An employee replies with a brief email, and you conclude they are irritated. A colleague remains quiet during a meeting, and you assume they disagree. Someone misses a deadline, and the explanation becomes “They do not care.”

In each case, something happened and a meaning was assigned to it. Trouble develops when that interpretation begins guiding decisions as though it were an established fact.

Leaders need to make judgments. Those judgments become more useful when we distinguish what we observed from what we still need to understand.

Describe what another person could have seen

Choose an interaction that frustrated you. Write down the observable event before adding an explanation.

“The report was due Tuesday and arrived Thursday” describes an event. “She does not respect my priorities” assigns a motive. The late report may require a conversation regardless, but assuming the motive can shape that conversation before you have heard what happened.

Notice the same distinction in positive assumptions. A person who agrees quickly may understand the task, or may be reluctant to admit confusion. Your certainty can exceed the information available in either direction.

Ask a question that can change your understanding

A useful question leaves room for an answer you did not anticipate. For the missed report, you might say: “We agreed on Tuesday, and it arrived Thursday. What got in the way, and what do we need to address before the next deadline?”

The response may reveal competing assignments, an unclear dependency, or poor follow through. Each calls for a different action.

Curiosity loses value when it is only an accusation in softer language. If you have already decided the person is lazy or disrespectful, pause long enough to ask what evidence supports that conclusion and what information is missing.

Keep accountability in the conversation

Understanding context does not remove the need to address an unmet commitment. Once the situation is clearer, establish the next action, who owns it, and how progress will be reviewed.

If a pattern continues, document observable facts and use the appropriate organizational process. Serious misconduct or a meaningful power imbalance may require formal support rather than a direct conversation between the people involved.

This practice also changes how leaders respond to gossip. When discussion turns toward an absent colleague’s character, ask what is known and what action would help resolve the concern.

The next time you feel certain about someone’s attitude, write two sentences: “What I observed was…” and “The meaning I assigned was…” The space between those sentences is a useful place to begin a more accurate leadership response.

Fully Powered™ Leadership Begins With the Conditions We Create.

Dr. Christina Fontana helps organizations uncover the hidden patterns that compromise leadership effectiveness, psychological safety, and workplace performance. By integrating nervous system awareness, behavioral transformation, and the Fully Powered™ Leadership Framework, she helps leaders reclaim their power and unlock the brilliance, contribution, and potential of the people they already have.

Ready to Build a Fully Powered™ Organization?

Your people already have incredible potential. The question is: Are your leadership practices and workplace culture helping them thrive—or holding them back?

Through the Fully Powered™ Leadership Framework, I help organizations identify hidden Power Leaks™, strengthen psychological safety, and create the conditions where leaders and teams feel engaged, energized, and empowered to perform at their best.

Let’s explore what’s possible for your leaders, your people, and your organization.

📩 Email me: [email protected]

💬 Or send me a direct message on LinkedIn to start the conversation.

Because when leaders become Fully Powered™, people thrive—and organizations achieve stronger results.

Dr. Christina Fontana | Leadership Expert | Creator of the Fully Powered™ Leadership Framework