The Question Isn't Whether to Challenge. It's How.

Same intention. Two very different ways forward.

Organizations want their leaders to be more direct. The willingness to challenge an idea, push on an assumption, and refuse the easy answer is how organizations get to better solutions. The question isn't whether the leader should challenge. It's how the leader challenges.

When I work with senior leaders on the inner work of leadership, we're surfacing the Saboteur patterns from Positive Intelligence that hijack thinking under pressure, and practicing the shift into Sage, the part of us that meets hard moments with clarity, empathy, and curiosity instead of reactivity.

When we explore each leader's Saboteur patterns, a few show up consistently. The one I want to focus on here is the Hyper-Rational, the pattern that focuses on data and facts while minimizing emotions and people. That's what lets these leaders walk straight into conflict. They don't experience it as charged. They see directness as the fastest route to a better answer.

When directness lands as intimidating or sharp, people protect themselves instead of bringing their best thinking. The pushing stops producing better thinking and makes people quieter.

The Sage shift keeps the fact-based, objective approach to exploring differences, and draws on three of the Sage powers

·      staying anchored to what matters most for the organization and its clients

·      demonstrating genuine curiousity about a different view

·      noticing what the other person is feeling and needing to stay engaged and feel respected.

Not to soften the challenge. To make sure the challenge produces the best thinking. This unlocks the strength underneath the Saboteur. It achieves bigger impact and better outcomes.

The work isn't just awareness. It's in the practice we build together, naming the Saboteur in real moments, strengthening the Sage shift, and bringing it into the conversations where it counts.