Most leaders do not make a fundamental mistake because they don't know what to do. The problem usually lies elsewhere. In moments of pressure, they stop seeing what their actions trigger in others, what they project onto the situation, and where they are no longer reacting to reality, but to their own automatisms. This is precisely where leaders' blind spots arise.<\/p>\n
It's not a lack of intelligence or experience. The greater the responsibility a person bears, the more easily they develop a functional decision-making process that works for a long time. However, what helped in one phase starts to become a limitation in another. Rigour turns into micromanagement. Speed into impatience. The ability to withstand pressure into emotional detachment. And because the outcome can remain decent externally for a long time, the problem stays hidden.<\/p>\n
Blind spots typically arise not from the content, but from the dynamics. Leaders often focus on what was said, what arguments were made, and who is right. They pay less attention to what's happening beneath the surface: who is taking power in the conversation, who is conceding, where defensiveness, loyalty, fear, or the need to have is appearing. things under control<\/a>.<\/p>\n A typical example is a manager who thinks they are simply factual and straightforward. The team, however, experiences them as someone with whom it is risky to speak openly. They themselves do not see aggression, because they do not shout or insult anyone. However, they do not see the impact. People filter information, pre-edit messages, and the problem reaches them late. Externally, everything is running smoothly; in reality, trust is breaking down.<\/p>\n Another common area is interpretation. Leaders are often accustomed to reading situations quickly. This is an advantage until they mistake assumption for fact. When someone is silent, it doesn't necessarily mean opposition. When a colleague disagrees, it's not necessarily disloyalty. When a team isn't performing, the problem might not be with commitment, but with unclear instructions or people being afraid to say the direction doesn't make sense.<\/p>\n The very act of separating reality from interpretation is one of the points where leadership quality is revealed. Without it, even a capable leader will start making decisions based on a sense of threat, not on what is actually happening.<\/p>\n It's not always a big conflict. Often the opposite, very subtly. Conversations go in circles. The same type of people leave. Feedback is formally given, but nothing changes. The leader is repeatedly surprised after meetings by how differently people have understood their words.<\/p>\n Sometimes a blind spot can be seen when someone addresses the same issue repeatedly with different people. \u201cWhy is everyone so sensitive?\u201d \u201cWhy do I have to see everything through myself?\u201d \u201cWhy doesn't anyone treat me with honesty?\u201d If the people change but the dynamic remains the same, it's often useful to stop looking for a culprit and start observing your own part.<\/p>\n That doesn't mean accepting responsibility for everything. It means looking more closely. Where I'm pushing others to defend themselves. Where I want to quickly resolve tension and thus skip over the essential. Where I confuse authority for control<\/a>. And where do I need to be right more than understand the situation.<\/p>\n This also relates to working with emotions. Emotions are often not exaggerated outwardly in leaders, but their influence on judgment is underestimated. Someone under pressure easily hears criticism where there is only correction. Or, conversely, they overlook a signal that frustration is growing within the team. The topic is also further explored in the text. How to manage emotions at work without pretense<\/a>.<\/p>\n Because the blind spot protects identity. If someone has long perceived themselves as fair, decisive, or resilient, it's difficult for them to admit that this very quality also has a dark side. It's not just about ego. It's about inner stability. Admitting that one's style repeatedly creates defence or confusion can be more challenging for an experienced person than dealing with the conflict itself.<\/p>\n Another reason is power asymmetry. The higher up someone is, the less unbiased feedback they receive. People around them react to their role as well as their behaviour. Therefore, it's not enough to ask if the team is satisfied. It's necessary to observe specific interactions. What happened. Who reacted to what. What was literally said. What is Assumption<\/a>.<\/p>\n If conflicts repeat in leadership, it helps to go back to how the situation unfolds step by step. Not \u201cwho started it\u201d, but what dynamic is triggered. Text can also be useful in this regard. How to resolve conflict in a team without losing influence<\/a>.<\/p>\n The first step isn't changing personality, but more accurate mapping. When exactly do I lose contact with the reality of the situation. With which people. In what type of conversation. What do I automatically interpret as an attack, inability, or unwillingness. And how much of that do I actually have verified.<\/p>\nJak se slep\u00e9 m\u00edsto projevuje v praxi<\/h2>\n
Why is it hard to recognise them<\/h2>\n
What to do about it without unnecessary self-criticism<\/h2>\n