🤔 Dear Lewis, my transparency backfired. How do I lead without over-explaining?
In today’s edition, a VP learns the hard way that being too transparent can backfire—turning team meetings into endless debates instead of focused execution.
Here we are again, my friends, back for another installment where I share real (but anonymized) stories from my coaching practice. Today’s tale is about the seductive trap of transparency and how being too good at explaining yourself can actually make you worse at leading.
The Problem: “I Think I’ve Created a Monster”
“I think I’ve created a monster,” Roger confessed during our coaching session. He’d been the VP of Strategy and Operations at a high-growth tech company for two years, and his commitment to transparency was starting to backfire.
“Every decision I make now turns into a town hall debate,” he sighed, running his hands through his hair. “I try to explain the strategy, share the context, be transparent… and somehow it’s turned my team into a panel of amateur board members.”
I couldn’t help but smile. Not because it was funny – but because Roger had fallen into what I call the Professor’s Paradox: when being good at explaining makes you bad at leading.
The Professor’s Paradox
“Let me guess,” I said. “You pride yourself on being able to break down complex decisions?”
Roger nodded vigorously. “I want them to understand the why behind everything. I thought it would build trust.”
“And instead?”
“Instead, I’ve got twenty people who think they’re qualified to debate every strategic decision because they’ve heard me explain a few.”
Here’s the issue: understanding the explanation of a decision isn’t the same as understanding how to make the decision.
The Danger of “Partial Pattern Experts”
When you’re too good at explaining things, you can accidentally create what I call “partial pattern experts” – people who recognize enough of the pattern to be dangerous, but not enough to be helpful.
I shared a similar story with Roger about a former client, David, a brilliant physics professor turned CEO. David was such a good teacher that his freshman students thought they could debate string theory by week three. The problem? They had enough knowledge to ask questions but not enough to understand why their questions revealed their ignorance.
Roger’s situation was no different. He’d gotten so good at explaining business strategy that his team thought they understood it. But they didn’t have the experience or context to grasp the full picture.
The Solution: Introducing the CLEAR Framework
That’s when we developed the CLEAR framework to help Roger strike the right balance between transparency and leadership. Before I explain the framework, let me share the turning point that showed us we were on the right track.
Roger had just finished explaining a major strategic pivot to his team. As usual, hands shot up with questions, suggestions, and thinly-veiled criticisms. But this time, instead of diving into another detailed explanation, he tried something new.
“I appreciate your interest in the strategy,” he said calmly. “But today, I need your expertise on execution, not your input on the decision. That ship has sailed.”
The room got quiet. Not angry quiet – more like “oh, right, that makes sense” quiet.
Breaking Down the CLEAR Framework
The CLEAR framework became our blueprint. It’s designed to help leaders maintain transparency while setting clear boundaries. Here’s how it works, with examples of how Roger implemented each step:
1. C: Context Control
The first thing Roger needed to fix was his habit of overloading his team with information.
Need-to-Execute Level: What the team needs to know to do their jobs effectively, including clear success metrics, deadlines, and direct impacts on their work.
Nice-to-Know Level: Broader business context like market trends and future considerations.
Leadership Level: Complex strategic trade-offs, board-level discussions, and sensitive competitive information.
“I started treating strategic context like nuclear material,” Roger said. “Powerful when properly contained, dangerous when it leaks everywhere.”
2. L: Limits & Lanes
Roger began to set explicit boundaries for discussions, which made the biggest difference.
The Meeting Contract: “Today we’re discussing HOW to implement the new pricing strategy, not WHETHER it’s the right strategy.”
The Input Framework: “I want your expertise on technical feasibility. The market timing decision is already locked.”
The Debate Timer: “We have 10 minutes for questions about the decision, then we’re moving to implementation planning.”
3. E: Expectations Engineering
We worked on managing the team’s engagement by clarifying their roles.
The Contribution Clarity Statement: “I share strategy context to help you execute better, not to open every decision for debate.”
The Role Reminder: “Your role is to raise risks we might have missed, not to relitigate decisions that are already made.”
The Value Focus: “Let’s concentrate our energy on where you can add the most value – making this work brilliantly.”
4. A: Authority Anchoring
Transparency doesn’t mean shared decision-making. Roger had to reinforce this idea.
The Decision Level Declaration: “This was a VP-level decision made with input from Finance and Legal.”
The Scope Statement: “The strategy is set. Our challenge is making it successful.”
The Authority Clarity: “I’ll take your input on implementation, but the core approach isn’t changing.”
5. R: Reinforcement & Redirection
Finally, we created practical ways to maintain the new boundaries.
Question Routing: “That’s a great strategic question, but right now we need to focus on execution. Let’s park it for our monthly strategy review.”
Energy Direction: “I love your strategic thinking. Let’s apply that energy to solving our implementation challenges.”
Positive Reinforcement: “Thank you for that execution-focused question – that’s exactly where we need to be right now.”
The Transformation
Six months later, Roger’s meetings had transformed. His team was still engaged and curious, but their energy was focused on execution excellence rather than strategic debate.
“The funny thing is,” Roger told me, “they actually seem more motivated now. It’s like clear boundaries made them feel more secure.”
I wasn’t surprised. Sometimes the kindest thing a leader can do is be clear about where their team’s lane ends and leadership’s begins. True transparency isn’t about sharing everything – it’s about sharing the right things in the right way.
Final Thoughts: Lead with Clarity
Remember: You can be an open book without letting everyone write in your pages.
Keep leading with clarity,
Lewis
Share the love ❤️
I enjoy sharing leadership and career insights. If this newsletter can benefit someone, please pass it along.
And if someone shared this edition with you, don't forget to hit that Subscribe button before you go.