Commitment is relative.
Sometimes leaders offer their full endorsement, while at other times they weaken their conviction through the expressions they use.
For instance, there is a subtle but important difference in saying “I agree” versus saying “I don’t disagree.” The former represents stronger endorsement and conviction, while the latter softens that commitment.
Because a leader’s commitment varies between situations and how they view matters, leaders naturally hedge at times, using different expressions to lower their endorsement.
The problem is that some leaders get addicted to a style of weakened conviction without realizing it. This means they come across as more evasive and less confident about people and issues than they intend.
One common pattern: leaders who rely heavily on soft verbs and hedges to express their views.
Expressions like “One option to think about…,” “It might be worth considering…,” “It seems like this is workable…,” “I think it might work…,” and “That may be a good idea…” reduce the risk of being wrong but also lower conviction.
Deferring confidence to others is another example of weakened endorsement. Phrases like “If you feel strongly…,” “I’m okay with that if you are…,” and “I’m happy to support you on this…” suggest the leader’s conviction depends on the other party.
Leaders also soften their responses by limiting the scope of their comments: “In this case…,” “Given the current data…,” and “From that perspective…”
By narrowing the window of their comments, leaders dilute their conviction. This constrains how much confidence others read into the leader’s position.
Some leaders have also learned to create delay in order to soften their endorsement.
Statements like “Let’s see how it goes…,” “I’ll keep an open mind…,” and “Let’s talk about this again…” fall far short of a full endorsement. Postponing a firm position suggests the leader’s endorsement depends on evidence still to come.
Good leaders naturally vary in their confidence, conviction, and endorsement depending on how they see a given issue. So, they use expressions like hedges, qualifiers, and tag questions to soften their endorsements.
This is normal and not a problem—unless they develop a style where they only offer low endorsements. When everything they believe is relative, hedged, or narrowed to convey less than a full endorsement, leaders come across as weak advocates and unsupportive of what others propose.
The question is this: Do you hedge on occasion, or have weak endorsements become part of your communication style? Leaders often fall into this trap without knowing it.
Take a hard look at the expressions you use to convey your convictions. How often do you hedge?
