Week 1: The One-Decision Experiment
Don't try to transform your organization in week one. Run a single experiment.
Choose one upcoming decision or project where work hasn't started yet, multiple people are involved, clarity matters but currently feels fuzzy, and the outcome is meaningful but not catastrophic if imperfect.
Before the work begins, spend 20 minutes writing down:
- Outcome: What needs to be true when this is "done"? Be specific enough that your team could test their own progress.
- Boundaries: What's explicitly out of scope? Name 2–3 things that might be tempting to include but shouldn't be.
- Evaluation criteria: When options compete, how will we choose? Speed vs. quality? Cost vs. capability? Simple vs. complete?
- Decision authority: What decisions can the team make without checking with you? What requires your input?
Then share it with your team before they start working. Not as a speech. As a written artifact they can refer back to.
What to observe
- Do they ask fewer clarifying questions during execution?
- Do decisions stick without reopening?
- Can they evaluate their own work without escalating to you?
- Does the work stay aligned as it progresses?
What feels normal
- The conversation takes longer than your usual kickoff
- You feel like you're over-explaining
- Your team seems slightly surprised by the level of detail
- You second-guess whether this was worth the time
What's concerning
- Your team still escalates every decision despite your clarity
- Work diverges in different directions anyway
- People ignore the boundaries you set
If you see concerning patterns, the issue is usually: your outcome wasn't actually testable, your boundaries weren't explicit enough, or your team doesn't believe you'll let them use the authority you gave them.
Month 1: Building the Muscle
If your one-decision experiment showed promise, expand to 2–3 decisions or projects this month.
What to practice
- Writing outcomes that are testable, not just aspirational
- Naming boundaries before they're violated
- Making evaluation criteria explicit before options multiply
- Actually letting your team decide what you said they could decide
What to expect: Weeks 1–2
- Defining intent still feels awkward and time-consuming
- You catch yourself being vague mid-conversation and having to restart
- Some attempts work beautifully, others fall flat
- You're not sure if you're doing it "right"
What to expect: Weeks 3–4
- First decision lands without you being in the room
- A team member uses your evaluation criteria to resolve a trade-off independently
- You realize you're in one fewer "what did you mean by..." meeting this week
- Someone on your team starts asking for outcomes and boundaries at kickoff
Common Month 1 Challenges
This feels like micromanaging.
Why it happens: You're confusing "explicit about outcomes" with "prescriptive about methods."
Fix: Outcomes define what success looks like. Let teams decide how to get there. If you're dictating implementation steps, you've crossed into micromanagement.
My team thinks I'm slowing things down.
Why it happens: The upfront time is visible. The saved time later isn't — yet.
Fix: Make the time trade visible. "We're spending 20 minutes now so we don't spend 3 hours in clarification meetings Thursday."
I defined intent but people still got confused.
Why it happens: You were clear to yourself but not testable to them.
Fix: Test by asking: "What would success look like?" If they can't articulate it back in their own words, you weren't clear enough yet.
Conditions changed and my intent is obsolete.
Why it happens: This is normal. Intent needs refreshing when reality shifts.
Fix: Don't view this as failure. Revisit the original outcome and ask: "Does this still apply, or do we need to adjust?" Refreshing intent is part of the rhythm.
Month 2: The Returns Start Showing
By month two, the time equation begins to flip. You're still investing upfront, but the reactive overhead is dropping noticeably.
- Fewer escalations: Decisions that used to land on your desk are being made by the team using the criteria you established.
- Better questions: When your team does come to you, their questions are higher quality — about genuine trade-offs, not clarification on what you meant.
- Faster execution: Work moves faster once it starts because teams aren't pausing mid-stream to check assumptions.
- More strategic capacity: You have mental space to think about next quarter rather than constantly troubleshooting this week.
One team is doing great, another is still escalating everything.
Why it happens: Some teams need more explicit permission to decide.
Fix: Check if the struggling team believes they're allowed to use the authority you gave them. Sometimes you need to explicitly say: "I meant it when I said you decide this."
I defined intent but then undermined it by stepping in anyway.
Why it happens: Old habits. You saw work moving and inserted yourself as a reflex.
Fix: If you gave someone decision authority, honor it even if you would have chosen differently. Intervention teaches them they need your approval regardless of what you said.
Month 3: The Rhythm Becomes Natural
By month three, Intent Management™ stops feeling like a technique you're trying and starts feeling like how you work.
- Your team initiates: They start asking for outcomes and boundaries at project kickoff without prompting.
- The language spreads: People reference "the outcome" or "the boundaries we set" in meetings. The vocabulary becomes shared.
- Your role evolves: Less "what did you mean?" and more "here's the trade-off I'm weighing, how would you think about this?"
- Capacity returns: Roughly 6–8 hours per week that used to be reactive clarification, escalation, and rework conversations are now available for strategy, coaching, and thinking ahead.
Signs you're getting it right
- Teams can articulate the outcome without looking at notes
- Decisions stick without reopening
- When you're not in the room, work stays aligned
- Escalations are about genuine ambiguity, not preventable confusion
- Your team starts teaching Intent Management™ to new hires
- You feel less pressure even though work pace hasn't slowed
Signs you're not there yet
- You're still the bottleneck for most decisions
- Work diverges despite your attempts at clarity
- Teams nod in meetings but execute differently afterward
- People ignore the boundaries you set
If you're seeing warning signs at month three, the issues are usually: you're defining outcomes but not actually letting teams use them to decide, your outcomes sound clear but aren't testable in practice, or you haven't established the rhythm of refreshing intent as conditions change.
Ready to think through where you are in this progression — or what's getting in the way? A focused session can cut months of trial and error down to a single working conversation.
Schedule a Session