Why Clarity Is the Real Competitive Advantage?
Recently, I had to sit in a reflective conversation with a colleague to clarify our expectations from how my role can overlapped theirs.
That conversation sent me down the path of retrospection.
I thought back to when I had pivoted — those first few months of transition where everything was shifting, and clarity felt distant.
The changes came top-down, and before I could fully process them, I found myself in a shared zone of ownership, where the definition of my role blurred at the edges. My brain was so demotivated that I went to bed feeling hopeless and sad about pivoting. I think everyone has this moment- when the world forces us to say: "ok I am here- what do I want to do with it?" And at that time I handled my frustration with constant escalation. The one thing I know about escalation is - that it is not bad but instead it's the piece of management that exists to bring clarity by making the leaders see through the wells of the issues.
However this time, as the overlaps were rather distinct to classify- we did what organizations usually do in times of transition — created RACI matrices, filled responsibilities, redefined processes.
But here’s the real question: when the organization is in flux, how long do neat frameworks actually hold? Specifically in context to AI?
I realized something then — when clarity fades, it’s often wiser to serve the business rather than the people. In times of ambiguity, leadership should act like a stabilizing force, not a source of false comfort. Because nothing demoralizes high performers faster than promises that can’t be kept. Through the path that I went through - I discovered that I love building safe spaces to learn together, and to share sanity and connection with the colleagues I work with.
I also learnt- I don't like doing promises in an organization where things are not in my control or accountability. Empty promises are like letter bombs. They sit quietly for a while — until one day, they detonate in the form of cynicism, disengagement, or non-trust.
Recently, I had to sit in a reflective conversation with a colleague to clarify our expectations from how my role can overlapped theirs.
That conversation sent me down the path of retrospection.
I thought back to when I had pivoted — those first few months of transition where everything was shifting, and clarity felt distant.
The changes came top-down, and before I could fully process them, I found myself in a shared zone of ownership, where the definition of my role blurred at the edges. My brain was so demotivated that I went to bed feeling hopeless and sad about pivoting. I think everyone has this moment- when the world forces us to say: "ok I am here- what do I want to do with it?" And at that time I handled my frustration with constant escalation. The one thing I know about escalation is - that it is not bad but instead it's the piece of management that exists to bring clarity by making the leaders see through the wells of the issues.
However this time, as the overlaps were rather distinct to classify- we did what organizations usually do in times of transition — created RACI matrices, filled responsibilities, redefined processes.
But here’s the real question: when the organization is in flux, how long do neat frameworks actually hold? Specifically in context to AI?
I realized something then — when clarity fades, it’s often wiser to serve the business rather than the people. In times of ambiguity, leadership should act like a stabilizing force, not a source of false comfort. Because nothing demoralizes high performers faster than promises that can’t be kept. Through the path that I went through - I discovered that I love building safe spaces to learn together, and to share sanity and connection with the colleagues I work with.
I also learnt- I don't like doing promises in an organization where things are not in my control or accountability. Empty promises are like letter bombs. They sit quietly for a while — until one day, they detonate in the form of cynicism, disengagement, or non-trust.
The Real Problem Isn’t the People
Most problems inside organizations boil down to two things: structure or dynamics.
When either one fails, everything else follows chaotic and inefficient path. In order to be able to find a coherent answer I learnt from my colleague:
Asking the questions that matter:
- What are the goals?
- What does success look like?
- Who is actually accountable for this outcome?
It’s astonishing how often these questions yield vague or contradicting answers. And that’s not because the structure is unclear.
We too often assume that more documentation or longer job descriptions solve the problem.
But clarity doesn’t come from words on paper; it comes from alignment in minds. And I think our leaders knew that. I could see in our call that they hit the right point- Sometimes it helps to give people problems to solve rather than roles to fill. The act of solving clarifies ownership far better than a checklist ever could.
The Role of Goals
Goals are not an annual exercise — they are a communication tool. They translate strategic vision into collective understanding.
When an organization is changing or in flux, goals must evolve too. Every few months, they should be recalibrated to reflect reality, not past intentions.
Strategy, when done right, is uncomfortable — because it forces hard choices. Either people prioritize for themselves, or leaders prioritize for them. That’s how you know whether an organization truly understands itself.
Each goal should have a single owner. Two people owning the same goal is a polite way of saying no one owns it. And in the start of my pivot I went through painful days of feeling useless because of this.
And here’s the uncomfortable truth — winners and losers often chase the same goals. The difference lies in ownership, in the clarity of accountability, and in how tightly teams align around the purpose behind those goals.
The Culture
A company’s culture is the mirror of its CEO.
We often talk about “shaping” culture, but that’s not how it works. Culture is shaped by behavior — and behavior starts at the top. What leaders reward, ignore, or tolerate quietly defines the company far more than any set of declared values.
You can understand an organization’s true culture without reading a single word about it. Just watch how it runs — how it handles conflict, how it navigates failure, how it treats its dissenters, it's high performers etc.
Culture isn’t a value statement; it’s an operating system built on actions.
When to Let Things Fall Apart
Eighty percent of “performance issues” in teams trace back to unclear structure — fuzzy goals, mixed signals, or invisible ownership. Other times, it's dynamics issues- how someone speaks about another person or how their behavior is encouraged even though it doesn't seem fit for the professional conduct.
When leaders constantly step in to smooth things over, they unintentionally teach the organization that dysfunction is acceptable — that the system “works” as long as someone compensates quietly.
That’s how bottlenecks stay hidden.
That’s how underperformers survive.
That’s how quiet performers burn out in silence.
There’s power in letting certain things fail.
Because sometimes, only the collapse reveals what’s truly broken.
Letting go is not inaction — it’s design.
And this is another truth that I learnt to live by: not everything broken should be fixed.
It’s the hard work of leadership that trusts systems to tell their truth, even if that truth is uncomfortable to face. That’s where real reform begins.
