Do you remember The Dress controversy?

Back in 2015 a washed-out photo of a striped dress split the web: half the planet saw blue-black, the rest swore it was white-gold.

I recently came across an article that explained why so many of us conclusively saw something so different. Scientists found two key drivers: (1) the photo was low quality, forcing our brain’s visual system to “repair” missing data, and (2) people’s repairs depended on the light they were used to. Regular daylight dwellers mentally subtracted bluish light and perceived white-gold; night owls tended to discount yellowish bulbs and landed on blue-black. The real split was experience-driven guesswork by the predictive brain, which constantly fills gaps with prior knowledge to keep perception running smoothly. 

That same shortcut shows up whenever leaders drop a half-lit strategy note.

Steve Jobs. Serena Williams. Yo-Yo Ma.

Different fields, same formula: they all became legends by first being obsessive followers of their craft.

The best leaders I’ve met all started as world-class followers.

"He who cannot be a good follower cannot be a good leader"- Aristotle

Think about it. Great authors read obsessively. Great musicians are fans of other great artists. Great athletes are students of the game, watching tape like it’s their job, because it is. Observing is how mastery begins.

Did you know the word priority was only ever used in the singular form for hundreds of years?

It entered the English language in the 1400s and meant the very first thing—the one item that came before all others. And for the next 500 years, that’s how it stayed. Singular. Clear. Undeniable.

Then somewhere in the 20th century, we started saying “priorities.” Plural.

As if by declaring five things “most important,” we could bend time and energy to our will. It’s like claiming there were multiple winners in a race. Everyone gets a trophy, right? But that’s not how performance works. Not in competition. Not in strategy. Real focus doesn’t allow for handing out participation ribbons. It means hard choices. It declares a winner. It says: this comes first.

It’s tempting to think of “your team” as the people who report to you. That’s where your expertise is. That’s where you feel most accountable. And that’s where the outcomes often show up on paper.

But here’s the shift that separates great managers from great leaders:

Your peer leadership team is your first team. Your function is your second.

This mindset isn’t just for the C-suite. It applies to every level of management. If you lead people, your peer group is your primary team. And the sooner you embrace that, the more your strategy, execution, and trust across the business will improve.

In theory, “What do you think?” is an open-minded, inclusive, and collaborative question.

In practice, it can be a total disaster.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been in a handful of meetings where that question completely derailed the conversation. In each case, an idea was shared without any explanation of what problem it was solving or what objective it was trying to achieve.

The responses started rolling in.

They were enthusiastic. They were critical. They were long-winded.

We love to hate meetings.

Too many, too long, too little value. It’s the most universal workplace complaint out there. And it’s gotten so bad that “let’s not have another meeting” has practically become a badge of honor. In response, leaders and experts have doubled down on meeting hacks—timers, agendas, “no meeting Wednesdays,” or fancy door signs that declare, “This meeting could’ve been an email.”

But those are band-aids. They treat the symptoms, not the disease.

Great leadership starts with trust. And trust isn’t automatic—it’s something you build through consistent actions, honest communication, and a willingness to show up authentically.

Leaders who embrace integrity, vulnerability, and transparency create an environment where teams feel safe to take risks, admit mistakes, and align around a shared vision. These qualities don’t just strengthen relationships—they elevate execution.

We tend to see agreement as a sign of harmony, alignment, and efficient decision-making.

But when every head nods in unison, I actually get a little nervous. Either we haven’t pushed hard enough—or someone doesn’t feel safe enough to speak up.

Consensus can feel like progress. But it often signals complacency.

I’ve seen it play out over and over. A leader floats an idea. Heads nod. The meeting ends five minutes early. Victory lap, right?

Not really. That’s usually a sign we’re either solving the wrong problem or we’ve just endorsed a half-baked solution. Because if a decision is meaningful, it should spark curiosity, resistance, even discomfort.

Every organization wrestles with the challenge of implementing new strategies while keeping the current business running. Teams are already fully engaged in their “day jobs”—what’s often referred to as business as usual (BAU) or run-the-business (RTB) work. This tension between sustaining current operations and pursuing strategic change is one of the most common pitfalls in execution.

While it’s essential to continue delivering results for the existing business, the truth is the status quo isn’t enough. If it were, we wouldn’t need a new strategy. Something isn’t working—whether it’s a current problem or an emerging challenge—and change is necessary. But change doesn’t magically happen in the margins of an already packed calendar. To succeed, we have to intentionally make room for it.

You’re in a leadership meeting, reviewing a critical initiative. A team member brings up a challenge—something that’s slowing down execution.

They lay it out, expecting a conversation. But before the discussion unfolds, someone jumps in with a quick fix:

“Just bring in IT.”

“Sounds like a process issue—let’s put a template in place.”

“ I see the problem—just do X.”

And just like that, the conversation moves on.

The leader thinks they’ve helped. They’ve offered a solution, checked a box, and kept things moving. But in doing so, they may have shut down the deeper conversation that needed to happen.

Maybe the real issue wasn’t the process, but misalignment across teams. Maybe it wasn’t a tech problem, but an unclear priority. But now, we’ll never know—because the discussion ended before it even started.

It starts small. A missed deadline. A short-tempered reply in a meeting. A high-performer who suddenly seems distracted and disengaged.

Then, before you realize it, the signs pile up. Turnover increases. Projects slow down. Execution starts to feel like a grind instead of a focused push toward a goal. You can’t put your finger on exactly what changed, but something is different. Your team is running on fumes.

Stress is one of the most underestimated threats to execution. Left unmanaged, it erodes motivation, fractures teams, and derails even the most well-planned strategies. And yet, many leaders don’t see the damage until it’s too late.

No system is immune to stress. Even in the best-run organizations, the pressure of execution can push teams to their limits. That’s why, as coaches, we need to go beyond just setting up the right conditions—we need to actively manage stress on a daily basis, just as we would any other obstacle to execution.

Dr. Jon Ashton, founder of Strata Intel, has spent years studying the interplay between organizational stress and execution capacity. His company measures stress dynamics within organizations using validated, real-time assessments. Unlike traditional surveys that rely on self-reported data, Strata Intel pinpoints where stress exists and correlates it directly with execution performance.

Great communication isn’t a one-time event. It’s a process—a rhythm—that unfolds over time. Messages need to be reinforced, adapted, and repeated to stick. Leaders who miss this risk leaving their teams confused, unmotivated, and misaligned with the strategy.

In fact, the most common communication mistake leaders make is saying too little.

A study published in the Academy of Management Journal found that leaders are 10 times more likely to be criticized for under-communicating than over-communicating. Employees consistently report that their leaders don’t provide enough relevant information to meet their needs. What’s more, leaders who under-communicate are often perceived as less empathetic, less credible, and less effective. 

Simply put: When in doubt, say it again.

We tend to think motivation is about big rewards—raises, promotions, public recognition. But this experiment reveals something deeper. Just acknowledging someone’s effort—even in the smallest way—can be the difference between them staying engaged or checking out.

And the reverse is just as powerful. When we ignore effort, we don’t just fail to motivate. We actively demotivate.

Now, think back to your own workplace. How many times have you unintentionally drained someone’s motivation—by staying silent when you could have acknowledged their work?

Accountability is the glue that holds coordinated efforts together. 

When multiple teams and individuals are working toward a shared strategic goal, accountability is a magical force that keeps everything aligned and moving forward. Without it, even our best plans can unravel into missed deadlines, finger-pointing, and confusion about who is responsible for what. 

Accountability is often thought of as something that flows from the top down—a manager setting goals, checking progress, and ensuring results. But in reality, the most effective accountability happens between peers. When teams hold each other accountable, work moves faster, problems are solved more collaboratively, and people are more motivated to deliver.

Accountability, in this sense, isn’t about oversight—it’s about commitment. It’s what ensures that when one person completes their piece of the puzzle, the next person is ready to pick it up and keep going.

When it comes to early communication about change, getting the message right is critical. Change inherently stirs emotions—uncertainty, excitement, fear, and hope. Our message must address these emotions head-on, guiding our audience from resistance to acceptance. 

One of the most critical steps is clearly explaining the Why behind it. Why is change necessary? Why now? Why is this the right path? Without a compelling and well-articulated “Why,” even the best strategies will face resistance.

Over the years, I’ve developed a framework I call “Hook / Scare / Comfort / Inspire” to craft a message that answers these questions. It connects the logic of the change to the emotions of the people who will execute it.

Failing to prioritize well is one of the greatest disservices leaders can do to their teams. But prioritizing effectively is also one of the hardest things to do. 

Prioritization is the bridge between clarity and capacity. Without a clear focus from leaders, teams drift, resources are wasted, and strategic goals slip through the cracks.

Why Stack Ranking Matters

To effectively allocate resources, you have to do more than identify a list of important initiatives—you need to stack rank them. This means putting your initiatives, projects, or tasks in a clear order of importance where there is only one #1, one #2, and so on. Regardless of any specific methodology you use to help determine importance—whether it’s impact assessments, ROI models, timeline sequencing, or other sophisticated approaches—stack ranking remains critical. It ensures that your team knows exactly where to focus their energy, empowers them to make decisions, and aligns their efforts without constant guidance.

Imagine if every decision you made could make or break your company's future. Every day, employees at all levels are bombarded with decisions that shape the organization's trajectory. Each choice, no matter how seemingly small, has a ripple effect. Are your decisions propelling your company forward, or are they holding you back?

According to McKinsey, companies make tens of thousands of decisions daily, yet only 20% of them are considered high-quality decisions. How can we ensure our decisions are among the high-quality ones? Executing a strategy involves navigating a sea of choices, big and small. Leaders can’t possibly oversee all of them. In fact, most decisions happen far from the executive suite, carried out by people on the front lines. As Matt O’Connell, CEO of Vistaly, told me, “On the ground, it’s the day-to-day, nitty-gritty stuff where you need to make quick decisions. The executives don’t care about the details—they just want the problem solved.”

Making good decisions quickly is critical, but it’s not easy. Decision-making is influenced by a number of factors—ranging from cognitive biases to stress and emotional pressures—that can cloud judgment and lead to inconsistent or rushed choices.

Imagine you and your competitors all enter a pact: share your biggest revenue streams, pool your marketing, and match payrolls dollar for dollar. Everyone sells the exact same product. You'd think your companies would perform similarly, right?

This is what the NFL tries to achieve—an even playing field, where teams share profits, keep payrolls capped, and have a level shot at success. Yet, what has actually happened? Some teams rise year after year, while others (like my beloved Cleveland Browns) consistently struggle. Why?

Is it just luck? Or are there deeper lessons here—lessons for any business trying to understand the true costs of change?

Saying “No” is hard, especially if you’re an optimist like me. It can feel awkward, even risky. Saying “Yes,” on the other hand, feels great—it’s productive, optimistic, full of possibility. So it’s tempting to say “Yes” to everything that seems promising. But here’s the paradox: saying “Yes” to too many things often overwhelms your team, scattering their focus and preventing them from dedicating their best efforts to what truly matters.

Over the years, I’ve discovered that the most powerful tool for success isn’t saying “Yes”—it’s learning to say “No.” For leaders, this is one of the most essential skills to master if you want to maintain focus and drive meaningful results.

I’ve found a simple trick that makes it easier to say “No”

Let’s face it: nobody likes constraints at first. We all want freedom—more resources, more budget, more tools. But here’s the twist: constraints are actually our friend. Knowing what you can’t do helps you laser-focus on what you can do. Instead of chasing every possibility, you zero in on what really matters.

When a new strategy is on the table, there’s often a push for “more”—more money, more people, more time. But guess what? Adding more tends to makes things messier. More complexity, more decisions, more things to manage. The real magic happens when it’s clear that more isn’t coming. That’s when everyone rolls up their sleeves and figures out how to make it work with what they’ve got.