I created this version of my blog 14 years ago to share “thoughts” arising from my work life, rather than drill-down topics related to leadership. The objective was to find the sweet spot between brevity and substance. I have dozens of these awaiting in my computer cupboard. With diminishing time and the increasing availability of AI-generated synopses on almost any and every topic, I am wondering (after 25 of these) whether to discontinue/retire this aspect of the blog? If you have an opinion, please share. If you don’t, you’ve answered my question. Thanks.
Certitude. Why do we believe we’re right even when we’re not? Despite how certainty feels, it’s not a choice we make consciously or rationally. The feeling of knowing – of rightness, conviction or correctness – arises from involuntary brain mechanisms that, like love or anger, can function independently of logic. The sensation of knowing something is not proof that we actually know it. No one instinctively believes their memory is remarkably fragile, yet we cling to the conviction that the past generally corresponds to our recollection of it. We become equally attached to our judgments, sometimes treating challenges to them as threats. So we persist in the comforting but erroneous belief that reasonable people given the same information should reach the same conclusion. In positions of authority, that conviction becomes particularly dangerous because others may stop challenging it. Complete objectivity is a myth. The best we can hope for is partial objectivity – which is itself an oxymoron.
Disagreement. Meaningful dialogue rarely comes from agreement alone. The absence of dissent creates a false sense of confidence, where ideas feel correct simply because they go unchallenged. Leaders who avoid the discomfort of disharmony struggle to identify errors, contributing to weaker execution and persistent performance problems. Engaging seriously with an opposing view exposes our biases, weak assumptions, flawed logic and rush to judgment. Those who assume they’re right often interpret disagreement as disloyalty or incompetence. Those who pursue consensus too readily risk making decisions based on incomplete interpretations of reality. Those who can separate competing ideas from their identity are better equipped to diagnose problems, adjust and adapt. But disagreement alone has little value. It must be informed, disciplined and civil. Done well, it sharpens thinking, reduces cultural distortion and builds intellectual humility. Which is why the first rule of smart discourse should be no agreement without respectful disagreement. Direct, honest and candid dialogue forces us to understand how the other side thinks before deciding what we ourselves should think. Understanding opposing reasoning improves our own.
Feedback. It’s pointless to offer feedback without instilling the desire to improve. People don’t learn from feedback simply because they receive it. They learn when the emotions it triggers focus their attention on improving rather than defending themselves. When we receive criticism, our brains immediately interpret what it means: Did I do something wrong? What does this say about me? Should I worry? When a manager says, “You’re not creative enough,” are you being judged on your work or your character? When people feel attacked, they protect themselves. And learning stalls. The objective isn’t merely to discover what went wrong but to understand how to get better. Effective feedback therefore focuses on behaviour rather than personality and gives the recipient some agency in determining what improvement looks like. Since credibility matters, the person giving feedback must also model the standards being advocated. Don’t merely define what went wrong. Clarify what better looks like and how to get there. Feedback is more than an information exchange; it’s an emotional event. And emotion often determines whether the message gets through. Feedback should generate improvement, not merely understanding.
Change. Organizations are asking employees to absorb more change, more quickly, while trust and engagement are declining and many of their best performers are running on fumes. Yet leaders continue to be surprised by resistance. People don’t necessarily resist change itself; they resist what they believe the change may take away – status, autonomy, relationships, predictability or control. Telling people that change is necessary does little to resolve those concerns. Leaders need to involve those affected in the reasoning, identify the roadblocks and explain not simply why the organization will benefit but how people’s working lives will be improved. Wherever possible, give them agency to help shape the execution around the realities and constraints they understand better than senior management does. Above all, recognize that meaningful change inevitably creates winners, losers and tradeoffs. That means disagreement and conflict are not evidence that the change process is failing. They are part of the change process. The leadership challenge is not to eliminate resistance but to understand what is causing it and deal with it intelligently.