There’s a paradox at the heart of organizational power: the moment we gain the authority to change things, we begin losing the ability to see what needs changing.

I just spent a half hour reviewing resumes for a simple analyst position. One candidate claimed to be “fluent in leveraging cross-platform ecosystems to drive holistic value creation.”

We’ve convinced ourselves that good leadership means showing up as our “authentic selves.” That vulnerability builds trust. That transparency creates connection.

The most dangerous people in an organization aren’t the obviously incompetent ones, because they can be identified easily. The real danger is the brilliant people who make terrible decisions while sounding completely reasonable.

Would you rather be right or effective? Every one of us has fallen in love with the idea of being right. It’s so tempting: facts, logic, data. “The numbers don’t lie.”

Being able to read a room, handle difficult conversations, and connect with people on a human level is leadership gold. No debate there. But somewhere along the line, EQ stopped being one tool in the box and became the whole toolbox.

Every senior executive reaches a point where hard skills don’t matter anymore; only judgment does. The hardest leadership decisions then aren’t about operations or strategy.

In executive decision-making, few phrases are more effective, or more underutilized, than “I disagree and commit.” It means: I’m mature enough to speak up, clear-headed enough to let it go, and committed enough to execute without hesitation.

I’m seeing more and more leaders hedge in conversation. Often to the point of self-deprecation. You’ve heard lines like these: “I’m probably way off here...” “This might be a dumb idea...” “I’m no expert, but...” “I’m such an idiot.”

Politics don’t ruin companies. Hidden politics do. The higher up we go, the more decisions are shaped by personalities, loyalties, and history. That’s normal.