You’re good at your job. That’s not flattery, that’s just the setup. You’ve built something real. You deliver. Your manager/boss/leader trusts you. Your team follows you. When things are moving in the right direction, you’re exactly the kind of leader people point to as an example.
And that’s precisely where this gets complicated.
Because the version of you that performs well when conditions are stable, when the strategy is clear, when the resources are in place, that version isn’t actually being tested. That version is just executing. Execution is valuable, but it’s not leadership. Not the kind that matters when it counts.
Think about the last time something shifted underneath you. A reorg. A budget cut. A directive from above that didn’t make sense but you were expected to implement anyway. A key team member who quit at the worst possible moment. A strategic priority that changed mid-quarter with no explanation.
What did you do?
If you’re being honest, really honest, there’s a good chance you did one of a few things. You waited for more information. You scheduled a meeting before making a move. You escalated to get clarity from above. You told your team “we’re figuring it out” while privately hoping someone else would figure it out first.
None of those things look like failure from the outside. That’s the problem. They look like diligence. They look like process. They look, if you squint, like leadership.
But what they actually are is a manager waiting for the puck to come back to them before they’re willing to play again.
In the third installment of the Mighty Ducks franchise, new coach Ted Orion pulls the team together on the ice and asks a simple question: what’s the one thing all great teams have in common? When a player tries to flatter him with “great coaching,” Orion shuts it down immediately.
His answer is defense. And to play great defense, he says, you need one thing above all else. Confidence.
Then he says something that has stuck with me since I first heard it, and I mean that without irony:
“It’s easy to be confident when you have control of the puck. It’s very, very difficult to keep that confidence when you gotta take whatever strange bounce life throws your way. Don’t be careless, but don’t be too careful either. You cannot be afraid to lose. That’s how you gain the confidence to attack the game when the puck isn’t yours. That’s how you attack life even when you think you don’t have any control.”
It’s a speech from a 1996 kids’ hockey movie. It also describes, with uncomfortable precision, the thing that separates leaders who grow from leaders who plateau.
Orion isn’t talking about skill. He’s not talking about strategy or talent or effort. He’s talking about what happens to a person’s behavior when they don’t have control. When the puck isn’t theirs. That’s where the real diagnostic is.
I’ve been the manager in this article. Not a version of them, not someone like them. I’ve led a fire team in the Marines, where the cost of waiting for the puck is a different kind of catastrophic. I’ve built and run a business, where the uncertainty is relentless and nobody is coming to hand you clarity. And in both of those contexts, and in the quieter, less dramatic world of organizational leadership, I’ve still sat in uncertainty and told myself I was being careful when I was actually being afraid. I’ve framed waiting as strategy. I’ve called hesitation due diligence. I’ve watched situations that were mine to move on drift into someone else’s hands and felt quietly relieved that I didn’t have to own the outcome.
That last part is the one worth sitting with. Because I wasn’t unqualified. I wasn’t inexperienced. I had the reps. I knew what I was doing. I just didn’t have a framework honest enough to call it what it was.
The leaders I’ve watched do the same thing are not weak people. They’re not incompetent. Most of them are genuinely talented. That’s what makes the pattern so stubborn. When you’re good enough to succeed in controlled conditions, you can go years without ever being forced to confront what you do when the conditions aren’t controlled.
Until you can’t anymore.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside and the outside. See if any of it sounds familiar.
You over-prepare as a way of avoiding the moment of action. The deck gets one more revision. The data needs one more pass. The conversation keeps getting pushed because you want to have the perfect framing first. You tell yourself it’s thoroughness. What it actually is, is a refusal to act without certainty you were never going to have.
You escalate decisions that are actually yours to make. Not because you need guidance, but because escalation is a way of sharing the risk. If it goes wrong, it wasn’t entirely your call. You’ve seen what this looks like in others and called it indecisiveness. In yourself, you’ve called it collaboration.
You are excellent in a stable quarter and nearly invisible in a chaotic one. Your best work happens when the variables are known. When they’re not, you become a coordinator instead of a leader. You run meetings, you synthesize updates, you keep people informed. You do everything except make the call.
You interpret your discomfort with uncertainty as a signal that you need more information, when it’s actually a signal that you haven’t built the internal capacity to act without it. The discomfort isn’t telling you to wait. It’s telling you that you’ve been relying on favorable conditions to feel confident, and now you don’t have them.
You have a story about yourself as a confident, capable leader, and that story is accurate enough, often enough, that you’ve never had to seriously question it. The trap isn’t that you think you’re better than you are across the board. It’s that you think your performance in good conditions is a reliable indicator of your performance in hard ones. It isn’t.
Orion’s point isn’t that confidence is a feeling you manufacture. It’s that real confidence is a behavior pattern you build through repeatedly choosing to act when you don’t have control. Every time you wait for the puck instead of attacking the play, you reinforce the belief that you can only perform when conditions are right. You narrow your own range.
The leaders who grow past this aren’t the ones who stopped feeling uncertain. They’re the ones who stopped letting uncertainty be the deciding factor. They built enough reps of acting without control that the discomfort stopped being a stop sign and started being information.
That’s the internal work. Not confidence as a posture. Confidence as a track record of not waiting for permission from your own circumstances.
And it’s work most high-performing mid-level managers have never actually done, because they’ve never had to. Their results have been good enough to avoid the reckoning.
Until the puck isn’t theirs. Until the reorg happens, or the strategy shifts, or the ground moves and nobody is coming to hand it back.
What happens then is the whole story.
0 responses to “Waiting for the Puck”