To lead is not to talk down to

It’s mostly about tense#

Every version of a correction I’ve given that went badly was retrospective. Some form of “you didn’t.” Every version that went well was forward-looking: here’s the standard going forward, here’s where we’ve done it before, what would you need to make it work.

People tend to rise to an expectation and to protect themselves from an accusation. I only get one of those two per conversation, and I pick which one by choosing a tense.

Grace is the mechanism, not the manners#

This gets mistaken for softness. It isn’t about being nice to people. A standard only changes behavior if the person can receive it without defending, and defense is automatic once they’ve been characterized. The forward tense is what keeps the standard audible.

So the grace does real work. Drop it and the correction still gets delivered, and nothing changes.

Peer level, even when the call is mine#

I’m often the deciding voice, and that’s not a reason to stand above the conversation. “My preference is,” “I’d like the design to,” “could you confirm feasibility” — those state a position without spending the relationship to do it.

The test I use is reading the sentence aloud as though I were saying it to the person in the room. If it would land as a peer-to-peer expectation, it’s right. If it would land as criticism, I rewrite it.

Say “I” when it’s your call#

First person singular, not the institutional “we.” “We agree” hides a person behind an organization. “I agree” puts a name on a decision, which is both more honest and easier to argue with.

It also makes it harder to walk away from later, which is the point.

Credit by name#

Shout-outs land when they’re specific. Naming the person who did the thing, and what the thing was, costs a sentence and is remembered for months. Thanking “the team” costs the same sentence and is remembered by nobody.

Sources

• Marty Cagan, Empowered Product Teams