Category: Ling- English

Are These Your Ideas?

The meeting starts with familiar phrases. “We need to think about this differently.” “Let me share a framework I’ve been considering.” “Here’s how I see the challenge.” But as you speak, something feels hollow. You notice fragments: the article you read last week, the podcast insight, the model from your last training, you are now presenting as your own thinking. There is a texture to performance, and you can feel it. Your team listens, but their attention tells you they sense it too. They know when you’re speaking from genuine thought versus recycling someone else’s ideas.

This is thinking’s version of intellectual arbitrage. Take ideas from sources your audience hasn’t encountered yet, reframe them in language they’ll recognize, and present them as insight. You become a middleman, trafficking in thoughts that feel fresh but aren’t necessarily yours. This model depends entirely on your audience not knowing how shallow your actual thinking is.

But genuine intellectual depth feels different. Someone who has thought something through fully, who has wrestled with ideas until they’ve become their own, doesn’t need to stay one step ahead. They are not performing discovery; they are simply present with what they’ve worked out. That stillness carries its own authority. It is the difference between trying to impress with borrowed brilliance and simply sharing what you’ve genuinely figured out. Presence draws attention without grasping, without performing.

People can sense when you’re not performing intelligence. You are there, offering what you’ve actually processed, without attachment to whether anyone is impressed. And they respond differently. Some lean in. Others drift away. Real thinking carries a subtle gravity; borrowed thinking carries a hollowness that cannot be disguised. And it is perceptible, even before you notice it yourself.

Ideas emerging from genuine intellectual work exist outside the churn of trend-driven thinking. They speak from depths you’ve actually explored. Arbitrage, by contrast, depends entirely on timing: arriving first, riding the wave, and staying current. Presence notices none of that. It simply offers what is genuinely yours. You can feel the difference, and so can everyone else in the room.

It is the difference between a spring and a reservoir. The idea-performer constantly refills from external sources to maintain flow. Someone sharing genuinely processed thoughts draws from something inexhaustible because they’ve done the actual work. Arbitrage searches for novelty; presence inhabits what it has truly worked through. One borrows; the other emerges. One performs; the other simply is.

This dynamic shows up wherever you’re expected to have thoughts: strategy sessions, problem-solving conversations, presentations, even casual discussions about trends. People can feel whether what you’re offering has been metabolized through your own intellectual work or assembled from what others have figured out. It’s about whether ideas have integrated into your actual thinking, or remain foreign concepts you’re carrying around.

Genuine intellectual work is almost cellular. It shapes how you approach new problems, not just how you talk about familiar ones. Real thinking is digestion: a process that transforms both the ideas and the thinker. Arbitrage treats insights like commodities to deploy; intellectual presence transmits actual thought. It carries its weight whether anyone notices or not.

When you’ve truly thought something through, it shows in your pauses and in how you hold complexity. It is intellectual honesty, woven into how you process new information. The distinction is unmistakable: which ideas are genuinely yours, which are echoes of what you’ve consumed. Others sense it immediately, even before you do.

The question that lingers in every conversation where you’re expected to contribute thinking is simple, yet profound: are the ideas you’re sharing ones you’ve actually worked out, or are you trafficking in thoughts you’ve absorbed from elsewhere? Presence carries gravity. Arbitrage carries hollowness. The room feels the difference, and so does your own sense of clarity, or lack thereof.

You cannot arbitrage intellectual presence. You can only offer what has become part of your actual thinking. What you’ve processed so fully that it now emerges through you inevitably. Perhaps then, in that quiet recognition, you begin to notice which of your ideas, insights, and positions have truly become yours and which remain borrowed. And as you speak, others will feel it too, whether you notice or not.

==

photo by Avery Evans

The Counterpuncher Syndrome: Why Your Team Struggles to Innovate

In their historic trilogy of fights, Muhammad Ali demonstrated the art of counterpunching: neutralizing Joe Frazier’s attacks, then turning them into devastating blows of his own. Many organizations face similar team innovation challenges: waiting for others to make the first move, then responding with precision strikes aimed at exposing weaknesses rather than initiating bold ideas of their own.

But in organizations, counterpunching does more than deflect. It wears down the very people who generate ideas, training natural initiators to stop coming forward. Over time, even aggressive innovators learn to keep their guard up and wait, leaving companies full of Ali-style counterpunchers but few Frazier-style aggressors willing to take risks.

I call this the counterpuncher syndrome: a mindset that shapes behavior at every level of organizational life. It helps explain why innovation initiatives so often falter despite loud commitments to creativity and growth.

The Meeting Room Reality

Nowhere is the syndrome more visible than in meetings. A familiar choreography plays out: someone shares an idea, and within seconds the critiques arrive. Proposal collapses into postmortem before it has had the chance to breathe.

The implicit norm is “no, but”, a reflexive counterpunch that halts momentum. Contrast this with the “yes, and” of improvisational theater, where ideas are extended before they are judged.

Structures reinforce the pattern. Agendas allocate “discussion time” that becomes de facto criticism. Decision criteria emphasize risk avoidance over opportunity creation. Even the table itself can feel like a boxing ring, where ideas are opponents to be defeated rather than possibilities to be developed.

The result: meetings function less as generative spaces and more as arenas of evaluation. Only ideas backed by extraordinary confidence or power survive their first round, which makes innovation the exception, not the norm.

The Individual Manifestation

At the personal level, the syndrome often sounds like: “I’m not creative.” That phrase rarely points to innate limits. More often, it reflects a mindset trained by systems that reward critique over creation.

We’ve schooled and socialized people to excel at flaw-finding while leaving their generative muscles underdeveloped. Professional identity becomes defined by what one prevents rather than what one proposes, measured in problems avoided rather than possibilities realized.

The Parasitic Nature of Pure Critique

Criticism without contribution is essentially parasitic. Like a leech, it feeds on the vitality of others’ ideas but produces no life of its own.

Teams that excel at problem-spotting but stall when asked for solutions become organizational drags rather than drivers. Critique may expose weakness, but without generation, there is nothing left to strengthen.

Cultural Origins and Reinforcement

This orientation runs deep in management culture. Systems are built to prevent loss, not foster gain. Risk registers are meticulously maintained; opportunity inventories rarely exist. We celebrate “failing fast” more than “discovering rapidly.” We conduct postmortems, not growth analyses.

Our very vocabulary skews defensive. And that language shapes systems, which then shape behavior, creating a self-reinforcing cycle where counterpunching becomes the default stance.

Misunderstanding Critical Thinking

Organizations often mistake criticism for critical thinking. True critical thinking examines an issue from multiple angles: testing assumptions, recognizing patterns, weighing evidence, and imagining alternatives. Criticizing, by contrast, is narrow: it spots weaknesses without balancing them against strengths or possibilities.

This slippage allows leaders to claim they prize “critical thinking” while presiding over cultures hostile to new ideas.

Beyond Binary Thinking

Escaping the counterpuncher syndrome doesn’t mean swinging to the opposite extreme. Blind optimism is as unhelpful as reflexive critique. The task is to integrate both: to create deliberate sequences where ideas are generated before they are evaluated, to balance offense with defense, to enrich our vocabulary of possibility alongside our vocabulary of risk.

It means treating paradox as a feature, not a flaw: seeing creativity and critique as complementary modes rather than competing ones. And it means asking who holds the initiative, not just who has the sharper response.

The Choice

Counterpunchers excel at responding to what others create. But who’s creating what they respond to?

So the question for teams and organizations is this: are you content to keep counterpunching, or are you ready to name what could be and summon the courage to build it?

==

photo by Rikin Katyal on Unsplash

 

Learning from Leaders in the Spotlight

Most of what we think we know about leadership comes from a small, unusual subset of leaders: the ones who choose to be public.

They are the visible few: CEOs on stages, entrepreneurs in podcasts, billionaires with books. They explain how they became successful, often turning their particular path into a universal formula. This worked for me, so it will work for you. The memoir becomes a methodology.

Here’s the problem: leaders who teach are a self-selecting sample of leaders. They’re people for whom visibility is either a necessity or a desire for the business, for the brand, or for the self. Because they’re the ones we see, they become the ones we study. We mistake the most visible for the most representative.

Think about what it takes to write a book about your career, to build a personal brand, to position yourself as a thought leader. It requires comfort with self-promotion and belief in the value of your own story. It often draws on deeper motivations: a need for validation, an identity intertwined with being seen as successful, the ego-satisfaction of being a source of wisdom.

Once you step into that role, a feedback loop begins. The more you are recognized as a thought leader, the more your professional identity depends on maintaining that visibility. For some, this is a business necessity: visibility drives sales, attracts investors, or opens doors. For others, it’s about the self: a personal brand that must be fed.

That’s one kind of leader.

There’s another kind entirely: the invisible leader, the majority we never notice.

The CEO who slips out the side door after an all-hands. The founder whose name you’ve never heard because it’s on the product. The executive who transformed an organization and sees no reason to turn that transformation into a framework. The entrepreneur who created lasting value and prefers to spend it rather than explain it.

They’re quiet because their success doesn’t require an audience. They’re focused on results over recognition. Their effectiveness doesn’t hinge on being seen as effective.

And here is what gets lost: the lessons from these leaders don’t become books or podcasts, so they don’t circulate. Their ways of leading (often grounded in patience, craft, timing, and long arcs of trust) remain embodied in organizations rather than codified as “principles.” The subtle forms of leadership that shape cultures from the inside out are almost invisible to our theories. Our playbooks end up skewed toward charisma, communication, and visibility, while the quieter disciplines of listening deeply, building resilience without fanfare, and creating conditions for others to thrive remain undocumented.

Because we don’t see them, we don’t study them. Their approaches don’t enter our models of leadership at all.

This is a systematic skew. Our leadership canon is built not from the full spectrum of practice but from the sliver that comes with its own microphone. MBA programs lean on autobiographies and case studies of the visible few. Business media amplifies the same characters because they generate clicks and stories. Even organizational research is distorted by who agrees to be interviewed or written about. The structures that shape what we know about leadership are designed to reproduce the voices already amplified.

We mistake the loudest voices for the most representative ones.

How do we know what we know about success? How much of our understanding comes from leaders whose public presence is part of their strategy or their identity? How much comes from leaders whose success has nothing to do with being seen?

Visible leaders are not fraudulent. Many have built remarkable organizations. But visibility itself becomes part of the lesson, shaping both the path they took and the story they can tell.

The uncomfortable truth is that we may have built our entire understanding of leadership on this narrow, self-selecting group. We’ve been learning from leaders whose success depends on being visible, and ignoring the ones whose success never needed an audience.

What would change if we stopped learning from the leaders in the spotlight? What might we discover if we began to look for leadership in places where no one is trying to teach us a lesson? What might we find in the organizations that quietly endure, the teams that thrive without headlines, and the leaders who will never write a book because they are too busy leading?

==

Photo by Joshua Hoehne on Unsplash

Base-10 Thinking

for Elizabeth and Santiago

What feels inevitable is often just familiar.

Once you see that our number system is arbitrary, it becomes a lens for questioning all sorts of assumptions we carry around.

Language is full of these. We think of “tree” as somehow naturally connected to that woody thing with leaves, but it’s just an agreed-upon sound. Other cultures carve up color differently. Some have one word for what we call blue and green; others have dozens of words for different kinds of snow or rain.

Even time, which feels so natural, is an invention. Our 24-hour days, 7-day weeks, and January-starting years aren’t written into the universe. The Mayans had entirely different calendars. We could have 10-day weeks or 8-hour days if we’d chosen differently.

Social structures do this too. The way we organize work, basic ideas like property ownership, these vary wildly across cultures and centuries. What feels inevitable to us might look bizarre from another time or place.

And here’s the tricky part: these conventions aren’t useless. They coordinate reality. They solve problems. But the moment we remember they’re conventions we can ask: Is this serving us well? Could we do better?

It’s liberating. And a little unsettling. Which is exactly where this begins.

I remember the moment it cracked open for me.

It was high school. Our math teacher, in one of those rare off-script digressions that end up mattering more than the syllabus, said the best way to understand numbers was to realize that base-10 isn’t sacred. It’s just one way of putting things together.

“We count in tens,” he said, “because most of us have ten fingers. That’s it.”

Then he mentioned that in some cultures, people count using their thumb to tap the twelve segments of their fingers. Twelve. Not ten. Which means you can build a whole number system from that, one with cleaner divisors. With twelve, you get halves, thirds, and quarters with no remainder. In base-10, you only get two and five.

That was the moment the universe opened up. Not just mathematically, but metaphysically.

If base-10 is just habit, shaped by anatomy and repeated long enough to become invisible, then what else isn’t fixed? What else have we mistaken for truth, when it’s only convention?

It wasn’t just about numbers anymore. It was about everything.

That moment never left me. It made me realize frameworks shape perception. What we think of as “real” is often a reflection of the tools we use to read the world.

Most of the time, we don’t question the lens. We just look through it. It’s the water the fish doesn’t see. But once you realize base-10 is just one way of seeing quantity, you start to suspect other “givens.” You wonder how many things feel inevitable simply because they’ve been framed that way. And how often we confuse familiarity with truth.

Once you’ve had that kind of moment, you develop a cognitive side-eye. A healthy suspicion that what looks natural may, in fact, be constructed. That’s the beginning of discernment.

Once you start noticing the frame, you start seeing defaults everywhere.

The 40-hour workweek. The fiscal quarter. The five-day school schedule. The résumé. The slide deck. The assumption that growth is always good. That busy is better than still. That what can be measured must matter most.

These aren’t laws of nature. They’re choices someone made. Some sensible at the time, others arbitrary from the start. But repeated long enough, they begin to feel inevitable. Just how things are.

These defaults are the epistemological base-10 of modern life: familiar and efficient in some ways. But limited. And limiting.

Because the moment we forget they’re choices, we stop imagining alternatives. We stop asking whether they still serve the problems we face. We optimize the existing base instead of asking whether it’s the right base at all.

That’s the danger of a default. Not that it’s wrong, but that it’s unexamined. Somewhere along the way, we confused standardization with wisdom. And we lost sight of the fact that other ways of counting might be more truthful for the world we actually inhabit.

This has everything to do with management.

Management is full of inherited frames: roles, reporting lines, performance cycles, job descriptions, incentive schemes, even the idea of “managing” itself. We step into these systems assuming they’re natural and efficient. But many were designed for problems we no longer have, or for conditions that no longer exist.

And yet we keep trying to solve new problems using old frames. We tweak. We optimize. We invest in tools and trainings to help people succeed inside a base-10 logic that may no longer fit the work.

What if we’re optimizing the wrong thing entirely? What if the frame itself needs examining?

When I watch managers wrestling with performance reviews or struggling to make team structures work, I sometimes see people trying to count in base-10 when the situation might call for something else entirely. The tools feel clunky not because they’re being used wrong, but because they were built for different mathematics.

What would it look like to ask not “How do I manage performance better?” but “What counts as performance here, and how did we agree on that?” Not “How do I make the team more efficient?” but “Efficient at what, and why does that matter most?”

I’m not suggesting we throw out structure. I’m curious about what becomes visible when we remember structure is designed, not discovered. That the way we organize human effort is a choice we can make, not something we inherit.

Once you realize ten isn’t the only way to count, management becomes design. A way of framing human effort. A way of shaping what is made possible.

And when the world around you is changing faster than your frameworks can keep up, continuing to count by tens out of habit starts to feel less like stability and more like stubbornness.

What frame are you looking through? What assumptions about work, performance, and human organization feel so natural you’ve stopped noticing them? And what might become possible if you adjusted the lens, even slightly?

The most dangerous defaults aren’t the obviously broken ones. They’re the ones that work just well enough to keep us from questioning whether there might be better ways to count.

==

Photo by GVZ 42 on Unsplash.

When Work Owns the Future: A Labor Day Reflection

Every Labor Day in Canada and the US, we pause to celebrate the contributions of workers. It’s a day of parades, barbecues, and a well-earned break from the office. But beneath the ritual is a harder truth: much of our future is already owned by work.

What if we thought differently about it? What if work weren’t defined only as the activity that earns a paycheck, but as something larger, beginning with our most basic needs as human beings?

Work Beyond the Paycheck

The word “work” usually points to paid labor, the thing we do to afford what we need. Yet that definition is narrow. It ignores a lot: the unpaid labor that sustains families, the creative pursuits that enrich our culture, and the daily acts of care that never appear on a balance sheet.

If we widened our view, work could mean any activity through which we meet life’s essentials: food, shelter, health, clothing, community. Once we start there, the familiar link between work and money becomes less obvious, even a little strange.

Needs First, Money Later

Imagine starting with the things we can’t live without. Very few of us grow our own food, sew our own clothes, or build our own shelter. We rely on a vast economic web to make these things available. We trade time and effort in one domain for the money that allows us to access what we actually need.

There’s a distance built into this arrangement. Most of us spend our days producing things we don’t directly use, while depending on others to produce the things we do. Earlier societies lived closer to the source of their sustenance. Today, if the system faltered, many of us would be unable to provide for ourselves in even the most basic ways.

That dependence raises a question: is the market economy the only, or even the best, way to organize our lives around our needs?

The Abstraction of Money

Money is a remarkable invention. Unlike bread or clothing, it isn’t consumed directly. It’s an abstraction, a placeholder for value. Precisely because of that, money can be used in ways no loaf of bread ever could: invested, speculated with, lent and borrowed.

And once lending enters the picture, so does debt. To borrow is to pull tomorrow’s resources into today at a price. That price is interest and, more importantly, time. Debt quietly rearranges our future, committing hours and years of labor not yet lived.

Debt as a Claim on the Future

Seen this way, debt is financial and temporal. It mortgages our days. The time we might have used for family, rest, or imagination has already been promised. A slice of the future is no longer ours to choose freely, thanks to past decisions.

This is where money’s abstraction becomes concrete: it reaches into our calendars and carves out blocks of our lives before we even arrive at them.

An Invitation to Rethink

So as we honor workers this Labor Day, perhaps we can also pause to ask: what would it mean to loosen money’s grip on the definition of work? What if we centered our lives less on earning and consuming, and more on directly sustaining ourselves, our communities, and the relationships that give life meaning?

Perhaps greater freedom lies not in working less or earning more, but in redefining what counts as work and in reclaiming a future that belongs to us, not to work.

==

art: Diego Rivera, Detroit Industry Murals (1932–1933)

What do you want your legacy to be?

I was in a final-round interview for a senior leadership role. The panel had barely finished introductions when someone asked,
“What do you want your legacy to be?”

Not: What challenges are you most drawn to?
Not: What do you think the team needs?
Not: How do you approach complexity?
Just straight to: How do you want to be remembered?

It was a surreal moment. I hadn’t met a single team member. I hadn’t spoken to any customers, or seen the space where the work happened. I didn’t know the vision of the person I’d be reporting to, or what pressures they were under. Yet here I was, being asked to pre-script my postscript.

That question seems to have become the norm.

We’ve made legacy-talk a kind of performance shorthand. A way of signaling that someone is “thinking big.” But increasingly, it feels like a distraction. A premature obituary disguised as strategic vision. A way of skipping past the mess of the present in favor of a tidy imagined future.

In practice, I’ve seen it show up in quieter ways too.

A manager agonizes over how they’ll be perceived. Will I be seen as a visionary? A people-first leader? They start managing the story of their leadership rather than the work itself. Meanwhile, a difficult team dynamic goes unaddressed, a necessary decision is deferred, and an uncomfortable truth is avoided.

The desire to be remembered can subtly displace the work of attending to what’s needed right now.

Walk through any city and you’ll see it in physical form. Streets named after people no one remembers. Foundations whose namesakes are long forgotten. Buildings with gilt-lettered donor walls that patients hurry past on their way to the right room. These supposed monuments to legacy reduced to wayfinding aids. Turn left at Johnson Avenue. Room 312, across from the Hastings Wing.

Even the grandest names eventually blur into background noise.

Jonas Salk seemed to understand this. When asked who owned the patent on his polio vaccine, he famously replied, “Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?”

He could have built a pharmaceutical empire. He could have carved his name into the landscape of institutions and endowments. Instead, he focused on getting the vaccine into as many arms as possible, as fast as possible.

The result? Real, lasting impact. Not in how he’s remembered, but in the children who never needed iron lungs. In lives quietly preserved.

Had he pursued legacy, he might have become another name on a building. Instead, he became part of people’s lives.

That’s the irony. The ones we remember most often weren’t chasing remembrance. They were thinking about what the people around them needed right now.

We’ve gotten it backwards.

Too often, we ask leaders about their legacy before they’ve even earned the right to have one.

If you’re a manager, the people you work with won’t remember your “legacy.” They’ll remember if you listened. They’ll remember if you backed them when it counted. They’ll remember if you made a path for them to grow, or closed it off. They’ll remember if you helped them become more of who they were, or made them feel smaller.

Most of that won’t show up in a keynote or on a plaque. It’ll show up in someone else’s work: the choices they make when you’re not around and what they pass on to someone else.

Legacy isn’t something you declare. It’s something you leave behind without knowing you left it. And it usually begins by paying attention to what’s in front of you.

==

 

photo the Lascaux cave, Bayes Ahmed, 2012.

A Quiet Recognition

That day, reflecting on how my simple gesture toward the staff was read as a tactical maneuver, I realized something more profound was at stake. It wasn’t about strategy but about bond—the quiet recognition of our shared humanity, too often hidden beneath layers of hierarchy and suspicion. When respect becomes rare enough to seem like a tactic, we lose sight of something fundamental: the dignity we hold simply by being human.

Their assumption revealed the narrow frame through which many now view relationships at work—a transactional mindset that mistakes genuine recognition for calculated gain. But respect isn’t something earned or used. It’s the baseline of connection, quietly present before roles, titles, or behavior.

The poem below tries to name that respect in its purest form—a recognition that neither waits for permission nor demands reward. It’s a reminder of what we often forget but need most.

A Quiet Recognition

Every person
carries inherent dignity—
not earned through good behavior,
forfeited by mistakes,
or shaped by circumstance.

It’s simply there,
by virtue of being human.

Respect
is the quiet recognition
of that dignity.

Kindness is different.
It’s something we offer
freely, personally.

Kindness flows from your generosity;
respect,
from their humanity.

==

 

photo “Migrant mother”, Dorothea Lange, 1936.

The necessary chaos of management

Between theory and practice lies a daily reality most management literature refuses to acknowledge: fragmentation as the default state.

Watch any manager work. You’ll see someone navigating constant disruption: fifteen conversations at once, problems arriving faster than solutions, priorities shifting before the last shift ends.

We tend to treat these interruptions as failures of process. “If only I could get more focused time,” managers lament. But when such patterns persist across roles, industries, and decades, it’s worth asking: what if this disjointed rhythm isn’t a failure at all? What if it’s simply what management is?

The core competency, then, becomes learning to work within disruption—to maintain coherence across fragmented time, to build context that survives interruption, to create meaning amid discontinuity.

Many managers live with a quiet dissonance. The way they speak about management rarely matches how their days actually unfold. The result is a nagging sense of inadequacy, a quiet suspicion that real management is happening elsewhere, in places where the systems work and people follow them.

But what if this is it? What if the real work happens right here, in the mess?

What might shift if we treated the scattered, nonlinear, interrupted nature of managerial life not as a flaw to fix but as a fact to work with?

How might we learn to inhabit the chaos, fully and skillfully, rather than trying to conquer it?

==

Photo by Soheb Zaidi on Unsplash

Trust Doesn’t Work Like That

I keep seeing versions of the same claim: that trust is the natural result of psychological safety. Or that it can be engineered through a formul

That’s tidy. It’s appealing and it’s convenient.

It’s also not true.

Psychological safety may create the conditions where trust could grow. But that’s all they are: conditions. Trust is never automatic, and never unilateral. It’s not a reward for checking the right boxes.

Trust is a decision. It’s someone else’s decision.

And that changes everything.

Trust works like foreign currency. It’s never strong in general, only strong against something else. The dollar is not stronger overall; it is stronger than the euro, the yen, whatever you’re measuring it against. Trust operates the same way: relational, contextual, and maddeningly specific. You might be someone’s anchor while remaining someone else’s question mark.

Here’s the thing: you can create the perfect conditions (open communication, demonstrated competence, unwavering reliability) and still manufacture nothing. You can create the environment where trust might grow, but the seed belongs to someone else entirely.

The other person chooses to trust. It doesn’t happen automatically. Their history, their scars, their appetite for vulnerability are all variables you’ll never control, no matter how trustworthy you become.

Which leaves you with a paradox in human connection: you can perfect your trustworthiness but never guarantee their trust. You can tend the garden but not force the bloom.

So create the conditions and then wait.

You can knock. But the door has to be opened from the other side.

==

Behind the Scenes: Where “What you lose when you lead” fits my thinking

Over the past few years, I’ve been circling a set of questions about what it really means to manage and lead people, not from a business school perspective, not through the usual lists of best practices, but from the ground level. From the quiet, often messy, always human experience of the people doing the work.

My recent piece, What you lose when you lead, came out of that ongoing reflection. It looks at the identity crisis that so often accompanies the move from individual contributor to manager. Not just a change in duties, but something deeper: a disruption in how we understand ourselves. What it means to contribute.

As I was writing it, I kept hearing echoes from other things I’ve been working on. This wasn’t a new insight so much as a convergence. Threads I’ve been pulling at for a while now were coming together. So I wanted to step back and show how this piece fits into the larger pattern of my thinking.

A foundation: Management as craft

When I first started thinking of management as a craft, not just a role, something clicked. I wrote then about how every craft has its own materials—wood, metal, clay—and how in management, the material is human nature.

That shift in framing helped me understand why technical excellence alone doesn’t prepare someone to manage. But this new piece took me somewhere more personal: what happens when someone who’s mastered one craft (engineering, finance, design) is suddenly asked to switch materials and identities. That disorientation isn’t just about skill. It’s about self.

I’ve seen it again and again. Someone who used to feel confident and clear becomes unsure of their value almost overnight. The rules are different, and so is the work. But the harder part is that their old sense of worth no longer fits.

From prose to poetry

This connects to an idea I keep returning to: that managing is prose, but leading is poetry.

New managers often try to lead like they used to work: with structure, logic, and precision. But what this new role asks for is something less linear. It’s relational, interpretive, often ambiguous. They’re speaking prose when the situation requires poetry.

In writing What you lose when you lead, I found myself thinking about that awkward middle place—where you’ve lost the fluency of your old language but haven’t yet learned the rhythm of the new one. It really does feel like phantom limb syndrome. You keep reaching for a way of contributing that no longer exists.

When good intentions backfire

One of the patterns I’ve seen—managers reverting to individual contributor work—isn’t just tactical. It’s existential. They’re trying to feel useful again. So they jump in. They fix things. They work late.

And I get it. I’ve done it. It’s satisfying, familiar, and immediately rewarding. But as I’ve written elsewhere, that instinct often leads to the exemplarity trap: trying to model the behavior you want to see, hoping others will copy it.

The problem is that management isn’t about creating copies. It’s about helping people become originals.

Reconstructing satisfaction

This part feels especially close to the bone. A lot of what I do in my coaching work is helping managers rediscover what satisfaction looks like now.

I’ve spent time thinking and writing about motivation (how it works, what drives us) and what I’ve learned is that new managers often lose their most familiar source of satisfaction (technical mastery) before they’ve found a new one. There’s a void.

Some mourn that loss quietly for years.

But there’s another kind of satisfaction that can emerge. Less immediate, but deeper. The quiet power of enabling others to rise. The long arc of shaping not just outputs, but people. You don’t get applause for it. But if you can shift your motives, it starts to feel meaningful in a very different way.

A practice of honesty

That shift doesn’t happen automatically. It takes reflection and often, community. That’s where the idea of the Manager’s README came from.

The README is a tool, yes. But more than that, it’s a way of practicing radical honesty with yourself and your team. Writing one forces you to confront the distance between what you intend and how you act. And I’ve found that kind of honesty to be a turning point for a lot of people going through this transition.

The change is real. Pretending it isn’t doesn’t help anyone.

Working with rather than against

If there’s a deeper thread running through all of this, it’s probably this: learning to work with rather than against.

That shows up in lots of places in my writing:

And it’s right there in the identity crisis that new managers face. Individual contributors succeed by controlling variables. Managers succeed by surrendering control and learning to work with what’s alive in other people.

That’s not a minor change. It’s a whole new way of relating to the world.

What it might mean for how we develop leaders

This brings me to the question that’s been tugging at me most:

So where does all this lead?

To me, What you lose when you lead marks something of a pivot. It brings together many threads I’ve been following—craft, poetry, exemplarity, motivation, honest self-reflection—but applies them to one of the most common, misunderstood, and under-supported transitions in working life.

But it also leaves me with questions I don’t yet have answers to.

How do we support people in this shift, beyond giving them tools and tips? What kind of development experiences could help them not just cope with the loss, but grow into the possibilities? How can we allow people to grieve what they’re leaving behind and still see what they’re stepping into?

I’m still working on those questions. And I’m open to being surprised.

This is the first of a series I’m calling “Behind the scenes.” A place for me to connect the dots between pieces, share what’s unfolding in my thinking, and invite you into the process. If you’re going through this transition yourself, or helping others through it, I’d love to hear what’s helped, what’s been hard, or what you’re still figuring out.

This isn’t a finished framework. It’s a conversation I hope we can keep having.