How Smart Executives Quickly Lose Leverage
Stop performing intelligence. Start gathering it.
Picture this.
You are in a stressful board meeting or ELT discussion. The air in the room is thin.
Yeah, even the air in your home office becomes scarce.
Suddenly, a complex question lands—seemingly hair brained and off topic.
It’s specific. It’s technical. And you have absolutely no idea what the answer is.
Your pulse quickens.
You feel the heat rising up your neck. The silence stretches, and in that split second, your brain screams at you:
Fix it.
You feel a need to prove you belong in the room. So, you start talking.
“That’s something we can certainly align on...”
“We have a framework for that...”
“I’m confident we can handle that complexity...”
You didn’t lie, exactly. But you didn’t tell the truth.
You bluffed. You bought yourself time to panic later. You filled the dead air with corporate noise because silence can feel like failure.
This is a mistake.
It’s called the Expert Trap.
As a consultant, I have fallen into this a few more times than I care to admit. And even after over 30,000 conversations with senior leaders—I am still learning every single day.
The Expert Trap is the belief that leadership is a performance art where you must have a quick, clever answer for every problem. I suspect it’s more unconscious bias than actively trying to one up everyone else.
But when you fake an answer, or fill the room with corporate speak—you do three dangerous things:
You cap your upside. You often agree to terms or timelines you don’t fully understand.
You destroy your leverage. You are no longer assessing the deal; you are now defending a position that was just made up on the fly.
You signal weakness. Your urgency can be perceived as desperation or submissiveness.
Most executives think they need all the answers to win.
Wrong.
In complex negotiations, the person pretending to know everything is usually the weakest link.
The one that has it all figured out—with utmost certainty—is the one most blinded to getting creative, building stronger and more collaborative outcomes, and most likely to fall trap to precedents, benchmarks, and the way it’s always been done.
The person asking the questions is the one in control.
And you can tell if a senior leader is worth their salt by the quality of questions that they ask and how much extreme ownership of their failures that they claim. We’ll save that topic for another article.
Your goal is never to prove how smart you are.
It’s to get the best outcome for as many people as possible. And sometimes, the smartest move you can make is to look the other person in the eye and admit you don’t know exactly how to do it.
The Leverage Shift
Think about the mechanics of each high-stakes conversation you have.
There is a currency in the room: Information.
The person speaking is the person spending that currency.
They are revealing their position, their constraints, and their logic. The person listening—and asking questions—is the one collecting it.
When you rush to answer a question you don’t understand, you are voluntarily handing over your leverage. You are “spending” credibility you don’t have to defend a position you don’t fully understand.
The moment you decide to push out any answer to fill dead air, you stop listening to understand and start listening to survive.
You more easily miss the subtle cues, the hesitation in their voice, or the gap in their logic that could have won you a better deal.
Note: Leverage here doesn’t mean domination. It means clarity. When you rush to answer, you are often fighting the other person. When you ask the right question, you are teaming up with them to fight the problem.
Interview processes are notorious for this because the nature of each conversation feels like YOU are on display and have something to prove—when in reality, it should feel more like a two way evaluation of respect, value exchange, and collaboration.
Strategic ignorance flips this dynamic in these scenarios.
When you pause and say, “I don’t know,” or “Can you walk me through that?” you force the other side to do more heavy lifting.
You expose the cracks. Often, when you ask someone to explain a complex detail, they realize they don’t fully understand it either. Or, they reveal a constraint they were trying to gloss over.
You buy time. While they are busy explaining, you are busy thinking. You get to process the new information without the pressure of performance.
You build trust. In a corporate world full of people pretending to be experts, admission of ignorance is disarming. If you are honest about what you don’t know, they will believe you implicitly when you tell them what you do know.
The “Expert” tries to impress the room. The Strategist works to understand it.
The Exception: Distinguish between data and direction. If you don’t know your current revenue or headcount, you aren’t being strategic; you’re unprepared. Strategic ignorance is for solving complex, non-binary problems—not for dodging basic homework.
From “Answering” to “Exploring”
So, how do you execute this without looking incompetent or adding unnecessary or even annoying friction?
It is not as simple as saying “I don’t know.”
First, a rule of thumb: Do not act like a toddler asking “why” after every statement. That adds friction. We are aiming for exploratory questions that add value—questions that promote deeper thinking and stronger collaboration.
In high-stakes environments—whether it’s a final-round interview for a C-suite role or a heated negotiation—your goal is to move the conversation from confrontation to collaboration.
We do this using open-ended, exploratory questions (similar to what Chris Voss calls “calibrated questions”). These questions encourage the other side to stop demanding and start solving.
The “Yes, If” Rule: Never answer a question with a naked question—that feels evasive. Validate their reality first. Acknowledge the constraint (”I see why speed is critical here...”), then pivot to your strategic question.
Validation buys you the permission to ask.
Here are two common scenarios where leaders often bluff, and the alternative you can use instead.
Scenario 1: The Interview Constraint
The Trap: You are in a final interview. The Board Chair pushes back on your salary counter or asks how you will hit an aggressive Q1 target with limited budget.
The Bluff (Weak): “I’m confident I can make the numbers work. I’ve done more with less before.” (You have just accepted a bad deal.)
The Strategic Question (Strong): “I want to deliver those results with you. But looking at the current resources, how can we make that work without compromising the long-term stability of the team?”
Why it works: Notice the shift from “I” language to “We” language. This elicits a collaborative conversation rather than a defensive one.
Scenario 2: The Operational Block
The Trap: A peer demands a deliverable on an impossible timeline.
The Bluff (Weak): “We’ll do our best to squeeze it in.” (You have just committed your team to burnout.)
The Strategic Question (Strong): “I understand the urgency here. But if we prioritize this new deadline, what should we deprioritize to ensure the quality doesn’t suffer?”
In both cases, you aren’t saying “No” and you aren’t pretending to be a magician.
You are asking them to help you solve the problem—which also helps spread ownership and buy in for the outcome.
Be The One Thinking
This isn’t permission to be lazy, unprepared, or to simply “ask your way out” of a problem.
Quite the contrary.
The top senior leaders I work with are hyper prepared. They know their numbers. They know their markets. They know their teams.
Questions buy you time; they don’t buy you a pass.
The goal of the strategic pause isn’t to leave the question open forever—it’s to buy the necessary time to go back, do the deep work, and return with a verified solution rather than a guess.
Top execs know a lot—but they don’t know it all.
And as much as you and I would like to know it all—we don’t either.
We must stop viewing “I don’t know” as a failure of competence.
It is a strategic pause button.
It is a way to gather information, build trust, and ensure you aren’t agreeing to things you don’t understand.
It is a way to find the gaps in scope, the missing opportunities, or angles to take in order to make work better for everyone—which is a more constructive path to providing even more value and creating outsized compensation returns for you and your family.
In a room full of people pretending to have all the answers, the person asking the questions is the only one with an unfair advantage.
Be the one thinking.
Need help applying this? Upgrade to paid for monthly live sessions with Jacob.
Stay fearless, friends.
Great insights as always! Thanks for sharing
This nails it. The shift from 'I' to 'We' language in those scenario examples is subtle but powerful. I've watched execs trap themselves by bluffing an answer to 'prove' competence, then spend weeks scrambling to deliver on something they never fully understood. The framing of questions as currency-gathering rather than currency-spending changes the whole dynamic.