Image: Unsplash
There's a question I think every leader should occasionally ask themselves:
What am I pretending not to know?
Not:
"What don't I know?"
That's a different problem.
I mean the thing you probably already know.
The thing you've noticed.
Thought about.
Perhaps discussed privately.
But haven't quite allowed yourself to say out loud.
The manager you've defended for too long.
The strategy that isn't working.
The relationship that's deteriorating.
The client that costs the organisation more than they're worth.
The standard everyone knows has slipped.
The role that no longer fits the person occupying it.
The problem you keep describing as temporary despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise.
Leadership problems don't always remain unresolved because the answer is difficult to find.
Sometimes they remain unresolved because the answer is difficult to accept.
Intelligent people are very good at explaining things away
One of the difficulties with leadership experience is that it gives us an extraordinary ability to rationalise.
We can explain why performance is down.
The market.
Timing.
Resources.
Recruitment.
A difficult quarter.
Unexpected circumstances.
All of those explanations may be legitimate.
But sometimes an explanation becomes a story we use to avoid looking at something more uncomfortable.
"They've had a difficult few months."
"The market will improve."
"They've always performed before."
"We just need to give it more time."
"Things will settle down."
"It's not quite as bad as it looks."
Sometimes those statements are true.
Sometimes they're what we need to believe because the alternative creates a consequence we'd rather not face.
That's why leadership requires more than analysis.
It requires honesty.
Particularly with ourselves.
The story can become more comfortable than the truth
Most leaders don't deliberately ignore problems.
More often, we create an explanation that allows us to live with them.
And the longer we repeat the explanation, the more convincing it becomes.
Perhaps you've invested heavily in somebody.
Admitting they're wrong for the role means acknowledging that investment may not produce the outcome you hoped for.
Perhaps you championed a strategy.
Changing direction feels like admitting you were wrong.
Perhaps you've tolerated behaviour for a long time.
Addressing it now raises the uncomfortable question of why you didn't address it sooner.
Perhaps a relationship has stopped working.
Acknowledging that creates consequences for people you care about.
So we keep negotiating.
Not necessarily with the problem.
With ourselves.
Look for repeated explanations
One useful signal is repetition.
Pay attention to the issue you keep explaining.
If you regularly find yourself defending the same person...
Explaining the same missed target...
Justifying the same behaviour...
Reassuring yourself about the same relationship...
Or having versions of the same conversation...
Pause.
Repeated explanations don't automatically mean something is wrong.
But they are often worth examining.
Ask yourself:
Am I explaining the situation—or protecting myself from what the situation might mean?
That's a very different question.
The Truth Test
When something has been sitting with you for longer than it should, try a simple exercise.
Don't create a spreadsheet.
Don't build another action plan.
Don't spend an hour analysing it.
Take a blank piece of paper and complete four sentences.
Quickly.
1. I know that...
Write the answer that arrives before you have time to make it more comfortable.
"I know that this isn't working."
"I know that standards have slipped."
"I know that I've lost confidence in them."
"I know that I'm avoiding this."
"I know that something needs to change."
Don't act on it yet.
Just write it.
2. I keep telling myself...
Now write the explanation.
"It needs more time."
"The market is difficult."
"They'll turn it around."
"It's not the right moment."
"Things might improve."
Again, it may be completely valid.
But put both statements next to each other.
The gap between what you know and what you keep telling yourself is worth examining.
3. I'm avoiding this because...
This is usually where the real issue appears.
Perhaps you don't want the conflict.
Perhaps you're worried about being wrong.
Perhaps the consequences are expensive.
Perhaps you feel responsible for the person involved.
Perhaps changing direction feels like failure.
Perhaps you simply don't know what happens afterwards.
Often we're not avoiding the truth itself.
We're avoiding what accepting the truth might require us to do.
4. If nothing changes in six months...
Finish the sentence.
What happens?
To performance?
To the team?
To the relationship?
To you?
What becomes harder?
What becomes normal?
What will you wish you'd addressed six months earlier?
Sometimes putting a future consequence next to today's discomfort changes the way you see the problem.
Honesty doesn't require impulsiveness
There's an important distinction here.
Recognising something doesn't mean you immediately act on your first instinct.
Good leadership still requires evidence.
Judgement.
Fairness.
Context.
Conversation.
You may complete the Truth Test and decide the situation genuinely does need more time.
That's fine.
The objective isn't to manufacture certainty.
It's to remove self-deception from the decision.
There's a difference between:
"I've considered the evidence and deliberately decided to wait."
and:
"I'm waiting because I don't want to deal with what I think I already know."
From the outside, both can look like patience.
Internally, they're very different leadership decisions.
Sometimes the hardest truth is about you
It's easy to apply this exercise to other people.
The more difficult version is turning it towards yourself.
Perhaps the problem isn't your team.
Perhaps you've become the bottleneck.
Perhaps you're too involved.
Perhaps you're avoiding delegating because control feels safer.
Perhaps you're asking people to meet standards you're no longer modelling yourself.
Perhaps your leadership style worked brilliantly for the organisation you had three years ago but isn't what the organisation needs now.
Or perhaps you're simply exhausted and pretending you're not.
The purpose isn't self-criticism.
It's accuracy.
Because you can't lead effectively from a version of reality you've edited to make yourself more comfortable.
The Versed perspective
One of the hardest parts of senior leadership is that there are remarkably few places where you can say:
"I think I already know the answer, but I don't like what it means."
Inside the organisation, those words can carry consequences.
People interpret them.
React to them.
Remember them.
So leaders often continue thinking privately.
And private thinking can become circular.
That's where independent challenge can be valuable.
Not because someone outside the situation has a magic answer.
But because they can ask:
"What do you actually think?"
"What evidence would change your mind?"
"What are you protecting?"
"What happens if you do nothing?"
And sometimes:
"If you already know, what is stopping you from admitting it?"
That's the kind of conversation Versed exists to create.
A confidential place where the objective isn't to tell you what to do.
It's to make it harder to hide from what you already think.
Final thought
Most leadership problems require thought.
Some require more information.
Others require patience.
But occasionally the next step isn't another meeting, another spreadsheet or another opinion.
It's honesty.
So ask yourself:
What do I know?
What am I telling myself?
What am I avoiding?
What happens if nothing changes?
Then look at the gap between the answers.
Because sometimes you don't need another strategy.
You need enough honesty to stop negotiating with what you already know.
