Your Team Is Running a Model of You
A director on my team stopped on her way out of a one-on-one, came back, and sat down.
"When you write 'sure' on something, do you know what we do with it?"
I didn't.
"We rewrite it. 'Great' means you're in. 'Sounds good' means you'll live with it. 'Sure' means it's getting through and you don't believe in it. So we go back and fix whatever made you write 'sure.'"
They'd been calibrating those three words for the better part of a year. A whole shadow approval cycle, built on top of my email habits. I had approved everything. Nobody was blocked. Nobody complained. From where I sat, the work just came in a little better on the second pass, and I remember feeling good about that.
The part that stuck with me wasn't that I had tells. Everybody has tells. It was that my team had studied mine closely enough to build a process around them, and I'd spent a year not noticing.
They're not being political. They're being efficient.
Every person who reports to you is maintaining a working model of you. What you'll green-light. What you'll pick apart. Which meeting you'll be short in. What kind of bad news you can take on a Thursday afternoon.
They do it because it's cheap. Predicting your reaction costs about ten seconds of thought. Guessing wrong costs a week of rework, or a hard conversation in front of peers, or the slow social penalty of being the person who made the room tense. Anyone with a mortgage runs that math.
Here's the uncomfortable part. That model is built almost entirely from your reactions under load. Your stated priorities barely register. You can open the year with a values deck and close it having taught something completely different, because the deck is one hour and your reactions are five hundred.
I've watched leaders say "bring me problems early" in one meeting and then, three weeks later, respond to an early problem with "why am I just hearing about this now?" That second sentence is the one that gets encoded. It's a good sentence, honestly — it moves the discomfort off your desk in about two seconds. It also teaches everyone in the room that early truth carries a tax, and that the safest move is to wait until the data is airtight and the news is undeniable. Which is exactly when it's too late to do anything about it.
The sixty seconds after
If you want to know what you're actually teaching, don't look at your announcements. Look at the sixty seconds after somebody says a hard thing out loud.
Someone names a risk that pulls apart a plan you've been holding together. Someone tells you the go-live date isn't real. Someone says the number in the deck is optimistic. What happens next?
Not what you meant. What it felt like. Your face. The sentence you chose. How fast you moved past it. Whether anything actually changed as a result, or whether it got absorbed into a "support plan" and never mentioned again.
That's the moment people replay. Not the meeting where you said you wanted candor. The Tuesday where somebody tried it and everyone watched to see what it cost her.
I've been on both sides of this. I've had irritation rise in me while someone was telling me something true, and I've had to physically slow down and say, "walk me through what you're seeing," when what I wanted to say was something much cleaner and much worse. The gap between those two responses is maybe four seconds of self-control. It's also most of the culture.
You can't grade your own tape
The standard advice here is to be more self-aware. Notice more. Check yourself under pressure. I've tried it. It doesn't work, and the reason is structural.
Your position has broken your mirror. Everyone close enough to see you clearly has a reason to soften what they tell you. Not because they're cowards — because you sign off on their scope, their comp, their next role. They've learned to hand you the edited version, and it's convincing precisely because it's built from true things.
So you end up self-reporting your way through a perception problem, which is a bit like proofreading your own writing at midnight. You see what you meant to put there.
The fix isn't more introspection. It's one person outside your reporting line who has nothing to lose by telling you the truth, on a recurring calendar invite, not "as needed." A peer at another company. A former boss. Someone who's run something similar and doesn't need anything from you. Thirty minutes, every other week. You mostly listen.
The first time you get a hard answer, you will want to explain your reasoning. Don't. How you take the first one determines whether you ever get the second one.
Three things you can do this week
Ask what your words mean. Pick one person who's been with you a while and ask: "When I say something is fine, what does the team hear?" Then be quiet. The silence before their answer is where the real information is.
Audit one "after." Think of the last time someone brought you an inconvenient truth. Write down what you actually did in the next minute. Then ask yourself what a reasonable person in that room would have concluded about the cost of speaking up.
Find the gap. Name a priority you've stated out loud in the last quarter. Now go look at what you canceled, what you let slide, and what you rewarded, and see whether the two match. If they don't, the team already knows. You're the last one to find out.
None of that is a culture initiative. It's maintenance. Drift doesn't announce itself; it accumulates through ordinary weeks where you were tired, and the exception seemed reasonable and the week was already ugly enough.
Why this matters more than it sounds like it does
The version of this that costs real money isn't dramatic. It's a competent director who stops volunteering the early read. It's a team that quietly absorbs a vendor's three-week delay because escalating felt more expensive than covering it. It's a standard that only holds when you're in the room, which means it isn't a standard; it's your personality.
When people have to spend energy decoding whether it's safe to say the real thing, that energy comes out of the work. You're paying for it either way. The only question is whether you're getting anything back.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
I wrote two books about this, from two different angles.
The Cultural Training Loop: How Leaders Accidentally Train the Culture They're Trying to Fix is the one this post comes out of — the mechanics of how signals become standards, why your tells are training, what pressure exposes, and how to build things that hold when you're not there.
Leadership Reframed: How Great Leaders Invest in People to Build Autonomous Excellence is the other half: the posture beneath it all and how you build people who don't need you in the room to do their best work.
You can read or listen to either one on its own. Both are available on Amazon.
Start with one moment this week. One meeting. One standard you've been walking past. One truth that needs a safer place to land.
— Michael A. Bruggeman
Comments