I've been fascinated by questions for a long time.

Enough to write a book about them. Enough to create a deck of conversation cards. Enough that many people assume asking great questions is the heart of what I do.

They're not wrong.

A well-timed question can change the direction of a conversation. It can expose an assumption, surface something that's been sitting just below the surface, or help someone see a situation from a completely different angle. Questions create movement when people have become stuck in familiar ways of thinking.

One of the disciplines I’ve developed in my coaching practice is setting aside time each week to reflect on what has emerged across my conversations. I’m not looking for obvious patterns, but to make sense of what leaders are grappling with, where organisations get stuck, and what might be useful to bring into future conversations. Over time, I’ve found that this reflection helps me synthesise what I’m hearing and, hopefully, bring greater value to each client.

This week, as I reviewed my notes and reflected on a range of individual and team engagements, I noticed that initially the challenges felt quite different.

One leader was frustrated that they were being held accountable for outcomes without feeling they had the authority to make the decisions required to achieve them. Another executive was concerned that decisions were taking too long and wondered why their team wasn’t ‘stepping up’ and showing greater ownership. In an executive team workshop, several people described feeling unclear about who was responsible for what, despite agreeing they had discussed it in the previous meeting.

On reflection, what struck me was that none of these situations was really about a lack of capability, commitment, experience or effort. Nor were they things you could put down to poor communication.

Instead, they seemed to sit in the space between.

The space between accountability and authority.

The space between delegation and trust.

The space between enterprise priorities and functional responsibilities.

There's a particular kind of discomfort circulating in senior leadership right now that doesn't get named very often.

It's not confusion about AI exactly, though that's part of it. It's the vulnerability of being expected to lead clearly through something you're still working out yourself, in real time, in front of people who may understand aspects of the technology better than you do.

The conversation about AI is loud, and most senior leaders are in it, at least visibly. They're attending briefings, sitting through demonstrations, forwarding articles, asking their teams what they're doing with it and, increasingly, experimenting themselves.

I've spoken with executives who have started generating code, building simple applications or creating AI workflows, despite having no particular technical background. Sometimes that's driven by genuine curiosity and a desire to understand the technology first-hand.

Sometimes I find myself wondering whether something else is going on, whether there's an unspoken belief that leaders need to prove they "get it" before they're allowed to lead through it.

The fine line between solving problems and misreading the context

In the first weeks of a new senior role, things can feel awkward and unnatural.

Our decision-making feels clunky. We’re missing knowledge of the customs and processes that enable us to move at speed. At the same time, we see early signs that things could be clearer, faster, and more effective. Our instinct is to act to demonstrate capability, reinforce the hiring decision and gain confidence.

The problem is, we don’t know what we’re missing. We don't know what the organisation is optimising for, which inefficiencies are deliberate trade-offs and which are consequences of previous decisions, why previous attempts to change things have broken down or how decisions get made when the pressure is real.

It’s tempting to rely on our track record, reference past successes and draw parallels when making recommendations. Track record might be why we were hired, but once inside a new organisation, that history carries very little weight. “Show me what you can do here” is much more prevalent than “tell me what you’ve done elsewhere”.