The Idea in Brief

When leaders face the inevitable tensions of organizational life including unmet expectations, a natural drive to resolve emerges — to take immediate action and restore desired outcomes through getting more things done, having the right answers, gaining others' support.

This approach, while natural and understandable, might bypass complexity and tends to limit results and genuine fulfillment. The drive to resolve is normal, human, and it produces results. It reflects a strong wish to make a difference, find adequate answers, and collaborate — along with the skills and track record to do so. The doing, the knowing, the consideration for others — they bring action, reassurance, and progress. They often arise from a strong sense of care and responsibility.

Paradoxically, this drive to resolve, while natural and often effective, tends to operate through patterns that can limit its scope. It works to pin complex situations down into familiar categories and existing frameworks. Declining market share becomes a 'sales execution issue,' team tension gets labeled a 'personality conflict,' and innovation stagnation becomes a 'resource allocation problem.' This pattern often reflects an unconscious filter: interpreting challenges through how they might affect our progress, our competence, or our standing with others. While these categorizations serve initial clarity and action, they can limit options and solution space to what feels manageable rather than what the situation actually requires — practically, insightfully, and relationally. When we rush to resolve, we run the risk of mistaking our ideas and plans — the map — for the complex territory.

This dynamic becomes particularly intense under external pressure. When boards demand immediate answers, markets shift rapidly, or stakeholders express concern, the drive to resolve intensifies. Yet these are precisely the moments when slowing down to see the full territory — rather than rushing with the familiar map — often yields the most breakthrough strategies.

Essentially, this drive to resolve, when operating through these limiting patterns, risks producing solutions and approaches that are familiar but incomplete. Because the underlying complexity often isn't fully engaged, issues tend to reappear, leading to repeated cycles of resolving and re-resolving.

This is not a call for not caring or avoiding action. Rather, it is about relating differently to unmet expectations: not bypassing what calls for attention and engagement, but meeting it from clarity instead of compulsion.

Examples of how this idea might play out in everyday life

Get More Things Done: A leader notices declining quarterly performance and feels pressure from the board. In response, they increase their involvement — calling more frequent leadership meetings, requesting additional reports, personally reviewing key decisions. The effort comes from a genuine commitment to drive results and protect the organization.
Yet over time, the leadership team begins second-guessing their judgment and waiting for direction. What began as engagement gradually shifts the culture toward centralized control and reactive execution. Ironically, the drive to accelerate progress can create organizational anxiety that slows decision-making and reduces the team’s sense of ownership over outcomes.

Have Right Answers: During a board presentation on market expansion, a director asks a penetrating question about competitive positioning that touches on uncertainties the leader hasn’t fully resolved. Wanting to demonstrate strategic clarity, they respond immediately with a well-structured answer drawing on familiar frameworks.
The board nods and moves on, but the answer bypassed the genuine complexity of the competitive landscape. There’s less space for acknowledging uncertainty, less room for exploring innovative approaches, less opportunity for collective strategic thinking. Ironically, the intent to show command of the situation can produce strategies that sound confident but miss breakthrough opportunities the uncertainty might have revealed.

Gain Others’ Support: A senior leader faces skepticism from key stakeholders about a major organizational restructuring. Sensing resistance in the room, they pivot to emphasize the benefits more forcefully, address objections proactively, and work to build consensus through additional one-on-one meetings.
While they do secure verbal agreement, some stakeholders remain privately unconvinced. Over the following months, implementation slows due to passive resistance and half-hearted execution. Ironically, the effort to win everyone over may have gained surface-level buy-in while missing the deeper concerns that could have led to a more robust and genuinely supported approach.

Practice: Notice tension and the drive to resolve

• Notice the tension in your experience—especially in high-stakes moments when stakeholders are present or decisions are needed.
• Recognize any urge to act immediately, particularly when the pressure to demonstrate leadership is high.
• Acknowledge if it is mostly an urge to get more things done, have right answers, or gain others’ support.
• Notice the urge, then create a brief pause—even 30 seconds in a meeting—allowing the impulse to settle without immediately engaging it. Not just once as a task to complete, but repeatedly from genuine willingness to see what emerges.
• When the drive to resolve has settled—even slightly—ask: “What does this situation actually need?” rather than “What do I need from this situation?” Then consider what action, if any, is called for and respond from clarity rather than compulsion.

The Idea in Brief

Results stem from actions — and actions from state of mind. Tension is valuable feedback: a prompt to engage internally with one’s own state of mind — a dynamic system of thoughts, emotions, and physical signals that shape collaboration, innovation, and action. For example, tension related to the drive to resolve can show up as tightening in the chest before a board review, restless energy in a strategic offsite, or a sudden flood of “what if” thoughts before meeting key stakeholders.

This is a subtle but foundational shift. In most leadership models, the focus is on what leaders do: what the right action is, what the correct answer should be, or how to manage stakeholder relationships effectively. However, beneath every action lies a deeper layer — a motivation, a mood, a way of experiencing the moment. This deeper layer is what we call state of mind.

State of mind is not simply an attitude or a mindset. It is a dynamic, living system made up of thoughts, emotions, and physical signals — often subtle, often changing rapidly — that shapes how a leader approaches initiatives, develops answers, and navigates relationships. It is activated in real time, all the time, often in response to everyday sensory events in business: an unexpected question from the board, a skeptical glance from a peer, a disappointing KPI dashboard, or a sudden shift in market data.

The recognition that this inner system exists and actively shapes all leadership becomes particularly important when dealing with complex organizational challenges involving multiple stakeholders. Actioning without attending to state of mind — focusing solely on external tactics, frameworks, and processes — may be limited for navigating the depth of concerns, relationships, and systemic dynamics involved.

The chain for engagement with a leadership challenge is clear: State of Mind → Actions → Results. A scattered inner system produces scattered responses; a clear inner system enables clear and steady action. Recognizing this chain helps leaders pause before being swept into the reflex of resolving — and act instead from awareness.

Crucially, this inner system is not something to be fixed. It is already whole, complete, and capable. This attention to state of mind is not to control it — but to recognize it, give it space, and relate to it with clarity. This different way of relating to tension can unlock not only improved genuine fulfillment but also more effective strategies and smoother execution.

Examples of the state → action → results chain in senior leadership

Get More Things Done
• State of Mind: A leader reviews quarterly results and notices internal pressure building: thoughts racing about being behind schedule, physical tension in shoulders and jaw.
• Actions: They call additional leadership meetings, request more frequent reporting, and personally review more decisions than usual.
• Results: The organization responds with increased activity, but the underlying state creates an atmosphere of urgency that can reduce creative thinking and ownership over time.

Have Right Answers
• State of Mind: During a board presentation, a complex question arises. The leader feels a flash of uncertainty accompanied by a drive to demonstrate competence immediately.
• Actions: They respond quickly with a structured answer, drawing on familiar frameworks to appear confident and in control.
• Results: The board moves forward, but the quick response may have bypassed deeper strategic insights that could emerge from acknowledging complexity.

Gain Others’ Support
• State of Mind: A senior executive senses skepticism in the room about a major initiative. Internally, they feel a subtle need to ensure everyone is aligned before moving forward.
• Actions: They emphasize benefits more strongly, address concerns directly, and schedule follow-up conversations to build consensus.
• Results: Stakeholders express agreement, but the underlying state may have influenced the approach in ways that affect long-term commitment and authentic engagement.

Practice: Recognize the State of Mind behind the Action and Result

In moments of outwardly oriented action — drafting a strategic plan, preparing for a critical meeting, defining KPIs — pause briefly and bring attention inward.

• Can I notice — subtle or strong — an inner experience right now?
• What thoughts, emotions, and physical sensations are present as I engage with this challenge?
• How might this inner experience be shaping the actions I’m about to take?

There’s no need to change or analyze the state. Simply notice it. Recognize it. Let it be there. This basic awareness of the state behind the action often reveals new possibilities for how to proceed.

Recognizing that actions flow from state of mind opens new possibilities for both strategy and execution — and reveals that this inner system itself operates in fundamentally different ways.

The Idea in Brief

Building on the recognition that state of mind shapes all leadership action, leaders discover a further insight: this inner system is not static. It operates in fundamentally different ways — sometimes constrained and mechanical, sometimes vast and aware.

In a constrained and mechanical state of mind, there is a narrowing. The mind interprets through familiar frameworks, seeking control. This is often accompanied by emotions such as frustration, impatience, or resignation. While this state delivers some clarity, action, and ability to resolve problems, it tends to generate familiar, incomplete and partial answers. Filtering intensifies around the question: “How will this affect me?” — manifesting as the drive to:

• Get More Things Done: Is this advancing my priorities?
• Have Right Answers: Am I on top of this?
• Gain Others’ Support: Do others appreciate and approve of me?

Here, accountabiliy appears strong and it tends to arise from self‑referencing: Am I achieving what I want? Am I proving competence? Am I securing support? This form of accountability often fuels high activity but can subtly constrain both strategy and execution.

In a vast and aware state, leaders experience these natural drives without being ruled by them. Intellectual capacity increases, relational capacity deepens, and emotional experience expands — creating space for significant ambitions, rich answers, and steadiness. Accountability here takes on a different quality: less about protecting self‑image and more about owning impact with openness and integrity. Leaders show up with responsibility for both results and relationships, while remaining grounded in what the situation needs.

These two distinct states of mind both serve important functions - and they shape everything in leadership: How leaders perceive challenges, relate to others, strategize, and take action — affecting both problem‑solving effectiveness and quality of experience — with significant consequences for leadership effectiveness in the domains of results, culture, and strategy

Examples of how different states shape leadership

Get More Things Done:
A strategic project runs into delays. The leader feels pressure rising — thoughts of being behind, concerns about credibility, tension in the shoulders.

• In a mechanical state: They tighten control through aggressive reprioritization and increased oversight, driven by “I have to get this ahead.” The underlying concern — “Will this restore my credibility and momentum?” — shapes execution toward familiar control patterns. It looks like ownership, but execution becomes pressured and narrow.

• In an aware state: They still act decisively — but from steadiness rather than urgency. Prioritization is clearer, delegation more trusting, dialogue more genuine. The project regains rhythm with less strain, producing execution that flows more naturally.

Have Right Answers:
In a high-stakes meeting, a complex question lands unexpectedly. The leader’s body stiffens; thoughts race about demonstrating competence.

• In a mechanical state: They respond quickly and confidently but narrowly, filtering through “Will this demonstrate my competence?” This produces strategies optimized for the leader’s confidence rather than collective insight. Nuance gets lost and alternative insights remain unspoken.

• In an aware state: They pause, breathe, and acknowledge the complexity openly. They may invite others’ perspectives or admit uncertainty while maintaining leadership presence. This creates richer strategies and broader alignment.

Gain Others’ Support:
During an emotionally charged dialogue, the leader senses discomfort and feels the pull to ensure everyone is comfortable.

• In a mechanical state: They quickly explain, reassure, and steer toward resolution, driven by “Will this preserve my image as a steady leader?” This prioritizes the leader’s comfort with emotion over genuine resolution. Resistance often remains under the surface.

• In an aware state: They stay with the tension without rushing to resolve it, creating a steady space where different views can be expressed and respected. This fosters real commitment and reduces friction in follow-through.

Practice: Notice different states of mind in real contexts

In moments of tension or important action — before a meeting, during a decision, in a difficult conversation — pause briefly and turn attention inward.

• Am I operating from a constrained state driven by “I have to…” thoughts about getting ahead, understanding, or gaining approval?
• Or am I accessing a more open state where I can engage with what’s actually happening without being driven by these concerns?
• What does this situation need, and how might different states of mind lead to different approaches?

Both states serve important functions. The awareness itself creates space for accessing the more open, responsive state when complex situations call for it. Over time, this enables leadership that is less about control and more about clarity, alignment, and lasting impact.

The Idea in Brief

Accessing the expansive and aware state of mind requires the willingness and ability to accurately discern experience — to see through the patterns of the resolving habit that pin things down too quickly and hold them inside an existing frame of reference. While this satisfies the immediate need for clarity and control, in complex contexts it often produces answers that are incomplete and limit both strategy and execution.

The aware mind, in contrast, stays open. Instead of locking experience into what is already known, it continues to look freshly and discern with greater nuance. This capacity can be understood as three complementary ways of looking — each offering clarity, but with fundamentally different horizons for action and execution. Like a scientist using different instruments, leaders can work with all three lenses together.

Each way of looking offers a different relationship to the unconscious self‑referencing of the drive to resolve. At the Content Level, self-referencing is strongest as leaders rely on familiar frameworks that feel credible and protect their position. At the Qualitative Level, this self-referencing begins to loosen as awareness expands beyond personal concerns. At the Vastness Level, self-referencing naturally diminishes as the question becomes genuinely “What does this situation need?” rather than “What do I need from this situation?”

Content Level – Microscope View

The domain of analytical intelligence, data, reasoning, and logical problem‑solving. Leaders gain precision through analysis of numbers, processes, and cause‑and‑effect relationships. This level produces familiar and credible strategies that feel safe and defensible. Yet when used alone, its answers often carry incompleteness — and that incompleteness can stiffen execution and limit results.

Qualitative Level – Peripheral Vision

The domain of perceiving experience directly — sensing dynamics, emotions, and undercurrents not captured by data. Here, leaders begin to loosen the grip of pinning everything down inside existing frames of reference. They notice signals of energy rising or receding, subtle resistance that may reflect care, and relational patterns that either enable or constrain execution. This perspective looks at content with greater nuance and clarity, while personal concerns naturally become less dominant. It enables strategies to resonate more deeply with the organization.

Vastness Level – Mountaintop View

The domain of open awareness. Leaders hold both details and context without the pressure to force resolution inside what is already known. Rather than being careless, this stance is carefree — experienced as more open and relaxed, often accompanied by deeper fulfillment. Yet it is not naïve or “turned off.” It is a turned‑on state — full of presence and engagement. At this level, self-referencing naturally fades as the leader becomes genuinely curious about what wants to emerge, regardless of personal comfort or recognition. This level doesn’t ignore content but sees it with profound clarity, allowing strategies that are both more creative and more sustainable in action.

Note: Moving to higher levels doesn’t mean bypassing rigorous analysis. The Vastness Level includes and transcends content — seeing data with greater clarity while remaining open to what analysis alone cannot reveal.

Examples of how this idea might play out in everyday life

Quarterly Leadership Review Example:
During a quarterly leadership review, the CEO asks questions to the head of a major business unit and her team about entering a new market segment. The pressure is immediate: stakeholders want proof points, the board expects clarity, and the team looks for direction.

Initially, the team approaches this decision purely from the Content Level. After weeks of analysis and consultant reports, they recommend entering the market through acquisition — a familiar, credible strategy that feels analytically sound and defensible to stakeholders. Six months later, the acquisition struggles with cultural integration issues that the data couldn’t predict, and market entry is delayed by 18 months. The ‘right’ answer from analysis alone missed critical dynamics that a fuller view would have revealed.

Content Level – Microscope View:
The leader draws on rigorous analysis: market research, competitive positioning, financial modeling, and risk assessments. Consultants enhance the answers. The underlying concern — “Will this make me look analytically rigorous and credible?” — keeps the strategy within familiar, defensible frameworks. The strategy is compelling and structured and viewed as credible by key stakeholders.

Qualitative Level – Peripheral Vision:
The leader senses more than the numbers. She notices enthusiasm and hesitation in the team, cultural readiness, and relational patterns. She reflects inwardly on her own unease behind the data. Self-referencing begins to loosen as she becomes genuinely curious about these undercurrents. Recognizing these dynamics, she shapes the strategy to address both the analytic case and the human context, enabling deeper alignment and smoother execution.

Vastness Level – Mountaintop View:
From spacious awareness, the leader holds both content and qualitative insights — while remaining open to what hasn’t yet been considered. Personal concerns about credibility or approval naturally fade as she becomes genuinely curious about what this situation needs. Rather than forcing a decision into familiar categories, she explores new options: an experiment, an unusual partnership, or a reframed purpose. This stance often produces strategies that are more innovative and execution that is less strained, elevating the level of impact.

Practice: Notice the three ways of looking in real time

• Notice the decision or challenge in front of you — especially those with significant business impact.
• Recognize which way of looking you are starting from (often content level under pressure).
• Allow yourself to move intentionally through all three — like shifting lenses.
• At the Content Level: use data, frameworks, and logic while noticing how familiar frameworks might feel safer but more limiting.
• At the Qualitative Level: sense dynamics, emotions, and context while noticing how personal concerns naturally become less dominant.
• At the Vastness Level: ask “What’s trying to emerge here?” rather than “How can I manage this successfully?” Notice how self-referencing naturally diminishes as genuine curiosity about the situation increases.

As leaders practice moving between levels, they often discover that the Content Level, while necessary, feels increasingly constraining. The Qualitative Level adds richness while loosening self-referencing. The Vastness Level emerges when leaders become genuinely curious about what wants to happen, regardless of personal comfort or recognition.

You don’t have to force insight. Trust that this process, even when time is limited, often produces faster and more durable results than rushing to familiar solutions. By practicing awareness of these three ways of looking, leaders can avoid being trapped in the incompleteness of one frame. Strategies and execution then arise from a fuller view — producing both higher-quality results and richer lived experience.