Leaders frequently pride themselves on data-driven decisions and logical planning. Yet, there’s an often-overlooked leadership muscle that remains dramatically undertrained—the ability to purely and powerfully want something, free from justification, reasoning, or incremental thinking.

This is not about frivolous desire but about tapping into a source of powerful leadership: unfiltered, unreasonable, unapologetic wanting. Let me unpack this for you.

Want vs. Need: Understanding the Crucial Difference

Consider this snippet from a conversation with Alex, a CEO:

Me: “What’s your target revenue for three years from now?”

Alex: “20 million.”

Me: “Why 20 million?”

Alex: “It’s just a logical projection from our current growth.”

Me: “Forget logic. What do you truly want?”

Alex:(pauses, uncomfortable) “Honestly? 30 million with an 18% margin.”

Me: “How does saying that feel?”

Alex: “Powerful, scary, but exciting.”

Key distinction:

• Need: Rational, justified, incremental.
• Want: Visionary, bold, free from immediate practicality.

Most leaders confuse wanting with needing. ‘Need’ is rational, safe, and justified. It relies on data, past achievements, and incremental improvements. But ‘want’ is different—it’s free, unbound, and daringly ambitious. It’s not derived from past performance or future projections. It’s rooted purely in what you care about without external justification.

Escaping the Trap of ‘Should’

Consider this dialogue with Sara, a technology executive, which illustrates this well:

Sara: “I should take some time alone tonight; it’s been a stressful day.”

Me: “Notice your justification? Try it again without any reasoning.”

Sara: “I want one hour alone tonight.”

Me: “How does that sound?”

Sara: “Clear. Liberating. Surprisingly simple.”

Why “should” is problematic:

• Implies obligation, external expectation, or guilt.
• Creates heaviness, stress, and emotional constraint.

Leaders frequently operate within this restrictive frame: “I should achieve this,” “We should improve by this percentage,” “The profit margin should be at least X.” The word ‘should’ introduces heaviness, stress, and constraint—emotionally draining rather than empowering.

The Cost of Ignoring Pure Wanting

Consider Paul, a corporate executive who played it safe:

Paul: “We consistently meet our growth targets.”

Me: “Is that exciting for you or your team?”

Paul:(hesitates) “Honestly, it’s safe but dull.”

Me: “What bold vision do you truly want, without needing logic?”

Paul: “I want us to dominate our industry—not because data says it’s possible, but because I genuinely desire it.”

Me: “How does declaring that feel?”

Paul: “Invigorating. Like fresh energy.”

Ignoring the muscle of pure wanting leads to:

• Predictable mediocrity.
• Limited innovation.
• Reduced team motivation and engagement.

Linda’s experience as a division leader in a multinational corporation illustrates this vividly. Her division consistently achieved its targets yet suffered from chronic disengagement and low innovation. When Linda surveyed her team anonymously, the feedback was clear: employees felt their work lacked real purpose or excitement. Linda realized that her own cautious, data-driven approach was partly to blame.

Only after she publicly shifted from safe, predictable objectives to openly declaring ambitious, passionate goals did the division experience a noticeable revival in creativity, morale, and productivity.

The ability to purely want something without needing rational justification is a muscle that requires intentional cultivation. Leaders conditioned by logic, practicality, and data often find it challenging initially. However, this muscle—once developed—creates visionary breakthroughs, fosters courage, and generates a powerful leadership presence.

When you declare a want, especially something seemingly impossible or unrealistic, you create a space for innovation. There’s no guarantee you’ll immediately know how to achieve it, and that’s precisely the point. Leadership isn’t management. Management handles execution based on what’s already known; leadership thrives in the unknown, carving pathways where none previously existed.

Imagine John F. Kennedy declaring he wanted to land a man on the moon. It wasn’t a need; America didn’t necessarily have to do it. It wasn’t a ‘should’ dictated by societal obligation. It was a pure, bold want. He didn’t have all the data or a proven roadmap, but by boldly declaring the impossible as his desire, he galvanized an entire nation, sparked unprecedented innovation, and ultimately achieved a milestone that seemed unthinkable at the time.

The Life of a Needer

A needer doesn’t chase dreams—they chase survival. They ask themselves, What do I need to do to get by? What do I need to keep things stable? What can I reasonably ask for without rocking the boat?

They settle. They settle for the client that underpays, the partner that drains them, the life that suffocates—but at least feels “secure.” They compromise their time, energy, and joy, not because it’s what they want, but because it’s what they believe they should accept.

In the world of needing, every request, every desire, has to be run through a filter of justification:

• “I need this because I’ve worked hard.”
• “I deserve this because I’ve sacrificed.”
• “I should have this because others have it too.”

It’s exhausting. And worse—it’s a trap. Because needing is always tied to lack. Needing assumes there isn’t enough. If you get more, someone else gets less. So you justify to yourself and to others why you’re allowed to want what you want.

The Shift: From Scarcity to Creation, from Needing to Wanting

But there’s another way. A shift so subtle, it’s easy to miss. But once you cross that line, you never go back.

The shift is this: You stop living from need. And you start living from want.

Wanting, true wanting, doesn’t come with excuses. You don’t need a spreadsheet, a résumé, or a reference to prove your worth. You want because you want.

You want a thriving business? Say it.

You want a loving, spacious relationship? Say it.

You want to take a month off to write, rest, or just breathe? Say it.

And when someone asks you, “Why do you want that?”, your answer isn’t an essay—it’s a sentence:

“Because I want it.”

That’s it.

Strengthening Your “Want” Muscle

Developing your want muscle starts simply. Begin by distinguishing clearly between your ‘wants’ and your ‘needs’ or ‘shoulds.’ Whenever setting a goal, ask yourself, “Do I want this purely because I desire it, or is it driven by reasoning from past data, trends, or external expectations?”

To build this crucial leadership skill, use these practical steps:

• Clarify Your Wants Regularly
  • Regularly ask yourself: “What do I genuinely want, irrespective of feasibility?”
  • Have your team frequently articulate bold, unreasonable desires.
• Conduct “Want” Dialogues
  • Hold dedicated meetings exploring ambitious wants without immediate practicality.
  • Celebrate audacious ideas openly, building trust and confidence.
• Storytelling and Reflection
  • Share success stories where bold wants led to major breakthroughs.
  • Reflect on historical visionary examples (e.g., JFK’s moon landing).
• Journal Without Limits
  • Regularly journal your pure wants without filtering for practicality or logic.
  • Use these reflections as a springboard for visionary actions.

Transformative Leadership Through Wanting

Leaders who embrace pure, unfiltered wanting often create extraordinary breakthroughs:

• Google’s famous “20% Time” policy led employees to freely pursue what they genuinely wanted, producing Gmail and AdSense.
• Steve Jobs consistently pursued desires others deemed impractical, revolutionizing entire industries.

Living in the World of Wanting

Living from want isn’t easy. It takes courage. Most people won’t understand you. They’ve been conditioned to chase what’s practical, what’s logical, what’s deserved. They’ve built a life inside a box of justification.

When you step outside that box, you disrupt their system. And they’ll try to pull you back in.

They’ll call you selfish. Unrealistic. Naive.

They’ll say, “You can’t just have whatever you want.”

But you’re not taking anything from anyone. You’re creating something new. That’s the power of wanting.

Because in the world of wanters:

• There is no scarcity.
• There is no zero-sum game.
• There is no competition.

A true wanter doesn’t compete—they create. They invent, initiate, innovate. They carve paths where there were none. They write songs that never existed. Build products no one asked for but everyone needs. Create companies, cultures, communities out of thin air.

Why? Because they wanted to.

Wanting is a Choice.

It’s for the few who say, “I want something wildly beyond what makes sense.”

And the moment you say that, you tap into a part of yourself that most people never access.

It’s not ambition. It’s not ego.

It’s alignment.

It’s the recognition that your true self—your unique ability, your deepest expression, your soul’s work—cannot be reached through logic or need.

It can only be reached through want.

Wanting Requires No Permission

Here’s the truth that shatters most social norms:

You don’t need to justify your desires to anyone. Not even yourself.

Wanting is enough.

This is terrifying for the needers. Because if you don’t justify your wants… they can’t argue with you. They can’t out-reason you. 

Provocative Questions for Bold Leaders

To provoke deeper reflection, consider these questions:

• What audacious goal would you declare if feasibility wasn’t a factor?
• How many of your current goals are set out of obligation rather than genuine desire?
• If your entire team started openly expressing ambitious wants, how would your organizational culture change?
• For political leaders: If your leadership were guided by bold desire rather than public expectations, how differently would you act?

Ultimately, leadership is about envisioning beyond the visible, feasible, and practical. Ask yourself—and dare to answer honestly—what do you truly want?

Your answer might just redefine everything. 

Have you ever noticed how some leaders seem to create results out of thin air while others struggle to move the needle despite working twice as hard?

The difference often isn’t found in their strategies, intelligence, or even work ethic. It’s hidden in their language – specifically, whether they speak and then act with commitment or tentativeness when addressing the future.

Let me share what I witnessed in a fascinating leadership session that revealed this crucial distinction. A group of managers was exploring why they habitually used phrases like “I’ll try,” “I hope,” or “Let me see what I can do” – even when they fully intended to complete the task.

Their answers revealed something profound about how most of us operate:

“I’m buying time to make sure I can deliver.” “I don’t want to disappoint people if I can’t follow through.” “I’m avoiding taking full responsibility.” “I’m protecting myself from looking wrong.”

Sound familiar? These are the unconscious calculations we make dozens of times daily.

But here’s the twist: these seemingly harmless verbal cushions aren’t just communication quirks – they fundamentally shape how we think, act, and ultimately, what we achieve.

The Hidden Cost of “I’ll Try”

When you say “I’ll try” instead of “I will,” you’re not just being cautious. You’re unconsciously programming your mind and actions for uncertainty. This tentative language carries hidden costs:

• Mental burden and constant background stress
• Scattered attention and divided focus
• Lower productivity and action velocity
• More time spent in indecision and doubt
• Uncertainty for everyone involved

As one participant confessed: “When I say I’ll try, I end up working overtime to accommodate everything, constantly juggling priorities, and feeling perpetual stress because I’m not clear about what I’m fully committing to.”

Another revealed: “I find myself overthinking and second-guessing instead of just executing. It’s exhausting.”

These aren’t just personal inconveniences. They represent a massive tax on your leadership energy – energy that could be directed toward creating breakthrough results.

It is not just Semantics

Language shapes thought. Thought drives action. Action creates results. This causal chain, supported by decades of neurolinguistic research, explains why the words leaders choose don’t merely describe their intentions—they fundamentally shape what becomes possible for themselves and their organizations.

As Dr. Guillaume Thierry notes in his groundbreaking research on neurolinguistic relativity, “Language influences—and may be influenced by—nonverbal information processing.” This isn’t about linguistic tricks or superficial changes to your vocabulary. It’s about understanding and harnessing the profound connection between language, thought, and action—a connection that lies at the heart of truly transformational leadership.

When a leader says “We will launch this product by Q3,” they’re not just making a prediction—they’re performing what linguists call a “commissive speech act” that creates a social commitment. This commitment changes the relationship between the speaker and listeners, establishing new expectations and permissions that shape subsequent behavior.

In contrast, when a leader says “We hope to launch this product by Q3,” they’re performing what linguists call an “expressive speech act” that merely describes their current mental state without creating new social commitments. This distinction explains why teams respond so differently to committed versus tentative leadership language—the former creates new social realities that drive action, while the latter merely comments on existing realities.

The Liberation of Clear Commitment

Now consider the alternative. What happens when you simply say “This will happen” or “I will deliver this” – even before you have all the evidence that you can?

The same participants described:

• Mental clarity and inner peace
• Heightened productivity
• Optimal use of time
• A healthier communication environment
• Faster, more decisive action

One leader noted: “When I commit clearly, I don’t waste time debating with myself. I just find a way to make it happen.”

This is the power of committed language – it creates a different foundation from which you operate and take action. Instead of waiting for certainty before committing, you commit first and then create the certainty through your actions.

When leaders use committed language, they’re not just expressing confidence—they’re creating psychological conditions that automatically trigger action when relevant situations arise, without requiring additional decision-making or motivation.

The psychological power of committed language extends beyond individual cognition to social dynamics. Dr. Robert Cialdini, whose research on influence has transformed our understanding of persuasion, identifies commitment and consistency as one of the fundamental principles of human behavior. Once people make a clear commitment, they experience both internal and external pressure to behave consistently with that commitment.

This commitment-consistency principle explains why leaders who make clear, public commitments using committed language are significantly more likely to follow through than those who use tentative language. The psychological and social forces activated by committed declarations create momentum toward the declared outcome that tentative statements simply cannot generate.

The Courage to Look Wrong

At this point, you might be thinking: “But what if I commit and fail? Isn’t it more honest to say I’ll try?”

This is where courage enters the picture. The truth is, there’s no evidence in the future – only in the past. When you commit to something unprecedented, something you’ve never done before, you’re stepping into territory where failure is possible.

Most people avoid this risk at all costs. They want guarantees before they commit. But that’s precisely why most people don’t create extraordinary results.

Leaders who produce unprecedented outcomes understand a fundamental truth: commitment precedes evidence. They don’t wait for proof they can deliver before they commit – they commit first, then find a way to deliver.

Yes, sometimes they’re wrong. Sometimes they fail. But they understand that the occasional pain of being wrong is far less costly than the chronic pain of playing small.

Fear of Disappointment: Many leaders use tentative language to manage expectations—both their own and others’. By saying “I’ll try” rather than “I will,” they create a psychological buffer against the pain of disappointing themselves or others if they fail to deliver.

James, a senior executive at a technology company, recognized this pattern in himself: “I realized I was saying ‘I’ll try’ even when I fully intended to complete the task. It was a way of giving myself an out, of protecting myself from the potential disappointment of failure.”

Fear of Judgment: Leaders often worry that clear commitments will expose them to harsher judgment if they fall short. Tentative language creates plausible deniability—”I only said I would try”—that shields them from full accountability.

Research in social psychology confirms this dynamic. A study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that individuals who used tentative language were judged less harshly for identical failures than those who had made clear commitments. This creates a perverse incentive for leaders to hedge their language, even when doing so undermines their effectiveness.

Fear of the Unknown: Perhaps most fundamentally, leaders fear committing to outcomes when they cannot see the full path to achievement. This fear of the unknown drives them toward tentative language that preserves optionality and avoids the discomfort of certainty in uncertain conditions.

Dr. Carol Dweck’s research on mindset provides insight into this fear. Leaders with a fixed mindset—who believe capabilities are static rather than developable—are particularly prone to fear of the unknown. They worry that they may not have the skills or resources to fulfill clear commitments, so they hedge with tentative language.

The Paradox of Leadership Fear

The paradox of leadership fear is that the very language patterns that protect leaders from these fears also prevent them from achieving their full potential. By using tentative language to avoid the risk of being wrong, leaders create conditions that make success less likely and limit what’s possible for themselves and their organizations.

This creates a self-reinforcing cycle: fear leads to tentative language, which leads to diminished results, which reinforces the fear that clear commitments are too risky. Breaking this cycle requires understanding that the apparent safety of tentative language is illusory—it protects you from the risk of being wrong at the cost of ensuring you’ll never be transformatively right.

The Two Operating Systems

Think of these approaches as two distinct operating systems for leadership:

Operating System 1: Evidence-Based Commitment

• Wait for evidence before committing
• Use tentative language to protect yourself
• Avoid disappointing others
• Reduce risk of being wrong
• Create predictable, incremental results

Operating System 2: Commitment-Based Evidence

• Commit first, then create the evidence
• Use clear, direct language
• Accept that some may be disappointed
• Accept the risk of being wrong
• Create unprecedented, breakthrough results

Most leaders operate exclusively in System 1. They believe it’s the only responsible way to lead. But what they don’t realize is that System 1 has built-in limitations – it can only produce results that are extensions of what’s already been done.

System 2 is where unprecedented results come from. It’s where you find the leaders who transform industries, redefine what’s possible, and create outcomes that seemed impossible before they arrived.

The Language Patterns of Each System

The distinction between these operating systems is most clearly revealed in language patterns. Leaders operating in Evidence-Based Commitment tend to use:

• Tentative language: “We’ll try,” “We hope to,” “We expect”
• Conditional statements: “If X happens, then we’ll do Y”
• Probability-based phrasing: “There’s a good chance,” “It’s likely that”
• Hedging qualifiers: “Assuming all goes well,” “Barring unforeseen circumstances”

In contrast, leaders operating in Commitment-Based Evidence consistently employ:

• Declarative statements: “We will,” “This is going to happen”
• Time-bound commitments: “By this date,” “Within this timeframe”
• Certainty-based phrasing: “This will work,” “We are going to succeed”
• Unequivocal language: “No matter what,” “Whatever it takes”

These language patterns aren’t merely stylistic differences—they reflect and reinforce fundamentally different approaches to leadership and possibility. By becoming aware of your own language patterns, you can begin to shift from System 1 to System 2 in the areas where breakthrough results matter most.

The Personal Challenge

One participant shared his personal struggle with this concept:

“I have a long history of blaming myself when things go wrong. I worry that if I commit strongly and then fail, I’ll spiral into self-blame.”

This is a legitimate concern. But notice what’s happening here – the fear of future self-blame is preventing bold commitment in the present.

The solution isn’t to avoid commitment. It’s to develop a healthier relationship with mistakes and failures. As this leader discovered, daily practice in reframing mistakes as learning opportunities gradually reduced his tendency toward self-blame.

He shared: “I started practicing positive daily declarations and focusing on what I can learn from mistakes rather than internalizing them. This has drastically reduced my stress and improved my productivity.”

This inner work is essential. You cannot speak with powerful commitment externally if you’re plagued by self-doubt and harsh self-judgment internally.

Distinguishing Accountability from Self-Blame

A critical distinction for leaders developing the courage for committed language is between healthy accountability and unhealthy self-blame. Both involve taking responsibility for outcomes, but they create fundamentally different psychological conditions for committed language.

The Neuroscience of Self-Blame

Neuroscience research reveals that self-blame activates brain regions associated with shame and avoidance, creating a neurological state that naturally drives tentative rather than committed language. When leaders engage in self-blame after failures, they neurologically prime themselves to hedge future commitments.

In contrast, healthy accountability activates brain regions associated with problem-solving and approach motivation, creating a neurological state conducive to clear, decisive action.

When to Say No

Another crucial aspect of committed language is learning to say a clean, clear “no” when appropriate.

One leader confessed: “I say ‘I’ll try’ when I actually want to say no, because I don’t want to hurt or disappoint people.”

This is where empathy without authenticity becomes weakness. When you say “I’ll try” instead of “no,” you’re not being kind – you’re being unclear. You’re creating false hope and ultimately more disappointment than a clear no would have caused.

“Empathy without authenticity is weakness. Leadership is doing what is required, not what is easy.”

A clean no is far more respectful than a vague, uncommitted maybe. It allows the other person to make clear decisions based on accurate information rather than false hope.

The False Kindness of “Maybe”

When faced with requests they don’t intend to fulfill, many leaders default to tentative responses: “Maybe later,” “I’ll see what I can do,” or “Let me think about it.” They believe these responses are kinder than a direct “no,” sparing the requester immediate disappointment.

This belief, while well-intentioned, reflects what psychologists call the “empathy-accuracy trade-off”—the mistaken assumption that being kind requires being vague or even misleading. Research in communication psychology reveals that this approach actually creates more harm than good.

Dr. Brené Brown, whose research focuses on vulnerability and leadership, explains: “Clear is kind. Unclear is unkind. When we use vague, tentative language instead of a direct ‘no,’ we’re not being kind—we’re avoiding our own discomfort at the expense of the other person.”

This avoidance creates several significant problems:

1. False hope: The requester often interprets tentative language optimistically, creating expectations that will eventually be disappointed.
2. Wasted energy: Without clear boundaries, requesters may continue investing time and emotional energy pursuing something that won’t happen.
3. Delayed disappointment: The disappointment isn’t eliminated—it’s merely postponed, often to a point where the stakes and expectations are higher.
4. Eroded trust: When patterns of tentative “maybes” consistently become eventual “nos,” trust in your communication deteriorates.

The Practice of Commitment

Transforming your language from tentative to committed isn’t an overnight change. It’s a practice – one that feels uncomfortable at first, especially if you’ve spent years or decades operating from System 1.

Here’s how to begin:

1. Notice your language patterns. Pay attention to how often you say “I’ll try,” “I hope,” or “Let me see.” Just observing these patterns creates awareness.
2. Start with low-stakes commitments. Practice committed language in areas where the consequences of failure are minimal. This builds your comfort with commitment.
3. Examine your fears. When you catch yourself using tentative language, ask: “What am I afraid might happen if I commit clearly here?”
4. Separate identity from outcomes. Remember that failing at something doesn’t make you a failure. It makes you someone who took a risk.
5. Create morning intentions. As one participant shared: “I write down my intentions for the day – how I want to show up, what I’m committed to accomplishing. This primes my mind for clear commitment.”

The Leadership Choice

Every day, in countless conversations, you choose how you’ll speak about the future. Most of these choices happen unconsciously, driven by habits and fears you may not even recognize.

But now you have a choice. You can continue operating exclusively from System 1 – waiting for evidence before committing, protecting yourself from being wrong, and creating predictable results.

Or you can begin incorporating System 2 – committing before you have all the evidence, accepting the risk of being wrong, and creating the possibility of unprecedented outcomes.

This isn’t about abandoning careful thinking or responsible planning. It’s about recognizing that for the results that matter most – the breakthrough innovations, the transformative changes, the unprecedented achievements – commitment must precede certainty.

The Spectrum of Commitment

It’s worth noting that this isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. You don’t have to commit with absolute certainty to everything. Think of it as a spectrum:

• For routine, low-impact decisions: Your habitual approach may work fine
• For moderate-impact decisions: Consider more committed language
• For high-impact, transformative goals: Full commitment is essential

I’m not asking you to jump totally to committed language for everything. But for the things that matter, for the results that matter, you commit. And yes, you can be wrong. And that’s the cost of taking on any big game.

Your Unprecedented Future

Look at the goals you’re currently pursuing. The ones that really matter. The ones that would transform your leadership, your organization, or your life.

Now ask yourself honestly: Am I speaking about these goals with committed language or tentative language?

Am I saying “I’ll try to hit our targets” or “We will hit our targets”?

Am I saying “I hope to transform our culture” or “I will transform our culture”?

Am I saying “Let’s see if we can innovate” or “We will innovate”?

The difference may seem subtle, but it’s everything. In that small linguistic gap lies the difference between leaders who manage the status quo and leaders who create new realities.

The Time for Commitment

Most of us have been conditioned to believe that certainty should precede commitment – that we should only promise what we’re already certain we can deliver.

But that approach has built-in limitations. It confines you to the realm of the proven, the established, the already-done. It makes unprecedented results impossible by definition.

The greatest leaders throughout history have operated differently. They committed to outcomes that seemed impossible at the time:

• Landing on the moon before the technology existed
• Creating computers that fit in our pockets before the components were invented
• Building electric vehicles viable for mass markets before the infrastructure was in place

None of these commitments were “reasonable” when they were made. All required their leaders to stand in a place of commitment before evidence existed.

You have this same power available to you right now. The power to commit to a future that doesn’t yet exist – and through that commitment, begin creating it.

Yes, you might be wrong sometimes. Yes, you might disappoint people occasionally. Yes, you might look foolish in the eyes of those who operate solely from System 1.

But you also might create something unprecedented – something that changes everything.

Isn’t that possibility worth the risk?

The Choice Before You

So here’s the invitation: Choose one important goal – something that matters deeply to you, something that would represent a breakthrough in your leadership or organization.

Now, how do you speak about this goal? With tentative, cautious language? Or with clear, committed language?

If you’re like most leaders, you’ve been operating from System 1 – waiting for certainty before committing. That’s not wrong, but it is limiting.

What would happen if you shifted to System 2 for this one crucial goal? If you spoke with commitment before you had all the evidence? If you said “This will happen” instead of “We’ll try to make this happen”?

You might fail. You might be wrong. You might disappoint yourself or others.

Or you might create something unprecedented – something that changes everything.

The choice is yours.

The journey of committed language begins with a single, powerful choice: the decision to speak with clarity and certainty about the future you will create. This choice—to replace “I’ll try” with “I will”—seems simple on the surface but represents a profound shift in how you relate to possibility, responsibility, and your own capacity for impact.

In making this choice, you join a lineage of transformational leaders throughout history who have used the language of commitment to create unprecedented futures. From Churchill’s defiant “We shall never surrender” to Kennedy’s bold “We will go to the moon” to your own declarations about what will happen in your organization, committed language (or the lack of it) shapes your future.

Your future is waiting.

Being Assertive to Your Team vs. Being Assertive for Your Team

In the high-stakes world of executive leadership, how CEOs interact with their leadership teams can make or break an organization’s success. Many CEOs struggle with finding the right balance of assertiveness—push too hard, and you risk creating a culture of fear and compliance; be too passive, and decisions stall while accountability fades.

The key distinction that separates truly transformative leaders from merely effective managers lies in understanding the difference between being assertive to your team versus being assertive for them. See below:

	Assertive To Your Team	Assertive For Your Team’s Growth
Mindset	“I need to be in control.” Driven by fear of failure or losing authority Measures success by compliance Worried about what others might think about you	“I want them to step into leadership.” Driven by trust in people’s growth potential Measures success by ownership and initiative Sees assertiveness as a gift to their people’s growth
Communication Style	Directive: “Do this now.” Corrects mistakes immediately Talks at the team	Ask questions supportively: “What’s your approach?” Creates space for reflection and learning Talks with the team, listens deeply
Conflict & Accountability	Blames or points fingers Uses pressure to drive results Reacts emotionally to errors	Holds space for difficult conversations with care Uses clarity and agreements to foster accountability Responds by coaching through the issue
Long-Term Impact	Creates dependency on you Limits innovation & experimentation Exhausts you & bottlenecks scale	Builds leaders who operate without you Encourages ownership and initiative Frees you to lead the company forward

Assertive TO your team

This approach positions the CEO and their leadership team in a subtle but problematic dynamic:

• The CEO pushes for results and compliance
• Team members focus on meeting expectations rather than solving core problems
• Executives filter information to align with what they think the CEO wants to hear
• The CEO receives incomplete or sanitized information
• Strategic decisions suffer from limited perspective and insufficient challenge
• The cycle continues, reinforcing superficial alignment rather than genuine commitment

This dynamic creates fundamental organizational tension. Senior leaders sense they’re being directed rather than developed, managed rather than led. Even when they verbally commit to initiatives, their internal commitment may be lacking, leading to what looks like agreement in meetings but manifests as delayed implementation afterward.

When CEOs are assertive TO their teams in this manner, they:

1. Generate compliance without commitment
2. Create environments where people manage up rather than speak truth
3. Discourage the healthy conflict necessary for optimal decisions
4. Receive superficial agreement followed by passive resistance
5. Foster a culture where meetings result in vague action items rather than clear decisions

Being Assertive For Your Team

The alternative approach—being assertive for your leadership team—fundamentally reframes the relationship and purpose of executive interactions. This mindset sees the CEO’s primary responsibility not as directing outcomes but as creating conditions for clear decisions, genuine commitment, and leadership development.

When a CEO is assertive for their team, they:

1. Challenge indecision and avoidance patterns: By refusing to accept vague commitments or endless analysis, they help executives break through organizational inertia and personal risk aversion.
2. Demand clarity rather than specific outcomes: The goal isn’t to force agreement with the CEO’s preferred solution but to eliminate the middle ground of “maybe” that keeps organizations stuck.
3. Hold leaders accountable to their own stated values and goals: If an executive has committed to certain priorities or principles, the CEO reminds them of these commitments when conflicting behaviors emerge.
4. Force organizational truth-telling: By asking penetrating questions, they help the leadership team confront uncomfortable realities rather than hiding behind comfortable narratives.
5. Provide structure for consequential decision-making: Many leadership teams struggle with decisions not because they lack information but because they lack frameworks for evaluation and the courage to commit to difficult choices.

A Common Objection to Assertiveness – Empathy

There is a common objection that stops people from being assertive. It is the fear that “I am not being empathetic if I am completely honest and assertive” or “I will not be authentic if challenge that person more. And I understand their point of view.”

Let me tell you something in a no-nonsense way.

Empathy is a powerful leadership skill.

BUT

Empathy without authenticity is just weakness.

It is cheating yourself of your own dreams and values.

It is cheating the other person of your honest opinion and what you have to offer to them (by being authentic or assertive).

Leaders Lead.

And Leaders lead in a way that not only helps them but also inspires and teaches those around them.

If you can be authentic and assertive (while still being empathetic) that is your leadership – for yourself and for others too.

When you are fully authentic, even when it gets uncomfortable, you are setting an example and a high-bar – for yourself and others.

This is why you are here. This is why you are reading this article.

The Distinction in Practice

1. Detailed questioning about implementation plans rather than making judgements

Rather than accepting “We’ll look into it” or “We’ll report back next quarter,” the CEO who is assertive for their team asks:

• “What specifically will you be doing between now and our next meeting?”
• “What metrics will tell us whether this approach is working?”
• “What obstacles do you anticipate, and how will you address them?”
• “When exactly will key milestones be reached?”
• “How will you communicate progress to the rest of the organization?”

These questions aren’t designed to micromanage but to create clarity and structure around execution.

2. Challenging unnecessary delays in decision-making with curiosity instead of blame

When an executive suggests an extended timeframe for making a strategic decision, the CEO might ask:

• “You mentioned needing another month for analysis. What specific information will that additional time provide?”
• “We’ve been discussing this issue for the past three quarters. What is preventing us from deciding today?”
• “If we truly believe this is the right strategic direction, why would we delay implementation by six weeks?”

These challenges aren’t about rushing decisions but about exposing organizational patterns of avoidance that keep companies from necessary action.

3. Explicit acknowledgment of team and organizational patterns

A CEO being assertive for their leadership team might say:

• “I notice we’ve had this same conversation in our last three quarterly reviews. What’s really preventing us from moving forward?”
• “Do you recognize that the hesitation we’re seeing reflects the same pattern that delayed our last major initiative?”
• “Would you agree that our collective tendency to seek perfect information has cost us market opportunities in the past?”

This approach helps leadership teams see their own behavioral and decision-making patterns more clearly.

4. Forcing explicit choice helps grow others as leaders

Perhaps most powerfully, being assertive for a leadership team means requiring them to make explicit choices between clear alternatives:

• “We have two options: commit fully to this market entry strategy with all its risks, or explicitly decide to focus elsewhere. Which are we choosing today?”
• “I need a clear decision: either we’re restructuring this division now, or we’re consciously deciding to maintain the current structure despite its challenges.”
• “There’s no middle ground here. Either we’re going to invest at the level required for success, or we’re going to exit this business. Which is it?”

This isn’t dictatorial—it’s clarifying. It forces leadership teams to confront the reality that not deciding is itself a decision with consequences.

5. Distinguishing between dialogue and decision

CEOs who are assertive for their teams clearly delineate when conversations are exploratory versus when they require resolution:

• “We’re in exploration mode for the next 30 minutes. All ideas are welcome without judgment.”
• “We’re now shifting to decision mode. We need to leave this room with a clear choice.”
• “This topic requires a decision today. If we can’t reach consensus in the next hour, I’ll make the call, but I’d prefer we arrive there together.”

This clarity about conversation mode prevents the common pattern of endless discussion without resolution.

The Results of This Shift

When CEOs master the art of being assertive for their teams rather than to them, several transformative organizational shifts occur:

1. Decision velocity increases dramatically: Issues that previously cycled through multiple meetings reach resolution in a single discussion.
2. Implementation improves: When leaders make clear, specific commitments in front of peers, follow-through improves dramatically.
3. Strategic clarity emerges: By forcing explicit choices between competing priorities, the organization develops sharper focus.
4. Leadership capacity expands: Team members develop greater decision-making confidence and skill through the CEO’s modeling.
5. Organizational politics decrease: When ambiguity is eliminated, the space for political maneuvering shrinks.

The Cultural Dimension

Being assertive for your team rather than to them transforms organizational culture in profound ways:

1. Truth-telling becomes normalized: When the CEO consistently demands clarity, honesty gradually displaces political calculation.
2. Respect for leadership deepens: Leaders who challenge their teams to be their best selves, even when uncomfortable, earn deeper respect than those who manage through authority alone.
3. Psychological safety paradoxically increases: Though the conversations may be more challenging, executives feel safer knowing where they stand and what’s expected.
4. Decision ownership becomes distributed: When leaders make clear commitments of their own volition (even if prompted), they take ownership of outcomes rather than merely executing the CEO’s will.
5. Organizational maturity accelerates: The entire leadership system develops greater capacity for handling complexity and ambiguity when clarity of process is demanded.

Implementing the Shift

For CEOs looking to make this crucial shift from being assertive to their teams to being assertive for them:

1. Examine your relationship with control: Can you genuinely focus on decision quality and clarity rather than directing specific outcomes?
2. Develop comfort with tension: Practice maintaining productive discomfort in meetings rather than relieving tension prematurely.
3. Master the art of powerful questions: Learn to ask questions that reveal underlying assumptions and force clarity rather than questions that lead to predetermined answers.
4. Recognize that your attention is your most powerful tool: What you consistently ask about and focus on will shape your organization more than what you direct.
5. Lead through curiosity rather than certainty: Position yourself as the chief question-asker rather than the chief answer-provider.

The Broader Impact

This leadership approach extends far beyond the executive suite. When CEOs model being assertive for rather than to their teams:

1. The pattern cascades: Senior leaders begin using similar approaches with their own teams.
2. Organizational decision-making improves at all levels: The clarity and commitment modeled at the top becomes the standard throughout.
3. Talent retention strengthens: High performers are drawn to environments where clarity and decisive action are valued.
4. Strategic execution accelerates: The gap between decision and implementation narrows dramatically.
5. Innovation thrives: When leaders know that clear decisions will be made and supported, they’re more willing to propose bold ideas.

The distinction between being assertive to versus for your leadership team may appear subtle, but its organizational impact is profound.

By shifting from a posture of directing outcomes to one of demanding clarity and commitment, CEOs transform from perceived taskmasters to developmental catalysts. They help their leadership teams break through their own avoidance patterns while establishing the conditions for truly distributed leadership.

In an era of unprecedented complexity and rapid change, this approach cuts through organizational noise and politics. It respects leaders’ agency while refusing to enable the indecision that keeps organizations stuck. And it creates the foundation for authentic executive teams based on truth-telling rather than impression management—a foundation that serves both immediate business outcomes and long-term organizational health.