In my last post, I wrote that real leadership doesn’t hide behind position. It listens, clarifies, and lifts people up in public. Today, I’m sharing a concrete case study from a budget review meeting where the opposite happened. My goal isn’t to vent—it’s to put receipts on the table so we can all learn how words land, and how culture is shaped in the small moments.
There are always lessons in life – and this is one I’d like to remember so I’m putting it here.
I’ll keep this factual and structured. I’ll also include direct quotations on what was said towards me in front of my team (with timestamps from my personal record) and my analysis on how what was said could be improved.
This is more a reminder to myself on how to lead than anything else.
The Setup (Context That Matters)
We were reconciling discrepancies across multiple financial sheets and agreeing on a single source of truth for reporting and payments. I clarified that an older working sheet had been deprecated in favor of a centralized one.
The friction wasn’t about financial rigor—we all want accuracy. The friction was about how feedback was delivered, in public, and how that affects psychological safety and teamwork.
What Was Said (Direct Quotes)
1) The Opening Salvo: Competence Questioned
00:00:00 – [name redacted]: “You’re jumping things. It’s not even clear. You’re not noting the areas where there are changes.”
Why this matters: From the very first minute, the tone frames the person (me) as disorganized rather than surfacing a shared systems issue. Publicly, that lands as a competence hit—not a neutral request for clarity.
2) Public Call-Out With a Shaming Subtext
00:01:35–00:01:44 – [name redacted]: “There. Please go to your Telegram chat on [redacted]. It’s your own chat thread. It’s already been placed there.”
Why this matters: “It’s your own chat thread” carries a subtle “you had this and still messed up” vibe. In front of a team, that’s not just guidance—it’s a put-down.
3) The Rebuke: “You Could Have Started With That”
I explained that the older sheet was deprecated.
00:03:01 – [name redacted] (response): “So when are you going to say that just now? You could have started with that, right?”
Why this matters: Rhetorical reprimands in public humiliate. They shut people down. A simple, “Thanks for clarifying—let’s lock the source of truth” would’ve aligned everyone without shaming anyone.
4) Emotional Framing: “I Got Triggered”
00:26:49 – [name redacted]: “If you go back to the slide… This is what [name redacted] showed me yesterday. This is where I got triggered because it’s a complete discrepancy compared to the sheet you were presenting earlier.”
Why this matters: Tying a leader’s emotional reaction (“triggered”) to a team member’s output can weaponize feelings. It shifts the room from problem-solving to blame and embarrassment.
5) Directive Tone Aimed at One Person
00:09:36 – [name redacted]: “Can we please take note of that? [Name redacted], can you take note of that too.”
Why this matters: On its own, assigning note-taking isn’t an issue. But layered on top of the previous hits, it reinforces a hierarchy—treating a peer like a subordinate.
6) The Shutdown on Fairness
I raised a workload concern and asked for fairness in how assignments were being distributed.
00:36:18 – [name redacted]: “The fairness and justice is a responsibility. I don’t need to talk to you about this in front of your committee. … If you think you have two projects to deal with, I have 20 projects to look at. And yours has the most burden. Any other questions.”
Why this matters:
- Invoking rank (“I have 20 projects”) to minimize someone’s load is dismissive especially considering that the load and nature of the projects are clearly unequal.
- Labeling a fairness question as inappropriate in public—right after repeatedly criticizing in public—sends a clear message: I can call you out here; you cannot raise concerns here.
The Pattern (What These Moments Add Up To)
- Blame vs. Systems Thinking
Issues were framed as one person’s fault instead of a shared process gap (multiple sheets, unclear ownership). - Public Reprimands as a Habit
Rhetorical questions and emotional labels (“triggered”) humiliate rather than align. - Rank as a Shield
“I have 20 projects” is an appeal to status, not a solution. - Fairness Deferred, Not Addressed
When fairness is pushed into a “private chamber,” the team learns: raise real concerns at your own risk.
Why Executives Should Care (Beyond Feelings)
- Psychological safety drops. People share less information, which degrades decision quality—the very thing governance depends on.
- Capacity signals get suppressed. Burnout creeps in because people stop surfacing bandwidth issues.
- Culture calcifies. When public shaming goes unchallenged, it becomes the culture.
What Better Looks Like (Practical Alternatives)
- Language that leads:
- “Let’s align on the master sheet.”
- “Thanks for flagging the deprecation; we’ll point everyone to OneDrive.”
- “We all contributed to the confusion; here’s how we’ll fix it.”
- Public respect, private heat: Praise or correct the process in public; handle person-specific feedback in private.
- Fairness in the open: If workload is surfacing repeatedly, address it with transparency and next steps (reallocation, timelines, support).
My Personal Takeaway
“Leadership hides position” means I don’t hide behind position either—mine or anyone else’s. I’ll keep telling the truth, with receipts, and I’ll keep choosing language that builds people up while making the work sharper.
We can insist on accuracy without demeaning people. We can call for speed without cutting dignity. We can be firm and still be fair.
That’s the bar.
And yes, it’s very doable.
If you’re navigating similar tension in your organization, feel free to share this post in your leadership chat. Sometimes all a team needs is better language, clearer process, and the courage to treat people like partners—even under pressure.
