I would like add the following re the notion of “clarity”. Given of course than leadership is competent, I contend that clarity adapts to align with change in circumstances.
I said in a recent article: “clarity is not the end result of action — it is refined through intelligent feedback” — so adaption is part of it.
From strategy → into action → back into insight → and forward again with sharper direction.
I agree, however, that clarity assumptions depend on character (I would use the term “wisdom”) of leadership.
“From strategy → into action → back into insight → and forward again with sharper direction.”
I also love the shift from “character” to “wisdom.”
There’s something about wisdom that implies integrated discernment—not just moral substance, but depth. The kind that allows you to hold ambiguity.
Thanks for the thoughtful addition, Will. I think it will help a lot of people reflect on how clarity is a consequence of action rather than a prerequisite.
This is great. I’d love to learn more. For a leader with a traditional view of brand that wants to build brand character, but doesn’t know where to start. They may feel a meaningful return is far off, and not worth the time or money.
For that person, how do you recommend they get started?
What wouldn’t you do, even if the market asked for it? That friction often reveals actual values, not just aspirational ones.
Once you’ve defined your non-negotiables, check for consistency. Is there consistency between what you say you stand for and what actually drives behavior? Look at how you make decisions when things aren’t optimal— budget cuts, product pivots, client pressure etc.
So instead of investing in character as a campaign, you’re actually reinforcing internal decision logic that, over time, builds equity.
I would like add the following re the notion of “clarity”. Given of course than leadership is competent, I contend that clarity adapts to align with change in circumstances.
I said in a recent article: “clarity is not the end result of action — it is refined through intelligent feedback” — so adaption is part of it.
From strategy → into action → back into insight → and forward again with sharper direction.
I agree, however, that clarity assumptions depend on character (I would use the term “wisdom”) of leadership.
Totally with you on that, Will.
I love how you put it:
“From strategy → into action → back into insight → and forward again with sharper direction.”
I also love the shift from “character” to “wisdom.”
There’s something about wisdom that implies integrated discernment—not just moral substance, but depth. The kind that allows you to hold ambiguity.
Thanks for the thoughtful addition, Will. I think it will help a lot of people reflect on how clarity is a consequence of action rather than a prerequisite.
I discuss the progression from knowledge through mastery to wisdom here:
https://open.substack.com/pub/thewealthysage/p/intelligence-knowledge-and-wisdom
Thank you for sharing, Will. I think readers will find this insightful.
You’re most welcome, Caterina, I hope they do.
This is great. I’d love to learn more. For a leader with a traditional view of brand that wants to build brand character, but doesn’t know where to start. They may feel a meaningful return is far off, and not worth the time or money.
For that person, how do you recommend they get started?
Hi Jon, great question!
I’d start by defining your non-negotiables.
What wouldn’t you do, even if the market asked for it? That friction often reveals actual values, not just aspirational ones.
Once you’ve defined your non-negotiables, check for consistency. Is there consistency between what you say you stand for and what actually drives behavior? Look at how you make decisions when things aren’t optimal— budget cuts, product pivots, client pressure etc.
So instead of investing in character as a campaign, you’re actually reinforcing internal decision logic that, over time, builds equity.