When a leadership team says “we’ve talked about this before,” I want to understand what happened between that conversation and the issue returning.

A familiar handoff or priority problem gives us somewhere specific to look: what people knew, what shaped their decisions, and what the agreement needed when it reached the working week.

In this article, I explain how I work through those questions with a team, offer a preparation step for your next leadership meeting, and share how to start a conversation about a focused workshop.

When a team changes who can approve a decision, the next request may still arrive in the same inbox it always has. The person receiving it has a part in helping that change take hold.

I am preparing leadership work for a retreat next month, including what needs to happen when the team returns to work.

In this article, I follow an illustrative pricing decision into the week and look at what it needs from the people involved. It ends with five things you can write down for a decision your own team has made recently.

When someone misses a commitment, I want to understand what happened in the room where we made it.

If I accepted “I’ll take care of it” and moved the meeting along, I helped shape the agreement we are now trying to account for.

Was it clear enough to keep? Did it have an owner, a date, and a moment when we would check?

In this article, I look at the leader’s part and share the three lines I find useful to write before a follow-up conversation: the agreement, the gap, and its effect on shared work.

A follow-up can take five minutes to send and keep returning to mind for days.

Every Monday I put one question at the top of my screen. I call it the Commanding Question. A recent one was: Have I taken action on every real and live opportunity in my funnel?

The wording asked me to look honestly at what was in motion and what I had done about it. Keeping it visible gave me a way to return to that intention as the week filled up.

In this article, I share what I am finding useful about the practice and how to try it with one commitment that keeps drawing your attention.

An instruction tends to feel complete to the person giving it. The missing context is already in their head.

In a recent communications session, the read-back was new to most of the room. What stayed with me was the conversation it opened about assumptions, questions, and how leaders make it easier to find out what someone has understood.

I wrote about the picture behind an instruction, and two questions you can use on your next handoff.

Where is leadership capacity currently limiting growth?

“We need better managers” can describe several different pressure points: authority remains concentrated, managers keep supplying the answers, bench strength is unclear, standards vary across teams, or execution loses clarity as it travels.

Each pattern points to different work, a different starting group, and a different development path.

I closed September's series with a practical way to identify the constraint, choose the people closest to it, and build the smallest useful path around the pressure already visible.

“Hard work is sustained work.”

That was Iain McCorkindale’s answer when I asked him what hard work means. He was describing a long horizon: earning competence, building trust, learning through mistakes, and staying with a mission long enough for something lasting to take shape.

I wanted to interview Iain because he knows what it takes to get complex projects built, and he thinks deeply about the culture, code, and purpose that allow people to deliver them together.

Ten years after he founded M3 Development Management Ltd, it has 36 people across five offices. Its leaders are shaping the next plan, and Iain is making room for them to own it.

I wrote about our conversation and what it taught me about sustained leadership, the DNA of a company, and trusting the people who will carry it forward.

Execution begins before anyone starts executing.

A leadership team can leave the room with a clear priority, a named owner, and a decision everyone believes has been made. The real test begins as that clarity moves through managers, team meetings, one-to-ones, handoffs, and the judgment calls of the working week.

I have written before about strategic clarity, role clarity, and decision clarity. This article looks at the management layer that helps all three survive the trip: expectations, delegation, feedback, and accountability.

These four conversations create much of the operating environment a team experiences.

Bench strength often gets discussed with a name and a nod.

Someone has real potential. A few heads nod. The conclusion forms quickly, often with very little evidence underneath it.

Readiness becomes more useful when it gets specific: ready for what kind of complexity, under which conditions, with what support, and across how many repetitions?

I wrote about the operating signals that make leadership readiness visible, how to design useful stretch opportunities, and how a depth chart turns those observations into a real development path.

One real decision can tell you a great deal about delegation.

Watch what happens after a manager has gathered the information, applied the criteria, and reached a consequential call. Notice whether the decision remains with them, which boundaries become active, and what happens when risk rises.

Organizations learn that boundary through repeated leadership behaviour: decisions that get reopened, approvals that return after ownership was granted, and senior leaders who step back in at the moment authority becomes consequential.

I wrote about where authority actually lives, how judgment develops, and the four elements that make an authority transfer real.