The Attribution Gap
Attribution is not automatic. It is built from a record, and records require entries made before the final moment, not reconstructed from it.
Attribution is not automatic. It is built from a record, and records require entries made before the final moment, not reconstructed from it.
People don't resist change, they resist ambiguity: not knowing if they'll still belong, still matter. Change management handles the mechanics. Leadership creates clarity from uncertainty, and gives people real agency in how they move through it.
No amount of calibration will close a gap that exists in the evaluation system itself. The answer isn't a more refined adjustment. It's a different theory of how credibility forms.
Credibility isn't only built in conditions that reward it. It's defined in conditions that test it.
We expect leaders to look composed on their worst days. That standard is a norm worth rewriting. Leadership isn't measured by avoiding stumbles, but by recovering from them, giving yourself the grace you offer everyone else, and standing back up.
The credibility account opens at the first interaction. After that, interest compounds in whichever direction the first deposit set.
Most leaders treat burnout as a personal failing to push through. It's not. It's information: a signal your role has outgrown what one person can sustain. The skill isn't pushing harder. It's paying attention before you have no choice but to stop.
The meeting before the meeting isn't a political manoeuvre. It's where credibility compounds, or stalls.
We look at successful careers and assume the sequence was obvious all along. The promotion appears inevitable. The move looks strategic. The risk seems intelligent.
The question isn't whether your work is excellent. The question is: when someone who matters is in a room without you and your name comes up, what do they say?