The "they" → "we" → "I" progression here is brilliant. I see so many leaders in my work (myself included at times) who think switching to "we" is the finish line, but that's where the real work actually starts. The uncomfortable part, and the part most skip, is landing on "I didn't set clear expectations" or "I assumed alignment without building it." That's where the growth happens, and it's exactly why people avoid it.
The Lisa example nails what I hear in client debriefs all the time: leaders don't realize how "they" language signals to everyone (including customers) that the organization is fractured. You can't coach trust and ownership into a team if the language reinforces silos. ← Working through this right now with a client actually.
I am 100% in agreement with your analysis. It’s why I wanted to write this one.
First, so many leaders don’t understand how destructive “they” is.
Secondly, those that do think a simple word change to “we” covers everything.
It doesn’t.
I talked to a client today from a very big, well-known organization. He had read the article this morning, but still in conversation talked about “them not getting their stuff done”, or how “they need to figure something out”.
I brought it up to him. And it’s so ingrained in the culture, he didn’t even realize he was doing it.
Crazy, but I've had similar moments with clients where we'll spend a whole session unpacking accountability gaps, they'll nod along, and then five minutes later slip right back into "they're not executing" or "they don't care." It's like watching someone try to break muscle memory in real time.
The toughest part is that "they" feels safer. It keeps you at a distance from the mess. Moving to "I" means you're standing in it and most leaders aren't wired (or haven't been taught) to do that consistently. Sounds like you're doing the hard work of rewiring that with your clients. That stuff sticks way more than any framework ever will.
The "they" → "we" → "I" progression here is brilliant. I see so many leaders in my work (myself included at times) who think switching to "we" is the finish line, but that's where the real work actually starts. The uncomfortable part, and the part most skip, is landing on "I didn't set clear expectations" or "I assumed alignment without building it." That's where the growth happens, and it's exactly why people avoid it.
The Lisa example nails what I hear in client debriefs all the time: leaders don't realize how "they" language signals to everyone (including customers) that the organization is fractured. You can't coach trust and ownership into a team if the language reinforces silos. ← Working through this right now with a client actually.
Great write up!
I am 100% in agreement with your analysis. It’s why I wanted to write this one.
First, so many leaders don’t understand how destructive “they” is.
Secondly, those that do think a simple word change to “we” covers everything.
It doesn’t.
I talked to a client today from a very big, well-known organization. He had read the article this morning, but still in conversation talked about “them not getting their stuff done”, or how “they need to figure something out”.
I brought it up to him. And it’s so ingrained in the culture, he didn’t even realize he was doing it.
Crazy, but I've had similar moments with clients where we'll spend a whole session unpacking accountability gaps, they'll nod along, and then five minutes later slip right back into "they're not executing" or "they don't care." It's like watching someone try to break muscle memory in real time.
The toughest part is that "they" feels safer. It keeps you at a distance from the mess. Moving to "I" means you're standing in it and most leaders aren't wired (or haven't been taught) to do that consistently. Sounds like you're doing the hard work of rewiring that with your clients. That stuff sticks way more than any framework ever will.
"They." "They?" "Who is They?" "Well, you know...Them." Arggh.
is that a Laurel and Hardy skit?