophers shit and so do ladies. > > \- Michel de Montaigne in Essays While we are intimately aware of our own shortcomings, we do not have the same vantage point on others. We do not have an insider’s look at what the so-called experts are going through themselves. That’s just [how our human OS is designed](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/). ## **Everyone is figuring it out** In the concluding chapter of *Four Thousand Weeks*, Oliver Burkeman asks a powerful question that highlights this basic oversight on our part when assessing our readiness and competence to do something when compared with other presumed experts. \[1\] > In which areas of life are you still holding back until you feel like you know what you’re doing? > > It’s easy to spend years treating your life as a dress rehearsal on the rationale that what you’re doing, for the time being, is acquiring the skills and experience that will permit you to assume authoritative control of things later on. > > But I sometimes think of my journey through adulthood to date as one of incrementally discovering the truth that **there is no institution, no walk of life, in which everyone isn’t just winging it, all the time.** > > Growing up, I assumed that the newspaper on the breakfast table must be assembled by people who truly knew what they were doing; then I got a job at a newspaper. Unconsciously, I transferred my assumptions of competence elsewhere, including to people who worked in government. But then I got to know a few people who did—and who would admit, after a couple of drinks, that their jobs involved staggering from crisis to crisis, inventing plausible-sounding policies in the backs of cars en route to the press conferences at which those policies had to be announced. > > Even then, I found myself assuming that this might all be explained as a manifestation of the perverse pride that British people sometimes take in being shamblingly mediocre. Then I moved to America—where, it turns out, everyone is winging it, too. Political developments in the years since have only made it clearer that the people “in charge” have no more command over world events than the rest of us do. > > It’s alarming to face the prospect that you might never truly feel as though you know what you’re doing, in work, marriage, parenting, or anything else. > > But it’s liberating, too, because **it removes a central reason for feeling self-conscious or inhibited about your performance** in those domains in the present moment: if the feeling of total authority is never going to arrive, you might as well not wait any longer to give such activities your all—to put bold plans into practice, to stop erring on the side of caution. > > It is even more liberating to reflect that **everyone else is in the same boat, whether they’re aware of it or not.** > > – Oliver Burkeman in *Four Thousand Weeks* The idea is not to overnight call yourself an expert or attempt impossible things, but rather to **second-guess our second-guessing**. To interrupt ourselves when we go down the rabbit hole of doubt, and take action in spite of, rather than be paralyzed by, self-doubt. While we might not explicitly ask for permission, sometimes there is **an implicit expectation of permission** from anything or anyone other than ourselves. It could be a course, an MBA program, or our managers. Some of us wait for permission to assume leadership particularly in undefined and emerging situations. Often unacknowledged and unrecognized, **we look for a sense of certainty from work and managers** in orderto counter the uncertainty that naturally coexists with complexity. This becomes an impediment because we are looking for something that does not exist and in the wrong places. > **None of us has a real understanding of where we are heading**. I don’t. I have a sense about it . . . but decisions don’t wait. Investment decisions or personnel decisions and prioritization don’t wait for the picture to be clarified. You have to make them when you have to make them. So you take your shots and clean up the bad ones later. > > \- Andy Grove, former Intel CEO The reality is that executives, and CEOs are figuring it out themselves as much as the rest of us. Reality is way too complex for any one person to have figured it all out, even though they might claim to have done so or it looks that way from the outside. This is **both troubling and liberating**. If our whole strategy was to rely on experts and their assessments, this can be disorienting. It puts the onus of action on us, and to take the action right now instead of waiting for permission or waiting for the right time when we feel ready and competent. **But it's liberating because we are now on an even playing field with everyone else.** ## **Action creates feedback and clarity** While Burkeman mentions it as *winging it*, there is a deeper truth in what he’s talking about. In more complex arenas that don't have direct correlation between cause and effect, action creates feedback that we can then act upon and improvise further. \[2\] **Every small action that we take, reveals properties of the system** that was previously invisible or inaccessible. Without action, everything is a conjecture, a best guess. [When we take action it creates clarity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/paradox-of-real-learning/) and helps further fine-tune our approach. And action does not have to be coupled with self-doubt even though some folks might have you believe otherwise. Action can be taken regardless of the presence or absence of doubt. > *H. L. Mencken wrote, “For every complex problem, there is a simple solution that doesn’t work.”* > > *Working on our insides—using subtle or sophisticated techniques to change our beliefs, fix our feelings, feel confident, banish self-doubt, quiet the mind, think positive thoughts, or attract whatever we desire—represents “simple solutions” that don’t work, unless we also act.* > > *Visualizing pineapples will not turn me into a citrus fruit.* > > *\- Dan Millman in Living on Purpose* While the term *winging it* might have a negative connotation, it does not have to be. We need to be as prepared as we possibly can, but not at the expense of taking action when it is required. Even the most prepared ones have to spontaneously respond to what shows up. Treating an emerging situation with pre-conceived notions only blinds us to the details and rich texture of reality that actually might hold the answers to what we are looking for. **Winging it can also be seen as being fully present, fully available, and fully responsive.** This resistance to the idea of winging it arises from our cultural bent towards [looking for causality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/linear-causality-vs-circular-causality-in-decision-making/) and [trying to make everything formulaic](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technology-dumbs-you-down/). **The underlying assumption is that some people have it figured out while others haven’t.** > But in ambiguous and complex situations that most of us face on a daily basis, there are no pre-proven formulas. What does come in the way, is trying to look for a formula where there might not be any. ## **Dunning-Kruger Effect and Impostor Syndrome** When we push the limits of our performance there are two insidious effects to be aware of: the Dunning-Kruger effect and Impostor Syndrome. They are **opposites on a spectrum of our actual ability vs our self-assessment of it**. \[3\] Dunning-Kruger effect is when your actual ability is low but your self-assessment about it is high. In simpler terms, ignorance is bliss. **You don’t know what you don’t know**. Beginners often rate themselves higher on a given skill compared to experts. Impostor syndrome is the other end of this spectrum **where your ability is actually pretty high but your assessment of it is pretty low**. Or you don’t give enough weight and credence to what you have already achieved. ![Graphic: Imposter syndrome( false doubt) and Dunning Kruger(false confidence) are two sides of the learning curve](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Doubt--Dunning-Kruger-Imposter-Syndrome-1.png) What makes this really insidious is that the more conscientious and competent we are, more likely we are aware of our weaknesses which makes us more prone to underrating our true ability. The flip side is that ignorance and hubris leads to false [confidence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-confidence-effectiveness/). ## A fragile version of self-belief Doubt and conflict come with the territory when trying anything worthwhile. The sooner we accept it, the faster we can move on to doing what matters. > *Our belief that self-belief has to be absolute means that we inevitably see any self-doubt as a sign of weakness to be expunged. In other words, *self-doubt undermines will only because we have not learned to live with doubt*.* > > \- Julian Baggini, Antonia Macaro in The Shrink and The Sage In some circles, the very existence of self-doubt is a big no-no. But this can easily lead to a fragile self-belief where you are constantly hunting to eliminate self-doubt and using it as a negative indicator. Rollo May called this the “**conflict-free adjustment**” that too often all of us fall for. **We want the outcomes but without the necessary turmoil** that comes along for good measure. > *When we see the intimate feelings and inner experiences of an eminent artist like Giacometti, we smile at the absurd talk in some psychotherapeutic circles of “adjusting” people, making people “happy,” or training out of them by simple behavior modification techniques all pain and grief and conflict and anxiety.* > > *How hard for humankind to absorb the deeper meaning of the myth of Sisyphus!—to see that *“success” and “applause” are the bitch goddesses we always secretly knew they were*.* > > *To see that *the purpose of human existence in a man like Giacometti has nothing whatever to do with reassurance or conflict-free adjustment*.* > > *He knew there was no other alternative for him. *This challenge gave his life meaning*.* > > *\- Rollo May in Courage to Create \[6\]* Being comfortable with the existence of self-doubt can help build a more resilient version of self-belief that is more robust to the vagaries of life and work. ## **Absence of self-doubt as the wrong criteria** Another key takeaway from Burkeman’s piece is that there will not be a redemption day when we finally deem ourselves as competent and be completely free of self-doubt or reservations about our abilities. The absence of doubt as some sort of an objective criteria and actively trying to eliminate it is counter productive and not consistent with the human experience. **Commitment and doubt can co-exist** as Rollo May put it so eloquently: > **Commitment is healthiest when it is not without doubt, but in spite of doubt.** To believe fully and at the same moment to have doubts is not at all a contradiction: it presupposes a greater respect for truth, an awareness that truth always goes beyond anything that can be said or done at any given moment. > > **To every thesis there is an antithesis, and to this there is a synthesis**. > > \- Rollo May in The Courage to Create \[6\] Self-doubt comes with the territory anytime we are venturing out, trying something new, or pushing our limits. An absence of self-doubt might not be a good measure to evaluate our competence or ability to do something. Overcoming self doubt is perhaps the wrong endeavor. ![Graphic: The continuum of our relationship with doubt](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Doubt--The-Continuum.png) ## **Self-doubt as a positive indicator** Inaction from self-doubt is what Steven Pressfield calls resistance. Rather than trying to eliminate it, Pressfield asks us to use this resistance as a compass to drive our actions. \[4\] When it comes to doing things that push us beyond our current abilities, the more resistance we have about doing something, that’s the very thing that needs to be done in order to access our next level of complexity and performance. Self-doubt in this sense is thus a positive. > Self-doubt can be an ally. This is because it serves as an indicator of aspiration. It reflects love, love of something we dream of doing, and desire, desire to do it. If you find yourself asking yourself (and your friends), “Am I really a writer? Am I really an artist?” chances are you are. > > – Steven Pressfield in *War of Art* Pressfield is onto something here. If something is not in fact causing self-doubt, it’s probably too easy for us and well within our current capacity. Grappling with self-doubt rather than running away from it, is the equivalent of developing the muscles of our mind to train ourselves on doing what’s most needed for our development. He captures both the notions of impostor syndrome and the Dunning-Kruger effect in this one powerful line: > The counterfeit innovator is wildly self-confident. The real one is scared to death. > > – Steven Pressfield in *War of Art \[4\]* The same goes for leadership and stepping into what we are actually capable of. The truly capable ones have enough self-awareness to realize their shortcomings, but they accept it as conditions of the game and take action in spite of it. ## **The positive side of impostor syndrome** One manifestation of self-doubt that gets a lot of press is impostor syndrome. It's often positioned as something to be ignored or eliminated so you can operate with total confidence. You will typically find this in run of the mill self-help genres. But we don’t have to try to work it away or ignore it. As is often the case, it is simply how the human OS is designed, and it’s easier if we work with it rather than against it. In Think Again, Adam Grant highlights the positive aspects of impostor syndrome. \[5\] > The first upside of feeling like an impostor is that **it can motivate us to work harder**. …\[I\]t gives us the drive to keep running to the end so that we can earn our place among the finalists. > > In some of my own research across call centers, military and government teams, and nonprofits, I’ve found that **confidence can make us complacent**. > > If we never worry about letting other people down, we’re more likely to actually do so. When we feel like impostors, we think we have something to prove. Impostors may be the last to jump in, but they may also be the last to bail out. > > Second, impostor thoughts **can motivate us to work smarter**.\[…\]Remember that total beginners don’t fall victim to the Dunning-Kruger effect. Feeling like an impostor puts us in a beginner’s mindset, leading us to question assumptions that others have taken for granted. > > Third, feeling like an impostor **can make us better learners**. Having some doubts about our knowledge and skills takes us off a pedestal, encouraging us to seek out insights from others. > > As psychologist Elizabeth Krumrei Mancuso and her colleagues write, “Learning requires the humility to realize one has something to learn.” > > – Adam Grant in *Think Again \[5\]* Impostor syndrome and self-doubt are not something we need to avoid or eliminate. Rather we can work with them to [improve our complexity and depth](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). They are definitely not a valid criteria to assess our readiness or capability. Along the way, we have to keep reminding ourselves that everyone is on the same journey, albeit at different stages and levels of mastery. ## Some questions to ponder - What areas in work and life are you holding yourself back? Why? - What [standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/) are you assessing yourself against? - Where did those standards come from? - How would you act differently if you were already “there”? --- 💡 Liked this article? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related Reading - Tim Gallwey has an equation for peak performance: P = p-i where performance (P) equals potential (p) minus interference (i). **Self-doubt falls on the interference side of the equation**. But we can proactively focus on increasing the potential (p) side of the equation by focusing on developing our skillset. In ***Greatness as Mastering the Mundane***, I did a [deep dive into a seminal study on peak performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) and how many of our notions on excellence and talent are misguided. - Another way of looking at our relationship with doubt is what the English poet John [Keats called Negative Capability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/). He coined the term in 1824, but it's never been more applicable to modern leadership as it is today. - In ***Leadership Identity as Choices and Actions***, I explore how our [identities don't have to be a cause from which our actions follow, but rather effects](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/) that follow from our choices and actions. ### Sources and Footnotes 1. [*Four Thousand Weeks*](https://amzn.to/3xtEJGn?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Oliver Burkeman*. *This book is a true gem and prompts deep thought in almost every paragraph. It can fundamentally reframe and shift our relationship with time and how we go about prioritizing work and life.* 2. *Dave Snowden’s work on complexity and his Cynefin framework have been a significant influence on how I think about operating in complexity and in information-poor environments. Here’s the* [*link*](https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *to his seminal HBR article.* 3. [*Dunning-Kruger*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger%5Feffect?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *and* [*Impostor Syndrome*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostor%5Fsyndrome?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *are well recognized and researched. I got the idea of them being opposite ends of a spectrum from* [*Super Thinking*](https://amzn.to/3kfPiZ4?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Gabriel Weinberg and Lauren McCann.* 4. [*War of Art*](https://amzn.to/3jF2yTG?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Steven Pressfield*. 5. [*Think Again*](https://amzn.to/37TuvEB?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Adam Grant*. 6. [*The Courage to Create*](https://amzn.to/3PpbRnO?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Rollo May.* 7. [*Inner Game of Work*](https://amzn.to/3JStKu8?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by W. Timothy Gallwey.* ### Speed as the Wrong Criteria URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/ Last updated: 2026-03-31T18:10:07.000Z The notion of speed is pervasive in our culture and ends up becoming the de-facto basis on which we make decisions. Often we don't even realize that we are in fact doing so. But speed as a dominant criterion can make us myopic and blind to the reality that we face, especially when it comes to human beings and change, including ourselves. > There is no fruit which is not bitter before it is ripe. > > – Publilius Syrus This is even more so true in the area of leadership development. People change and develop [in biological time, not clock time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). Consider two excerpts from Peter Block and Robert Kegan that highlight this notion. Here’s Block: > We live in a culture of speed, short cycle time, instant gratification, fast food, and quick action. So the question of How long? becomes important. Why wouldn’t we want everything right now? How long?—like the others—makes its own statement: **If it takes too long, the answer is probably no**. > > It implies that change or improvement needs to happen quickly, the faster the better. In this way, the question How long? drives us to **actions that oversimplify the world**. If we believe that faster is better, we choose those strategies that can be acted upon quickly. As individuals, we would rather lose weight with a quick fix of diet pills than the slower, more demanding process of changing a lifetime of eating and exercise habits. > ... > We want changes to occur in days, weeks, and months, not years. The most important effect of the "How long" question is that it drives us to answers that meet the criteria of speed. > > It runs **the risk of precluding slower, more powerful strategies** that are more in line with what we know about learning and development. We treat urgency like a performance-enhancing drug, as if calling for speed will hasten change, despite the evidence that authentic transformation requires more time than we ever imagined. > ... > We have time for all that is truly important to us, so the question of time shifts to What is important? When we say something takes too long, it just means that it does not matter to us. > ... > Our ability to know **how long a change in a living system will take is a guess at best**. How long does it take to raise a child, change a culture, create a new direction, shift a strategy? We can shout urgency, set tight schedules, define monster goals, and the world will still proceed at the pace it chooses. We are too prone to understate the time required as a means of convincing ourselves or others to go ahead. > > – Peter Block in [*The Answer to How is Yes*](https://amzn.to/3KDAwUh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Here’s Kegan: > Why does it take time? Because we are in the world of human cultivation, not human engineering. We are not speaking of flipping a light switch. We are speaking of the evolution of mental complexity, of the gradual process of mental differentiation and reintegration, of looking at a way of making meaning we used to only look through, of shifting subject to object. > > You have no problem with longer time horizons when you are talking about any other major initiative in your organization; why do you expect overnight success in this one? > > You know the future of a tulip bulb is to blossom into a tulip; you know the future of a caterpillar is to sprout wings and fly. But you are not impatient with the tulip bulb or the caterpillar. > > – Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey in [*Immunity to Change*](https://amzn.to/3JJSXFF?ref=leadingsapiens.com) The next time we become impatient with the lack of progress of a high-performer or even an entire team, consider what our underlying model is? Is it one of [clock time or of biological time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/)? Same goes for our own developmental efforts. **What things are we not trying simply because we think it will take too long?** ### How Technology Dumbs you Down URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technology-dumbs-you-down/ Last updated: 2026-03-31T18:09:29.000Z *When reading the next book, attending the next course or even while reading this article, consider what we want from it. Are we looking for a formula that is proven and guaranteed?* *There is a downside to the convenience and speed that technology promises. Same with trying to make leadership formulaic.* --- ## **What technology and formulae steal from you** Heidegger and others have written about how technology can take over our lives. In an insightful and simple explanation of what technology steals from you, Hubert Dreyfus gives the example of the GPS – while making life easier and convenient it also robs us of developing the skills of navigation. \[3\] > But notice the hidden cost to this advance. When the GPS is navigating for you, your understanding of the environment is about as minimal as it can possibly be. It consists of knowing things like “I should turn right now.” In the best case this method of navigating gets you to your destination quickly and easily. > > But it completely trivializes the noble art of navigation, which was the province of great cultures from the sea-faring Phoenicians to the navigators of the Age of Discovery. > > To navigate by GPS requires no sense of where you are, no sense of where you’re going, and no sense whatsoever for how to get there. Indeed, the whole point of the GPS is to spare you the trouble of navigating. > > *– Hubert Dreyfus in All Things Shining* \[1\] Are we as managers trying to spare ourselves the trouble of leading and managing? Are we looking for a GPS when we are reading a business book, attending a course, or doing an MBA? A GPS for our work and lives that will give us turn by turn directions and that comes with a guarantee? Something that will save us frustration and disappointment? We want the outcome but not the process, the destination but not the inevitable challenges along the way, the skills but not the struggle to learn them. We are looking for the quick fix, the one-minute solution because we claim we don’t have time. We want to be spared the struggle and agony of grappling with things and having to figure it out. There is a superficiality and lack of depth that comes from "technologizing" aspects of our work and lives. And people pick up on that. This is why techniques and tactics don’t build relationships and don’t work in the long term. Human beings are too evolved not to pick up on the subtle cues when we try a technique on them. Even when the techniques do work, its worth noting what it does to us as a person. We tend to become more shallow and lacking depth. Perhaps none of us wants to be that person. ## No shortcuts in the human domain We are looking for the shortcut. Except there aren’t any when it comes to the domain of human meaning which is where leadership lies. Humans are anything but predictable and mechanical. It's this very *non-predictableness* and *non-mechanicalness* that makes modern knowledge work and knowledge workers possible. Innovation and creativity by definition are not predictable. But **the very systems that are supposed to help are designed to enforce predictability and mechanical behavior**. We try to impose the old command and control methods that were derived from running and optimizing mechanical systems and processes. We want our teams to be creative, adaptive and resilient but we end up, inadvertently, killing the same. ### **Mastering meaningful distinctions** Mastery of any domain requires us to learn what Dreyfus calls meaningful distinctions in that domain whether that’s surgery, golf, or leadership. > The achievement of skill involves substantially more than the mere acquisition of a physical ability. Learning a skill is learning to see the world differently. > > The skilled surgeon, for example, sees something more than a broken and bloody leg; he sees a particular kind of break, one that requires this precise surgical technique to fix it. Likewise, we hear people say that the successful running back has “great vision,” the point guard has extraordinary “court sense.” > > In each case this means that the person’s skill at surgery or running or passing allows them to see meaningful distinctions that others without their skill cannot. > > *– Hubert Dreyfus in All Things Shining* \[1\] Technology to a large extent **exempts and prevents us from having to learn** meaningful distinctions and thus robs us of depth and nuance. As long as it is something we don’t want to learn about, this is ok. But if it is in fact a domain where either technology is not going to work, or we *do* want to learn more about the domain, then technology can actually hurt us from getting better. > This is a job of paradoxes, dilemmas, and mysteries that cannot be resolved. The only guaranteed result of any formula for managing is failure. > > *– Henry Mintzberg in Managing* \[2\] Perhaps, as leaders and managers, we should spend more time trying to learn the meaningful distinctions of our domain instead of looking for the quick fix. I myself am guilty as charged for trying that and falling on my face. ## Footnotes & References 1. [All Things Shining](https://amzn.to/3M7BQ1W?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Hubert Dreyfus 2. [Managing](https://amzn.to/3KJss4w?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Henry Mintzberg 3. As an interesting aside, the [US Navy is going back to teaching navigation by stars](https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/why-the-navy-is-turning-to-the-stars/411298/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) instead of relying solely on satellites. ### David Whyte on the Set of Our Sail and the Shapes we Assume URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/the-set-of-our-sail-in-work-and-life/ Last updated: 2024-02-25T23:59:41.000Z David Whyte in his extraordinary book on life and careers, *Crossing the Unknown Sea*, talks about “the shapes we assume” and the “set of our sail” when it comes to our lives and work. > To awaken this inner artist, **we must assume a certain shape** that puts us in conversation with the elements; we must cultivate a kind of faith in the moving energies around us and the way they to come to our aid, give us lift, no matter our circumstances or difficulties. > > Almost like a sail conversing with the wind, **every sail will respond differently to the elements** according to its shape and the vessel it propels. And the response of the sail, with a steady hand at the tiller, creates movement and direction. > > As an individual, **you simply need to present some surface area to life**. In Woody Allen’s words: Just show up; then it is only a question of direction. > > – David Whyte in [Crossing the Unknown Sea](https://amzn.to/3EiaFyE?ref=leadingsapiens.com) His words prompt some deep questions worth asking ourselves about our lives and work. ## How is the set of our sail? Is it helping or hindering in what we have set out to do? ## What kind of shape are we assuming? Are we expanding or contracting in the world? Are we buoying or drowning? Are we putting ourselves in a **shape of possibility or in a shape of resignation**? Is our shape open to receive or is it closed off? Are we looking to explore or are we playing defense? The very shape of our sail influences how we catch the wind and how much we catch. ## How much surface area are we presenting to the world? Are we emboldened and enlarged to face whatever the world throws our way, or are we cowering in fear and trepidation from the uncertainty? ## Do we have any surface area we are presenting to the world? Or have we hidden and buried those deep passions and projects that we always wanted to do but never ventured out? That big ambitious project that we have been delaying — what is the simplest thing we can do so we are “**presenting some surface area to life**”? If we are not willing to do even that, maybe that project is not important enough to us? ## How are we “showing up”? How do we show up for all the opportunities already in front of us? Or did we count them out without giving due attention by falling into habitual thinking patterns? ## Is our sail ready to capture? Are we ready for what the world might send our way or are we frittering away possibility? Is it setup to catch the prevailing winds or do we feel like we are going against the wind? Did you know that **you can sail faster in a strong opposing wind than a weak trailing wind**? ## Is our sail even deployed? Too often we become so resigned in our lot that we don’t realize that we have built over a lifetime a very effective sail but have not deployed it yet. These could be the transferable skills in our current work, the network we've built, the support of loved ones, or the more mundane but relevant aspects like savings. It's easier in our busy, hectic lives to put our heads down and just keep going. However, every once in a while, it helps to[ step back and ponder](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) over deep questions like these. If asked from a place of genuine wonderment and enquiry, you might be surprised with the answers that can emerge. In closing, here’s another wonderful passage from Whyte: > Once we begin to engage those elemental edges through [daily courageous speech](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/), we start to build **a living picture of our own nature**, exactly the same way a captain gets to know her vessel and the particular way it reacts to the elements that surround it. > > As captain of our soul’s journey, we feel the angle of the sails, the creak and strain of the ropes, the lean of the tiller, and learn **the particular hum and song of our conversation with the elements**. It is this conversation that gives us not only our powers of survival but a music of exhilaration for our journey and arrival. > > – David Whyte in [Crossing the Unknown Sea](https://amzn.to/3QRvOq1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Is our journey an exhilarating one or the opposite? What are we going to do different? ### Related reading - It’s easy to fall into what can be called [*active inertia*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/) when we are doing well. It's an especially prevalent [pitfall in successful mid careers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/) and something we should be alert to. - Asking [some critical questions about our careers](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/) on a regular basis can help ensure we are aligned and on track. - Leaving unfulfilling jobs or changing careers can be a gut wrenching experience often stopping us in our tracks. It need not be. Over the years, I collected key [frameworks that helped in my own transition](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/) that you might find useful. - Whyte mentions Keats' notion of **negative capability** elsewhere in the book. We always think of skills and abilities in the positive but often beyond a certain point dealing with the uncertainties is an ability in itself. [Negative capability is one way to deal with the uncertainty and unpredictability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/developing-negative-capability-leadership/) that comes with careers and life. --- 💡 Liked this post? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### The Tyranny of Control – Why Leaders Keep Ignoring Context URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/ Last updated: 2025-08-21T14:28:28.000Z *Changing context through language is a powerful tool of leadership. And yet, leaders continue to underutilize it. They are focused on control and end up tangled in the content of their situations.* *Leaders don't focus on context either due to lack of awareness or just plain bad habits. Being more aware of these tendencies is a solid first step towards using context more powerfully.* --- ## Why context matters > Business leaders have to be able to view patterns as if they were on a balcony. It does them no good to be swept up in the field of action. Leaders have to see a context for change or create one. > > – Ronald Heifetz & Donald Laurie in Harvard Business Review \[1\] Einstein once said, *"if I had only one hour to save the world, I would spend fifty-five minutes defining the problem, and only five minutes finding the solution."* He was talking about context. A core skill that differentiates extraordinary leaders and multiplies their effectiveness is their ability to shift a team’s perspective on a particular challenge thus changing ensuing actions and behavior. They engineer that shift by[ using language to change the context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/competing-languages-of-leadership/) within which a that challenge is occurring. Context is the background against which people are standing and that determines their perceptions of reality. This background determines what they see as possible and achievable. They draw their identity and formulate their thinking and attitudes from it. > \[Leadership\] is about intervening in the context so as to produce a profound alteration. Leaders … create a shift in context that automatically alters the content. > > – Robert Hargrove in Masterful Coaching \[2\] As leaders, context is a powerful tool to effect change, motivate different behavior, and create new possibilities. ### Actions are logical, given how it looks The reason why people are being and acting a certain way is because of how the situation occurs to them. Often, it is not because of lack of information, competence, or intelligence. They are acting in the most logical and natural way given how the situation looks to them. This is what Patricia Werhane call ***positionally objective***. > Position-dependency defines the way in which the object appears “from a delineated somewhere.” This “delineated somewhere,” however, is positionally objective. > > That is, **any person in that position will make similar observations**. > > – Patricia Werhane in Systems Thinking & Moral Imagination \[3\] The leader’s objective then is to change that “delineated somewhere”, so that they can make [different observations and come to different conclusions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) and resulting actions, leading to different results. That's where changing the context is an opportunity for leaders. ## **Why leaders delve in *control* rather than *context*** If [changing context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) through language is powerful, why is it that leaders continue to delve in control (content), which teams are already good at, instead of trying to understand and change the context within which a situation shows up? Our natural inclination is to delve into the content ourselves. While there is a place for content and it is equally important, why is it that we tend to continue delving in content even when it’s not working? ### **It’s tangible** One reason is what Reynolds and Houlder call ‘Tyranny of the Tangible’. Content tends to be more tangible, in-your-face and accessible than context. > It's human nature to prefer working with the tangible, things we can specify and monitor, and when something is not tangible, we will do our best to make it so. When we know what to do and can easily see and measure our progress, we feel in control and this makes us feel good. > > — *Reynolds, Houlder, Goddard, Lewis \[8\]* ### **Easier to “get your head around”** We already have mental models about them. But it is those very same mental models that are causing us to not see. This is also called “contextual blindness”; we are blind to the other possibilities. Paradoxically, while it is easier to delve in content, it's equally hard to directly change the content itself, the so-called “facts of the situation”, the elements of the situation that appear as immutable to us. [Changing the context through language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) is one way to loosen the grip of constraints and facts and bring to light previously invisible aspects of a situation . ### **Discomfort with questions and staying in the unknown** Stepping back from the thick of action invariably involves asking different and difficult questions. We might have to admit that the answer is not obvious and that we do not have all the answers. This is obviously uncomfortable given all of us came up through educational systems in which knowing all the answers was the way to get ahead. ### The **need to have all the answers beforehand** There is this perception that as leaders we need to have all the answers. Thus we keep going back to the content that we are familiar and comfortable with instead of grappling with the unknown and unfamiliar which might in fact give a different context with different possibilities and potential solutions. > Rather than fulfilling the expectation that they will provide answers, leaders have to ask tough questions. > > – Ronald Heifetz & Donald Laurie in Harvard Business Review \[1\] Delving in context means you are not sure about the answer. It means being open to other possibilities. It means admitting that not everything is already known and appearing vulnerable. And this is not easy for a lot of leaders who might have built their leadership on looking and “seeming” strong and all-knowing. ### **It’s familiar and comfortable** Typically we are familiar with content and as a result it feels comfortable. We feel competent when we do something familiar even as doing the competent action might be leading to substandard overall results and behavior. Familiarity with content can give us a false sense of mastery over the situation. ### **Context can be more effortful** It takes more effort to zoom out and try to understand or change the context compared to jumping into action on the content. With content the action required tends to be more obvious making it more easily actionable and accessible. Whereas with context it’s not as obvious and needs to be worked at and grappled with. > For the way to what is near is always the longest and thus the hardest for us humans. > > – Martin Heidegger in Discourse on Thinking \[4\] \[5\] Looking at or changing context is harder because it challenges your existing worldview and mental models which can be uncomfortable. But that is the very reason why there is more opportunity in looking at context because most people would not do it naturally. ### **Bias towards *a* right answer** You are more likely to have right answers with content whereas with context there might not be an obvious right answer. We have a bias for getting at *a* right answer. ### **Perceived complexity** Content and control make the situation less complex and less nuanced than it actually is. By zooming out and looking at the context you are potentially making it more complex by adding new views and new variables. You are more likely to run into polarities and paradoxes when delving in context. So if you are looking for an answer and the right one at that, you tend not to focus on the context. ### **Context can be uncomfortable** Changing the context invariably involves questioning our hidden assumptions, questioning what we have taken for granted, which is not easy and causes discomfort by definition. It makes you feel unstable especially if your identity is built upon some of those assumptions. > Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving there’s no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. > > – John Kenneth Galbraith \[6\] Context requires you to stay more in questions than in answers which by human nature we do not like. We abhor uncertainty and staying in the unknown. ### **A bias for action** It is natural for go-getters and high-achievers to have a bias for action and that is one reason that makes them effective. We seem to prefer execution than mull over strategy, preferring to march forward instead of taking a step back and trying to take in a different view. Stepping back can also be seen as weakness, hesitation, or indecisiveness, and our culture does not allow for such[ indecision and doubt](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/). --- The next time you are in a sticky, seemingly irresolvable situation, check to see if you are giving context enough attention and what you can do to change it. Here are some questions worth asking: - Am I delving in content or context? - Am I trying too hard to change the *contents* of the situation? - Am I wishing for the content to be different and/or resenting it? - What can I do to get a larger or a different context? - How can I change the narrative around the situation? - Can the issue be seen in a different light, from a different lens? - What are the key pieces that are driving the story and can other pieces change that story? As Derrida once said, “if things were simple, word would have gotten around” \[7\]. It's simple but not easy. But as leaders leading teams in a VUCA world, we cannot afford to ignore context. You and your team are already living within one. The question is whether it’s by design or by default. ### Footnotes/References 1. [*The Work of Leadership*](https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Ronald Heifetz & Donald Laurie.* 2. [*Masterful Coaching*](https://amzn.to/38LJj8x?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Robert Hargrove.* 3. [*Moral Imagination and the Search for Ethical Decision-Making in Management*](https://www.jstor.org/stable/41968764?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Patricia Werhane.* 4. [*Discourse on Thinking* ](https://amzn.to/3jGCo2K?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by Martin Heidegger, trans. John Anderson & E Hans Freund.* 5. [*The Science of Leading Yourself* ](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275997123%5FThe%5FScience%5Fof%5FLeading%5FYourself%5FA%5FMissing%5FPiece%5Fin%5Fthe%5FHealth%5FCare%5FTransformation%5FPuzzle?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by Wiley Souba.* 6. *John Kenneth Galbraith cited in* [*Simple Habits for Complex Times* ](https://amzn.to/3KMUHPN?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by Jennifer Garvey Berger and Keith Johnston.* 7. [*The Three Laws of Performance*](https://amzn.to/3jJ4Xg1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Steven Zaffron & Dave Logan.* 8. [*What Philosophy Can Teach You About Being a Better Leader*](https://amzn.to/3XLd3qD?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*byAlison Reynolds, Dominic Houlder, Jules Goddard, David Lewis* ### Two Questions for a Midlife Career Change URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/ Last updated: 2024-02-26T00:00:14.000Z *Imagine your current career as a rocket ship barreling through space. Many of us, both metaphorically and in reality, are going at warp speed in our careers never considering two basic questions.* *Asking these two questions on a regular basis ensures peak performance and minimizes lost opportunities and later regrets.* *These can help cut through the noise especially when considering a career change at midlife.* --- ## **Question 1: Do we know where we are heading?** Usually we are very clear about where something is heading whether it is hailing a cab or taking a trip. However, when it comes to careers, sometimes we tend to go blind to this basic fact. You might be heading in the right direction within the purview of a career itself – getting promotions, increasing responsibility and so forth. But is it the right career for you to begin with? Do we like the person we are becoming in the process? Do we like what people 10 years senior to us are doing and is that where we want to be 5-10 years from now? Because if nothing changes, that is exactly where we are headed ourselves. ### **What prevents us from seeing where we are heading** One major cultural norm that makes us go blind to where we are heading is money. For many of us our careers are a means to an end rather than a calling. When we started off we didn’t necessarily have the option or the awareness to make a discerning choice. There are others, who along the way figured out that what they were doing for a living was not suited to them or just do not want to do it for the long term. But over time, especially with well-paid professionals, we forget this tradeoff and the boundary between the means and the end starts blurring. We continue doing work that we never wanted to do to begin with. We forget that it was supposed to be a short-term tradeoff. The short-term has become the long-term and the original aspiration or vision has either been forgotten or we have become too timid to step out and try something new. \[3\] ### Money is only one form of exchange > *Part of the price of becoming a transaction is that we allow our value to be defined by others: an organization, a boss, a recruiter, a partner, a lover.* > > *I become a commodity whose worth rises and falls according to the marketplace. I place my self-esteem in the hands of forces that I cannot control. I am happy when the price rises and feel depressed in periods of recession—and I am literally depressed in times of deflation.* > > – Peter Block in Answer to How is Yes \[1\] We forget that money after all is just one form of value exchange, albeit a very celebrated and visible one in our culture. There are other higher order value exchanges like time, energy and identity. \[2\] Consider what you are exchanging in return for money. #### Time This is the one resource that no-one can recreate, store, hack or leverage. All of us come with expiration dates. We only have so much time. Are you ok with spending that time trying to exchange it for money? Time is finite and cannot be replenished. Money is both. > *\[I\]nstead of providing freedom, it imprisons those who covet it; instead of being a possession, it possesses those who hoard it; the only wealth that really matters involves things that money can’t buy.* > > *When asked what surprised him most about humanity, the Dalai Lama answered:* > *“Man. Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; *he lives as if he is never going to die and then dies having never lived.*”* > > *– Manfred Kets De Vries in Money, Money, Money \[4\]* #### Energy Does your work drain you or energize you? Does it reinvigorate you or does it kill a little bit of you everyday? #### Identity Who is the person you are becoming in the process of showing up daily at work? Who is the person you will become 5-10 years from now if you stay on the current path? Is that the person you want to become? ## Question 2: Do we like the ride? > To live only for some future goal is shallow. It’s the sides of the mountain which sustain life, not the top. Here’s where things grow. > > *— Robert Pirsig in Zen & the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance \[5\]* Do you like the ride, as in what you will be doing on a day to day basis? Regardless of what career we choose there are mundane day to day realities that need to get done. This is what David Brooks calls “digging the damn ditch” and goes with any career. But often, instead of being just one aspect of our work, ditch digging becomes the whole damn job. This can be because of a host of reasons. The nature of the role itself might have changed or what is more common is that you might have outgrown the role. There is no element of challenge to it. But why should we care about the ride? Isn’t the destination that’s more important? Unlike other scenarios, the ride in this case is our life itself. This is how we are choosing to live our lives on a moment to moment basis. > To live means to experience-through doing, feeling, thinking. Experience takes place in time, so **time is the ultimate scarce resource** we have. > > Over the years, the content of experience will determine the quality of life. Therefore **one of the most essential decisions any of us can make is about how one’s time is allocated or invested**. > > *– Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi in Finding Flow* \[6\] ## Blinded by outcome focus We can become so blinded by our focus on outcome, that we do not realize that 99% of the journey is the process, the ride, the journey itself, and not the outcome. The outcome, the goal, the end-result, is but one aspect of the journey that lasts for the shortest stretch or just one moment of the journey . Majority of the journey is on the path. **Do you like that path and the process?** If we do not like the ride aka the process itself, we are far less likely to stick with it in the long term. We are less likely to put in the extra effort to do what it takes to excel. This makes us less likely to stand out in a crowded field. **Authenticity and internal alignment is directly tied to performance, and one common source of inauthenticity is being in the wrong career or the wrong job.** The sooner we realize and leverage our true nature and the kinds of work we are more suited for, the faster we will be able to put in the required work and stand out. **Do you know where your rocket ship is heading? Do you like the ride? What are you going to do different?** --- 💡 Liked this article? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Further Reading Turns out when we are going at warp speed, change is even more difficult. Even once we’ve figured out that something is off after answering the two questions, there is another force that makes it even harder to make any change. It is what Donald Sull calls ***active inertia***. Check out [Good Careers Gone Bad - Subtle but Lethal Mistakes in Mid Career](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/) to explore this insidious side effect of success. I quit a successful 20 year engineering career to start my own practice. Most career change advice tends to be lame and superficial. Over the years I collected some key frameworks that helped in making the transition. You can find [my entire collection of essential career change frameworks here](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/). ### Sources and references 1. [*Answer to How is Yes*](https://amzn.to/3jGxvGN?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Peter Block.* 2. *Next by Matt Church.* 3. *This is true not just for major changes like changing careers but also to minor changes like changing jobs or even taking on a more risky role within the same organization.* 4. [*Money, Money, Money*](https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2007.04.001?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Manfred Kets De Vries.* 5. [*Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance*](https://amzn.to/37VQ8nO?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Robert Pirsig.* 6. [*Finding Flow*](https://amzn.to/3O9hIOS?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi.* 7. [Paul Gauguin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul%5FGauguin?ref=leadingsapiens.com) went through a major career change midlife and “doing a Gauguin” became a term. Below is an excerpt *from the paper*[ *Organizational Sleepwalkers*](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F001872679905201102?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Manfred Kets de Vries:* > *Some people “do a Gauguin,’’ an expression coined from the name of the artist who gave up his job as a bank clerk and went to a Polynesian island to paint. “Doing a Gauguin’’ means starting something completely new, making a dramatic change in one’s career (Kets de Vries, 1995). The catalyst for this is the feeling that unusual action is needed to get out of a rut. At midlife, it dawns on some people that they have chosen their career for the wrong reasons, for example to please a parent. At this stage in their lives, these people are finally ready to make the jump and do what makes them feel most alive, pursuing activities that they had been interested in for a long time. To experience a sense of renewal, to feel passion once more, they make a complete break from their previous career and find new challenges.* *8\. Kets De Vries covers this topic in his book* [*Reflections on Leadership and Career Development*](https://amzn.to/3Oc9g1c?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* ### On the Differences between Leaders and Managers URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/differences-leaders-managers/ Last updated: 2026-02-09T19:22:31.000Z In modern knowledge work, leadership and management are more alike than different. The dichotomy between the two are more exaggerated than what reality suggests. For all practical purposes, I have used the terms “manager” and “leader” interchangeably throughout my articles. When I mention leaders, I mean managers, leaders, executives, and basically anyone who is responsible for a group of human beings to deliver results. However, in management literature it is common to highlight differences between the two. Two classic works are that of Kotter and Zaleznik. \[1\] \[2\] ## No one wants to be a manager Our culture seems to give “managing” a lower status as opposed to “leadership”. No one aspires to become a *mere manager* but everyone wants to be a *bold leader*. Lookup any brochure or website for an MBA program and the terms leader and leadership will be used far more often than the term manager. However, I have found the dichotomy false in my own practice. I have yet to find a good manager who is not a good leader, or a good leader who is not otherwise a good manager. They both go hand in hand and the boundaries are not as distinct as we would like them to be. > Instead of distinguishing managers from leaders, we should be seeing managers as leaders, and leadership as management practiced well. > > *– Henry Mintzberg, Managing \[3\]* Leaders have to manage and managers have to lead. Although that would be the easy way out, I propose a couple of simplifying frameworks that might be helpful. One for both being the same and one for them being different. ## The case for both being the same Mintzberg suggests both being one and the same and for most people this is true. > Let’s stop the dysfunctional separation of leadership from management. We all know that managers who don’t lead are boring, dispiriting. Well, leaders who don’t manage are distant, disconnected. > > *– Henry Mintzberg, Enough leadership, Harvard Business Review* \[4\] There are as many definitions of leadership as there are writers. Some of them end up doing linguistic gymnastics in order to fit every eventuality and possibility into their particular version. ## The case for both being different Erhard et al, who differentiate leadership from management, suggest a very simple but powerful framework for defining leadership. > Being a leader and the exercise of leadership is all about realizing a future that wasn’t going to happen anyway. > > When there is (or could be if looked for) a clear-cut pathway to fulfilling a concern, while it may require competent management to fulfill, it does not require leadership. > > – Michael Jensen, Werner Erhard in *Creating Leaders* \[5\] ## Plumbing as well as poetry The reality, as any practicing manager knows is somewhere in the middle. It is not all about managing, neither is it all about leading. It is very situational and contextual. The particular challenge or situation drives the need for either, and one responds accordingly without necessarily thinking about what particular modality one is in. > Leadership involves plumbing as well as poetry. > > There are two essential dimensions of leadership: “plumbing,” i.e., the capacity to apply known techniques effectively, and “poetry,” which draws on a leader’s great actions and identity and pushes him or her to explore unexpected avenues, discover interesting meanings, and approach life with enthusiasm. > > *– James G March in On Leadership \[6\]* ## My stance I will close this post with an excerpt from Ralph Stacey who looks at leadership and management through the lens of complexity sciences and chaos theory, and dismisses any simplistic cause and effect approaches to leadership and management. My position is consistent with his. > \[T\]his distinction between managers as traditional and rational while true leaders are charismatic is clearly an idealization and a rather simplistic one at that. > > In reality, leaders do find that they have to attend to often mundane administrative tasks and managers do have to lead those who report to them if they are to get anything done. > > For me, leadership and management are aspects of a [legitimate power](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/legitimate-power/) role in an organization and they cannot be separated. \[…\] I will, therefore, usually use the term ‘leaders and managers’ as inseparable descriptors of an organizational role. Where I do use only one of the terms, I still mean both. > > *\- Ralph Stacey in Tools and Techniques of Leadership & Management* \[7\] What has your own experience been when navigating the dichotomy? What have you observed? ### References/Footnotes 1. [What leaders really do,](https://hbr.org/2001/12/what-leaders-really-do?cm%5Fsp=Article-%5F-Links-%5F-Comment&ref=leadingsapiens.com) and [Management is (still) not Leadership](https://hbr.org/2013/01/management-is-still-not-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by John Kotter in Harvard Business Review . 2. [Managers and Leaders: Are They Different?](https://hbr.org/2004/01/managers-and-leaders-are-they-different?ref=leadingsapiens.com) in Harvard Business Review by Abraham Zaleznik. 3. [Managing](https://amzn.to/3M9VB9l?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Henry Mintzberg. 4. [Enough Leadership](https://hbr.org/2004/11/enough-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) in Harvard Business Review by Henry Mintzberg. 5. Jensen, Michael C., Werner Erhard, and Kari L. Granger. “[Creating Leaders: An Ontological/Phenomenological Model](https://ssrn.com/abstract=1681682?ref=leadingsapiens.com).” Chap. 16 in [*The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being*](http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235126?ref=leadingsapiens.com), edited by Scott Snook, Nitin Nohria, and Rakesh Khurana. 6. [On Leadership](https://amzn.to/3uKWPlC?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by James G March. 7. [Tools and Techniques of Leadership and Management](https://amzn.to/3uKWE9W?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Ralph Stacey. ### Challenges of Experts Transitioning into Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/ Last updated: 2024-04-25T21:47:52.000Z *A common theme in coaching engagements is that of high-performers grappling with the dynamics of their new roles. Transitions can be disorienting especially when it is a step change.* *This happens at all levels, whether it's a first-line manager moving into a division head role or a senior manager moving into the C-suite. But it is doubly true for technical specialists/experts transitioning into a leadership or management role.* *The common advice is usually* *tactical at the surface level. Instead we go deeper and use the domains of competence framework to understand how we can reduce blindspots and increase our capacity for action.* --- ## Developing self-awareness using upstream frameworks Building self-awareness in ourselves and others is a critical leadership skill and this is widely understood. But, how to actually go about building this awareness is not as widely understood. Often, what we think of as self-awareness is just self-consciousness, self-absorption, or just plain rumination. To develop self-awareness, we need models and frameworks that can help prevent blindspots and identify weak areas. **Powerful models tend to be more upstream**, can explain a wide variety of phenomenon, and are universally applicable. They open up new perspectives and provide distinctions that enable new insights. This leads to different actions and thus different results. James Flaherty’s *domains of competence* is one such model that is very relevant to the challenges of technical experts transitioning into leadership roles. ## Flaherty/Habermas Domains of Competence Model This model has a rich philosophical history. It is rooted in Jurgen Habermas’s theory of communicative action that has four shared domains of reality: language, human relations, the external world, and the internal world.\[1\] Flaherty’s model simplifies it into the three domains of **I** (self-management), **We** (relationships with others) and **It** (facts & events).\[2\]\[3\] > *In order to accomplish anything of substance, we must be minimally competent in each of the three domains. Each of the domains requires a different kind of thinking and, consequently, different people will gravitate toward different domains.* > > – James Flaherty in Coaching, Evoking Excellence in Others Each domain has its own unique characteristics and minimum requirements. Being competent in one does not necessarily translate into the other. ![Domains of competence model-Key characteristics of each domain](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/05/I--We-and-It-domains-1.png) Key characteristics of each domain ## How careers get stalled This model can help in understanding how careers get stalled at different stages. While all of us have an intuitive understanding, taking a closer look using the model gives **more granularity** that can generate specific actions. All of us have biases and preference that make us **naturally inclined towards one or two of the domains, and making us weak in the other**. Both Peter Drucker and Marcus Buckingham have emphasized the importance of working on our strengths rather than our weaknesses. \[4\]\[5\] But there is a **difference between “working on” vs “being aware of” our weaknesses**. Not being aware of our weaknesses can blindside and trip us up. They start limiting our available set of opportunities. By being aware of them, we can take mitigating actions that can **limit the damage caused by those weaknesses**. The “I” domain is the basis of achievement and undergirds the other two. In the early stages of a career, the “I” and “It” domains tend to dominate. Beyond a certain point though, self-management becomes less of a differentiator. At a certain level of achievement and career stage, almost everyone is pretty good in the domain of “self-management”. In the middle and later stages, what starts differentiating and limiting careers is how balanced we are between the “We” and “It” domains and how skillfully we navigate between them based on what the role and situation requires. The table below highlights some of the core differences across various dimensions between the “We” and “It” domains. While reality is much more nuanced and not as clearly defined, **looking at the extremes can help with identifying some of our own stumbling blocks**. > Most folks who struggle in transitioning from technical, specialist roles into a more generalist, management or leadership role, struggle because of not recognizing the differences between the two domains. While this is a well recognized pattern, most so called solutions focus on the mechanics and tactics without actually trying to understand the underlying patterns. Notice how **the two domains have completely different language and expectations**. Operating in one with assumptions from the other is a recipe for frustration. You will also notice why some people in your team excel in these transitions while others struggle. Many of those answers will be obvious in the list below. ## Differences between the "We" and "It" domains ![Differences between the We and It domains- domains of competence model](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/05/We-domain-vs-It-domain.png) Differences between the We and It domains This challenge of clearly understanding the requirements of each domain was highlighted by Drucker. \[6\] > *For a social discipline, such as management, the assumptions are actually a good deal more important than are the paradigms for a natural science.* > > *The paradigm—that is, the prevailing general theory—has no impact on the natural universe. Whether the paradigm states that the sun rotates around the earth, or that, on the contrary, the earth rotates around the sun, has no effect on sun and earth.* > > *But *a social discipline, such as management, deals with the behavior of people and human institutions*. The social universe has *no ‘natural laws’ as the physical sciences do*. It is thus subject to continuous change.* > > *This means that assumptions that were valid yesterday can become invalid and, indeed, totally misleading in no time at all*. > > *—Peter Drucker in Forbes* In what ways does an imbalance become a problem? What are the common mistakes that trips people up? What trouble do we typically have when trying to juggle and balance the domains? ## Common Mistakes ### Expecting excellence in one to make up for lack in others The most common one is that of technical experts who are good at both the *I* and *It* domains but whose career stalls because of a lack of development in the *We* domain. This is equally true for both management and technical career ladders although it is more prominent in the management one. The common assumption is that because we are standouts in the It domain that it should suffice for the rest. But one of the key learnings from the model is that for us to excel at anything we have to be minimally competent in all three domains. **Even extraordinary excellence in one domain will not make up for a lack of competence in the other two**. All three have to meet minimal [competence standards](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). As to what those competence standards comprise of, that can easily be figured out based on the norms and culture of the organization. What might pass as stellar in self-management in one organization might be considered as mediocre in another. ### **Inability/unwillingness to participate in the conversations of the organization** Organizations from the perspective of a “We” domain are **a network of conversations and promises**. Leaders who rose through the ranks on their technical prowess might discount the nature of how conversations create organizational reality. Either because of this dismissive attitude or simply not knowing how to intervene and participate in the conversations, they miss out on this entire dimension of the organization. > As one goes higher, your ability to create and bend reality with conversations becomes a critical part of your job. The meaning of bend here is not that of manipulation but of participating in a process and thus influencing the outcome. ### **The assumption that the work should speak for itself** Often it does not. This is a craftsman’s point of view and it is true when looked at purely from the point of view of execution in the *It* domain. The *It* domain is built on execution and deliverables. Unfortunately your expertise needs to be seen as having value too. The beauty is as much in the eyes of the beholder and if no one sees value in your masterpiece it will not go anywhere. ### **Managers and execs in new technical domain**s One less typical one is situations when managers and execs find themselves in an unfamiliar technical domain. Either when taking over existing business units or as a result of rapid promotions, the manager might be in a situation where they are entirely reliant upon one or two key individuals. This can end up being their achilles heel. They need to have at least some understanding of the basis of technical decisions being made. While the typical advice is to build your team to eliminate your weaknesses, a leader cannot be completely ignorant. \[2\] ### **Problem-solution mindset** The primary orientation in any technical field is that of problem solving. And problem solving is what made us successful. Unfortunately problem solving also means a habit of thinking which can get in the way in social domains. \[7\] \[8\] In a social domain, not everything is well defined and there might not be an obvious problem to solve. This can be disorienting for people used to looking for problems and solving them. **Problem finding and** [**problem framing**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/)**/defining** is often more important than solving. A willingness to stay with the question longer than we are comfortable is also important. Anything that does not follow the problem solving format can get misconstrued as a waste of time. ### **Balancing the *I* with the *We*** Individual success vs team success vs organizational success- [organizations and management are full of paradoxes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and this is just one of them. Not only do you have to succeed yourself, but you also have to make sure your teams succeeds alongwith the organization. Often these are at odds with each other and you cannot have it all. ### **Trying to use *I* and *It* in the *We* domain** Relationships have their own dynamic and trying to build a relationship on the strength of the other two domains is when relationships feel shallow and lacking connection. That's when the other person does not feel “seen” in the relationship or as being “used” for the other’s purpose. It's also how a transactional relationship develops between a superior and subordinate without any basis in relationship.\[2\] ### **Confusing the domains in play/lack of differentiation** Engineered systems (*It*) are replete with fixed definitions and no grey areas for the most part. They tend to have one good answer. Folks steeped in the *It* domain sometimes have a hard time dealing with the ambiguity of social systems not realizing that it is not a moral or normative issue, but rather the nature of the system itself. In social systems (*We*), like management and organizations, things are more nuanced and open to interpretation. This is why no two people see the same problem in the same way in a social system. Each of them comes to the table with their[ own interpretations and filters](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) and hence sees the problem differently with different solutions. In the *We* domain you get things done through people and hence [understanding them](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/) is a key part of one’s success . Clearly identifying the domain and its dynamics is critical to success. Confusion usually follows **when we do not know what domain our particular problem is in**. As a solo contributor your actions and behavior played a much smaller role compared to the deliverables you produced. This relationship gets flipped as you rise higher. Your actions and behavior start playing a much larger role until you get to the point where **you are not producing anything yourself. The *production* is through people, through conversations, and through a network**. You are now completely in the social domain where actions and behavior play a much larger and important role. ### **Not being comfortable with ambiguity and lack of information** Leaders who have progressed through the ranks based on their technical know-how and specialized skillset, can struggle when operating in the realm of human performance. There is more nuance, complexity, and ambiguity to deal with, when this might not have been the case before. What made them good was their ability to deal with the **technical aspects, which by definition tend to be more deterministic in nature**\- you are aware of the variables that affect the outcome, and you can directly change or manipulate those variables. ### **The need to stay in control** As you go higher up, the need to get things done through others increases exponentially. You do not necessarily have direct access or influence into the results. And we struggle with this. The paradox of leadership is that while on an org chart it might look like the higher up you go you have more control, **the reality is that higher up you go, the more you need to get things done through others.** Leaders with technical backgrounds tend to struggle with the superficiality and **open-ended nature of leading and managing**. You don’t get to “crank out widgets” as someone on the shop floor might get to do. There is a psychic benefit to cranking out widgets and checking out mentally everyday. Often there are no clear markers of starting and finishing something in the social domain. \[10\] ### **Collapsing the domains** A classic mistake is that of collapsing or mixing up of the domains. On one hand, the optimist and idealist in us assumes that great strength in one of the domains will carry us in the other two. On the other hand, the pessimist in us assumes that weakness in one domain automatically excludes us from opportunities requiring more of the other. \[11\] We have to resist collapsing the domains and objectively look at our competence in each of them. ### **Definitions vs Distinctions** Definitions tend to dominate technical/engineering systems whereas distinctions tend to rule social systems. Definitions tell you what something is and something is not. The boundaries are more clearly defined. \[9\] On the other hand distinctions are never complete on their own and the boundaries are nuanced. They help you interpret something in a different way or see something what was previously indistinct. --- Hopefully, this list highlighted some of the reasons why you or someone on your team has struggled in a transition or promotion situation. It’s worth the effort to sit down with the list and ask yourself where there might be a disparity between reality and your interpretation of it. Some useful questions: - Which domain do I typically operate out of? - Which one am I comfortable with? - Which one am I not comfortable with? - In which domain do most of my conflicts and weaknesses lie? - In what domain does the current challenge I am facing lie? - Am I playing by the rules of that domain or the one that I am comfortable with? ## Related reading Another area where technical specialists tend to struggle and that differentiates effective leaders is [mastery of context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) and avoiding [constantly delving in content](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). Being effective at the building block of conversations is another differentiator. I explore this notion in [Effective Leadership as Effective Conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/) and [Deliberate Practice and Leadership Effectiveness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). ### Sources 1. *Stanley Deetz in*[ *The New Handbook of Organizational Communication*](https://amzn.to/3jFL7lM?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 2. [*Coaching*](https://amzn.to/3uIgCSE?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by James Flaherty.* 3. [*Leadership Coaching for Results*](https://amzn.to/3KOmnUk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Sunny Stout-Rostron.* 4. [*Managing Oneself*](https://hbr.org/2005/01/managing-oneself?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Peter Drucker.* 5. [*Now, Discover your Strengths*](https://amzn.to/3uIn4Jf?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Marcus Buckingham.* 6. [*Management’s New Paradigms*](https://www.forbes.com/global/1998/1005/0113052a.html?sh=59e813652328&ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Peter Drucker in Forbes.* 7. [*Path of least resistance – Robert Fritz*](https://amzn.to/3xJLvbl?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*. This book dives into the details of the creative orientation.* 8. [*Leading Geeks*](https://amzn.to/3JJAFUI?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Paul Glen* 9. [*From Debate to Dialogue*](https://doi.org/10.1080/10417940009373168?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Bruce Hyde & Jeffery Bineham.* 10. *The widget philosophy is from* [*Getting Things Done*](https://amzn.to/3M8XyD0?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by David Allen.* 11. [*Language & the Pursuit of Happiness*](https://amzn.to/3M4OuyJ?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Chalmers Brothers.* ### Communicating Effectively using Closure Conversations URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/ Last updated: 2024-02-26T00:01:23.000Z *Learning and implementing a typology of conversations can dramatically improve leadership communication and effectiveness. One such specific type of conversation is a *conversation for closure*.* ‌‌‌‌ *How can getting better at this kind of conversation help leaders communicate effectively?* --- ## A framework for conversations In *The Four Conversations*, Laurie and Jeffrey Ford identify 4 unique types of conversations: Initiative, Understanding, Performance, and Closure. \[1\] Amongst these four, closure conversations tend to be the most neglected because they are assumed to be obvious and thus not needed. An example is the notion that you shouldn’t have to follow-up if someone is on top of their game or that they don’t need recognitions or acknowledgements that often. In their paper on conversational profiles, **they define closure conversations as**: > *...conversations intended to complete or close the loop on any requests or promises still open, actions taken (or not), or results produced (or not).* > > ‌‌‌‌*Whenever a promise is made (either independently or in response to a request), it creates a commitment to make something happen by a certain time.* > > *Closure conversations close out those commitments by creating “endings” that acknowledge what has and has not been done and summarize the status of things.* ‌‌‌‌ > > *Repairing broken trust depends on closure conversations to clean up issues left by failed expectations or broken promises.* ‌‌‌‌*Vehicles for closure conversations include reports, recognitions, acknowledgements, and apologies, along with other forms of post-mortems or debriefs, such as after-action reviews.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Laurie & Jeffrey Ford in The Four Conversations \[7\] ## What makes closure conversations so important and effective? ### Driving engagement Imagine a project where your team went all out on its efforts and achieved something remarkable. On completion, you do not acknowledge or recognize them for their stellar efforts. What do you think that does to your team’s morale? While this example maybe an exaggeration, this happens all the time, albeit at much smaller amplitudes and intensity levels. **We tend to hold back** when it comes to acknowledgment and recognition and wait for the big moment, losing out on smaller, more impactful moments along the way. Conversations for closure can be one of the most important conversations in keeping and boosting morale. Recognitions are a well-trodded path in modern organizations as a tool to drive engagement but typically these tend to happen on a larger scale. But equal benefits can be had on a much smaller scale and task levels. **One metric is to look at how often managers are having closure conversations** that recognize and acknowledge efforts, **regardless of scope and importance**. This does not have to be elaborate. Even a 2 minute conversation or a short email acknowledging and recognizing someone can go a long way. **Unlike monetary rewards that are extrinsic, recognizing someone appeals to their innermost, intrinsic need for meaning** and purpose in work. > Managers need to do this more often than is comfortable. The idea is not *reinforcing positive behavior* in the classic terminology of behaviorism, but to build a mutual relationship where each person is *seen* as another contributing and capable human being. We have a core need to be *seen* by others, to be acknowledged, and seen as contributing peers. Conversations for closure go a long way in achieving this. ### Driving accountability Conversations for closure can be powerful vehicles to drive accountability in entire organizations. > *Clear, simple goals don’t mean much if nobody takes them seriously. *The failure to follow through is widespread in business, and a major cause of poor execution.** ‌‌‌‌*You need *robust dialogue* to surface the realities of the business. You need accountability for results—discussed openly and agreed to by those responsible—to get things done and reward the best performers.* ‌‌‌‌*You need follow-through to ensure the plans are on track.*‌‌‌‌ > > *– Ram Charan and Larry Bossidy in Execution \[2\]* ***Requests* and *Promises* are specific kinds of speech acts** that are used in conversations. When we make a *request*, in response we get implicit or explicit *promises* in support of those requests (promises are acceptance of a request). \[8\] \[9\] Without followup on requests, or in other words no conversation for closure, there is no incentive for the person to execute on your request. In a sea of competing requests and promises guess who’s requests will get priority? This is especially true when promises are implicitly assumed by the requestor. Most of this is common sense but the trick is to identify more opportunities and waypoints for closure conversations instead of one final report. It is more of a process and behavior than one big final act. This is also true for organizations as whole. Conversations for closure drive a culture of accountability in teams and organizations. Akin to broken windows affecting the amount of crime in *broken window theory*, broken promises and agreements are emblematic and symbolic of larger issues. > Regardless of the importance and size of the promise kept or broken, it drives a culture of accountability or a lack thereof. ### Managing commitments vs Keeping commitments Broken promises and commitments are the **organizational debris** that slows down organizations by manifesting as lack of trust, lack of co-ordination, and lack of timely communication. And one of the chief reasons is the misunderstanding between *managing* commitments vs *keeping* commitments. **Nobody can *keep* all their commitments but everyone can *manage* all their commitments** by being upfront about the ones they can’t. Paradoxically, being upfront about our inability to keep a commitment builds trust faster than otherwise. \[4\] Closure conversations gives everyone the opportunity to *manage* their commitments and their stakeholder relationships. ### Building trust All of us recognize the importance of trust in relationships. But it's not always clear how to go about building it. Conversations for closure are a valuable tool in building trust. They give both parties an opportunity to fulfill a promise, and thus in turn build their identity and integrity in the process. If you are in a relationship where there is a lack of trust or depth, **make more promises and commitments** and fulfill those commitments regularly using closure conversations. And notice the difference this makes. Integrity at its most basic non-normative definition is that of *keeping our word*. > Closure conversations give everyone the opportunity to keep their word, and in the process build their own integrity and level of trust in the relationship. ### Capturing feedback for learning Closure conversations are an important tool for improvement when used as **post-mortems and after-action reviews**. This is in fact one way to implement Chris Argyris’s double-loop and triple-loop learning, where you not only look for direct causes of failures but also for second and third order causes at a systemic level in order to prevent it in the first place. How can we improve at something if we are not having those closure conversations? Closure conversations are where you acknowledge what went well, what did not, and ways to change that in future endeavors. ### Closing the loop of promise-based management In their Harvard Business Review article on promise-based management, Spinosa and Sull lay out **three phases of effective promises:** 1. Meeting of minds 2. Making it happen 3. Closing the loop Closure conversations are where the *closing of the loop* happens. > *What really drives successful execution? Promises: employees’ personal pledges to satisfy concerns of stakeholders within and outside an organization. And *when strategy implementation falters, poorly crafted promises are usually the culprits.* *‌‌‌‌** > > *– Charles Spinosa, Donald Sull* in Harvard Business Review \[3\] Without these conversations the loop never gets closed and the process loses its power, turning into a vicious cycle instead of a virtuous one. ### Making communication actionable and generative Any creative person knows that creation itself generates energy in the creator. This is the energy we feel when we have finished or created something. Even mundane things like mowing the lawn and washing dishes can be generative because we created something tangible that we can see and feel. This is what David Allen identifies as **the psychic satisfaction that you get from cranking widgets**. You might be exhausted at the end of the day but you feel satisfied, reenergized, and ready for the next day. One of the challenges in leadership and management is that you are always operating in the grey. There is **no clear line that one crosses, no tangible widget that one cranks out everyday**. Everything can feel very amorphous. And if you consider that 90% of the time what managers do is communication and conversation, no wonder they feel **they are not *doing* anything**. > But upon closer examination, the *doing* of the manager is a series of conversations and managing those conversations. ‌‌‌‌Rather than managing people or resources **they are managing conversations**, which in turn start or keep things in motion. And one of the ways you can make your conversations and communications more tangible is by understanding and using a typology of conversations. [A typology gives conversations a certain shape and context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/), and by identifying them we have something to work with. Closure conversations **act as visible markers** to signify the end of a process and thus help us harness the energy of creation and accomplishment in our communication. Conversations and issues that are closed properly also help lay the ground to initiate new ones. One of the reasons we find it hard to get better at communication or any soft skill is because they tend to be amorphous and vague. The more granularity and vocabulary that we can bring to the game, the more opportunities we have for improvement and [deliberate practice](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). Conversations for closure is one such area where we can make immediate gains by focussing on the basics. ## Related reading For more on the importance of conversations in effective leadership, check out [Effective Leadership as Effective Conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/) and [Deliberate Practice and Leadership Effectiveness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). --- 💡 Liked this article? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### Sources and References 1. [*Conversational Profiles*](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0021886308322076?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Laurie Ford and Jeffrey Ford*. 2. *Execution: The Discipline of Getting Things Done* by *Ram Charan and Larry Bossid*y. 3. [*Promise Based Management*](https://hbr.org/2007/04/promise-based-management-the-essence-of-execution?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Charles Spinosa and Donald Sull*. 4. *Jensen, Michael C., Werner Erhard, and Kari L. Granger. “*[*Creating Leaders: An Ontological/Phenomenological Model*](https://ssrn.com/abstract=1681682?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.” Chap. 16 in* [*The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being*](http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book235126?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, edited by Scott Snook, Nitin Nohria, and Rakesh Khurana.* 5. [Deliberate Practice and Leadership Effectiveness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). 6. [*Broken Windows Theory*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken%5Fwindows%5Ftheory?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 7. *The* *Four Conversations by* Laurie Ford and Jeffrey Ford. 8. *Speech Acts by John Searle*. 9. *How to do things with Words by JL Austi*n. ### Effective Leadership as Effective Conversations URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leadership-as-effective-conversations/ Last updated: 2026-02-26T18:00:35.000Z *It's a cliche to mention effective communication as critical to leadership effectiveness. But we usually don't have an actionable approach to getting better at communication.* *Focusing on conversations as an essential building block of leadership and organizations is one way to get better at communication and effective leadership.* --- James Flaherty mentions conversational competence as *“the competency that when mastered leaves us able to accomplish much more than ever before in a wide variety of circumstances”.* \[1\] One of those circumstances is leading and managing. ## Leadership as conversations Typically when we think of leadership, we think of charisma, strategy, strong oratory, strong cognitive skills, persuasion, vision, and a host of other things from modern culture including how Hollywood portrays leadership. However, the reality is that on a day-to-day moment-to-moment basis, the one action that leaders do the most is conduct conversations, some effective and others not so much. Whether it's strategy, planning or organizational change initiatives, if you look at the day to day, moment to moment being of leaders, what are they doing? What is the physical action that they are engaging in? Leadership at its core, in a very simplified model, can be thought of as a series of interconnected conversations or in other words, “leadership as conversations”. This could entail giving a presentation to the board on the organization’s future or having a one-on-one conversation with a direct report. > Talk is the technology of leadership. > > – Jeanne Liedtka \[2\] > Watch any manager and one thing readily becomes apparent: the amount of time that is spent simply communicating—namely, collecting and disseminating information for its own sake, without necessarily processing it. …what you see is a lot of talking and listening, not doing. > > The job of managing is significantly one of information processing, especially through a great deal of listening, seeing, and feeling, as well as a good deal of talking. > > – Henry Mintzberg in Managing \[3\] Lookup any job description for a managerial or executive role and you'll see some version of “strong communication skills” featured prominently. Clearly we recognize the importance of communication in leadership and managerial effectiveness. And yet, do we really know what this entails? As an aspiring leader what can one do to get better in this domain? While everyone understands the importance of communication, we do not necessarily know [how to go about building that competence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). ## Conversations underlie almost all leadership soft skills The importance of soft skills to leadership effectiveness is a well-recognized and well-researched area. > Over the last decade we have seen a tremendous amount of literature citing **the link between these soft skills and leadership effectiveness**. These skills include interpersonal relationships, getting along with others, communication, taking initiative, and team- building (Hurrell, 2016). > > – Rubens, Schoenfeld, Schaffer, Leah \[4\] Soft skills range from [emotional intelligence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/), empathy, building relationships and teams to making effective speeches and pitches to boards. They also happen to be an elusive skill set in modern organizations. Soft skills often end up being a vague term with very little in terms of actionable access. > Massaro, Bardy, and Garlatti (2016) recently reviewed the management literature for the notion of ‘soft skills’ and found over 140 papers on this subject. **Soft skills have been described as the most sought after skill** for workers in our new economy, and also one of the most difficult to obtain (Davidson, 2016). > > – Rubens, Schoenfeld, Schaffer, Leah \[4\] What underlies most of these skills is language and conversation. Language and conversations are the building blocks to several of these soft skills and they offer an actionable path to getting better at these elusive soft skills. Sometimes the very use of the term implies the lack of empirical evidence and an actionable way to improve upon it. But nothing could be farther from the truth. ## Conversations as building blocks of organizations From a linguistic point of view, organizations are a network of conversations and commitments and the [primary role of a manager is to have effective conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mbwa-managing-by-wandering-around/). The quality of the conversations determines the effectiveness of the manager. Whether that is a conversation with a direct report or interactions with a key stakeholder. > Organizations are linguistic structures built out of words and maintained by conversations. Even problems that aren’t strictly communicational can be explored in terms of things said and not said, questions asked and not asked, conversations never begun or left uncompleted, alternate explanations not discussed. > > *– Walter Truett Anderson in Reality isn’t what it used to be.* \[5\] A conversation can be thought as **the smallest unit and building block of organizations**. Everything that an organization achieves happens through conversations. It’s a message that needs to be delivered, an action that needs done, a discussion about a certain issue, and so on. > Dialogue is the basic unit of work in an organization. The quality of the dialogue determines how people gather and process information, how they make decisions, and how they feel about one another and about the outcome of these decisions. Dialogue can lead to new ideas and speed as a competitive advantage. It is the **single-most important factor underlying the productivity and growth of the knowledge worker**. > > – *Ram Charan in Harvard Business Review* \[6\] ## Conversations are directly tied to your results From a language perspective, the next action to move something forward is a conversation. Your **progress is directly tied to the number and quality of conversations** you are having in order to move that project, goal, or dream forward. > Action in the agricultural age meant tilling the soil. Action in the industrial age meant building machines. The modern executive means by action certain types of sentences or conversations. > > Action in the information age means talking the leadership talk. Virtually all that goes on in the name of leadership is one form of words or another. And words make dialogue, and dailogues make conversations. > > \- Peter Koestenbaum \[11\] And not all types of conversations move a project forward. Only a certain type of conversation at a particular time in the project does. Not knowing this can be a major handicap and blind-spot. If you are stuck on a certain project looking into the number and kinds of conversations you are having can hold some clues. \[7\] > Of all the communication associated with change, the most powerful may be that which occurs at the level of everyday conversation because these interactions are the primary mechanism available to managers for effecting change . > > – Jeffrey Ford & Laurie Ford \[7\] The **conversations you are not having** are also an important feedback mechanism. Maybe you need to do more background research before making the request or you have some previous history with this particular stakeholder which is becoming a factor. Either way, **thinking about the next action in terms of the kind of conversation** you need to have will gives new perspectives and possibilities for action. > Your conversations generate commitments and promises that lead to actions which in turn create your results. Thus, your conversations are directly tied to your results. If you are not achieving the results you want, pay close attention to the conversations that you are having and even more importantly to the one you are *not* having. ## Conversations as a framework for action We tend to procrastinate on projects because we are not clear on what David Allen calls “next action” or “the next physical action you need to take”. \[10\] Very often in managerial life **that “next physical action” is usually a conversation that needs to be had**. Having a typology and the resulting additional fidelity in the type of conversations to be had opens new possibilities for managerial action to move things forward and effect change and ensuing results. [Effective conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/) create an actionable access to more effective leadership and management. Our culture places emphasizes [first impressions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/impression-management/) — the one impactful speech or the one memo that will change the world. There is a certain romanticism in and attraction towards such simplified takes. However experience shows that **one message on it own is often not the game changer**. > It is the series of messages in different forms that over time makes the difference. More akin to waves shaping the shoreline rather than the occasional once in a lifetime tsunami. It is the day-to-day mundane conversations that hold the opportunity for greatest impact. ## Conversations and increasing complexity As one goes up the organizational ladder, the complexity of the role increases exponentially and so does the level of skills required to conduct effective conversations. The level of conversational skill required from an individual contributor is not the same as that required from a unit head who has to deal with multiple stakeholders and ambiguous circumstances coupled with serious consequences of wrong actions. Additionally[ the human dimension](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/) becomes more important. And the primary means of communication in that domain is through conversations . > An organization is a community of discourse. Leadership is about shaping the nature of the discourse. > > – Robert Kegan \[8\] In any social system like leadership and organizations that involves sometimes irrational human beings, your effectiveness in that domain is directly tied to the effectiveness of your conversations. However, this competence is assumed to a certain extent, partly because it is learned on the job as with everything else in managing. But if we are serious about getting better at the practice of managing, we need to have a strategy for getting good at this core skill. It's a framework that underlies many critical aspects of our work and organizations. The effectiveness of a leader and manager is directly tied to the effectiveness of their conversations with their networks. If conversations and communication are the building blocks and the medium of leadership it follows that [adding more rigor](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/) to the “black-box” of communication or conversations will increase the effectiveness of your leadership. ## Everyone does it An insidious aspect of conversations is because everyone does it routinely, we assume we are good at it. This obviousness and ubiquity means it gets neglected. At the same time, all of us have had experiences where we had a transformative conversational exchange with a peer, a leader or manager. What were the key elements of their communication that made such a difference? What was it in the communication of the likes of Churchill, MLK, Reagan and JFK that made them such good communicators? While we do not need to become as good as Churchill, there are definitely major gains to be made by paying a little more attention to the basics. ## Like fish in water We are completely enmeshed in the process of communication and in language just like fish in water. > There are these two young fish swimming along, and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes, “What the hell is water?” > > The point of the fish story is merely that the most obvious, important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk about. Stated as an English sentence, of course, this is just a banal platitude — but the fact is that, in the day-to-day trenches of adult existence, banal platitudes can have life-or-death importance. > > – David Foster Wallace, This is Water \[9\] Conversations are an example of such platitudes that everyone is aware of but doesn't pay much attention to. And **what we do not recognize, verbalize, and become aware of, we cannot get better at.** As leaders, conversations are a missed opportunity and also a great avenue for improving leadership effectiveness. Given their pervasiveness and importance it is imperative for leaders to understand the underlying mechanics and nuances of this otherwise taken-for-granted domain. While not easy, it's definitely simpler and more accessible than we think. ## Related reading - One way to get better at conversations is to learn and implement a typology. [Closure conversations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/communicating-effectively-closure-conversations/) are one such type that are critical to effective leadership. - Conversations are also a great way to implement the research backed framework of deliberate practice. I explore this idea in [Using Deliberate Practice to Increase Leadership Effectiveness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). [Humble Inquiry: How Asking and Situational Humility Create Psychological SafetyHumility and inquiry aren’t usually associated with effective leadership. The traditional view is “loud”: vision, setting goals, and driving the team towards success. However, this overlooks a crucial but “quieter” aspect: asking questions and listening. Humble Inquiry, developed by Edgar Schein, challenges the traditional view by emphasizing how humility![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-236.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Humble-Inquiry-Edgar-Schein-9.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/humble-inquiry/) [Filters in CommunicationWhen we communicate, there are several layers of invisible filters that can muddle the message. Knowing the most common communication filters we use can help avoid the traps of miscommunication and make sure our message gets across. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 Why we use filters One key![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-237.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Filters-in-Communication-2.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/) [The Power of CongruenceWhy do we feel an instinctive sense of trust when interacting with some people, while others leave us with a vague sense of unease, as if interacting with a polished but hollow shell? This is especially relevant to effective leadership —you might be saying all the right things, but others![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-238.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Carl-Rogers---3-Pillars-of-Congruence-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/congruence-carl-rogers/) ## Sources 1. *Coaching by James Flaherty.* 2. *As quoted in Managing by Henry Mintzberg.* 3. *Managing by Henry Mintzberg.* 4. [*Self-Awareness and Leadership*](https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.11.001?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Arthur Rubens, Gerald Schoenfeld, Bryan Schaffer, Joseph Leah.* 5. *Reality isn’t What it Used to Be by Walter Truett Anderson.* 6. [*Conquering a Culture of Indecision* ](https://hbr.org/2006/01/conquering-a-culture-of-indecision?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by Ram Charan.* 7. [*Conversational Profiles A Tool for Altering the Conversational Patterns of Change Managers*](https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886308322076?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Jeffrey Ford and Laurie Ford.* 8. *Robert Kegan as cited in Conversational Capacity by Craig Weber.* 9. *This is Water -* [*David Foster Wallace speech at Kenyon College.*](https://soundcloud.com/brainpicker/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water-1?utm%5Fsource=clipboard&utm%5Fmedium=text&utm%5Fcampaign=social%5Fsharing) 10. *Getting Things Done by David Allen.* 11. The Flawless Consulting Fieldbook ### Setting High Standards in Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/ Last updated: 2026-05-23T16:45:35.000Z *Setting high standards is a well-understood, well-worn leadership strategy. Aiming for ambitious targets is also one area of goal-setting research that’s been conclusively proven across multiple studies.* *But they are only one part of the equation. There is *an equally important part that often gets left out*. Jeff Bezos captured this key idea in his *2017 Amazon shareholder letter*.* --- One of [Amazon’s leadership principles](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/amazon-leadership-principles-deep-dive/) is of setting high standards. \[1\] > **Insist on the Highest Standards** > > Leaders have relentlessly high standards— many people may think these standards are unreasonably high. Leaders are continually raising the bar and drive their teams to deliver high quality products, services and processes. Leaders ensure that defects do not get sent down the line and that problems are fixed so they stay fixed. > > \- from Amazon's leadership principles Statements like these are common and often sound cliched and banal. What's not common is an articulate elaboration, based on real experience, on how exactly to go about doing this. In his 2017 letter to shareholders, Jeff Bezos did just that. He wrote a particularly insightful and equally practical memo elaborating this leadership principle. \[2,3\] He highlights **four critical aspects** leaders have to pay attention to if they want to create a culture of high standards. > The **four elements of high standards** as we see it: > > they are teachable, they are domain specific, you must recognize them, and you must explicitly coach realistic scope. Let’s look at each of these, not necessarily in that order. 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 ## **The effectiveness of high standards and challenging targets** A well-researched aspect of goal setting is that the challenge of our goal influences how much effort we put into it. Everything else being the same, we put in more effort to reach a harder goal than otherwise. We also derive much more feelings of satisfaction and achievement when we hit those harder targets compared to something that was easy to achieve. However, **we have to balance this element of challenge with achievability**. ![Graphic: bellcurve showing relationship between motivation, effort and expectancy of success](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Setting-High-Standards--Motivation-vs-Expectancy.excalidraw.png) Motivation vs expectancy: our efforts vary with our expectation of success. The relationship between motivation and expectancy tends to follow a bell-curve. **As the degree of difficulty rises our efforts tend to increase but only up to a certain point**. The moment we think our goal is virtually certain or virtually impossible, we are not as motivated and our efforts adjust accordingly. ## **Balancing high standards with realistic estimates of effort** This notion of setting challenging targets is fairly well understood in management. Good managers excel at pushing their teams by setting high standards in order to stretch them. The flip side however, of setting high standards, is to regularly communicate what those standards look like and the realistic amount of effort required to hit those ambitious targets. Bezos calls this ***recognition* and *scope***. > What do you need to achieve high standards in a particular domain area? > > First, you have to be **able to recognize what good looks like** in that domain. > > Second, you must have **realistic expectations for how hard it should be** (how much work it will take) to achieve that result—the scope. He gives an example of practicing **perfect handstands:** > A close friend recently decided to learn to do a perfect freestanding handstand. No leaning against a wall. Not for just a few seconds. Instagram good. She decided to start her journey by taking a handstand workshop at her yoga studio. She then practiced for a while but wasn’t getting the results she wanted. So, she hired a handstand coach. … > > In the very first lesson, the coach gave her some wonderful advice. “Most people,” he said, “think that if they work hard, they should be able to master a handstand in about two weeks. The reality is that it takes about six months of daily practice. If you think you should be able to do it in two weeks, you’re just going to end up quitting.” > > **Unrealistic beliefs on scope—often hidden and undiscussed—kill high standards.** > > To achieve high standards yourself or as part of a team, you need to form and proactively communicate realistic beliefs about how hard something is going to be. He contrasts the example of handstands with that of writing **Amazon’s famed 6-page memos:** > In the handstand example, it’s pretty straightforward to recognize high standards. It wouldn’t be difficult to lay out in detail the requirements of a well-executed handstand, and then you’re either doing it or you’re not. > > The writing example is very different. **The difference between a great memo and an average one is much squishier.** > > It would be extremely hard to write down the detailed requirements that make up a great memo. Nevertheless, I find that much of the time, readers react to great memos very similarly. They know it when they see it. The standard is there, and it is real, even if it’s not easily describable. > > … Often, when a memo isn’t great, it’s not the writer’s inability to recognize the high standard, but instead a wrong expectation on scope: they mistakenly believe a high-standards, six-page memo can be written in one or two days or even a few hours, when really it might take a week or more! > > They’re trying to perfect a handstand in just two weeks, and we’re not coaching them right. The great memos are written and re-written, shared with colleagues who are asked to improve the work, set aside for a couple of days, and then edited again with a fresh mind. They simply can’t be done in a day or two. > > The key point here is that **you can improve results through the simple act of teaching scope**—that a great memo probably should take a week or more. We humans are not good at estimating how much effort and time something takes, especially when tackling complex, adaptive challenges without pre-proven solutions. Leaders play an important role in managing these expectations. As leaders, our job does not end with just setting high expectations. It also entails communicating a clear picture of what it will take to meet those targets, aka clear expectations. ### Four quadrants of setting high standards and clear expectations Thus, the balance between high standards and clear expectations would create four quadrants : - Peak Performance – high standards and clear expectations - Underperformance – standards don't challenge or push the limits - Confusion – wasted efforts due to vague expectations - Indifference – worse case of vague expectations coupled with low standards ![Graphic: Four Quadrants of balance between High Standards and Clear Expectations](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Setting-High-Standards--Four-Quadrants.excalidraw.png) Four Quadrants of balance between High Standards and Clear Expectations ## Squishier domains Also notice how he differentiates between the two examples as **one being more *squishier* than the other.** He’s talking about **the difference between** [**technical problems**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/) **or skillsets which are clearly defined vs that in a complex-adaptive domain** where there are no clear answers or clear markers of competence. Leadership happen to be in the latter. We know when we see it but it's hard to quantify it. ## Examining expectations It’s also worth examining our own expectations about how quickly we expect both ourselves and others to be competent leaders. Are we trying to learn perfect handstands in two weeks? > If it takes 6 months of practice for perfect handstands, what does it take to develop your leadership? ## **On teachability** He highlights the fact that high standards can in fact be taught and are contagious as a culture. > I believe high standards are teachable. > > In fact, people are pretty good at learning high standards simply through exposure. High standards are contagious. Bring a new person onto a high standards team, and they’ll quickly adapt. > > The opposite is also true. > > If low standards prevail, those too will quickly spread. And though exposure works well to teach high standards, I believe you can accelerate that rate of learning by articulating a few core principles of high standards. ## **On domain specificity** In another article, I highlighted [how collapsing domains is one mistake](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/) we make when making assessments of our capability in any domain. I wrote: > On one hand, the optimist and idealist in us assumes that great strength in one of the domains will carry us in the other two. > > On the other hand, the pessimist in us assumes that weakness in one domain automatically excludes us from opportunities requiring more of the other. > > We have to resist collapsing the domains and objectively look at our competence in each of them. Neither approach makes sense but we do this on a regular basis. Bezos, addresses this idea in the context of high standards: > Another important question is whether high standards are universal or domain specific. In other words, **if you have high standards in one area, do you automatically have high standards elsewhere?** > > I believe **high standards are domain s**pecific, and that you have to learn high standards separately in every arena of interest. > > Understanding this point is important because it keeps you humble. You can consider yourself a person of high standards in general and still have debilitating blind spots. > > There can be whole arenas of endeavor where you may not even know that your standards are low or nonexistent, and certainly not world class. It’s critical to be open to that likelihood. ## **On skill as a requirement** When managing technical teams aka [knowledge work](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/), it is common for someone in the team to know a lot more than the manager or leader. This transition can be hard for people with specialist backgrounds who rose through the ranks on the basis of their technical chops. But staying on top of everything technically and **knowing more than everyone else is a physical impossibility**, and does not help with fully leveraging the capabilities of your team. \[4\] Bezos addresses this idea of your skill as a requirement: > In my view, not so much, at least not for the individual in the context of teams. > > The football coach doesn’t need to be able to throw, and a film director doesn’t need to be able to act. But they both do need to recognize high standards for those things and teach realistic expectations on scope. > > Even in the example of writing a six-page memo, that’s teamwork. Someone on the team needs to have the skill, but it doesn’t have to be you. Often leaders can have the most impact when they are [**managing the *context*** ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/)**rather than delving in the *content***. One way of doing that is clearly communicating the scope and what success looks like. --- We are much more likely to stay with our goals and reach them [if we have a good handle on what it takes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/). And [high standards need to be balanced with psychological safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) as well. ## Questions to ponder - Is there alignment between the high standards we have set and our team’s beliefs around scope and the effort required? - Are we communicating these standards clearly and regularly? - Do we have a clear idea of what competence looks like? And is everyone on the same page about it? ## Further Reading on High Standards Setting high standards is only one of several frameworks Bezos mentions in his shareholder letters. I [collected all of his mental models in one article](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/bezos-on-failure-decision-making-life/). [High Standards and Psychological Safety](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) are not opposites: [Psychological Safety vs. High Standards: A Misunderstood DynamicThe term “psychological safety” is often misleading. When managers hear safety, many dismiss it as a soft style that implies complacency. Meanwhile, psychology implies too much mumbo jumbo. High-profile figures like Elon Musk advocating for a “hardcore” style perpetuate this misconception. But this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/icon/LS-logo-219.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/thumbnail/Psychological-safety-and-High-Standards--2-6.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/psychological-safety-vs-high-standards/) The article on [Transitioning from a Technical Specialist Role into Leadership ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/transition-to-leadership/)is where I wrote about the mistake of collapsing domains. For an exhaustive look at the many dimensions of setting goals and OKRs, check out [Effective Goal-Setting Using 14 Different Dimensions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/). ### Sources/References 1. [https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us/leadership-principles](https://www.aboutamazon.com/about-us/leadership-principles?ref=leadingsapiens.com) 2. You can find the 2017 shareholder letter in it’s entirety [here](https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/company-news/2017-letter-to-shareholders?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 3. For a more comprehensive collection of his writings, see [*Invent and Wander*](https://amzn.to/3EewZcx?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Walter Isaccson. 4. In[ Leading Geeks](https://amzn.to/3JGcCWT?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Paul Glen compares this notion to the 400 year old medieval guild system and how we still have remnants of it in our behavior: > *Many of our notions are still *rooted in the history of the European medieval guild system*.* > > *Under the guild system, master craftsmen who had reached a very high proficiency with their work and were able to demonstrate both technical mastery and business success trained other craftsmen in their discipline. Masters were served by journeymen, who had achieved a modest level of expertise under the supervision of their masters. And both masters and journeymen oversaw apprentices, who were beginning their training. The relationship between the master and his subordinates was one of both supervisor and teacher. No one could reach such a lofty level without having mastered all the fine details of apprentice and journeyman’s work.* > > *Today, we still harbor the tacit assumption that this system of mastery remains in place—*that managers of a group should be the best trained in the craft* and that they are responsible for the training of more junior and less knowledgeable subordinates.* > > *But as technology has become increasingly complex, *specialization has rendered this assumption invalid*. In the high-tech world, it is virtually unheard of to find a CEO who started out sweeping the floors and worked his way through every job in the enterprise to reach the top of the company.* > > *The *range of technology makes it impossible for anyone to know all the details about even one system, let alone know everything about an entire company.** ### 5\. Video explaining the high standards leadership principle ### Self Development in Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-09-10T22:13:00.000Z *Who's responsible for your development as leaders and managers? Why should we care anyway?* *Development of managerial skill and competence is really up to individuals. ‌‌‌‌Relying on organizations, an MBA degree, or a 45 minute LinkedIn course to turn you into a competent leader overnight is naiveté at best and hubris at worst.* *‌‌‌‌Self development is essential to leading and managing in a complex environment.* --- > *One of the biggest challenges facing organizations is “how to develop a new breed of senior managers that have the knowledge, the sensitivity, and the abilities necessary to lead organizations throughout the uncertain times ahead”* ‌‌‌‌. > > – Sumantra Ghoshal, Breck Arnzen & Sharon Brownfield in Nesbitt \[1\] \[2\] ## Self development as a meta-skill and the answer to complexity It's cliched to say that change is the only constant in the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environment we operate in. An effective and proven way to deal with change and complexity is continuous learning. > *Those who are always learning are those who can ride the waves of change and who see a changing world as full of opportunities rather than of damage. They are the ones most likely to be the survivors in a time of discontinuity. They are also the enthusiasts and the architects of new ways and forms and ideas. If you want to change, try learning one might say, or more precisely, if you want to be in control of your change, take learning more seriously.* > > ‌‌‌‌– Charles Handy in *Age of Unreason* \[3\] Except what does continuous learning look like for leaders and managers? As much as continuous improvement is used in corporate jargon, we don’t find its concepts being implemented broadly at an organizational level when it comes to leadership development, at least not in practice. Even doing an MBA is *only* a 2 year commitment in a long career, and most of it is not directly relevant to the day to day realities of managing and leading. What happens beyond that? In a maddeningly complex and changing environment, **how do you stay fresh and competitive in a career spanning anywhere from 20 to 40 years**? This is where self development of the leader comes in as the path to continuous learning and evolution. Self development is a leadership meta skill — a skill that enables and empowers the acquisition and development of other leadership skills. Leaders of modern organizations have to be competent in a range of skills, from the technical and conceptual to those in the human domain. And the ability to constantly evolve themselves in these domains by staying on top of their own learning and development is **a core leadership competency** in itself.\[2\] > *The illiterate of the twenty-first century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Alvin Toffler \[4\] Given its importance, leaders in modern organizations cannot afford to leave their development to the organization or to chance. > *Self development of the effective executive is central to the development of the organization.* ‌‌‌‌*Development is always self development. Nothing could be more absurd than for the enterprise to assume responsibility for the development of a person. The responsibility rests with individuals, their abilities, their efforts.*‌‌‌‌ > > – Peter Drucker in The Practice of Management & The Effective Executive \[5\]\[6\] ## Developing your own complexity through self development Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey in *Immunity to Change* describe the three levels of what they call “**plateaus of mental complexity**” – the socialized mind, the self-authoring mind, and the self-transforming mind \[7\]. With each increasing level, our ability to handle complexity increases accordingly. The bad news is that most of us are on the lower levels with very few having developed to the higher levels. Developing and increasing our complexity is perhaps the only insurance policy in a VUCA environment in order to ensure our readiness to handle whatever comes our way. Leaders have to ensure that they are constantly working on developing themselves and their organizations to climb up the plateaus of complexity. Most traditional learning avenues tend to overlook this basic fact. > *The field of “leadership development” has *overattended to leadership and underattended to development*. An endless stream of books tries to identify the most important elements of leadership and help leaders to acquire these abilities.* ‌‌‌‌ > > **Meanwhile, we ignore the most powerful source of ability: our capacity* \\(and the capacity of the people who work for us\\) to overcome, at any age, the limitations and blind spots of current ways of making meaning.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey in Immunity to Change \[7\] This is akin to a football player who knows the rules of the game but who is physically underprepared when the 350 pound linebacker faces him down. The idea is not whether it is nice or good to have higher levels of complexity, but whether leaders and organizations have the ability to handle situations and realities that they currently face. > *There is nothing inherently “better” about being at a higher level of development, just as an adolescent is not “better” than a toddler. However, the fact remains that an adolescent is able to do more, because he or she can think in more sophisticated ways than a toddler. Any level of development is okay; the question is whether that level of development is a good fit for the task at hand.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Nick Petrie \[8\] Anytime we are in what Kegan calls “**in over our heads**”, it's because there is an essential mismatch between the complexity of the situation we are facing and the complexity of our own development. > *The experience of complexity is not just a story about the world. \[…\] It is a story about *the fit between the demands of the world and the capacity of the person or the organization*. When we experience the world as “too complex” we are not just experiencing the complexity of the world. We are experiencing a mismatch between the world’s complexity and our own at this moment.* ‌‌‌‌*There are only two logical ways to mend this mismatch—reduce the world’s complexity or increase our own. The first isn’t going to happen.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey in Immunity to Change \[7\] Continuous self development is the way to develop this complexity. Some people are naturally good at this while others tend to get forced into it through circumstances. For the rest of us, this needs to be a planned out process if we are to make sure we are not simply relying on the random vagaries of fate. ## Responding to the adaptive challenge Self development of leaders is critical to tackle adaptive challenges that modern leaders and organizations face today. > *Leadership would be a safe undertaking if your organizations and communities only faced problems for which they already knew the solutions. Every day, people have problems for which they do, in fact, have the necessary know-how and procedures. We call these*[***technical problems***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/)*.* ‌‌‌‌ > > *But there is a whole host of problems that are not amenable to authoritative expertise or standard operating procedures. They cannot be solved by someone who provides answers from on high. We call these *adaptive challenges* because they require experiments, new discoveries, and adjustments from numerous places in the organization or community.* > > ‌‌‌‌– Ronald Heifetz & Marty Linsky in Leadership on the Line Technical challenges do not necessarily mean low complexity. Designing a bridge or doing a brain surgery are very complex operations but at the same time they do have proven solutions. The nature of the challenge is well understood for the most part. In contrast, adaptive challenges are situations where we don't have the answers or pre-proven solutions because the situation is still emerging and no known solutions. This is what leaders and managers find themselves in all the time. > *Leadership, as seen in this light, requires a learning strategy. A leader, from above or below, with or without authority, has to engage people in confronting the challenge, adjusting their values, changing perspectives, and learning new habits.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Ronald Heifetz & Donald Laurie in The Work of Leadership \[10\] Leaders have to work on their own development and have a good understanding of the landscape otherwise they will be at the whim of whatever ongoing fad their HR department has adopted. For example [emotional intelligence](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ei-vs-iq-misperceptions/) is an important but only one of many aspects of development of a leader. There are other equally important aspects that do not get as much traction in modern organizations based on whatever is in vogue or who did the better job of selling their package to the HR team. One glaring example of missing training in leadership programs is the [nuanced use of language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). ## Rising complexity coincides with lack of training and tools If learning is the answer, the paradox is that rising complexity of roles also coincides with a lack of training and tools. Modern organizations are highly complex entities with multiple variables, layers, and processes going in and out of the organization. As you go up in the organizational hierarchy, the complexity involved in the role increases exponentially. And yet, the tools and training that go with the job either stay the same or are almost non-existent. In fact, you will find more number of tools and training at the lower levels than at higher ones. > This is unique to the domain of leadership and organizations. > Outside of the typical MBA and executive courses, there are very limited developmental opportunities for executives and senior level managers. > By contrast, in fields like professional sports or medicine, the higher one goes in seniority and time, more the amount of training increases. One reason for this disparity is that with rising organizational hierarchy, the complexity, ambiguity, and nature of the challenges changes exponentially to the point where no universal training can suffice. Given the complexity and uniqueness of each organization and the particular situation that leaders find themselves in, there cannot presumably be any training that will gear them for all situations and challenges in the future. However, what they can do is develop themselves to the point where they can handle anything thrown their way. ## The false promise of external solutions in complex situations Organization-wide training programs can be very hard to keep up with changing times. At best they end up being reactive to the needs of the market and the organization. On the other hand, if leaders and managers themselves who are at the leading edge of that change can become masters of their own learning, this effectively removes the lag between ongoing changes and programs designed to cope with that change. > *How do managers prepare themselves to survive, let alone be successful, in such an environment?* > > *The more traditional avenues of development-MBA degrees, executive education programs, and management workshops and seminars-face the same turbulence. The designers of these educational experiences do their best to predict the kinds of knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will be most helpful.* > > *Yet there is an inherent game of “catch up” within this system.* ‌‌‌‌*By the time these designers understand existing issues and trends, develop cases, write texts, and create workshop designs, a new wave of business challenges appears.* *Without question, we need a more adaptable, responsive system of helping managers learn.*‌‌‌‌ > > – Marilyn Daudelin in Learning from Experience through Reflection \[11\] Daudelin uses the terms “adaptable” and “responsive” which are also terms from complexity science. And being adaptable and responsive are the only ways one can cope when dealing with complex situations. Leaders and managers work inside complex systems with their own set of emergent rules and logic. In order to unearth those rules you have to be seeing, listening, and ready to act. ## The problem of abstraction An additional challenge that traditional forms of development suffer from is that of abstraction. Any business case study in a classroom is a highly selective experimental scenario which is never close to real life complexity and resulting consequences. Business cases and their associated techniques and methods might purport to be universally applicable but that remains a pipe-dream as any manager who has tried to implement these techniques knows. > *In today’s world, even the most experienced experts are in over their heads. Adaptive challenges cannot be solved by taking a course, hiring a consulting firm, or copying other companies’ best practices. ‌‌‌‌* > > *– Ronald Heifetz in The Practice of* [*Adaptive Leadership*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) \[12\] What might be more helpful is developing the manager’s own level of complexity and learning-systems in order to make them more *self- generative* and *self-correcting* so they are better able to to adapt and respond to emerging complex situations.\[15\] > *Without a better understanding of human development—what it is, how it is enabled, how it is constrained—what passes for “leadership development” will more likely amount to “leadership learning” or “leadership training.”* ‌‌‌‌ > > *The knowledge and skills gained will be like *new files and programs brought to the existing operating system.** > > *They may have a certain value—new files and programs do give you greater range and versatility—but your ability to use them will still be limited by your current operating system.* ‌‌‌‌**True development is about transforming the operating system itself*, not just increasing your fund of knowledge or your behavioral repertoire.*‌‌‌‌ > > – Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey in Immunity to Change \[7\] Typical leadership development programs tend to be skewed towards the **“informational learning” paradigm** of [passively transmitting information ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/carl-rogers-on-teaching-and-learning/)(new files and programs) as opposed to a “transformational learning” paradigm that actually changes the person and increases their capacity ( new or updated operating system) If it were technical problems the answer might have been more information and more knowledge. But this approach does not work in complex challenges where the terrain is primarily unknown and has to be figured out on the fly. The knowledge and intelligence has to be developed alongside the emerging situation. No amount of additional tacked on information will help in these situations. > *As leaders act to include more transformational models in their settings, they will ultimately render quaint our current manifestations of organizational learning—punctuated training programs, executive education, corporate universities, episodic “professional development” events—all of which unwittingly apply the forms and functions of youthful schooling arrangements to an adult realm that is not about “preparation for the journey” but “life along the road.”.*‌‌‌‌ > > – Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey in Immunity to Change \[7\] ## Self development as a competitive advantage The hard work of developing oneself and the skills involved can be a significant competitive advantage in advancing one’s career. If you have the skills and abilities to develop constantly and stay ahead of the curve it can afford you opportunities that others might not get. Howard Gardner likens it to a meta-intelligence that underlies other intelligences: > Perhaps it makes more sense to think of knowledge of self and others as being a higher level, a more integrated form of intelligence, one more at the behest of the culture and of historical factors, one more truly emergent, one that ultimately comes to control and to regulate more “primary orders” of intelligence. > > \- Howard Gardner in Frames of Mind This can also be an organizational competitive advantage if implemented at that level. Organizations get pulled upward or downward to the level of their leaders’ development. > *What determines which stage an organization operates from? It is the stage through which its leadership tends to look at the world.* > > *Consciously or unconsciously, leaders put in place organizational structures, practices, and cultures that make sense to them, that correspond to their way of dealing with the world.* ‌‌‌‌*This means that *an organization cannot evolve beyond its leadership’s stage of development.** ‌‌‌‌ > > – Frederic Laloux in Reinventing Organizations \[13\] Ron Heifetz advocates elevating the practices of reflection and continuous learning to an organizational level as a bulwark against adaptive challenges. > *Institutionalize Reflection and Continuous Learning: People at all levels in the enterprise must be able to acknowledge what they do not know and need to discover.* ‌‌‌‌ > > *– Ronald Heifetz in The Practice of Adaptive Leadership* \[12\] ## Self development keeps leadership fresh and nimble Self development is a potent way for managers and executives to keep themselves fresh and nimble. Traditional leadership and management development courses and programs can be dry and soul killing. More often than not it is because of the limited perspectives of the person who designed the offering. Leading and managing in the real world deals with endless complexities in the cognitive and human domains. They can be enduringly fascinating, provided you know where to look and what to look for. Alas, many of us are at the mercy of our HR departments who have better things to do. > *The adaptive demands of our time require leaders who take responsibility without waiting for revelation or request. One can lead with no more than a question in hand.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Ronald Heifetz & Donald Laurie in The Work of Leadership \[10\] Self development gives leaders an opportunity to take ownership and accountability for their own development. You are not learning because you have to or you are supposed to. You are learning because you want to, because it is in alignment with your own overarching goals and destinations and also in the interest of your organization. When you approach learning this way, your results will be drastically different. You are becoming the *cause* in your life and work rather than an *effect* at the mercy of circumstances. --- In closing, below is an unconventional definition of leadership from Otto Scharmer’s Theory U. \[14\] > *Leadership: The capacity of a system to sense and shape its future.* ‌‌‌‌*The Indo-European root of the word “leadership,” leith, means “to go forth,” “to cross a threshold,” or “to die.”* ‌‌‌‌ > > *That root meaning, which suggests that the experience of letting go and then going forth into another world that begins to take shape only once we overcome the fear of stepping into the unknown, is at the very heart and essence of leadership.* Developing our mental complexity through self development is the best bet leaders and organizations have to “sense and shape” their future by staying ahead of the curve. This is what will prepare and enable leaders and organizations “to go forth” on this uncertain journey of leading themselves and others into new unknown worlds. ## Related reading How can coaching accelerate this process of self development of leaders? I examine some key ideas in [Leadership can be learned but cannot be taught — the role of coaching](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/). ### Sources 1. [*A Learning Alliance between Business and Business Schools*](https://doi.org/10.2307%2F41166712?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *in California Management Review by Sumantra Ghoshal, Breck Arnzen & Sharon Brownfield*. 2. [*The Role of Self-Reflection, Emotional Management of Feedback, and Self- Regulation Processes in Self-Directed Leadership Development*](https://doi.org/10.1177/1534484312439196?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by John Nesbitt*. 3. The *Age of Unreason by Charles Handy*. 4. *Quote attributed to* [*Alvin Toffler*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin%5FToffler?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 5. The *Practice of Management by Peter Drucker.* 6. The *Effective Executive by Peter Drucker.* 7. *Immunity to Change by Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey.* 8. *Nick Petrie quoted in Reinventing Organizations by Frederic Laloux.* 9. *Leadership on the Line by Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linksy.* 10. [*The Work of Leadership*](https://hbr.org/2001/12/the-work-of-leadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Ronald Heifetz & Donald Laurie in Harvard Business Review.* 11. [*Learning from Experience through Reflection*](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616%2896%2990004-2?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*– Marilyn Daudelin.* 12. The *Practice of Adaptive Leadership– Ronald Heifetz.* 13. *Reinventing Organizations by Frederic Laloux.* 14. *Theory U by Otto Scharmer.* 15. *The terms self-generating and self-correcting are from James Flaherty as he mentions it in Coaching.* ### Pulled by the Future vs Pushed by the Past URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/ Last updated: 2024-03-06T19:53:16.000Z *The framework of a “future pulling us towards it” vs a “past pushing us” can be helpful in breaking out of a rut we find ourselves in.* *Most of us have come across the concept of creating or imagining a compelling future. But why bother? Aren’t we smart enough to do what we know needs done?* *Why do we need props like vision, mission statement, and goals?* --- > *Life can be pulled by goals just as surely as it can be pushed by drives.* > > – Viktor Frankl ## A passive vs an active stance There is a subtle but important distinction when we compare the difference between being “pushed by the past ” and being “pulled towards a designed future”. One stance is proactive and actively reaching towards, whereas the other is reactive and passive. One is being a cause in, whereas the other is being an effect of. In one, we are being pulled from ahead whereas in the other we are being pushed from behind. Is our future something we are getting pulled towards? Or is our past just pushing us along? In one, **we are the object being subject to all the vagaries of life**. In the other, **we are the subject and being the cause** in the matter of our lives. > It is a poor sort of memory that only works backwards. > > — Lewis Caroll Are we trodding along being pushed by the past or are we galloping being pulled by the future? What is the primary context for our actions in the present moment? Is it the past looming large or is it the possibilities of the future? When in a funk, we should check what kind of future we have envisioned for ourselves? Is it pulling us towards it or are we just being pushed around by the exigencies of life? Are we getting pushed down from the weight of the past or are we getting pulled up by the possibility of the future? ## Default future vs defined future > *The only thing we know about the future is that it will be different. Trying to predict the future is like trying to drive down a country road at night with no lights while looking out the back window.* > > **The best way to predict the future is to create it.** > > *– Peter Drucker* While the past cannot be rewritten it can be reinterpreted. And while the future is yet unwritten, there is a version of the future that we have already written by default. **This default is the logical extension of our past**. The questions is whether that is the future we want to live into or not? \[1\] The trick is knowing that it is after all **one version of several possible futures** and that we have access to these futures through language. We can start rewriting and reconceptualizing that future. And **a different future will have different present actions and choices** associated with it. Thus, by rewriting your future you rewrite your present and in turn end up with a different future instead of the default future. ## Different orientations, different stances ![Pulled by the future vs pushed by the past.](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/05/Pushed-by-Past-Pulled-by-Future.png) ## Questions to ask ourselves - Is my future playing a larger role than my past? - Am I letting the past dictate my present or am I architecting a future that’s driving my present actions? - If I don’t change anything, what does the default future look like? Is the future, that I am living into by default, something that I actually want? - What are the stories that I have about my past? Can these be reinterpreted? - What are the stories I have about my future? Can these be rewritten? - Are my actions in the present moment consistent with my conception of the future? > *Everything begins with the future!* > > *– Martin Heidegger in Zollikon lectures* \[2\] Are we being the cause in our lives or are we at the mercy of everything that’s happening around us? While we cannot be the cause in everything, we can be the cause in our own lives by taking responsibility for our choices and our role in shaping the future. And that is all we have access to. ## Practicing future-based thinking A useful to get better at future driven thinking is the [systems thinking iceberg model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) that delves into deeper levels of reality instead of just the visible surface levels one we spend all our energy on. [The Systems Thinking IcebergThe systems thinking iceberg is a useful thinking model for leaders when dealing with intractable problems that never seem to go away. Part of the challenge is what the model calls “events” — surface level issues that are constantly on our radar — which are essentially fire-fighting, but that never really address![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2024/03/2-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/) ### Footnotes/References 1. [Three Laws of Performance](https://amzn.to/3JIPx5Y?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan. 2. [Zollikon Seminars](https://amzn.to/38TFYo7?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Martin Heidegger and Medard Boss. ### What Makes Leaders Effective - Practices, not Charisma URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/nine-practices-of-the-effective-executive/ Last updated: 2024-02-26T00:03:24.000Z *What is leadership effectiveness? It’s easy to think about effective leadership in terms of charisma or innate traits. But that would be the easy way out and also not actionable. In contrast, consider Peter Drucker’s notion of *effectiveness as a set of practices*. What are these practices and how are they different?* --- ## Leadership effectiveness Effective leadership is a perennial topic that scores of management thinkers have written about. One of the most articulate but equally practical voice on this issue was Peter Drucker, the father of modern management. In [Management](https://amzn.to/3XTwNI9?ref=leadingsapiens.com), he outlines **three requirements of effectiveness**: > Management effectiveness requires three interconnected skills and practices... > > • **Specific skills** managers must acquire to be effective as leaders > • **Particular tasks** that managers must perform to lead their organizations to effectiveness > • **Personal skills and practices** that make individuals effective both in life and in managerial practice Across his large volume of work, he addressed effectiveness in its various dimensions. But what he emphasized the most was that **effectiveness was a set of practices** that you work hard to develop rather than innate characteristics or traits. He highlighted how effectiveness **is more of a** [**discipline and a practice that can be learned**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/), and not inborn talent. What are these practices and how are they different from characteristics? ## Practices and effectiveness The biggest difference is that practices, and by extension effectiveness, can in fact be worked at, developed and learned over time. More importantly, over the course of a long career, **practices are more likely to increase your chances of success** as compared to intelligence or even knowledge. **At the highest levels, intelligence and knowledge become common commodities**. What makes one more likely to stand out and succeed is the level of development of practices and consistency of execution. Drucker made several important points about effectiveness and practices: ### Effectiveness has to be learned > In forty-five years of work as a consultant with a large number of executives in a wide variety of organizations—large and small; businesses, government agencies, labor unions, hospitals, universities, community services; American, European, Latin American, and Japanese—**I have not come across a single “natural”: an executive who was born effective**. > > **All the effective ones have had to learn to be effective. And all of them then had to practice effectiveness until it became habit**. But all the ones who worked on making themselves effective executives succeeded in doing so. Effectiveness can be learned—and it also has to be learned. ### The importance of practices to effectiveness > To be reasonably effective it is not enough for the individual to be intelligent, to work hard, or to be knowledgeable. Effectiveness is something separate, something different. But **to be effective also does not require special gifts, special aptitude, or special training**. Effectiveness as an executive demands doing certain—and fairly simple—things. It consists of a small number of practices... ### Practices trump intelligence and talent > There seems to be **little correlation between a man’s effectiveness and his intelligence**, his imagination, or his knowledge. > > Brilliant men are often strikingly ineffectual; they fail to realize that the brilliant insight is not by itself achievement. They never have learned that **insights become effectiveness only through hard systematic work**. > > Conversely, in every organization there are some **highly effective plodders**. While others rush around in the frenzy and busyness which very bright people so often confuse with “creativity,” the plodder puts one foot in front of the other and gets there first, like the tortoise in the old fable. ### Effectiveness is a set of practices > Effectiveness, in other words, is a habit; that is, a complex of practices. And practices can always be learned. Practices are simple, deceptively so; even a seven-year-old has no difficulty in understanding a practice. But **practices are always exceedingly hard to do well**. > > They have to be acquired, as we all learn the multiplication table; that is, repeated ad nauseam until “6 x 6 = 36” has become unthinking, conditioned reflex, and firmly ingrained habit. **Practices one learns by practicing and practicing and practicing again.** > > To every practice applies what my old piano teacher said to me in exasperation when I was a small boy. “You will never play Mozart the way Arthur Schnabel does, but **there is no reason in the world why you should not play your scales the way he does**.” What the piano teacher forgot to add—probably because it was so obvious to her—is that even the great pianists could not play Mozart as they do unless they practiced their scales and kept on practicing them. > > There is, in other words, **no reason why anyone with normal endowment should not acquire competence in any practice**. Mastery might well elude him; for this one might need special talents. But what is needed in effectiveness is competence. What is needed are “the scales.” ## Practices of effective executives In the original edition of [The Effective Executive](https://amzn.to/3EeO46c?ref=leadingsapiens.com), Drucker outlined five practices, what he called "habits of the mind," essential to being an effective manager and leader: > **1\.** Effective executives **know where their time goes**. They work systematically at managing the little of their time that can be brought under their control. > > **2.** Effective executives focus on outward contribution. They gear their efforts to results rather than to work. They start out with the question, **“What results are expected of me?”** rather than with the work to be done, let alone with its techniques and tools. > > **3.** Effective executives **build on strengths**—their own strengths, the strengths of their superiors, colleagues, and subordinates; and on the strengths in the situation, that is, on what they can do. They do not build on weakness. They do not start out with the things they cannot do. > > **4\.** Effective executives concentrate on the few major areas where superior performance will produce outstanding results. They force themselves to set priorities and stay with their priority decisions. They know that they have no choice but **to do first things first—and second things not at all**. The alternative is to get nothing done. > > **5\.** Effective executives, finally, make **effective decisions**. They know that this is, above all, a matter of system—of the right steps in the right sequence. They know that an effective decision is always a judgment based on “dissenting opinions” rather than on “consensus on the facts.” And they know that to make many decisions fast means to make the wrong decisions. What is needed are few, but fundamental, decisions. What is needed is the right strategy rather than razzle-dazzle tactics. Several decades later in 2004, he wrote an award winning HBR article where he outlines a similar set of practices common amongst the most effective leaders: > *An effective executive *does not need to be a leader in the sense that the term is now most commonly used*. Harry Truman did not have one ounce of charisma, for example, yet he was among the most effective chief executives in U.S. history.* > > *Similarly, some of the best business and nonprofit CEOs I’ve worked with over a 65-year consulting career were not stereotypical leaders.* > > **They were all over the map in terms of their personalities, attitudes, values, strengths, and weaknesses.* They ranged from extroverted to nearly reclusive, from easygoing to controlling, from generous to parsimonious.* > > *What made them all effective is that they followed *the same eight practices*:* > > 1\. *They asked, “What needs to be done?”* > *2\. They asked, “What is right for the enterprise?”* > *3\. They developed action plans.* > *4\. They took responsibility for decisions.* > *5\. They took responsibility for communicating.* > *6\. They were focused on opportunities rather than problems.* > *7\. They ran productive meetings.* > *8\. They thought and said “we” rather than “I.”* > > *...I’m going to throw in one final, bonus practice. This one’s so important that *I’ll elevate it to the level of a rule: Listen first, speak last*.* ## Effectiveness 101 When managers falter in performance and results, Drucker's list is **a good back to basics reference to check for blindspots**. More often than not, they are slipping in one of these practices or do not have one sufficiently developed. If you are relatively early in your career, Drucker's list is a good one to work at and develop over time. This can be a competitive advantage over others who might be smarter and more talented. In the long run consistent **practices will beat intelligence any day**, as Drucker was so keen to emphasize. > *Effective executives differ widely in their personalities, strengths, weaknesses, values, and beliefs. All they have in common is that they get the right things done. Some are born effective. But the demand is much too great to be satisfied by extraordinary talent.* > > **Effectiveness is a discipline. And, like every discipline, effectiveness can be learned and must be earned.** --- 💡 **Try* **my* ***weekly email —** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients. 📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ## Related reading - Everyone has notions and assumptions about what leadership is and what an ideal leader is like. We might have picked these up from cultural norms and stereotypes, from something we read, or from our own experiences. The research term for this is **Implicit Theory of Leadership** and each of us has one. Blindspots in our [implicit leadership theory](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) can significantly alter career trajectories: [How Implicit Leadership Theory Affects CareersWhat makes someone “leadership material”? This often depends on who’s making the call and what their Implicit Leadership Theory is - we all have one.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/How-ILT-Affects-Careers-4.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/) - Just like effectiveness, [excellence and greatness are actually mundane](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) — that was what Daniel Chambliss found in his multi year study of the top swimmers competing at all levels: [The Mundanity of Excellence - Greatness as Mastering the MundaneExcellence is more mundane than we think. Understanding its nuances increases our likelihood of success. Not doing so sets us up for failure.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/08/Vincent_van_Gogh_-_Self-Portrait_-_Google_Art_Project_-454045-.jpg)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/greatness-as-mastering-the-mundane/) - Regardless of what implicit theory of leadership we might have, it’s worth noting that effectiveness in leadership can be learned as any other skill. But this also puts the [onus of development squarely on our shoulders](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). - Drucker emphasized running productive meetings as a core skill for effective leadership. Here are 9 [rules for running effective meetings](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ground-rules-effective-meetings-groups/) based on [the ladder of inference](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) model. ### Sources 1. Drucker’s Harvard Business Review article can be found [here](https://hbr.org/2004/06/what-makes-an-effective-executive?ref=leadingsapiens.com). 2. [The Effective Executive](https://amzn.to/3EeO46c?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker – should be required reading for every manager and leader. 3. [Management](https://amzn.to/3xOgK3x?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Drucker ### Good Careers Gone Bad - Subtle but Lethal Mistakes in Mid Career URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mid-career-mistakes/ Last updated: 2024-02-26T00:03:41.000Z *Success often carries with it the seeds of failure. Mid career is an especially dangerous time when past successes lay the ground for eventual career failure.* *The framework of* **active inertia** *is useful in understanding this tendency. Mid career professionals need to stay alert to this insidious pattern that creeps up over time and doesn't look like a mistake in the short run.* --- ‌If you are in the managerial/executive ranks at any level, it means you have done reasonably well so far in your career. However, what got you here might not get you there. To make it worse, what got you here **can actively prevent you** from getting there. I should know as I was myself a victim of this mechanism. ## How success sets us up for failure In my work, I come across talented, ambitious individuals who are on top of their game and yet at the same time stuck in their current roles. Intellectually they understand they need a new, different challenge but cannot seem to engineer a way out. It's usually not because of a lack of action on their part but rather **not being able to see what’s hindering their path**. What makes this worse is that it tends to become clear only in hindsight, sometimes a bit too late. In his 1999 HBR article *Why Good Companies go Bad*, Donald Sull outlines how the very factors that make companies successful also leads to their eventual failure. That same framework is equally applicable to careers. \[1\] He highlights how companies can clearly see emerging trends and even take action but unfortunately end up digging a deeper hole. > The problem is not an inability to take action but an inability to take appropriate action.‌‌‌‌ > > – Donald Sull in Harvard Business Review \[1\] He identifies **four mechanisms that lead to failure**. If we are not alert to this pattern, this can easily turn into quicksand that's too hard to get out of. ## Active Inertia We typically associate inertia with stagnation, but it's equally applicable when we are moving fast. When moving at warp speed, making changes and taking appropriate action can be even more complicated and counterintuitive. The main culprit that Sull identifies is what he calls *active inertia:* > Active Inertia is an organization’s tendency to follow established patterns of behavior—even in response to dramatic environmental shifts. Stuck in the modes of thinking and working that brought success in the past, market leaders simply accelerate all their tried-and-true activities. ‌‌‌‌**In trying to dig themselves out of a hole, they just deepen it.** ‌‌‌‌ Active inertia perhaps is a much stronger phenomenon in our lives and careers than in organizations. Humans are wired for comfort, security and predictability. It goes against human nature to proactively seek changes that make us uncomfortable. We tend to stick with the tried, tested, and familiar. ## The Four Mechanisms of Active Inertia ### **1\. Strategic frames turn into blinders** > Strategic frames are the mental models—the mind-sets—that shape how managers see the world. But **while frames help managers to see, they can also blind them**. ‌‌‌‌By focusing managers’ attention repeatedly on certain things, frames can seduce them into believing that these are the only things that matter. > > In effect, **frames can constrict peripheral vision**, preventing people from noticing new options and opportunities. ‌‌‌‌As a strategic frame grows more rigid, managers often force surprising information into existing schema or ignore it altogether.‌‌‌‌ Over the course of a career we develop [our own set of mental models](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mental-models-subtractive-approach/) that govern what we do and don’t do and what we are open/closed to. They feed our narratives around what works and what doesn’t. Because this is intrinsically how our brains work, we don’t necessarily pay attention to them. But **they are the lenses through which we evaluate everything and take action**. When we are unaware of them, they can turn into blindspots that prevent us from seeing the true picture or other potential opportunities. We've become **paradigm blind**. We only see what we are looking for, or that we are familiar with, and blind to everything else. We can also make the mistake of **confusing correlation with causation**. We might have succeeded *inspite of* certain behaviors rather than *because of* them. But previous successes blind us to this fact. **What are we not seeing because of our current orientation? What are we choosing to not see?** ### **2\. Processes harden into routines** > Just as with strategic frames, established processes often take on a life of their own. **They cease to be means to an end and become ends in themselves**. ‌‌‌‌ > > People follow the processes not because they’re effective or efficient but because they’re well known and comfortable. They are simply “the way things are done.” ‌‌‌‌Once a process becomes a routine, it prevents employees from considering new ways of working. Alternative processes never get considered, much less tried. Active inertia sets in. ‌‌‌‌ We prefer routines because they reduce the uncertainty around us and give us grounding. While helpful on a daily basis, **do them long enough and they turn into hardened habits that we cannot break out of**. This makes us choose a certain kind of activity over others, which in turn **concentrates our skillset in that particular activity at the expense of others**. If a certain kind of conversation or a certain network of stakeholders is what we are comfortable with, we keep going back to that. Our routines prevent us from seeing things anew. While routines make our lives efficient they can also become drudgery. They often provide comfort, making it hard to break out of our standard patterns. This is how folks end up continuing to work at jobs they have long outgrown out of, and with no element of challenge. **Active inertia has become an anchor** keeping them moored to their current roles. They get [habituated to success and equally afraid of failure](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/#defensive-behavior-in-professionals). **They have gotten used to a certain successful image of ourselves, even when it comes with a heavy price and burden**. What are we afraid of doing or attempting? And why? ### **3\. Relationships become shackles** > When conditions shift, however, companies often find that their relationships have turned into shackles, limiting their flexibility and leading them into active inertia. ‌‌‌‌The need to maintain existing relationships with customers can hinder companies in developing new products or focusing on new markets. ‌‌‌‌ Just as organizations have stakeholders, all of us at an individual level have our own set of stakeholders. This includes our teams, colleagues, and management, amongst others. > Our current stakeholders form a web of expectations. Expectations about how we are supposed to act and what is expected of us. We try to be consistent with these expectations. That’s what makes us sane human beings. However, these expectations can become constraints to learning and acting in new ways. Even when we know a different action will be helpful to us we hesitate to change because it will be **inconsistent with** [**our current identity**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/). > Our close contacts don’t just blind us, they also bind us to our **outdated identities**.‌‌‌‌It is important to conduct our “role rehearsals” outside our usual circles because the old audience tends to narrowly typecast us. ‌‌‌‌ > > – Herminia Ibarra in Working Identity \[2\] **Every successful career is built on a series of relationships and networks**. Many of these naturally evolve over time. When we are coasting, we often don't look at our networks objectively. We don’t actively seek out new relationships and networks not realizing that our past networks might be preventing us from plugging into other potentially opportunity-rich networks. **We use commitments to tie ourselves down**. We fail to take a closer look at them to see if they are still valid and still consistent with our evolving values. > Commitment without questioning produces an “organization man” who has no identity beyond title and function. To be a growing adult means to make commitments that are informed by prior questioning.‌‌‌‌ > > – Herminia Ibarra in Working Identity \[2\] I'm not questioning commitments here. Commitments are what enable success. But implicit, unexamined commitments are what we should avoid. What are our implicit commitments that are not helpful anymore? When did we last examine them? ### **4\. Values harden into dogmas** > A company’s values are the set of deeply held beliefs that unify and inspire its people. Values define how employees see both themselves and their employers. ‌‌‌‌As companies mature, however, their values often harden into rigid rules and regulations that have legitimacy simply because they’re enshrined in precedent. ‌‌‌‌ As a career progresses, through experience we learn more about ourselves which in turn moulds our values. But we forget to explicitly examine these values on a regular basis. **The values of a 25 year old in the early phase of her career is very different from that of a mid-career exec in his forties**. Except that the mid-career exec is sometimes still operating on values from when she was 25. > When values go unexamined for too long, they turn into dogmas that cannot be questioned. Instead of being flexible and adaptive, **our values become chains we cannot break out of**. > Even though our basic assumptions often remain hidden from our conscious awareness, they nevertheless determine how we manage our careers. Too often we fail to question them, even if they are obsolete or wrong. Precisely because they are taken for granted, basic assumptions are very hard to change. ‌‌‌‌ > > – Herminia Ibarra in Working Identity \[2\] Over time, based on successes and failures, we create notions and narratives around what we are capable of and not. Our successes cause us to look in similar directions. We forget that when we ventured out we did not necessarily know whether we would be successful or not. Thus notions of our capability and capacity go unexamined. Our stories end up becoming dogmas that cannot be challenged, and thus **constrict our available set of opportunities, o**r at least what we end up choosing. **What are some of our values that might not be true anymore?** ## Do you have Active Inertia? - a checklist Below are a series of statements (adapted from Sull’s list for companies) that might indicate active inertia in our careers: - I am well aware of the available opportunities and there’s nothing out there. - Maintaining status quo is my top priority. I cannot risk losing what I have. - I might not be making [breakthroughs](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/), but I am doing good enough. I am delivering results. - I have this thing figured out. It is more or less on auto-pilot. - I need to stay focussed on this one thing, one career path, one career ladder. I cannot get distracted by these other shiny objects. - I am part of a stable team, stable company. - I am well-embedded and well-respected in my current networks. I don’t have to participate in newer networks. - I am really good at what I do and it is my core competency. Starting from scratch does not make sense at this stage. - It is not prudent to try new things at this late stage in my career. - If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. - I stick with projects I know I can deliver successfully. I don’t try to push limits. - I cannot alienate my current management team by acting differently or inconsistently with what is expected of me. - I have too much invested in my current role/path/career. - I might be miserable but at least it pays well. If you catch yourself saying any of the above statements, consider in what context you might be saying them. ## Career drift The idea is not to go make changes just for the sake of it. Many of the above statements are appropriate in a successful, satisfying career. The key is to stay alert to shifts over time and do a check-in on a regular basis. Our values and needs change over time and so do statements. > Not doing regular, designed check-ins is one reason why careers happen more often by accident than by design. Staying alert at the wheel is critical to prevent what might be called *career drift*, and avoid ending up in careers we ultimately despise or just plain jaded with. > The **most typical problem at mid career** is not defining what kind of work we find enjoyable and meaningful. ‌‌‌‌Rather, it is figuring out how to transfer old preferences and values to new and different contexts and how to integrate those with changing priorities and newly blooming potential. > > **It is a problem of recombining and reanchoring**. ‌‌‌‌And the “solution” is never the job change itself. Self-creation is a lifelong journey. Only by our actions do we learn who we want to become, how best to travel, and what else will need to change to ease the way.‌‌‌‌ > > \- Herminia Ibarra in Working Identity \[2\] Balancing dedication and commitment with strategic checkpoints along the way ensures we're heading in the right direction and in alignment with true values.‌ ‌ Consider what you might do differently in light of this framework. Work with a coach, peer, mentor, or even your manager to consider options and viewpoints you might not have considered yet. - Do you have active inertia in your career right now? - What actions are you continuing to take that are not helpful? - Where are your potential blindspots? - And how can you uncover them? ‌‌ --- Liked this article?You will dig ***The Managerial Mind on Mondays** newsletter. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ## Related reading For more frameworks on thinking about careers check out [Two Critical Questions About Your Career,](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/questions-midlife-career-change/) [The Set of Our Sail in Work and Life](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/the-set-of-our-sail-in-work-and-life/) and [3 Critical Questions to Ask Before Setting Goals](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/). For a comprehensive collection of effective career change frameworks from my own experience check out [this article](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/essential-career-change-frameworks/). ### Sources 1. [*Why Good Companies go Bad* ](https://hbr.org/1999/07/why-good-companies-go-bad?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Donald Sull in Harvard Business Review. 2. [*Working Identity* ](https://amzn.to/3uIu2Om?ref=leadingsapiens.com)by Herminia Ibarra. ### Learning to Learn - Why Professionals Struggle with this Meta Skill URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-how-to-learn/ Last updated: 2024-02-26T00:04:00.000Z *Elsewhere, I have argued the importance of* [*self-development and on-going learning*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) *of managers and leaders. A major impediment to this effort is what Chris Argyris calls defensive reasoning routines.* *In his 1991 HBR article Teaching Smart People How to Learn, he outlines some of the primary reasons why highly skilled and educated professionals struggle with learning.* --- ## Theories of actions One of the core tenets of his work along with Donald Schon is the concept of *theories of action:* > *It is impossible to reason anew in every situation. If we had to think through all the possible responses every time someone asked, “How are you?” the world would pass us by.* > > *Therefore, everyone develops a *theory of action*\-a set of rules that individuals use to design and implement their own behavior as well as to understand the behavior of others.* > > *Usually, these theories of actions become so taken for granted that people don’t even realize they are using them.* > > – Chris Argyris in Teaching Smart People How to Learn ## What we claim vs what we actually do What makes this interesting and insidious is that we all have two versions, the one we claim to be using and the one we actually use. He calls these the *espoused theory of action* vs the *theory-in-use*. > *One of the paradoxes of human behavior, however, is that the master pro- gram people actually use is rarely the one they think they use. Ask people in an interview or questionnaire to articulate the rules they use to govern their actions, and they will give you what I call their *“espoused” theory of action*.* > > *But observe these same people’s behavior, and you will quickly see that this espoused theory has very little to do with how they actually behave.* > > *When you observe people’s behavior and try to come up with rules that would make sense of it, you discover a very different theory of action-what I call the individual’s *“theory-in-use.’’** > > *Put simply, people consistently act inconsistently, unaware of the contradiction between their espoused theory and their theory-in-use, between the way they think they are acting and the way they really act.* > > – Chris Argyris in Teaching Smart People How to Learn The reason why we have two different versions is that the theory-in-use makes sense given how the situation “looks” to us. It looks that way because of underlying values that we all carry. > *Most *theories-in-use* rest on the same set of governing values. There seems to be a universal human tendency to design one’s actions consistently according to *four basic values*:* > > *1\. To remain in unilateral control;* > *2\. To maximize “winning” and minimize “losing”;* > *3\. To suppress negative feelings; and* > *4\. To be as “rational” as possible-by which people mean defining clear objectives and evaluating their behavior in terms of whether or not they have achieved them.* > > *The purpose of all these values is to avoid embarrassment or threat, feeling vulnerable or incompetent. In this respect, *the master program that most people use is profoundly defensive*. Defensive reasoning encourages individuals to keep private the* [*premises, inferences, and conclusions*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) *that shape their behavior and to avoid testing them in a truly independent, objective fashion.* > > – Chris Argyris in Teaching Smart People How to Learn ## Defensive behavior in professionals He goes on to highlight how **highly educated professionals are most susceptible** to this kind of defensive behavior for several reasons: - Most of them have never experienced failure so far leading up to their current role and as a result do not know how to deal with it effectively. Their defensive routines get automatically activated as they never had a chance to develop a muscle for dealing with failure and its associated learnings. (This is equally applicable for top performers rising up through the organization until they run into a challenging role.) - They have an unrealistically high ideal of performance for themselves. - They make the mistake of comparing themselves to people much further down in their career, thus [setting unrealistic expectations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/setting-high-standards-leadership/). - The high ideal of performance comes packaged with a high fear of failure and associated shame and guilt feelings that go with it. - They fear not just failure itself but they also **“fear the fear of failure itself”*.* ## Extremely brittle personalities All these behaviors together conspire to form what Argyris calls ***a formidable predisposition against learning***. And while on their own they might not directly impede our work, such an implicit unwillingness to learn can seriously hamper our future prospects. It leads to professionals developing what he calls *extremely brittle personalities.* Billy Beane featured in the Michael Lewis book and the movie *Moneyball* is a classic example of such brittleness. Carol Dweck in *Mindset* writes: > *As Michael Lewis tells us in Moneyball, by the time Beane was a sophomore in high school, he was the highest scorer on the basketball team, the quarterback of the football team, and the best hitter on the baseball team, batting .500 in one of the toughest leagues in the country. His talent was real enough.* > > *But the minute things went wrong, Beane searched for something to break. “It wasn’t merely that he didn’t like to fail; it was as if *he didn’t know how to fail*.”* > > *As he moved up in baseball from the minor leagues to the majors, things got worse and worse. Each at-bat became a nightmare, another opportunity for humiliation, and with every botched at-bat, he went to pieces. As one scout said, “Billy was of the opinion that he should never make an out.” \[…\]* > > *Did Beane try to fix his problems in constructive ways? No, of course not, because this is a story of the fixed* [*mindset*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/)*. Natural talent should not need effort. Effort is for the others, the less endowed. Natural talent does not ask for help. It is an admission of weakness. In short, the natural does not analyze his deficiencies and coach or practice them away. *The very idea of deficiencies is terrifying.** > > *Being so imbued with the fixed mindset, Beane was trapped. Trapped by his huge talent. Beane the player never recovered from the fixed mindset, but Beane the incredibly successful major-league executive did. How did this happen?* > > *There was another player who lived and played side by side with Beane in the minors and in the majors, Lenny Dykstra. Dykstra did not have a fraction of Beane’s physical endowment or “natural ability,” but Beane watched him in awe. As Beane later described, *“He had no concept of failure. . . . And I was the opposite.”** > > *Beane continues, “I started to get a sense of what a baseball player was and I could see it wasn’t me. It was Lenny.”* > > – Carol Dweck in Mindset The typical ways organizations go about *fixing* learning is by focussing on the individual’s attitudes, commitment or motivation. There might also be system wide initiatives to incorporate learning into the company’s culture. Per Argyris this is never enough to effect real change because we are still locked into our defensive reasoning routines. --- ## Problem solving is not always learning He highlights the difference between plain old problem-solving as opposed to learning that actually challenges us. Ongoing continuous learning requires reflection on our part and **ownership of our role in creating the problem**. > *\[M\]ost people define learning too narrowly as mere “problem solving,” so they focus on identifying and correcting errors in the external environment. Solving problems is important. But if learning is to persist, managers and employees must also look inward.* > > *They need to reflect critically on their own behavior, identify the ways they often inadvertently contribute to the organization’s problems, and then change how they act.* > > *In particular, they must learn how the very way they go about defining and solving problems can be a source of problems in its own right.* > > – Chris Argyris in Teaching Smart People How to Learn ## Solutions Argyris recommends some simple solutions. **The first step** is for managers themselves to examine the gap between their own espoused theories and their actual theories-in-use. Are they really walking the talk? Are their actions consistent with their espoused theories? This has a trickle down effect in the organization. And this has to start with the senior management team. It’s harder and almost impossible for a middle manager to pull this off, if the senior team is still in the midst of their own defensive routines. > No plan survives first contact with the enemy. > > \- Von Clausewitz **His second recommendation** is for training programs to be directly connected to actual business problems with real consequences so managers can see the result of their changes. It is too common for the learning in simulated classroom situations to never materialize in real-time situations. **His third recommendation** is his well-known and highly effective *left-hand column* exercise. You divide the page into two columns. In the right column you write a small case study which describes the situation like an upcoming meeting and how it might play out. In the left column you describe the things you actually want to say but are too afraid to do so. Then you go over these as an open discussion with the parties involved. This exercise highlights the role we ourselves play in creating the very problem we are trying to solve. This does not come naturally to us as our natural defensive routines prevent us from implicating ourselves and thus hiding the role we are playing. > *In effect, the case study exercise legitimizes talking about issues that people have never been able to address before. Such a discussion can be emotional- even painful.* > > *But for managers with the courage to persist, the payoff is great: management teams and entire organizations work more openly and more effectively and have greater options for behaving flexibly and adapting to particular situations.* > > *When senior managers are trained in new reasoning skills, they can have a big impact on the performance of the entire organization-even when other employees are still reasoning defensively.* > > – Chris Argyris in Teaching Smart People How to Learn --- ## Learning to learn as a meta-skill Almost every modern organization endorses the importance of learning. Coupled with that, top organizations supposedly hire only the *smartest* people. And yet, paradoxically, learning is still one of the biggest challenges companies face especially in [knowledge work](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/peter-drucker-knowledge-work/). Hidden defensive routines are one reason why this is so. Managers and leaders need to be aware of these insidious saboteurs and train themselves and their teams to become better learners. > *They are not just solving problems but developing a far deeper and more textured understanding of their role as members of the organization. They are laying the groundwork for continuous improvement that is truly continuous. They are learning how to learn.* > > – Chris Argyris in Teaching Smart People How to Learn Learning to learn is a meta-skill that can accelerate [the process of self-development](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). It's the ultimate insurance policy against constant change and uncertainty, and something managers and leaders cannot afford to ignore. --- 💡 Liked this article?You will dig ***The Managerial Mind on Mondays** newsletter. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on leadership, careers, and organizations in bite sized form. --- ## Related Reading - You can find Argyris’s entire original Harvard Business Review article [here](https://hbr.org/1991/05/teaching-smart-people-how-to-learn?ref=leadingsapiens.com). - Peter Senge has written extensively on learning organizations. Here’s one [powerful passage on learning as a strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/learning-as-strategy/) from his classic *The Fifth Discipline*. - How do you go about learning leadership? And what is coaching's role within it? These are some of the questions I tackle in [Leadership cannot be taught. But you can learn it](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-can-be-learned-but-cannot-be-taught/). ### Leadership Requires Understanding Time Differently URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/ Last updated: 2024-02-26T00:04:18.000Z *Our habitual ways of looking at time in linear and spatial terms can unknowingly limit us when it comes to planning our work and lives.* *How is human time different from mechanical clock time? Understanding the difference can change how leaders approach business and life situations like setting goals/objectives and scenario planning.* --- > The future enters us in this way in order to be transformed in us, long before it happens. > > – Rainer Maria Rilke \[1\] ## **The linear conception of time** We are accustomed to looking at time linearly or in other words **clock time**. If it is 10am right now, what happened earlier at 9 am is what is past and what is going to happen at 11am is the future. We carry over this same notion of mechanical time into our work and lives. Because time is abstract **we use a more concrete metaphor like space** to understand it. \[2\] > For most of us, space is the concrete thing that time is like. Studies reveal that people all over the world imagine time as though it were a spatial dimension, which is why we say that the past is behind us and the future is in front of us. > > We think and speak as though we were actually moving away from **a yesterday that is located over there and toward a tomorrow that is located 180 degrees about**. > > *– Daniel Gilbert in Stumbling on Happiness* \[2\] But is it as mechanical and straightforward as it looks? While this straightforward way of looking at time works most of the time, there are situations when a different way of looking at time can be more helpful and open up new possibilities. ## The present as happening *before* the past. We think of time in terms of the past, present, and future where past comes first, followed by the present, and then the future. We see them as distinct and discrete points on a line without much overlap. Upon closer examination though, notice how the past is nothing but a series of present moments that have already happened. Thus **for us to have a past we needed to be in a present moment first**. The present moment had to happen before it became the past. From that perspective, the present comes before the past. ## The present as *causal* This is important because **it makes our present causal rather than our past**. While the past obviously does play an important role in our lives and there are important lessons we have learned, from this perspective **the past is not as causal as we usually think of it**. Of course we are historical beings. There are aspects of us that have developed over time and will stay with us. But the opposite is also true - that **in every present moment we have a choice of taking a different action** that has nothing to do with the past. In certain contexts, many of us live constrained by the past whether it is regrets, wrong decisions, chips that didn’t fall our way or notions about what we are capable and not capable of. > Understanding the present moment as causal, rather than the past, changes our relationship to both the past and present. It puts more power and choice in our hands because we can always choose our actions in the present moment. In this way, we become the cause in our lives, instead of being the effect at the mercy of our pasts. Instead of our present and future being just extensions of the past, we are **actively constructing not just our future but future versions of our yet unhappened past**. ## **The future as leverage** The future is nothing but a series of present moments that have not arrived yet. **The future technically will never come**. It will just be another present moment. Today is yesterday’s future and that is all we have access to. > Man first of all is the being who hurls himself towards a future and who is conscious of imagining himself as being in the future. > > *– Jean Paul Sartre* \[3\] Amongst all living creatures we are the only ones, as far as we know it, capable of thinking about the future and projecting ourselves into it. > Our ability to project ourselves forward in time and experience events before they happen enables us to learn from mistakes without making them and to evaluate actions without taking them. If nature has given us a greater gift, no one has named it. > > *– Daniel Gilbert in Stumbling on Happiness* \[2\] As obvious as this is, we have not been taught to leverage this basic fact of the human OS. Our common tendency when thinking about the future is worry and anxiety that primarily come from our need to control the future which by definition we cannot. > You must dispense with these two things: fear of the future, and the recollection of ancient ills. The latter no longer concerns me, the former has yet to concern me. > > *– Seneca in Letters to Lucilius* \[4\] Trying to set objectives and goals also tend to be positive manifestations of this need to control the future. But the future is uncertain, unknowable, and by definition uncontrollable. ## Rewriting, not controlling the future If we cannot control the future then why bother? Because while we cannot control the future, it is the ultimate context for the present and consequently has a big influence on the our actions and the choices we make in the present. Additionally, **there is a difference between trying to control the future and having influence and power over it**. And we can do that through language. Our future is built in language. It is through language that we access, describe, and build the future. Most of the time this is automatic and we do not give much thought to it. We have already built a version of the future by default. The question is whether we want to live into that particular version or not. ## **The future as creating the present** The typical notion is that our actions in the present moment create or at least influence the future. This is true. If our present actions are based on the past then the future will be more of the past or very similar to it. This is ok and there is nothing wrong with it. But what if we do not want that default version of the future? \[9\] Consider the opposite – that the future creates the present. The future creates the present by being the overarching context for the actions we take in the present. [Context is what determines our way of being](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/) and our actions in a given situation. \[8\] > It can only be that the mind, which regulates this process, performs three functions, those of expectation, attention and memory. The future, which it expects, passes-through the present, to which it attends, into the past, which it remembers. > > \- St Augustine in Confessions Different contexts drive different actions. **A dramatically different and compelling future requires a dramatically different set of actions** from us in the present than a bleak, same-old, same-old future. The most important part and what gets missed though is that we can create this compelling future through language. **Whatever future we have right now is but one version of it**. We can change that particular version and the different version will drive different actions. In this way the future creates the present. ## **Past, present, and future in an interconnected loop** Thus, instead of the past, present, and future being discrete and disconnected points on a linear timeline, they are more akin to being in a continuous infinity loop, where each one informs, influences, and evolves with the other, thereby setting up a vicious or a virtuous loop. > All three dimensions of time are equiprimordial, for one never occurs without the other. All three are open to us equiprimordially , but they are not open uniformally. > > First, one dimension is predominant, then the other one in which we are engaged, or in which, perhaps, we are even imprisoned. In this way, each of the other two dimensions have not just disappeared at any given time but have merely been modified. The other dimensions are not subject to mere negation, but to privation. > > *– Martin Heidegger in Zollikon Seminars* \[5\] Latest research and thought in complexity science and its application to management confirms this view of time in the human domain.\[6\] > Human interaction in the present is thus simultaneously forming and being formed by the past and the future. \[…\] In relation to human action, the arrow of time has an important temporal implication. It means that **the present has a circular time structure** in that the present both forms and is formed by the past and the future at the same time. > > The arrow of time then means that the movement of human experience in the present has the circular self-referential time structure of **reconstructed pasts and imagined futures**. > > Responsive processes thinking takes a circular, paradoxical view of time. This means that **the past is not actually given, but is being reiterated, retold in the present** in the light of the expectations people are forming in the present for the future. > > Expectations for the future are affecting how the stories of the past are being retold and those stories are affecting expectations for the future, all in the present. > > In a sense ***the future is changing the past just as the retelling of the past is changing the future*, all in the present**. The present is thus living in the sense that it has a time structure incorporating both the past and the future. > > – Ralph Stacey & Chris Mowles in Strategic Management & Organisational Dynamics \[6\] T.S. Eliot captured this dynamic perfectly in *Four Quartets:* > Time present and time past > Are both perhaps in time future > And time future contained in time past. > ... > Time past and time future > What might have been and what has been > Point to one end, which is always present. > ... > And the end and the beginning were always there > Before the beginning and after the end. > And all is always now... --- Some of us might argue the mechanics of how true this assertion is. But that misses the point. The real question is whether our interpretation and orientation gives us more capacity for action. > The question is not whether this is true or not. The question is which system of thinking is most useful? Which gives us power? > > – Peter Block \[7\] What conception of time are you using and which version of the future are you working towards? ## Further Reading Authenticity and our experience of time are more connected than we think. In [Authentic Leadership and Time](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/), I explore this connection. Our relationship with our past and future can alter how we approach everything. In [Pulled by the Future vs Pushed by the Past](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/), I examine the difference between the two stances. The future can be a powerful context for actions in the present. Leaders have to be [masters of context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/). --- 💡 Liked this article? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### References 1. Letters to a Young Poet by Rainer Maria Rilke. 2. Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert. 3. Jean Paul Sartre cited in Working with Goals in Psychotherapy & Counseling by Mick Cooper & Duncan Law. 4. Seneca as cited in A Brief History of Thought by Luc Ferry. 5. Zollikon Seminars by Martin Heidegger. 6. Strategic Management & Organizational Dynamics by Ralph Stacey & Chris Mowles. 7. [Changing the Nature of Conversation](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi02-iUyav2AhXck2oFHeuLD3YQFnoECA0QAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asmallgroup.net%2Fpages%2Fimages%2Fpages%2FCES%5Fjan2007.pdf&usg=AOvVaw29UkdS4ylgWDnVlIitdupC) by Peter Block. 8. [The Phenomenology of Leadership](https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2014.34008?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Wiley Souba. 9. The Three Laws of Performance by Steve Zaffron and Dave Logan. ### Leadership Identity Development through Choices and Actions URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-identity-development-choices-actions/ Last updated: 2024-10-24T19:57:45.000Z *Identity is often thought as something static from which our actions follow. It's more helpful to see it as an effect that follows from our actions. This is especially relevant to* [***notions of leadership capability***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/implicit-leadership-theory-effect-on-careers/)*.* *We are constantly developing this leadership identity through our actions. The real question is whether this process is accidental and by default, or whether we are actively developing it the way we would like it to be.* --- ## What is identity and how is it formed? What's your identity as a manager, as a leader, or as a parent? All of us have notions, stories and constructs about what we are capable and not capable of. Some are helpful while others not so much. > *What you are is what you have been, and what you will be is what you do now.* > > *– The Buddha* Even when we are aware of our unhelpful stories, we don't examine our assumptions closely. We tend to take them for granted, as something that is unchangeable about us and something we have to live with. The sum total of all these ideas and constructs are what we might call “identity”. We have different identities and assessments for all the roles we play. For example I might consider myself strong at parenting but weak leadership. Where did these notions come from? And how can we go about changing them that creates more capacity for action? > Your whole idea about yourself is borrowed – borrowed from those who have no idea of who they are themselves. > > — Osho Our identities in each of these roles came from both internal and external sources. There is **an external social component** and an **internal personal component**. In the external versions, we built them based on how people responded to us in the past when we were infants, teenagers and as adults at work and elsewhere. Internally, we create interpretations of our failures or successes at various things that then get turned into coherent stories that we tell ourselves. \[6\] Instead of delving in the psychology of identity formation, a simpler, actionable way of examining identity is to understand **the ontology** or in other words, the “being” of us humans. ## Identity development from conversations Bineham and Hyde describe **identity as being formed from our conversations with ourselves** and with others instead of a pre-existing entity.\[1\] > *What is the origin and function of identity? What is a “self,” anyway? For the most part, unthinkingly, \[we\] assume that the personal pronoun “I” indicates a substantial entity of some kind that inhabits \[our\] body.* > > *It is vital, then, for \[us\] to consider that \[our\] body arrived on the scene before the “I” did, and that the “I” is, for the most part, \[our\] own creation. A human infant has no “I”—it has little or no sense of self, and no self-reflexive awareness. But as the infant’s inborn capacity for language and self-reflection begin to awaken, and she or he notices a perceiver at the center of the perceptions, the infant begins creating an identity for that perceiver, primarily in response to early interactions with significant others. Thus, as one’s world begins to have meaning, one designs an identity that is harmonic with the meanings of that world, and appropriate for living and surviving in such a world.* > > **A “self,” then, may be seen fundamentally as a conversation. It may be more accurate to say that this conversation constitutes the self*— that a self is a nexus of meanings surrounding a site of agency and perception, meanings that each of us aggregates over the years in response to the situations and interactions we encounter as we live.* > > – Bruce Hyde & Jeffery Bineham \[1\] ## **Separating ourselves from our stories** Our identities are built from stories that we have of ourselves. We have enabling stories and disabling stories. The only way to break free from our disabling stories is to first recognize them as such and separate ourselves as the authors of those stories. This creates a distance between ourselves and our identities, and the possibility of writing a new one. **Since stories are built in language, they can be rewritten and reinterpreted**. > *We think we tell stories, but stories often tell us, tell us to love or hate, to see or be seen. Often, too often, stories saddle us, ride us, whip us onward, tell us what to do, and we do it without questioning.* > > *The task of learning to be free requires learning to hear them, to question them, to pause and hear silence, to name them, and then become a story-teller.* > > *– Rebecca Solnit in The Faraway Nearby* \[2\] It's when we cannot differentiate ourselves from our stories that we get so tied up to our existing identities that we cannot imagine creating a new one in its place. They are too static, too solid, and too real. When we can identity a story as one, it gives the real “I” some breathing room and wiggle room to grow beyond these pre-existing stories and forge a new identity in the process. ## **Identity as an *effect* rather than a *cause*** Jean Paul Sartre emphasized our freedom to choose when he said, > *Man is nothing else but what he makes of himself.* > > *– Jean Paul Sartre* \[3\] Mick Cooper brings up an interesting point while elaborating this concept from Sartre, > *We are our choices: our identity and characteristics are a consequence – and not causes – of the choices that we make.* > > *From this perspective, then, there is nothing that caused you to become the person you are: whether you ‘are’ a therapist, parent or extravert. Rather, you became you by virtue of the choices that you made in your life, and these identities are only an outcome of the decisions that you have made.* > > – Mick Cooper in Existential Therapies \[4\] He equates our identity to our choices and actions. Our identity and characteristics are not causing us to be a certain way. Instead **we are proactively developing our identities through our conscious choices and resulting actions**. We are writing the story, albeit one version of it, through our actions and choices. It is **an actionable and malleable definition of identity** rather than a solid, unchangeable, and inaccessible one. ## **Identity as actionable and malleable** The natural line of thought is that given our identity and characteristics there are certain things that we are capable of and not capable of others. But what if our identity and characteristics are an effect and consequence rather than a cause? This opens up the possibility of building our identity through actions and choices rather than be limited by preconceived notions that we have. This does not mean we will be able to dunk a basketball tomorrow. But the reason why we can or cannot has a lot to do with **the choices we made and the resulting actions we took leading up to that moment**. In the same vein, where we end up in the future will be contingent upon the choices and actions we take leading up to that particular point in the future. And **in every moment we have the freedom to choose what those choices and actions are**. > *What ultimately motivates all learning and all action is that only through action does one acquire an identity, and having an identity, a way of being and acting, is what human being is all about*. > > *– Wiley Souba/Phenomenology of Leadership* \[5\] How many times have we decided that we won't take a chance on an opportunity because we do not think we are made for it or don't have the requisite skillset. **Given enough time, do you think you can eventually master that skillset?** We can get so lost in psychological jargon that we don’t actually examine where that identity came from to begin with. We forget that in every moment we still have the freedom to choose. At least most of us are in that position. And with each choice we are building, developing, and changing our identities. \[7\] ## Identity is not fixed From this perspective, there is no fixed identity. This can be both disconcerting and yet liberating. Disconcerting, because suddenly we don’t necessarily have something to stand on. The edifice in our mind is not as stable as we thought. Liberating, because we can now go build the one we do want and because we have a choice in the matter instead of assuming it as a given. There are obviously things about our situation and personal histories, what the existentialists call “facticity” and “thrownness”, that cannot be changed and they do constrain us. **But within those unchangeable realties we still do have choices**. ## **A different orientation** Below are the differences in orientation when we look at identity as [an effect that follows from our actions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/), rather than as a cause that drives actions. ![Identity as cause vs identify as effect](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/07/Identity-as-Cause-vs-Identity-as-Effect.png) Reality isn’t always as clearly differentiated and is somewhere in the middle. It is never one way but in fact **in a loop**. Our actions drive our identity which in turn drives our actions. **The mistake is to forget our agency** in the process, and how influential our actions can be in proactively forging and shaping our identities. While identity might not be directly accessible, our choices and actions certainly are, which in turn make our identities actionable and accessible. --- The next time we are in a situation that we do not think we are cut out for, it is worth looking into where that notion came from. Our identity is an ongoing story built out of conversations. And all stories are built in language and thus can be changed over time. The way we change that language is through choices and actions. By changing our choices and actions, we change our narratives, and eventually our identity. ## Related reading - How we look at our past and future has a huge bearing on our actions in the present. The default linear way of looking at time can be a limiting factor especially in leadership. Leaders have to learn to [understand time differently in its various dimensions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). - We can [either be pulled by the future or pushed by the past](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/), and these are completely different orientations to how we approach our work and lives. Being aware of these dynamics can help better leverage our actions. ### Sources 1. [*From Debate to Dialogue*](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10417940009373168?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Bruce Hyde & Jeffery Bineham.* 2. [*The Faraway Nearby*](https://amzn.to/3jBueZw?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Rebecca Solnit.* 3. [*Existential Psychoanalysis*](https://amzn.to/36fGP1r?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Jean Paul Sartre.* 4. [*Existential Therapies*](https://amzn.to/3JLeQ7g?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Mick Cooper.* 5. [*The Phenomenology of Leadership*](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276498777%5FThe%5FPhenomenology%5Fof%5FLeadership?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Wiley Souba.* 6. [*Three Laws of Performance*](https://amzn.to/3JIXE2q?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Steve Zaffron & Dave Logan.* 7. *James Clear takes this notion of identity as a cause into the realm of*[ *habits*](https://jamesclear.com/identity-based-habits?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* ### Importance of Reflection in Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-08-13T22:23:40.000Z [*Self-development*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/) *is a key aspect of effective leadership. Leadership reflection is a critical mechanism to accelerate this process.* *In this piece I examine the* importance *of reflection in leadership and why it mostly gets ignored.* --- > *By three methods we may learn wisdom: first, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.* > > —Confucius ## Reflection is not glamorous Look up the brochure for any MBA or executive business program and you are bound to come across words like strategy, decision-making, and leadership sprinkled generously amongst others. What you are less likely to find are words like reflection or the reflective mindset. And yet, it is the art of skilled reflection that can make us good at all those advertised skills. We don’t pay attention to it because it is neither hip nor does it fit our standard notions of quick results. ## Reflection is an underutilized superpower Richard Kilburg, after doing a survey of human history, credits our power of reflection in enabling all the progress humanity has achieved. \[1\] > For 97% of the time between the age of stone tools and the development of agriculture, our human ancestors were hunters and gatherers. However, once Homo sapiens invented writing, mathematics, and philosophy, it took us only 7,000 years to land on the moon, create nuclear power plants, and develop string theory. I insert this extraordinarily brief history to make a point. > > I believe **it has been the evolution of the reflective capacity of the mind of Homo sapiens that, in the end,** **accounts for all that we have accomplished.** > > – Richard Kilburg in Executive Wisdom \[1\] Our ability to think about ourselves, to think about our thinking, what Adam Smith called “**being an impartial spectator**”, is what differentiates us from the rest of the living world. \[2\]\[3\] Yet on a daily basis we do not use this extraordinary ability. Because it is so obvious and second nature, it does not get utilized. ## Skilled reflection. Not rumination or self-absorption. Many of us think we already reflect enough and there is no need to practice this skill. However, skilled reflection is different from plain rumination or worry where you are in an infinite doom loop and never gaining any perspective. > Most people—even people who would describe themselves as comfortable with the reflective as well as the “doing” mode—have never engaged in focused, structured, persistent, and active reflection. > > – Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey in *Immunity to Change* \[4\] What many of us think of as reflection or even self-awareness is often just plain self-criticism or worse self-absorption. Those tend to come to us more naturally. And to boot this kind of reflection makes matters worse rather than help. \[5\] > The habit of rumination that our narcissistic society encourages actually might make things worse. > > The ESM research shows that when people think about themselves, their moods are usually negative. When a person starts to reflect without being skilled at it, the first thoughts that pop into the mind tend to be depressing. Whereas in flow we forget ourselves, in apathy, worry, and boredom the self is usually at center stage. > > So unless one has mastered the skill of reflection, the practice of “thinking about problems” usually aggravates whatever is wrong instead of alleviating it. > > \-Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi in *Finding Flow* \[5\] In contrast, skilled reflection enables us to gain perspective, unlock possibilities, and increase our available set of possible actions. ## Reflection as the key to learning Given the proliferation of information and ease of availability of online learning, one would think that our skillsets would be more widely developed. But clearly that's not the case. One possible reason is the lack of skilled reflection. Consumption of information and even applied experience on its own does not guarantee learning and development. Reflection is the missing piece. **Reflection is what ties action and experience into learning and eventually development.** This is doubly true in **fields where there is no clear feedback or common benchmarks of performance**. Management and leadership fall squarely into this category. This is why reflection is even more important in these fields. > *How can one learn the truth from thinking? As one learns to see a face better if one draws it.* > > — Ludwig Wittgenstein ## Leadership reflection and performance Whether leaders and managers can cope or even thrive in an environment of increasing change and complexity depends on their ability to adapt and respond to emerging, complex-adaptive challenges that do not have known solutions. And this **adaptive capacity is a direct function of their ability to skillfully reflect**. Intelligence and information is generated when we take action but these cannot be harnessed and leveraged if the action is not balanced in a loop with reflection. When individuals and teams are under-performing or heading in the wrong direction, it is usually because they are skewed towards one, forgetting to balance one with the other. > In strategic terms, this is akin to Boyd’s OODA loops, where *observing, orienting, and deciding* are active reflection steps before we take *actions*, thus forming an infinite loop. \[6\] In Donald Sull’s adaptation of strategy loops, reflection forms the basis of the three steps of *making revisions, making sense,* and *making choices*, before we are *making it happen*. \[7\] Ron Heifetz calls this “**getting on the balcony**” and identifies it as a core leadership skill. > Leadership is both active and reflective. One has to alternate between participating and observing. Walt Whitman described it as being “both in and out of the game.” > > Although the principle may be easy to grasp, the practice is not. Rather than maintain perspective on the events that surround and involve us, we often get swept up by them. > > Consider the experience of dancing on a dance floor in contrast with standing on a balcony and watching other people dance. Engaged in the dance, it is nearly impossible to get a sense of the patterns made by everyone on the floor. Motion makes observation difficult. > > To discern the larger patterns on the dance floor-to see who is dancing with whom, in what groups, in what location, and who is sitting out which kind of dance-we have to stop moving and get to the balcony. > > – Ronald Heifetz in *Leadership Without Easy Answers* \[8\] Developing our complexity and [capacity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-capacities-systems-thinking/) to deal with volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity is a critical skill-set. Reflection plays an important role in developing this skill. ## Balancing action and reflection is key to managerial competence As a group, high-performing managers and execs are already good at execution/action. What is usually missing is balancing that action with regular, skillful reflection. It's what Richard Kilburg calls the “**tao of reflective engagement**” – the Ying of engagement (action/execution) is balanced by the Yang of reflection. \[1\] > Any executive who wants to increase the likelihood that he or she will do a good job for an organization and become an increasingly wise leader over time must become superbly adept at both the arts of execution and the arts of reflection. > > **It is in the systematic and creative synthesis of both of these forms of executive activity that the wisest answers and actions will be found** for the dilemmas facing most modern organizations. > > Those who have such metacognitive and reflective abilities and who work to improve them are able to do a better job and that their organizations perform more effectively than those whose leaders seem blind to such capacities and skills. > > – Richard Kilburg in *Executive Wisdom* In their HBR article *The Five Minds of a Manager,* Mintzberg and Gossling emphasize the importance of balancing reflection with action in developing managerial competence. \[9\] > Two aspects establish the bounds of management: Everything that every effective manager does is sandwiched between action on the ground and reflection in the abstract. Action without reflection is thoughtless; reflection without action is passive. > > Every manager has to find a way to combine these two mind-sets—to function at the point where reflective thinking meets practical doing. > > – Henry Mintzberg & Jonathan Gossling in Harvard Business Review This importance of reflection in leadership development has gained some traction as evidenced by it’s adoption in some corporate programs and even academic programs. One such program is the IMPM program at McGill. The reflective mindset is their first module and undergirds the whole curriculum. A good example of a corporate program is the Search Inside Yourself program at Google. \[10\]\[11\] But you don’t have to enroll in an MBA or work at Google to harness the power of reflection in [your own development](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/self-development-in-leadership/). As with anything that is simple in theory but harder in practice, the trick is to take on methods that you like to work with and then consistently do it. ## What got you here wont get you there Effective action and prompt execution leading to results are what got managers and executives to where they are today. However, without skilled reflection they are unlikely to catch the blindspots that can ultimately derail them. > These days what managers desperately need is to stop and think, to step back and reflect thoughtfully on their experiences. Indeed, in his book Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky makes the interesting point that events, or ‘happenings,’ become experience only after they have been reflected upon, thoughtfully: > > ‘Most people do not accumulate a body of experience. Most people go through life undergoing a series of happenings, which pass through their systems undigested. **Happenings become experiences when they are digested, when they are reflected on, related to general patterns, and synthesized.** > > – Henry Mintzberg & Jonathan Gossling in Harvard Business Review \[9\] Action and execution are also areas where we are naturally inclined to look for opportunities for improvement and learning. This is what Chris Argyris and Donald Schon call [**single-loop learning**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/#single-loop-learning) where we adjust and improve based on direct feedback from our actions. However, in order to grow we have to develop their metacognitive abilities — thinking about our thinking. Argyris and Schon call this [**double-loop learning**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/). \[12\] A powerful tool to do that is the art and practice of skilled reflection. It entails taking an impartial view and becoming **an observer of the observer**, an impartial observer of our own selves. We all intuitively recognize this in extreme situations. Imagine the last time you were in a highly stressful situation and you told yourself that you need a minute or went took a walk to “clear your head”. Your system intuitively knew that you needed a break to get some perspective. However this kind of active reflection does not have to be only in emergency scenarios. It can become an integral part of our ongoing self-development efforts. Self-development can happen naturally when we actively develop our reflective mindset by exercising the muscle of reflection on a regular, planned basis. In the process we develop our ability to think about thinking and our metacognition. ## Wisdom is not a given. Experience often comes alone. > The unexamined life is not worth living. > > – Socrates in Plato’s Apology \[13\] Socrates was talking about reflection. Perhaps the unexamined manager isn’t a manager after all. We often equate number of years of experience with competence. But experience often comes just by itself. Wisdom and learning do not necessarily come packaged with it. Experience is what connects theory with practice. However, reflection is what turns that experience into wisdom. **It’s reflection that cements the new knowledge and feedback from our experiences** and converts it into learning which then gets used further, thus creating a virtuous spiral. Without reflection we cannot build on our experiences for growth. In almost all well researched and documented theories of learning, the key factor that leads to learning from experience and knowledge is reflection. Experience or knowledge on their own do not turn into learning or wisdom. If learning is the antidote to stay on top of the volatility and complexity that managers deal with, then reflection is the catalyst that accelerates this learning. ## Reflection is a proven “technology” The practice of skilled reflection as the core of developing our wisdom and capacity is nothing new. It’s origins range from ancient wisdom traditions to modern developmental, learning theories, and is backed up by evidence from the latest in neuroscience. One of the reasons why practices like meditation, journalling and executive coaching are effective is because they enable or at least create the space for this kind of reflection to happen. Without reflection there is no breathing room for wisdom to develop. ## Reflection is the technology in coaching Reflection as a skill is underdeveloped in most of us. We typically don't have a long-term strategy towards developing skilled reflection. People with a well-developed reflective mindset are self-generating and self-correcting. Good coaches knowingly or unknowingly help the client develop a reflective mindset. Same goes for managers. And this ultimately is the goal of good coaching engagements — to develop your capacity to reflect and take action. **Reflection ultimately increases your capacity for action by increasing the available action set**. Ray Dalio captures this idea in his formula for progress and personal evolution. \[14\] > **Pain + Reflection = Progress.** > > There is no avoiding pain, especially if you’re going after ambitious goals. If you can develop a reflexive reaction to psychic pain that causes you to reflect on it rather than avoid it, it will lead to your rapid learning/evolving. > > **Your unique power of reflectiveness**—your ability to look at yourself, the world around you, and the relationship between you and the world—means that you can think deeply and weigh subtle things to come up with learning and wise choices. Asking other believable people about the root causes of your pain in order to enhance your reflections is also typically very helpful—especially others who have opposing views but who share your interest in finding the truth rather than being proven right. > > If you can reflect deeply about your problems, they almost always shrink or disappear, because you almost always find a better way of dealing with them than if you don’t face them head-on. > > – Ray Dalio in *Principles* Knowing or unknowingly a majority of coaching effectiveness stems from the power of reflection. It's one why regardless of what method the coach uses, the client walks away better than they were before. ## Executive coaching as a reflective container Skilled reflection is one of the key mechanisms that helps leaders in executive coaching. Every engagement and conversation is towards building what Richard Kilburg calls “a reflective container”. This is where busy leaders and managers get a chance to step out of their whirlwind worlds and be able to see through the confusion by taking a different perspective from a different vantage point. For managers and executives as a group, **their time and energy is perhaps the most splintered compared to almost any other professional**. It's one reason why a planned reflection strategy can work wonders by engineering breaks and slowing down the pace of things to provide extra space for wisdom to emerge. Tools like [the Johari Window model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/johari-window-complete-guide-for-leaders/) also help with eliciting feedback that might not otherwise reach the executive. ## If it's so effective why isn’t everyone doing it ? Unfortunately, reflection typically does not get factored into improving managerial performance. Let’s examine some of the reasons. 1. **First, is a lack of awareness** of its importance to the process of development. In Managerial Reflection, Siebert and Daudelin outline the three prerequisites that are important to life long learning: awareness of the need to learn, an intentionality about learning, and awareness of the importance of reflection in learning. \[15\] We are usually pretty good about the first two but do not have a strategic approach to the third prerequisite. 2. **Second reason is because we think we already do it**. However, for most of us it is not skilled reflection but rather plain rumination, and we do not have a strategic approach to leverage it for our learning and development. 3. **Third is because we think we don't have the time**. But it’s worth considering how many mistakes might be avoided if we built skilled reflection into our schedules and how much time and money those mistakes cost us. 4. **Lastly, we tend to have stereotypes**. The typical image that accompanies reflection is the meditating monk, detached from everything. But meditation is just one way of reflecting. You don’t have to be an expert meditator to reap the benefits of skilled reflection. There are numerous other ways of getting better at it. Being aloof is clearly not an option either. But setting aside even 15 minutes of dedicated time is doable and can be transformative. A simple reflective practice like capturing thoughts in a journal on a regular basis can have an extraordinary return on investment. ## A caveat to the emphasis on reflection I emphasized reflection in this article, because action/execution seems to come more naturally to us. Also, **the ecosystems that we operate in naturally force us to be in the action and execution mode by default**, often without any breathing room or time to think. Reflection looks like a waste of precious time we do not have. In order to balance this perspective, here’s Peter Vaill, who reminds us **not to wallow too much in reflection**. \[16\] > At some point, you have to dial down the reflection, dial down the double-loop learning, dial down the reflexivity and the phenomenological reductions, set aside the speculations about the nature of the leader’s consciousness—just lower the volume on all these things that we’re telling executives they need to be able to do. We need to dial that down and dial up the energy required to move people to action and enlist people in projects, which is the content of leadership. > > – Peter B Vaill as quoted in Extraordinary Leadership When asked **if leadership was choosing between the two**, he said > No, it certainly is not either-or. It is balance and integration, but I wonder if those of us with a passion for developing leaders sufficiently emphasize the need for a balance between an action mentality and a reflective mentality. **The best practitioners have a sense of the balance**. > > – Peter B Vaill as quoted in Extraordinary Leadership Thus the key is to balance both action and reflection and adjust it based on our own biases and habits. - What do you need to do more of or less of? - What are some new practices that you need to start? - How can you structure reflection into your existing processes? --- ## Related reading I did a deep dive into the ladder of inference - a[ practical tool you can use for ongoing reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) when making decisions and otherwise. [Using the ladder of inference to make better decisionsThe ladder of inference is a powerful tool to make better decisions by uncovering hidden mental models and understanding how we reach conclusions.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/12/Ladder-of-Inference.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ladder-of-inference-decision-making/) For more on the mechanics and finding the time to reflect, having a basic [set of design principles for reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/design-principles-reflection-leadership/) can help immensely. An effective way to improve reflection is to the mechanism of [double-loop learning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) which is significantly different from our default way of single-loop learning. [How Double-Loop Learning Improves PerformanceOur actions, and by extension performance, stem from thinking that is based on a set of hidden mental models. How do you uncover these mental models and change them? One way is to understand and practice the concepts of single-loop and double-loop learning. Professional sports teams use postgame fi…![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/size/w256h256/2022/05/LS-logo.png)Leading SapiensSheril Mathews![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2023/03/Double-loop-learning---Argyris-Schon-1.png)](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/double-loop-learning-leadership-performance/) ### Sources and references 1. [*Executive Wisdom*](https://amzn.to/4mAOxVi?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Richard Kilburg.* 2. [*Theory of Moral Sentiments*](https://amzn.to/4mgxvMD?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Adam Smith.* 3. *Patricia Werhane elaborates on impartial spectator in this*[ *paper*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-018-0086-1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *in the Philosophy of Management journal.* 4. [*Immunity to Change*](https://amzn.to/45VXG4j?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey.* 5. *Finding Flow by Mihaly Csikzsentmihalyi.* 6. [*OODA loops*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OODA%5Floop?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, John Boyd.* 7. *You can read more about strategy loops* [*here*](https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/closing-the-gap-between-strategy-and-execution/?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 8. [*Leadership Without Easy Answers*](https://amzn.to/3JcZi1L?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Ronald Heifetz.* 9. [*The Five Minds of a Manager*](https://hbr.org/2003/11/the-five-minds-of-a-manager?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Henry Mintzberg & Jonathan Gosling.* 10. [*International Masters Program for Managers*](https://www.mcgill.ca/desautels/programs/impm?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *at McGill.* 11. [*Search Inside Yourself*](https://siyli.org/about/?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *program.* 12. *Double Loop Learning in Organizations by Chris Argyris.* 13. *Socrates quoted in Plato’s Apology.* 14. [*Principles by Ray Dalio*](https://amzn.to/3J8ekWD?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 15. *Role of Reflection in Managerial Learning by Marilyn Daudelin & Kent Seibert.* 16. *Interview with Peter Vaill in Extraordinary Leadership by Center for Creative Leadership.* ### Mastering Context is the Key to Effective Leadership URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/ Last updated: 2025-09-19T18:30:52.000Z *Leaders have to be masters at managing context. Put differently, leadership is a "context sport".* *It's a powerful tool in leadership but often goes underutilized and misunderstood. What exactly is the role of context in* [*effective leadership*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-leaders/)*? And what are the aspects that make it so powerful?* - [Two powerful examples of the use of context in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#two-powerful-examples-of-the-use-of-context-in-leadership) - [Leaders as managers of meaning and co-constructors of reality](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#leaders-as-managers-of-meaning-and-co-constructors-of-reality) - [Leaders naturally have a larger context](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#leaders-naturally-have-a-larger-context) - [The role of context in leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#the-role-of-context-in-leadership) - [Context is directly tied to results and performance](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-is-directly-tied-to-results-and-performance) - [Context drives motivation and engagement](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-drives-motivation-and-engagement) - [Context creates empathy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-creates-empathy) - [Context creates meaning](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-creates-meaning) - [Context defines and colors our experience](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-defines-and-colors-our-experience) - [Context is more malleable & accessible through language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-is-more-malleable-and-accessible-through-language) - [Context is invisible and thus full of opportunities](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-is-invisible-and-thus-full-of-opportunities) - [Context is key to skilled communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-is-key-to-skilled-communication) - [Context helps navigate a VUCA world](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-helps-navigate-a-vuca-world) - [Context drives ownership and accountability](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-drives-ownership-and-accountability) - [Context changes locus of control from external to internal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-changes-locus-of-control-from-external-to-internal) - [Context creates conditions for autonomy and mastery](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-creates-conditions-for-autonomy-and-mastery) - [Context improves decision making and problem solving](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-improves-decision-making-and-problem-solving) - [Further Reading](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#further-reading) - [Footnotes & References](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#footnotes-amp-references) --- Webster’s defines context as (a) the parts of a written or spoken communication which precede or follow a word, sentence, or passage, and affect its meaning, and (b) the surrounding environment, circumstances or facts which help give a total picture of something. The Latin root of the word texere is "to weave". In our day to day dealings, **context is so interwoven into everything we do that we don't pay attention to it.** And there lies both the oversight and the opportunity for leaders to be more effective. ## **Two powerful examples of the use of context in leadership** A couple of stories from our recent history stand out as powerful examples where leaders changed the context to effect a different set of actions and results. On July 4th 1776 the founding fathers of the United States signed **the declaration of independence**. What they wrote in that document completely changed the context within which their actions would be judged. **Before the declaration they would have been subjects acting unlawfully against the crown whereas; after the declaration they were a sovereign nation rising up against tyranny and standing up for freedom.** > While the actions(content) might have been the same, the meaning of their actions and that of the entire newly formed country was diametrically opposite in light of the new context that they created. And **this new context was created through language.** It changed not only the meaning of their actions but the actions of the entire newly formed country and generations to follow. In his inaugural address , **JFK said “Ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.”** When he made this statement he completely changed how individuals looked at their personal actions. He changed it from a self-centered, what’s in it for me perspective, to one of contribution and a larger purpose beyond just themselves. In one simple statement, he connected their personal meaning and purpose to the country’s. He used the power of context. > Instead of issuing a decree or orders, JFK changed the context so that the following actions changed naturally. The founding fathers as well as JFK shifted how a given situation showed up by changing the context through the masterful use of language. They were engineering a context for their people. They were designing the context instead of accepting the default version. By changing the context they increased the capacity for action both for themselves and others. ## **Leaders as managers of meaning and co-constructors of reality** In [complex, non-technical situations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technical-problems-vs-adaptive-challenges/), which is true of most organizations and leaders today, there is no one right answer. Meaning is created through the language constructs we use, and by how these constructs intervene in everyone’s mental models and representations of reality. As Gail Fairhurst puts it, leaders need to: > …understand their role as managers of meaning and co-constructors of reality: individuals who \[are\] frequently powerless to control the turbulence of their environments, but who \[can\] control the context under which turbulence is seen.‌‌‌‌ > > – Gail Fairhurst \[1\] As leaders we might not be able to change the factual details of our particular situation but we can change what meaning we make out of it and how we approach it. > The real world imposes constraints of many, many kinds … Freedom, in the real world, is not utter license to do as we please; it is much closer to Robert Frost’s famous formula—“moving easy in harness.” ‌‌‌‌ > > Constraints are always there. It’s a matter of how we move within them.‌‌‌‌ > > – Robert Bethune \[2\] Situations where the answers are not clear, that’s when context becomes the lynchpin. By controlling and changing the context of a given situation through language, leaders change the way a particular challenge or situation shows up for themselves and their teams. > When the tasks of work are complex, there are no shortcuts. Senior managers need to spend the time necessary to shape an organizational context that will allow people to focus on value. ‌‌‌‌ > > *– Yvez Morieux, Boston Consulting Group* \[3\] Our actions are driven by the way a situation shows up for us which in turn is influenced by the context within which it shows up. Thus by changing the context we change ensuing actions. If something occurs to us as “just laying bricks” we can change the context so that the same task shows up as “building a cathedral”. Our approach towards the former vs the latter is diametrically opposite. > One drives ownership and accountability whereas the other reeks of disengagement and callousness. While the example might be simplistic, it drives at the very core of what leadership is about. One of the simplest definitions of leadership is “**delivering on something that was not going to happen anyway**”. And context is one of the keys to making that happen. ## Leaders naturally have a larger context In many ways, leaders automatically have more context than their teams. Not only are they one level removed but they are also embedded within other numerous and larger networks than their teams are. **Assuming that your teams have that same context is a classic mistake.** > And because \[leaders\] are not caught up in the granular details of the work, they often see things that others do not. You might say they have more **“cognitive room for maneuver”** which puts them in a position to supercharge team performance—for example, **by asking the right questions, challenging matter-of-fact assumptions, or providing a broader context and new information.**‌‌‌‌ > > *– Yvez Morieux, Boston Consulting Group \[3\]* Teams are naturally more closer to the content so the leader might not necessarily be helping [by delving in *content* themselves](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). In other words, control. Context is where leaders can make the most impact. ## The role of context in leadership What is it about context that makes it so powerful and why do leaders need to pay more attention to it? What are the different ways in which it plays a big role in leadership? > When one of your people does something dumb, don’t blame that person. Instead, ask yourself what context you failed to set. Are you articulate and inspiring enough in expressing your goals and strategy? Have you clearly explained all the assumptions and risks that will help your team to make good decisions? Are you and your employees highly aligned on vision and objectives? > > — Reed Hastings, Erin Meyer in No Rules Rules \[10\] ### Context is **directly tied to results and performance** Context is the background from which all our actions flow regardless of our awareness of it. We can either design a context or let the situation dictate it and be affected by it. > Results are tied to actions. The intent behind changing a context is to increase our capacity for action. Teams are often stuck in a stalemate because the challenge does not occur to them as actionable or as a reachable target. This is where most of the opportunity for improvement lies as people are usually pretty good at changing the content itself. Context on the other hand tends to be hidden, transparent and not in focus. Thus it is the leader’s greatest opportunity to make an impact by changing the context or at least bringing the current context into focus so that it may be more accessible and thus can be modified or replaced completely > Performance is the result of what people do—their actions, interactions, and decisions. To understand organizational performance, managers must trace that performance back to what people do and the way their behaviors combine with each other to produce overall results. ‌‌‌‌**To change behavior, it is more effective to change the context instead of trying to change people’s mind-sets.** When the context changes, behaviors adjust, and when people behave the way they do, their values, feelings, and mentalities evolve accordingly.‌‌‌‌ > > *– Yvez Morieux & Peter Tollman in Six Simple Rules* \[4\] Context can unlock action and previously unseen possibilities. It can bring into focus aspects that were previously invisible. Performance is directly tied to actions which are in turn tied to context. Instead of dictating or decreeing change in action which we as leaders are more inclined to do, a change in context can automatically trigger a change in behavior. This is especially relevant in knowledge work where our teams tend to know a lot more about the technical issues than we do. Context drives the way your team sees the problem and hence behaves. Thus changing context can directly influence results. As Werner Erhard puts it, **action is a correlate of the occurring and the occurring happens within a context**. Changing the context can change how a situation occurs to someone. This is different from just telling someone to think out of the box or to act differently. ### Context **drives motivation and engagement** The “soft approach” to management is common today as is evidenced by more team-building, recognitions, swag and so on. Companies are trying to appear more humane and try to manufacture connection. But this kind of superficial driving of engagement can go only so far. Sooner or later we either go numb to it or just see through it. Purpose, meaning, and connection comes from within. They are not sustainable when it gets pushed from the outside. > We have the mistaken notion that meaning and purpose can be transmitted. We humans have to create our own meaning and purpose. People need to connect the organization’s goals to their own. It’s the leader’s job to connect these two. And **context is the connecting tissue between organizational goals and people’s personal goals.** Without context, your organization’s goals can appear meaningless and purposeless outside the paycheck they receive. This is how you get disengaged, low-performing teams that are on auto-pilot and who do not push themselves. > A leader’s job is to engineer the types of conversations that produce epiphanies. Conversations that reveal we are capable of original thought. Intelligent, spirited conversations that provide clarity and impetus for action, for change. ‌‌‌‌Yet too often, we, the results-smitten, speak only of measurable goals, key business indicators, action plans, cash-flow projections, economic indicators, process, and procedure. All are worthy come-ons, yet true success requires conversations that exert a deeper magnetism, a pull as powerful as the tides.‌‌‌‌ > > *– Susan Scott in Fierce Conversations* \[5\] Context can be the binding agent for high performance teams. Without context there is no common goal or purpose. In fact that is the function of having goals, purpose, and a vision. They give context that in turn drives our day-to-day actions. ### Context **creates empathy** A shared context can create natural empathy and team cohesion, shared meaning and purpose, and a sense of mission. Empathy can come more easily if one understands the context within which another person is acting. Instead of trying to manufacture empathy, it follows more naturally if we see the situation through the other person’s eyes, or in other words by understanding their context. ### Context **creates meaning** Context can create shared understanding which creates shared meaning which in turn creates more engagement. Without a context that is relatable, your message might not reach its intended audience. And assuming a common context is not smart either. Context is the background of our understanding and what gives meaning to what we do. The very same actions under different contexts have very different meanings. Without context there is no common background for understanding leading to misinterpretation and confusion. > Context clarifies purpose. Many of the things we do on a daily basic can come across as meaningless and directionless without an overarching context or purpose. The leader’s job is to create that context. ### Context **defines and colors our experience** All of our actions happen within a context and the context defines our experience more than the actual content and details of what is happening. Context can make the mundane extraordinary as described in the story of the three bricklayers where one sees it as a task, another as a career and the third as a calling. Leaders, by design or otherwise, end up creating the context in which these actions show up. Barry Schwartz uses **the metaphor of** [**framing**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/)to describe the power of context. \[6\] > In framing the scene, we are setting the picture off from its surroundings, excluding what is on the outside and defining what is inside as special and worthy of attention. **Frames tell us what is important and help us establish what should be compared with what.** The capacity we have to frame enables us to do one of the most important things that practical wisdom demands—discern what is relevant about a particular context or event in regard to the decision we face. Learning to frame well helps make us wise.‌‌‌‌ > > – *Barry Schwartz & Kenneth Sharpe* in Practical Wisdom Terms like vision, mission statement and core values have lost their meaning due to overuse and lack of connection to personal meaning and purpose. Context can help change that dynamic. When looking from the lens of context these are all tools to create the context within which organizations do their work and thus influence their culture. ### Context is **more malleable & accessible through language** Trying to change the content directly is where most of the frustration and helplessness around situations usually comes because you cannot change the facts of the situation. Context on the other hand tends to be more malleable and open to interpretation. This in turn increases the leader’s opportunity set to intervene. Context is usually directly accessible through language and hence can be recursively looked at and changed through the skillful use of language. > It’s frequently been pointed out that man is unable to observe or recognize an event until there’s a prior context and language for naming the event. ‌‌‌‌This inability, called **paradigm blindness**, is the direct consequence of a limitation of context. ‌‌‌‌ > > – David Hawkins in Power vs Force \[7\] Context is more amenable to the tools of language like metaphors, analogies and stories, and thus can be more malleable and accessible once we develop the ability to identify and change it. ### Context is **invisible and thus full of opportunities** Context is the invisible fabric through which our situation is interwoven. It is also where most of our blindspots, biases, blocks, mental models and taken-for-granted assumptions usually lie dormant and unexamined, while at the same time influencing our course of actions. This is equally true for companies and organizations. > When a company reinvents itself, it must alter the underlying assumptions and invisible premises on which its decisions and actions are based. This context is the sum of all the conclusions that members of the organization have reached. ‌‌‌‌ > > It is the product of their experience and their interpretations of the past, and it determines the organization’s social behavior, or culture. **Unspoken and even unacknowledged conclusions about the past dictate what is possible for the future.‌‌‌‌** > > *– Richard Pascale, Tracy Goss/Reinvention Roller coaster/Harvard Business Review* \[8\] Context is not something that we are naturally wired to look into. A changing context naturally causes us insecurity and discomfort. Our particular version of reality and our mental models have served a purpose and so we are likely to stick with it. It goes against our nature to try to change it ourselves. This is where leaders can come in and try to unstick the pervading mental models by introducing and reinforcing new language and new interpretations that lead to different actions and different results. This is also the reason why organizational change can be so hard. ### Context is **key to skilled communicat**ion Context can add a knockout punch to your communication. “Speaking out of context” is almost a cliche but on a more subtle note, not setting the context in your communication is something leaders cannot afford. Assuming a shared context, without actually trying to engineer it, is also a recipe for miscommunication. > Understanding doesn’t proceed simply from examining data; it comes from examining data in a particular context. Information is useless until we know what it means. ‌‌‌‌ > > To understand its meaning, we don’t only need to ask the right question; we also need the appropriate instruments with which to measure the data in a meaningful process of sorting and description.‌‌‌‌ > > – David Hawkins in Power vs Force \[7\] As leaders we make the mistake of assuming communication as the transfer of information. **Information on its own does not necessarily have any meaning**. It can carry multitudes of meaning; the same content under different contexts can mean very different things. ‌‌‌‌ The particular version of meaning that we want to transmit depends on the context within which we share that information. Thus context is almost more important than the details or the content itself. ### Context **helps navigate a VUCA world** Context can be the guiding north star or compass when navigating unchartered and uncertain territory. > The role of the senior manager in an agile organization is not to determine the content of people’s work. Rather, it is to provide the context for that work. ‌‌‌‌ > > That means helping employees understand how their immediate objectives relate to the organization’s strategic and business goals. Senior managers need to articulate a robust strategic context that teams can use as a “North Star” that aligns their autonomy to those goals, guiding them as they exercise their initiative. ‌‌‌‌ > > *– Yvez Morieux, Boston Consulting Group \[3\]* ### Context **drives ownership and accountability** Pushing agendas and strategies across the organization without making sure that everyone understands the context is a recipe for disengagement and apathy. When combined with context, the same agendas and strategies drive participation and engagement as it ensures shared understanding. Thus context can engender participation, ownership and accountability. ### Context **changes locus of control from external to internal** Context influences our attitudes and behaviors. For everything else being the same, our experience can be different under different contexts. Most of the time, our experience of context is that of outside-in, something that is not within our control. We see circumstances as happening *to* us. What we don’t realize is that most of it is created by us. It's rather inside-out (internal [locus of control](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/locus-of-control/)). We are creating our own context and this context is built in language. ### Context **creates conditions for autonomy and mastery** Autonomy and mastery are two major factors that drive engagement. And context is a key enabler for both. When leaders delve less in content and more in context, it gives teams and individuals the wiggle room to navigate on their own and in the process get more access to conditions that enable autonomy and mastery. Instead of creating rules for every little eventuality aka content, context can act as an overarching theme that can guide those actions thus letting people be more autonomous. ### Context **improves decision making and problem solving** You cannot understand another’s context by being limited to your own views. In order to get context you have to understand other points of view and other perspectives not yet considered. It forces us to look beyond what is normal and comfortable for us. In order to understand, change, expand, and improve context, you have to engage in dialogue and discussion, which is different from issuing decrees that come from one person who is supposed to know it all. Context can make us look for the right question instead of looking for the right answer. Examining context can force us to look closely at hidden underlying assumptions. It forces us to take a different perspective. Here’s how Wiley Souba puts it, > Often, we cannot change the content of our lives, But **while we can’t do much about what we know, we can alter the way we know it.** We have the freedom to alter the way we distinguish the situations that occur in our lives; we can shift the context. ‌‌‌‌ > > Content is always observed within a linguistic context, one created by distinctions. Only by means of language can you and I lead ourselves, each and every day, to become the wiser, more enlightened, and more evolved human beings that we are intended to become.‌‌‌‌ > > – Wiley Souba in The Being of Leadership \[9\]‌ Leaders, who are masters at creating the right contexts, know that language is constitutive and can actively shape the meaning of a given situation. The next time we find ourselves in a sticky leadership situation or when considering a rollout of a new, tough initiative, instead of charging in headlong and engaging with the *contents* of the situation, perhaps we should consider what the *context* is and how we can leverage that. Antoine De Saint-Exupery said it best: > If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood, divide the work, and give orders.‌‌‌‌Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. **Put simply, leadership is a *context* sport.** ## Further Reading - For a great example of putting context front and center consider Netflix where leading with context is one of their core leadership principles. In **Why Netflix Leads with Context, Not Control** I take a closer look at [why they prioritize context and how they go about it](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/netflix-leads-with-context-not-control/). - A useful tool for getting better at context is the [systems thinking iceberg model](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/systems-thinking-iceberg/). It forces you to go several levels deeper instead of delving at the event level (top) of the iceberg. - Context doesn't come naturally to leaders. In fact, it's the opposite. The [natural tendency is to delve in *content aka control*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/tyranny-of-content-why-leaders-keep-ignoring-context/). I explore this problem in **Tyranny of Content- Why leaders keep ignoring context**. - An important tool in changing context is effective use of language. But [most leaders are unaware of these hidden dimensions of language](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/). I take a deep dive into these nuances of language in **Leadership Communication- The Hidden Role of Language**. - Another critical tool for context is [the art of framing](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-framing-psychological-safety/). How leaders frame situations is critical to creating psychological safety and thus performance. ### Footnotes & References 1. [*Reframing The Art of Framing*](https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1742715005051857?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Gail Fairhurst.* 2. *Robert Bethune as cited in* [*A Beautiful Constraint* ](https://amzn.to/3KJUvAT?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by Adam Morgan & Mark Barden.* 3. [*Bringing Managers Back to Work*](https://www.bcg.com/publications/2018/bringing-managers-back-to-work?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Yves Moriex, Boston Consulting Group.* 4. [*Six Simple Rules*](https://amzn.to/3jFwdvP?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Yves Morieux & Peter Tollman.* 5. [*Fierce Conversations*](https://amzn.to/3JHJZJ2?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Susan Scott.* 6. [*Practical Wisdom*](https://amzn.to/3uJ09O3?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Barry Schwartz & Kenneth Sharpe.* 7. [*Power vs Force*](https://amzn.to/3KMF4I6?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by David Hawkins.* 8. [*The Reinvention Roller Coaster*](https://hbr.org/1993/11/the-reinvention-roller-coaster-risking-the-present-for-a-powerful-future?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Tracy Goss, Richard Pascale, and Anthony Athos. 9. [*The Being of Leadership*](https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1747-5341-6-5?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Wiley Souba.* 10. [*No Rules Rules*](https://amzn.to/3DjwXkk?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Reed Hastings and Erin Meyer.* ### Just Do It - Changing Mindset through Action URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/changing-your-mindset/ Last updated: 2024-02-26T00:23:38.000Z *Is there a deeper truth in Nike's famous adage of "Just Do It"?* *The term mindset has become common in everyday use. There is a certain romance to the idea that if we can somehow just change our mindset everything will fall into place.* *This leads many to undertake retreats to “get into” the “right mindset” or to “fix your mindset” and stay there perennially.* ‌‌‌‌*Given the proliferation of “mindset coaches” you would think that all of us should be set for life. Clearly that's not the case. So what gives?* **Mindset often follows action* instead of the other way around. *Decoupling mindset from actions* can be transformative. The deeper truth behind "just do it" is that *physical reality is often easier to change* than psychological reality.* William James, the father of American psychology, alluded to this when he said: > I don’t sing because I’m happy, I’m happy because I sing. --- ## Expediting change Why do we love the idea of "mindset"? For one, it's harder to sell "just do it". It's much easier to psychologize and package mindset change. But the real answer might lie in our **desire to *technologize* change**. We want [the quick and painless path to perfection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/). Except change is never easy. And neither is it effortless. Robert Kegan and Lisa Lahey, in Immunity to Change, highlight this aspect of balancing **reflection with action** and **mindset with behavior** : > *Neither change in mindset nor change in behavior alone leads to transformation…each must be employed to bring about the other.*‌‌‌‌*There is an age-old battle among philosophers of personal change.* > > *Are we better off trying to “reflect our way” toward transformation, expecting eventual changes in behavior as the outcome of our hard-working contemplation? Or would we be better off taking up new behaviors as best we can and trusting that our minds will catch up with the realities of our new experience?* > > *In the world of psychology, for example, the* [***insight***](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/creative-breakthroughs-and-insights/)**\-oriented approaches* reflect the first school, and the *behavioral modification approaches* reflect the second.*‌‌‌‌ *Our answer is: neither.* > > *… Our experience is that *we cannot simply contemplate our way out of the mindset* our immunity X-ray reveals, but neither can we simply elect to alter the behaviors of our second column.* ‌‌‌‌*Rather *we must take up an activity technically known as praxis*—practice specifically designed to explore the possibility of altering our personal and organizational theories (the theories that reside in our big assumptions).*‌‌‌‌ > > *… *We can’t merely think or feel our way out* of an immune system no matter how high our motivation is to accomplish our goal. Kant said “perception without conception is blind,” and we don’t disagree: the mindset does create what we see.* ‌‌‌‌*But it is also true that conception without inception is paralysis. We must set out. We must begin to take new action.* > > *Success follows from taking intentional, specific actions—the reaching hand—that are inconsistent with our immunity so that we can test our mindset.*‌‌‌‌ > > – Robert Kegan & Lisa Lahey in Immunity to Change \[1\] Behavior change both on the organizational and personal level cannot happen without sustained attention, energy, time, and followup. Anyone promising you otherwise is either ignorant or hasn't tried anything of significance. 💡 Liking this article? ****Trymy newsletter**. It's free and every edition covers essential frameworks on ****leadership, careers, and organizations** in bite-sized form.📚 ****HBR 100 Best Reads:** You also get a curated spreadsheet of the best articles Harvard Business Review has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. ## Embodied change What Kegan call’s *praxis* and others have called *observations*, is an integral part of my coaching/consulting practice. These observations/practices are designed based on what emerges out of our work together. They are the instruments or *technology* that enable the “focused, structured, persistent and active reflection” that Kegan mentions. **Change cannot be just taught or “transmitted”**. It has to be learned and embodied by the person attempting the change. Reading about swimming and actually swimming are completely different experiences. Why do we expect any different in organizational life? > **Anything that can be “taught” to another is relatively inconsequential and has little or no significant influence on behavior*.* ‌‌‌‌ > > The *only kind of learning which significantly influences behavior is self- discovered, self-appropriated learning. Such self-discovered learning, truth that has been personally appropriated and assimilated in experience, cannot be directly communicated to another.* ‌‌‌‌ > > – Carl Rogers, cited in Educating the Reflective Practioner by Donald Schon \[2\] [Experience](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/conceptual-vs-experiential-learning/), our observations of that experience, and [reflection on our observations](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/), are the way we integrate and assimilate learning. But without taking action there is nothing to observe and reflect upon. More than likely it's just plain rumination. ## Small physical actions are often easier than changing mindset We tend to overestimate massive life-changing decisions, and equally underestimate the small adjustments that add up to actually making a big difference over time. > Traditional self-help tends to see change in terms of lofty goals and total transformation, but research actually supports the opposite view — that small, deliberate tweaks infused with your values can make a huge difference in your life. This is especially true when we tweak the routine and habitual parts of life, which then afford tremendous leverage for change. ‌‌‌‌ > > *– Susan David in Emotional Agility* \[3\] Physical action also tends to be easier than controlling our mental states. As Dan Millman put it, **we have significantly more control over our physical bodies than our minds**. This might sound obvious but easy to forget. It's easier to just show up at the gym than it is to get ourselves into the *right mindset* for exercise. The mindset usually "**sets itself*"* following the physical actions. **Waiting for the right mindset or the right feeling state to show up can be a losing strategy**. Actions can be independent of mindset and ultimately lead to the "right" mindset. Most of the time we already know what needs done. > An undue focus on mindset or feelings unfortunately tends to focus our efforts on the very thing that is harder to control. This notion is consistent with the **Japanese philosophy of** [**Shoma Morita**](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoma%5FMorita?ref=leadingsapiens.com) who emphasized focus on action and **doing what needed done**, regardless of our *mindset*.‌ ## Examples of changing actions before changing mindset - Moving the pen or the keyboard to keep writing instead of trying to “break through” writer’s block. - Picking up the phone and making the call instead of waiting for the right mindset. - Showing up at the gym. Literally moving your body to a different place and ignoring how you “feel”. - Just “showing up” at the interview or the speech, instead of trying to psych yourself up. - Exercise: changing my physical state changes my mental state. The idea is not ignoring mental preparation, but to keep it in check and stopping it from turning into analysis-paralysis, or even worse into inaction. --- The next time we pick up a book or try out a technique, consider which aspect it's emphasizing. Is it mindset or is it action? How can you increase your chances of success by balancing them out? The framework of **head, heart, and hand** is a useful one to remember. We need [the heart(meaning and purpose) ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/)to balance out the head (mindset) and hand (action/behavior). No amount of analysis or action will work if it does not have meaning for us or lacks purpose. ## Related reading In another post, I highlight the idea of [technology dumbing us down ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/technology-dumbs-you-down/)and robbing us of richer experiences. One reason people fixate on changing their "mindset" is the notion of **eliminating doubt before we take action**. But doubt is not going anywhere so we might as well keep moving and take action. [Trying to eliminate doubt is the wrong strategy](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/dont-overcome-self-doubt/). --- 💡 **Trymy weekly email* **—** learn mental models & frameworks **the best executive coaches in the world teach** their clients.📚 You also get a curated spreadsheet of ****100 best articles Harvard Business Review** has ever published. Spans 70 years, comes complete with categories and short summaries. --- ### Sources 1. Immunity to Change by Robert Kegan, Lisa Laskow Lahey 2. Educating the Reflective Practitioner by Donald Schon 3. Emotional Agility by Susan David ### Authentic Leadership and Time URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-and-time/ Last updated: 2026-07-08T21:01:26.000Z [*Authentic leadership*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) *and time management are two well-trodden topics. Except we don’t often see them in the context of each other. What is the connection between the two?* --- > *For persons in positions of responsibility, success and failure in business are, in truth, success and failure in the mastery of time.* > > *Time management starts with an understanding of time.* > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness \[1\] ## **The speed and elasticity of time** Time is a fundamental aspect of being a human and yet equally unfathomable. Everyone from the ancient philosophers to modern day neuroscientists have been trying to decipher time and our relationship to it. Imagine your experience of 15 minutes at the doctor’s office. One is that of waiting for 15 minutes before a procedure, whereas the other is that of being 15 minutes late. In mechanical clock time, both are the exact length. But in our experience they are not. > *Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour.* > *Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute.* > *THAT’S relativity.* > > – Albert Einstein Time stagnates when we are bored and disengaged. It flies and is almost non-existent when we are engaged and engrossed in what we are doing, in what Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi calls flow experiences. There is a sense of timelessness when we are fully engaged and in flow. Boredom and disengagement tend to have a slow velocity whereas **flow and engagement have high velocity**. Another sense of timelessness can be that of **“time slowing down” to the point where you have no awareness** of time. This can happen in moments of increased consciousness, when in nature, while meditating, or while playing with your child. > *Lived, subjective, or experienced time has a speed.* > > *If time passes slowly, it can mean boredom, an unpleasant task, pain, anxiety, or guilt. If it passes at moderate speed, then it may mean satisfaction or indifference. But if time passes quickly, then there may be joy and intense happiness, distraction, entertainment, or absorption, that is, meaning.* > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness Notice how **clock time does not have a speed**. It is steady, constant, and mechanical. On the other hand lived time, our experience of time, has a velocity, a sense of speed that comes out of our experience of life. Clearly life and time are not as linear as we sometimes assume them to be. They are elastic and malleable based on our experience. ## **Traditional time management** The typical approach to time management in order to counter overwhelm and burnout is to compartmentalize and prioritize using the latest techniques, systems, and gadgets. This is a more downstream tactical approach. While this can be effective and is important, the effects are often don't last. We eventually revert back to our older habits. What can be more fruitful is to look further upstream, at the very nature of our experience. When we experience boredom, disconnection, stress, or burnout, it has a lot to do with our experience of time. Burnout is more likely to happen when there is a disconnect between what we are doing and our underlying convictions and reasons for doing so. > *Time problems that lead to burnout suggest that a fundamental decision about who you are and how you shall lead your life has not yet been made and is overdue. And that is a decision that* [*takes great courage*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/courage-modern-leadership-organizations/) *to face. Unless you address this need for decision and for courage, your scheduling problem cannot go away.* > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness One example is that of the person on a mission, one who is aligned with his internal values and convictions, and as a result does not necessarily realize or care how many hours they are putting in. They just respond naturally to what is required and needed. If the work requires them to put in 16 hour days for the next few weeks, that’s just what happens. It is **as if the structure of time has collapsed into a black hole**. > *The human-core approach to time management is, first, to know the difference between authentic and in- authentic experiences of time and, second, to achieve control over lived time.* > > *Control over time is achieved not by what you do but by your decisions about attitudes and perceptions. *You are a time-generating organism* (time does not exist without your creating it through your living). You can change your perception of time.* > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness When we are in alignment with our internal motivations and convictions, it creates a generative, perpetual motion machine inside us that does not need outside sources of energy or motivation. It is harnessing the generative energy of creation itself. It's when we are disconnected from this source that we need outside structures to keep us motivated and going. > *Problems with time cannot be resolved at the level at which they are experienced, for they are experienced at the level of being in time, and they can be solved only at the deeper and more real level of being time itself. That level means being totally true to oneself.* > > **This truth about time becomes increasingly apparent as one rises on the ladder of executive responsibility.** > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness ## **Authenticity and time** Peter Koestenbaum gives the distinction between when we are “in” time vs when we “are” time itself.\[1\] When you are “in time”: > *Time can be experienced or thought of as an external act—a reality outside of me, within which I exist and which limits and constricts me. This kind of time is called *clock time or spatialized, mathematical, linear time*.* > > *The only solution to the pressures of clock time is to fragment it, to set priorities, and to marshal fierce self-discipline. Such effort, although laudable, nevertheless leads to the mechanization of the self, the technocratization of human existence. It logically promotes regimentation and bureaucracy, that is, technical efficiency. That may be necessary, but it is neither living nor human.* > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness When we “are time” : > *Time is also an internal fact: I am time; time is the very essence of the self. The inward ego is a time-generating organism.* > > **I can never feel pressure from what I am or from who I am, only from what I am not.** > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness Understanding **the difference between when we are “in time” vs when we ”are time”** can give us meaningful insight into our authenticity or inauthenticity in what we are doing. > *To the degree that one’s life is fully authentic—clearly in tune with what one experiences as one’s destiny, manifestly originating from within one’s deepest inward source \[…\]—one has no problems with time, for then there is meaning in everything one does, and there is fulfillment in every expenditure of time. One lives life naturally, from the inside out, as time (and not, unnaturally, in time, from the outside in).* > > **Problems with time are ultimately problems with authenticity* (which is also to say that authenticity is the correct experience of time), with being true to one’s meanings, with responding to one’s existential guilt, and with maintaining a total perspective.* > > *If you have real problems with time scheduling (problems that lead to symptoms), *it means that in some fundamental way you do not like your work*, that you are not leading your work life (or your life in general) as you deeply need to lead it, and that you are not assuming full and mature responsibility for your own life.* > > – Peter Koestenbaum in Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness In relativity physics, if you are going at the speed of light time stops. In the same vein, **when we are going at the speed of life, time stops or becomes non-existent**. We become timeless or in other words we become time itself. We do not experience it because it is not something separate from us but we are it. We are time. TS Eliot captures this idea eloquently in Burnt Norton: > *Time past and time future* > *Allow but a little consciousness*. > *To be conscious is not to be in time …* > > – TS Eliot, Burnt Norton \[2\] ## **The texture of authenticity and inauthenticity** Our different experiences of time can be symptoms of larger underlying structural issues. The texture of the dimensions of our lived time can tell us a lot about our authenticity or the lack thereof. Below are the different textures of past, present, and future, based on how authentic or inauthentic our experience is. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/f8/9d/f89daf93-3d0f-4664-8a9e-573c30f7ca75/content/images/2022/05/Authenticity-and-Time.png) When you compare your experience against this list, what jumps out? Consider why it is so. --- We don’t need a definition of authentic leadership to check against. Our own experience can tell us the truth more than any definition can. How is time showing up for us? How are we showing up in time? Are we time? ## Further Reading For an exploration of a more productive way of looking at time, check out [Leadership Requires Understanding Time Differently](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-understanding-time-differently/). We often measure progress by using speed as a criteria. [That might not be the best approach](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/) in all situations. There can be different ways in which how we experience and leverage the past and the future. I explore key ideas in [Pulled by the future vs Pushed by the past](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/pulled-by-the-future-pushed-by-the-past/). ### References 1. [Leadership, The Inner Side of Greatness](https://amzn.to/3uH8bGY?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by Peter Koestenbaum. 2. [Four Quartets](https://amzn.to/37VrK5K?ref=leadingsapiens.com) by T S Eliot. ### Setting Goals For The Year? First Ask These Three Questions URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/ Last updated: 2024-04-25T19:10:33.000Z *Many of us are goal-setting and goal-attaining experts. We love the chase. Unfortunately, we get caught up in the pursuit and in the process fail to take a closer look or to *question the very thing we are chasing*.* *There are three critical questions we can ask when setting goals. They highlight the role of choice and how to leverage it to maximize and sustain peak performance.* --- ## Alignment, integrity, and the link to performance The Latin root of integrity is "integer" meaning intact or whole and complete. A system that is not whole is handicapped and cannot reach its true potential. Thus **performance is a direct function of integrity**. When we are whole and in alignment, performance comes naturally and can be sustained over long periods. In contrast, when goals are out of alignment with what we truly care about, it's harder to get top performance and true satisfaction. Even when we pull it off, it's short-lived. Performance suffers because we are out of alignment with our true selves and values, and thus out of integrity. Our **true values and selves often tend to be implicit** because we have not taken a closer look at our own narratives. They disclose themselves over time through our experiences, and our actions or inactions. This is **often different from what we might be explicitly claiming**. Often it's a trial and error process and comes at the cost of undue suffering and pain. Asking the following **three questions on a regular basis** helps ensure goals are in alignment with what we actually care about. 1. Where did our definition of success come from? 2. Who set the criteria? 3. Are we taking ownership of our choices? ## 1\. Where did our definition of success come from? All of us absorb values from the cultures and families we grew up in. Knowingly or unknowingly we have modeled our lives based on people who influenced us. We have negative role models too — people we do not want to be like. This is natural and nothing wrong with it. The trick is to **recognize and account for any potential misalignment** between our own values and what we have absorbed from others. Often we struggle in our endeavors because there is misalignment between our stated values and what we truly care about. > We have to learn to differentiate between our “have to do” and “should be doing” vs our “want to do”. Regardless of what our definition of success is, and whichever [SMART goal](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/) we might be pursuing, it’s worth peeling the layers and asking some questions: - Did they come from our parents, friends or relatives? - Are these societal norms and expectations? - Is it from someone we respected or a famous figure? - Are we ok with this? - Is there a tension between what we are “supposed to be doing or be like” and who we actually want to be? - Are we navigating by our own compass or someone else’s? ## 2\. Who set the criteria? If we set a goal to be a millionaire before 30 to consider ourselves as a “success”, who set that criteria? Was it really us or did we unknowingly pick it up? We often have **arbitrary benchmarks of success** without actually asking if that’s what we truly want. More importantly, **are we willing to make the necessary tradeoffs**? The tradeoffs are often not in alignment with our own true nature and needs. Who are we competing with? What are we comparing against? ## 3\. Are we taking ownership of our choices? A common reason goals end up powerless is because we have not yet taken ownership of our choices. **We don’t always understand choice** when it comes to our own lives.Even the default, aka not doing anything, is a choice for the status quo. ### The nature of choice Choices by definition provoke anxiety. By deciding to choose something we are also deciding to not do ten other potential ones. We suddenly realize that analytical decision making is not as effective when held up against the existential anxiety of making a life changing decision. What gets unnoticed and goes under-utilized is to own our choices even in situations where we *have* to do something. Going from “**have to do**” to "**get to do**" to “**choose to do**” something, is a super-power. Even when adopting someone else’s ideals, recognizing our choice in the process yields more power. Frustration and disillusionment comes because we think we don’t have a choice. Look a little closer and most of the time we do. Even in situations where we truly and objectively do not have a choice, acknowledging that fact and taking ownership makes a huge difference. > We might not be ok with the potential consequences of a choice but regardless we do have one. Recognition of choice can make all the difference in **how much commitment and power we bring to pursuits**. ### Love of fate Invoking Nietzsche’s idea of *amor fati*, here’s how Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi put it in *Finding Flow:* > A simple way of improving the quality of life is to take **ownership of one’s actions**. > > A great deal of what we do (over two-thirds, on the average) are things we feel we have to do, or we do because there isn’t anything else we feel like doing. Many people spend their entire lives feeling like puppets who move only because their strings are pulled. \[…\] > > There are many things in life that we must do and don’t like doing. It may be sitting in meetings, or taking out the garbage, or keeping track of bills. Some of these are unavoidable; no matter how ingenious we are, we still must do them. So **the choice is either to do them against the grain, grumbling about the imposition-or do them willingly**. > > In both cases we are stuck with having to do the activity, but in the second case the experience is bound to be more positive. One can set goals for even the most despised task: for instance, to mow the lawn as quickly and efficiently as possible. **The very act of setting the goal will take much of the sting out of a chore**. > > This attitude toward one’s choices is well expressed in the concept of amor fati- or **love of fate**\- a central concept in Nietzsche’s philosophy. > > For instance, in discussing what it takes to live fully, he writes: “My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati: That one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backward, not in all eternity…. **Not merely bear what is necessary . . . but love it.**” > > – Mihaly Cziksentmihalyi in [Finding Flow](https://amzn.to/3JDCoeh?ref=leadingsapiens.com) Next time you sit down for a review of your goals, consider them through the above 3 lenses. What do they illuminate? What will you do differently? ## Further reading For a deep dive into the nuances of goal-setting check out [Effective Goal-Setting Using 14 Different Dimensions](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/effective-goal-setting/). Another important framework in peak performance is deliberate practice. I examine it from the context of leadership development in [Using Deliberate Practice to Increase Leadership Effectiveness](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/deliberate-practice-leadership-effectiveness/). ### Hidden Drivers of Human Performance URL: https://www.leadingsapiens.com/drivers-of-human-performance/ Last updated: 2026-02-10T19:06:37.000Z *Leaders in modern organizations have to master the basics of the human domain. Many still operate under archaic assumptions from the* [*100 year old technical-rational paradigm*](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/#current-technical-rational-paradigm-ignores-how-human-beings-are)*.* *This article takes a deep dive into the core attributes of what I call *the human OS* that leaders need to be aware of. These attributes underlie all frameworks of human performance.* 👋 Get my new articles in your inbox 👇 --- ## The whole person > *Most work now requires knowledge, judgment, thinking, and decision making, and so *it matters if people care* about what they do. You cannot simply give them orders and criticism. That rarely produces the kind of engagement you need. Other, less direct but more effective forms of influence—such as support, development, and encouragement—are needed that engage the whole person.* > > – Linda Hill, Kent Linebeck in *Being the Boss* \[1\] Hill and Linebeck mention engaging *the whole person,* except how many managers truly understand what that entails. Most have only a rudimentary understanding of what can be called *the human OS (operating system)*. ## The background and basis Most competent leaders intuitively understand the importance of understanding the human OS. It's common in business literature and training to come across some form or variation of these aspects. They are what is sometimes called ***the soft approach* to management**. Think training courses, team building, office socials, and other events, where the idea is to build a community and connection but it never really materializes. What gets positioned as caring for people is often about **extracting performance in a more *humane* way**, or at least it gets perceived that way. These so called soft approaches tend to be superficial and downstream at the techniques and tactical level, and as a result the point gets lost in the details and so does its importance. What's needed is **an upstream, more deeper and developed understanding of people**, from which downstream tactics can emerge. ## Further upstream None of the frameworks mentioned below are short term fixes. Most business literature tends to focus on techniques and fixes, which act as temporary bandaids, never actually addressing **the source of engagement and performance, or that of discontent and frustration**. The frameworks draw on a number of sources including ancient wisdom traditions, twentieth century continental philosophy, the latest in social science and management research, leadership models, and positive psychology amongst others. While they are rooted in rich theory, experience, and tradition, my discovery of them was through my own struggles and challenges in my managerial career. Anytime I have tried to go upstream and ascertain the core elements of why something worked or failed, inevitably it led to one of these **core frameworks of the human OS**. ## Ontological Givens, not Psychology Business improvement is pervaded by psychology. While some basic knowledge of psychology is useful, it's not that helpful or accessible beyond a certain point. So instead, we will take a non-psychological approach that looks at **ontological realities** — universal givens that are true to all of us humans just by the fact that we exist. Because they underlie how we are constituted, they are also **the foundation upon which all high performance in the human domain is built**. Most techniques and tactics are based upon these core frameworks, and tend to superficially or selectively address only some of these. Some of the language and source quotes I have used can be difficult to understand at first. This is intentional on my part because **I want to prompt thought**. The risk with writing about important but well-trodden topics is of coming across as cliched and trite. **If it makes you take a second look then I have met my intent.** Let’s dive in. ## **1\. We are temporal and future-oriented** Words like vision, mission statements, goals and objectives are thrown around so often that we've gone numb to them. Part of the problem is that no one bothers looking into why these are even needed. Looking into our temporal and future-oriented nature gives some clues. In the grand scheme of things, we have a very limited time on earth. While this is true for other living creatures **we happen to be the only ones to be aware of it**. Our temporality comes from this awareness, and many of us knowingly or unknowingly try to run away from this very basic fact of human existence. Unlike other living creatures, **human beings exist simultaneously in the past, present, and future**. While the present moment is the only thing we have direct access to, we do have access to our past and future through language. By accessing this future through language, we can change how things appear and occur to people, and as a result influence and change their actions in the present. > After all, that’s what leadership is at its most basic. Influencing and guiding the actions of those we are leading, while at the same time being influenced and guided by them. We are always projecting ourselves forward into the future. Our actions in the present are influenced by the context of the future. The future is the ultimate context. And **if there is no compelling future our actions tend to reflect it**. The leader's job is to create this compelling future. ## **2\. We are *historical* and *thrown*** Having a past makes us *historical* and, using the Heideggerian term, *“thrown”*.\[2\] Each of us has a unique history and we are writing that story constantly. An inanimate object or even other living creatures, do not have a past and do not have the unique mix of family, culture, and practices that makes each of us different from each other. **Modern organizations tend to ignore this fact**. The **systems in place assume homogeneity** across the populace and so do managers. This is the reason why the same initiative throws up different responses that have nothing to do with the logic of the initiatives. The situations and conditions that we find ourselves in are not always by choice. In varying amounts, **there is a degree of *throwness*** in all the situations we find ourselves in. For example, as managers sometime the clues to your struggles can be found by looking at the *how* of your particular situation vs the *what.* **Did you become a manager by choice or was it because "that's what everyone does"?** How does that affect performance? **To what degree were we *thrown*** into this particular situation we are in now? Did we pick the team or were we handed it down with all the associated problems? What aspects of it are within our control and what are not? The same questions apply to each of your team members as well. ## **3\. We live in and are influenced by stories** Outside of straightforward technical issues, anytime we are operating in the human realm **there is no one objective reality**. The same situation can be construed in different ways based on the person’s background, experiences, biases, and dominant mental models. As leaders this is too important to ignore. While this makes our jobs difficult, it's also where the opportunity to make the most impact lies. > **People don’t live in reality—we live in the story we tell ourselves about reality*. When you tell your stories to others, such as colleagues, family, and members of your community, the stories also let you explain your actions to these loyalty groups in ways that make you appear sensible, acceptable, or impressive to them, or at least provide a rational explanation for the situation and your role in it.* > > – Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, Marty Linsky in Practice of [Adaptive Leadership](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/adaptive-leadership/) \[4\] Most of the stubborn challenges that we face tend to be complex, adaptive problems rather than straightforward, technical ones. And leaders need to have a good understanding of how language and the stories built with it influences how the situation appears. They have to influence this process if they are to have any impact. ## **4\. We are interpretative beings with our own filters and models** The [radio and transmitter model of communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/) is misinformed and only partially true. Just because leadership understands the problems the organization is facing and have articulated it as such, does not mean everyone understands it or even cares. They have to learn to connect organizational stories with the stories inside people’s heads. Relying on the logic of the argument is not enough. **Communication does not always equate understanding**. Leaders have to be equally aware of [filters in communication](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/filters-in-communication/), both theirs and others. Most traditional ways of looking at communication **focus on the methods, frequency and content of the messenger**. But this is only one side of the equation. Working with the intended audience is almost as important, if not more important, as working with the person who is delivering the message. ## **5\. We live in biological time, not clock time** Change is hard and [does not happen overnight](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/speed-as-the-wrong-criteria/). When rolling out initiatives across the organization, we allocate a period of time and a rate of adoption. And the same goes for messages to be adopted, attitudes to be changed and new skills to be learned. Why do we expect it be any faster when it comes to individuals on our team? The same goes for our own developmental efforts. **How many things have we not tried simply because of the amount of time and effort it might take?** ## **6\. We have a need to care about something** As humans, we always *care* about something. Even the person who says “I don't care”, cares about “not caring”. > *In fact, it is a constitutive characteristic of being human, that it always points and is directed to something other than itself…Only to the extent that someone is living out this self-transcendence of human existence, is he truly human or does he become his true self.* > > *– Viktor Frankl* \[5\] The manager's job to figure out what that something is. Without knowing what the other person truly cares about it's hard to motivate action. > *Here, then, is the source of “keeping up with the Joneses,” the genesis of the human preoccupation with looking good, being right, and coming out ahead: *we develop a concern for the success of our concerns, those concerns that we are and with whose fate we identify our selves*.* > > *In the Heideggerian model, this *inevitable thrownness to self-concern* is simply part of the existential structure of human beings; it comes with the territory of being human.* > > – Bruce Hyde & Jeffery Bineham The concept of “care” is also connected with meaning and purpose. When we don’t care our endeavors feel meaningless and purposeless leading to frustration and disappointment. > *If we have our own why in life, we shall get along with almost any how.* > > *– Nietzsche* All of us have **a basic need to *stand for something***. Although often unaware of this need, we tend to stumble upon this fact after much trial and tribulation. ## **7\. We *live in* language and so does leadership** There is more to language that just a means to convey *what already is*. Human reality is built in language. Everything we say or do, always *lives* in language. Even our most intimate thoughts are constructed in language. This means **whatever we construct** is **limited by the availability of language** to us. Change the language and we potentially change how things are occurring to us. This is obvious and near to us so we fail to notice it, and the reason why language is an underutilized aspect in leadership. > *The limits of my language mean the limits of my world .* > > *\-Ludwig Wittgenstein* \[8\] [Leadership lives in language ](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leadership-communication-and-language/)and happens through it. Being unaware of this dyanmic means missing out on an entire dimension of existence. ## **8\. We seek meaning and purpose** As humans we seek meaning and purpose in everything we do. Regardless of our awareness of it, without either of these, we tend to struggle in whatever we are doing. We are most engaged and productive when we are directly connected with the meaning and purpose of what we were doing. ## **9\. Meaning & purpose cannot be transmitted or borrowed** When it comes to meaning and purpose, humans are closed systems. Meaning and purpose **has to come from within rather than borrowed** from someone or out of obligation. Partly because of overuse and partly lack of understanding, we don’t necessarily have an actionable way of leveraging them despite their importance. **What trips up many folks is the “search” for “inherent” meaning and purpose** in what we do because there might not be any. **Meaning and purpose are more created than found**. This is especially relevant for leadership because it means **we cannot manufacture or supply meaning and purpose to our teams**. We have to help them connect organizational goals with whatever gives them meaning and purpose. > *Truly empowered workers, such as doctors in a hospital, even bees in a hive, *do not await gifts from their managerial gods; they know what they are there to do and just do it*.* > > *As Len Sayles put it: “Intrinsic job satisfaction can only be obtained by the employees themselves. It can’t be handed out on a platter”. In fact, *a good deal of what is today called “empowerment” is really just getting rid of years of disempowerment*.* > > *– Henry Mintzberg in Managing* \[9\] **We look for order, meaning, and rules, where there might not be any** causing plenty of pain and confusion. This is especially true in organizations and careers. ## **10\. Authenticity & integrity directly affect performance** In modern workplaces, authenticity and integrity tend to be thought of as virtues with tones of good vs bad. Upon closer look, and without taking a normative good vs bad stance, both integrity and [authenticity](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/authentic-leadership-knowing-what-people-actually-do/) are directly linked to performance. Without them, high performance is hard to reach and even harder to sustain. We work at our personal best when we are authentic with ourselves and **in alignment with our meaning and purpose**. When we are out of alignment, we are out of integrity and authenticity with ourselves, and hence not operating at full capacity. > *Integrity is important to individuals, groups, organizations and society because it creates workability. *Without integrity, the workability of any object, system, person, group or organization declines*; and as workability declines, the opportunity for performance declines. Therefore, integrity is a necessary condition for maximum performance.* > > *– Michael Jensen & Werner Erhard in Creating Leaders* \[10\] This is doubly true for leadership positions. Not only does it affect leadership performance but also that of teams. There is proven research showing how **integrity and consistency in leaders affects follower actions**. ## **11\. Seeking certainty through work** While not always recognized or even acknowledged, all of us come with expiration dates. Our existence by its very nature is uncertain. We try to **reduce this uncertainty is through our work and workplaces**. Leaders play a crucial role in how this plays out. > *Work can be experienced as a place to find meaning. We can also use it as a guard against uncertainty; through committing to a leader we can access a belief system which appears to offer a level of certainty, provide structure, offset responsibility and thus safeguard us from existential freedom by ‘seemingly’ limiting our choices.* > > *Leadership offers itself as a piece in this existential puzzle. It is a symbol of security, power and control for those who lead, and for those who follow.Through work or other projects we can devote ourselves to something greater than self.* > > *– Monica Hanaway in Existential Leader* \[11\] We do not like uncertainty and yet that's the only guaranteed aspect of human life. Effective leaders understand that people tend to look up to them, often unknowingly, to reduce their existential anxiety around uncertainty. The idea is not to give falsehoods or false promises. Rather, being aware of this dynamic can influence how a message gets delivered. **The effective manager has to toe this fine line**. ## **12\. We are not always rational** The [technical-rational paradigm that modern organizations are built on](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/leaders-have-to-master-the-basics-of-the-human-domain/) has an **underlying assumption that we are always pleasure-seeking, pain-avoiding, profit-maximizing rational beings**. However as fields like behavioral economics have proven conclusively, this is not always the case. We are interpretive beings who interpret situations from our own lenses, mental models, biases, assumptions, and stories. We are not plain rational entities operating in an objective reality. **The very interpretation of reality is subject to our perception**. Any manager who works under the assumption of 100% rationality is only going to be disappointed. This is when we say “they just don’t get it”, except [from “their” perspective](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/mastery-of-context-in-leadership/#context-is-directly-tied-to-results-and-performance) the situation is as real as it gets. Looking at irrational human beings not as a liability but rather as “conditions of the game”, can significantly alter our approach and effectiveness. ## **13\. We have the freedom to choose. We are always choosing.** Managerial decisions are never straightforward and always come with a good dose of paradox, ie by definition it cannot be eliminated. Even when we decide to not choose we are choosing the default. [**Freedom and choice**](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/ask-before-setting-goals/) **are coupled inextricably with anxiety**. > *We all face a dilemma in taking responsibility, ie whether to take the initiative and exercise our freedom to act despite the unknown consequences, or whether to take the easier way out. It is how we face this dilemma that determines the extent to which we are empowered; the extent to which we lead.* > > *Freedom is not the ability to act without consequences. *Freedom is the ability to choose to act without compulsion and face the consequences*, some or most of which may be unknown at the point of decision*. > > *– Reynolds, Houlder, Goddard, Lewis* \[12\] ## **14\. Human existence is paradoxical and so is work. Leaders influence how it shows up.** Modern work is [full of paradoxes](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/inherent-paradoxes-in-management/) and leaders play a pivotal role in how people navigate these paradoxes. Work can be both meaningless and meaningful, purposeless and purposeful at the same time. We may enjoy working with our team and that same team makes our lives complicated. We have to be self-reliant and yet be trusting of others enough to delegate. We may want to be independent and yet like the camaraderie and community that our workplaces provide. Many workplaces don’t encourage emotions while still operating on the rational-technical model but emotions are an integral part of being a human being. Latest research in neuroscience and behavioral economics has proven conclusively that **you cannot separate emotions from human decision making**. ## **15\. We can become powerful observers of ourselves (self-detachment)** The organizational view of improvement tends to be primarily around assessment and feedback typically from the direct line manager. In more enlightened organizations, this goes a step further by soliciting 360 degree feedback from all stakeholders involved instead of just one person. But most of us don’t necessarily know what to do with the feedback. Neither do most know how to give feedback. So we end up having **the same conversations from one year to the next**. What does not get as much attention is that we can become powerful observers of ourselves. [Observation and reflection](https://www.leadingsapiens.com/reflection-in-leadership/) leading to increased awareness can be an change mechanism that leverages **the unique human ability of self-detachment**. It's what Adam Smith called the “**impartial spectator**”. > *The *human ability to step back and study ourselves, to examine and change the ways in which we frame our experiences, our behavior, our histories, our cognitive and situational constraints, and even the ubiquitous nature of human language*…Adam Smith calls this taking a “impartial spectator” approach*. > > *This spectator phenomenon or epiphenomenon is an explanatory idea that accounts for how it is that we can step back from ourselves and not only study ourselves and our histories, but also make choices and direct or redirect our lives* > > *– Patricia Werhane* \[13\] Unfortunately this unique human ability tends to get ignored in organizations. Somehow **organizations do not trust individuals themselves for their own development**. Given the right frameworks and alignment, individuals can design their own development much better than any organization can. --- Hopefully these frameworks gave you a different perspective on people and performance. While my articulation on these concepts is still elementary, my own experience of these always rang true. These are human universals that stay the same regardless of company, situation and culture. Go against this and everything tends to be a struggle. Work with it and you can reach the peaks of human performance. ### Footnotes/References 1. [*Being the Boss*](https://amzn.to/3JVX6qd?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Linda Hill & Kent Linebeck.* 2. [*Being and Time*](https://amzn.to/38TmCzp?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Martin Heidegger.* 3. [*Existential Perspectives on Coaching*](https://amzn.to/3EgDP1l?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Emmy Van Deurzen and Monica Hanaway.* 4. [*The* *Practice of Adaptive Leadership* ](https://amzn.to/3uGMMOc?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*by Ronald Heifetz, Alexander Grashow, Marty Linsky.* 5. *Viktor Frankl as quoted in* [*Meaningful Work*](https://amzn.to/3jCfv0k?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Beate Von Devivere.* 6. *Listening Authentically by R Bruce Hyde in* [*Interpretive Approaches to Interpersonal Communication*](https://amzn.to/3jCti75?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 7. [*Friedrich Nietszche*](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780191843730.001.0001/q-oro-ed5-00007886?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.* 8. *Wittgenstein as quoted in* [*Leadership and the Limitations of Language*](https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2016.52005?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Wiley Souba, Matthew Souba.* 9. *Managing by Henry Mintzberg* 10. *Jensen, Michael C., Werner Erhard, and Kari L. Granger. “*[*Creating Leaders: An Ontological/Phenomenological Model*](https://ssrn.com/abstract=1681682?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*.” Chap. 16 in* [*The Handbook for Teaching Leadership: Knowing, Doing, and Being*](https://amzn.to/3Ehm0yY?ref=leadingsapiens.com)*, edited by Scott Snook, Nitin Nohria, and Rakesh Khurana.* 11. [*The Existential Leader*](https://amzn.to/3rqtavI?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Monica Hanaway* 12. [*What Philosophy can Teach You About Being a Better Leader*](https://amzn.to/3jF8Q5K?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *by Alison Reynolds, Dominic Houlder, Jules Goddard, and David Lewis.* 13. *Patricia Werhane elaborates on the impartial spectator in this*[ *paper*](https://doi.org/10.1007/s40926-018-0086-1?ref=leadingsapiens.com) *in the Philosophy of Management journal.*