BecomeMore Group Staff
Leadership often looks like certainty from the outside, yet the most durable outcomes tend to flow from curiosity, patience, and shared thinking. In our latest conversation, we test a six-week challenge inspired by the Lent season: what should leaders give up to grow capacity? The first target is seductive and universal—being right. When leaders rush to supply answers, they compress learning, stall ownership, and train teams to wait. By staying “usefully ignorant” a little longer, leaders turn space into a workshop where others frame issues, surface constraints, and try solutions. That pause is not passivity; it is a deliberate transfer of cognitive load back to the people closest to the work, where detail and motivation live.
We then push on a second habit: shallow follow-ups. Most status checks die on contact with phrases like “It was great.” Great compared to what? What moved, who decided, what risk remains? Specificity is a leadership muscle. Asking “What does great mean?” forces clarity without creating fear when paired with intent: I’m asking to understand and support, not to trap you. Practical prompts—What’s working, what isn’t, what did you change, what’s next, what help do you need—build a rhythm of reflection. Over time, teams internalize this cadence, and the culture shifts from activity to outcomes. Leaders stop getting blindsided because they replace weather-talk with evidence, decisions, and learning.
We also name the enemy of depth: platitudes. From HOA forums to boardrooms, generic promises feel safe but leave everyone uninformed. Leaders can model the alternative by banning vague language and rewarding specifics. Swap “best for the team” with concrete tradeoffs, timelines, and metrics. This doesn’t mean longer meetings; it means better ones. A two-minute probing question can save a quarter of drift. When we normalize proof over posture, we reduce rework, speed alignment, and invite dissent early, when change is cheap. The cultural signal is simple: clarity beats charisma.
Finally, we explore margin—small pockets of quiet that reset attention. Seven minutes without radio on a commute. Ten minutes of thinking time with a blank page. A calm morning routine that cools reactivity before the day heats up. This isn’t indulgence; it’s maintenance for judgment. Leaders addicted to motion often mistake speed for progress and noise for relevance. Tiny, consistent gaps create room to notice patterns, rehearse hard conversations, and choose the right questions instead of defaulting to answers. When leaders pair curiosity with specificity and protect daily headspace, teams grow without extra headcount. Capacity rises because people think better together.
The six-week experiment can be simple and strict. Week one and two: ask one more follow-up in every 1:1 and remove one answer you’d usually provide. Week three and four: schedule ten minutes of thinking time daily and capture decisions, not updates. Week five and six: ban platitudes in meetings and require “evidence, decision, next step” for any “great” report. Measure by fewer surprises, clearer ownership, and faster iteration. When the urge to rescue kicks in, pause and redirect: “What options do you see? What would you try first and why?” That’s how certainty gives way to strength—by making space for others to think, act, and grow.