Intention, Impact and the Leadership Gap

Intention, Impact and the Leadership Gap

Intent does not erase impact. Impact does not automatically prove bad intent.

I was reminded of this after publishing an article about workplace pecking orders.

The article focused on managers who keep capable employees below the level at which they operate. I used “henpecked” because I was thinking literally about chickens and hierarchy.

A friend pointed out that the word traditionally carried a gendered meaning involving a woman controlling a man.

That was not my intention, but it was a reasonable interpretation I had failed to anticipate.

Why intention and impact both matter

It is tempting to respond by saying, “That is not what I meant.”

Intention matters. It helps us understand motive and context. An unintended association is not proof of prejudice.

But intention cannot determine another person’s experience of our words or behavior.

A leader may intend to be direct. An employee may experience dismissiveness. A joke meant to build camaraderie may come across as disrespectful.

The answer is not to assume every interpretation is correct. Nor is it to insist that intention settles the matter.

Examine the gap

Using the coaching framework I apply with clients, I considered four questions.

What was the breakdown?

My wording carried an association that distracted from the intended leadership message.

What was the upset?

I felt irritated, embarrassed, and initially defensive.

What were the facts?

The article criticized poor leadership, not women. Gender was irrelevant, and the joke was directed at me. Nevertheless, the term carried baggage I had overlooked.

What was my commitment and action?

My commitment is to communicate clearly and remain teachable. The action was to acknowledge the ambiguity, clarify my intention, and learn.

A psychologically safe response

Psychological safety allows people to raise concerns without expecting punishment or dismissal.

My friend did not accuse me. She alerted me privately and respectfully. Once my irritation passed, I appreciated what she had done.

Good leaders create the conditions for that honesty.

They ask:

What did I mean?

What did you hear?

What facts support each interpretation?

What requires clarification or change?

“That is not what I meant” should begin reflection rather than end it.

Remaining teachable

Experience does not make anyone infallible, and being a coach does not mean never requiring coaching.

Accountability does not require self-condemnation. It requires honesty.

My original article was not an attack upon women. It was an argument against leaders who diminish people to preserve their comfort and control. I stand by that argument.

I also accept that one word carried baggage I had not considered.

Both things can be true.

Perhaps the loss of innocence is also the growth of awareness.

Learn more at www.petergourri.com

Arrange a confidential conversation: https://calendly.com/petergourri-coaching/success

Please share this if it may help someone approach a difficult conversation with greater curiosity.

Transparency statement: I have used AI as a drafting and editing tool to help formulate and prepare this article. The experiences, opinions, thoughts, and ideas are mine, and I take full responsibility for the final words and everything published under my name.