Why "State of Being" Is the Most Important Skill You Need

Two leaders can possess comparable experience, intelligence and technical competence, yet respond very differently to the same difficult situation. One becomes defensive when challenged; the other becomes curious. One treats disagreement as a threat to credibility; the other considers what the disagreement might reveal.

We often explain this difference through emotional intelligence, maturity or communication skills. Those explanations have merit, but they overlook a more fundamental variable: the state from which a person is operating. By state of being, I mean the emotional, cognitive and physical conditions that influence how we perceive situations, exercise judgement and respond.

Professional development concentrates on what people know and what they can do. Far less attention is paid to the condition in which they attempt to use those capabilities. A capable leader operating from insecurity may undermine trust. An experienced negotiator preoccupied with winning may miss a better agreement. Their knowledge has not disappeared; their access to it has changed.

The hidden variable behind performance

Imagine a senior leader presenting an important initiative. A colleague challenges one of the assumptions. The challenge is reasonable, but the leader has already invested considerable effort and discussed the proposal with senior stakeholders.

If the leader feels threatened, attention may shift towards defending the proposal and protecting credibility. If the leader remains sufficiently composed and curious, attention can stay with the quality of the decision. The external event is identical. The internal experience, and therefore the conversation, is different.

This matters beyond one meeting. People notice which questions are welcomed, when disagreement becomes uncomfortable and whether concerns can be raised without personal consequences. A leader’s internal state is not entirely private. Repeatedly expressed through behaviour, it can become part of the team’s working environment.

Why capability alone is insufficient

Someone may understand active listening perfectly and still interrupt when feeling criticised. A manager may know how to deliver feedback but become evasive when the conversation involves a valued employee. An executive may understand strategic thinking yet spend an entire day reacting to urgent demands.

Knowing what to do does not guarantee that we can do it when it matters. Research by Amy Arnsten on stress signalling and the prefrontal cortex helps explain why stress can impair aspects of working memory and cognitive control. The effects depend on the circumstances and should not be reduced to a simplistic claim that all stress destroys judgement. The practical implication is more useful: under pressure, access to capabilities we normally possess can become less reliable.

Teaching a better decision-making framework is valuable. Helping a leader recognise when their internal condition is distorting its application is equally important. These are complementary forms of development.

When a personal state becomes an organisational pattern

Consider a leader anxious about missing performance targets. That anxiety produces frequent progress checks, an insistence on immediate answers and rapid escalation of small issues. Initially, these behaviours may look like commitment and accountability.

Over time, employees may prioritise visible activity over thoughtful problem-solving. They may wait for approval before acting or avoid mentioning risks until they have a solution. The leader then encounters a team that appears increasingly dependent and responds with even closer supervision.

A reinforcing cycle develops. What began as an internal concern about performance has influenced decision rights, communication habits and team capability. The problem is no longer confined to the leader’s feelings; it has entered the organisation’s operating system.

The state a leader repeatedly brings into a room can eventually become part of the culture everyone else works within. This does not make leaders solely responsible for organisational culture. Incentives, workloads and structures also matter. But authority amplifies the consequences of repeated behaviour.

State of being does not mean feeling good

An effective state is not perpetual calm, forced positivity or the suppression of uncomfortable emotions. Anger may reveal a boundary that has been crossed. Anxiety may point towards a genuine risk. Frustration may indicate that an important problem remains unresolved.

The difficulty begins when an emotion directs behaviour without adequate examination. A leader who feels angry may need to address unacceptable conduct firmly. The question is whether anger helps clarify the issue or turns the conversation into a personal confrontation.

Appearing composed and exercising sound judgement are not synonymous. A leader may project confidence while dismissing inconvenient evidence. Another may acknowledge uncertainty openly and still demonstrate considerable maturity. The objective is to develop a more reliable relationship with our internal experience, rather than manufacture an impressive appearance.

The State–Interpretation–Response–Consequence model

I find it useful to examine four connected elements. They describe a recurring sequence, not a rigid psychological law.

1. State: What is happening within me?

Notice the conditions shaping attention. Am I impatient, threatened, exhausted, curious or unusually certain? Is my body signalling tension? Am I trying to resolve the issue, or escape the discomfort associated with it? These observations are information rather than a diagnosis.

2. Interpretation: What meaning am I assigning?

A colleague’s silence might indicate disagreement, fatigue, uncertainty or simply a need for time. An anxious leader may interpret it as disapproval. Once an interpretation feels convincing, subsequent evidence can be filtered through it. Ask: What else could reasonably explain what I am observing?

3. Response: What am I making possible or difficult?

Tone, timing, questions, interruptions, decisions and silence influence what happens next. A defensive response may discourage challenge. A thoughtful question may surface information that would otherwise remain hidden. The test is whether the response serves the actual demands of the situation.

4. Consequence: What pattern does this reinforce?

People remember how concerns were handled. Repeated experiences shape whether they speak up, take ownership or avoid risk. Those consequences feed back into the leader’s future state: silence may increase suspicion, while sound independent judgement may encourage delegation. Our internal state influences the system around us, and the system we create can reinforce the state from which we operate.

Pressure reveals the pattern

Consider a hypothetical executive team responding to a commercial setback. Revenue expectations have been missed, a major customer is dissatisfied and the board expects an explanation. The executive feels personally accountable. That accountability is appropriate; the risk is allowing it to become a threat to personal identity.

If every question is treated as an accusation, the team may become preoccupied with defending earlier decisions. Evidence is selected to support existing positions, uncertainty goes unspoken and a confident recovery plan emerges without sufficient examination of its assumptions.

Another executive might acknowledge the seriousness of the situation, distinguish facts from assumptions and invite scrutiny of the team’s earlier judgement. Accountability remains intact, but the quality of inquiry changes. This approach cannot guarantee a better commercial outcome. It creates better conditions for relevant information to influence the decision.

Four ways to develop the capacity to choose

Recognise the pattern earlier

Many people identify their unhelpful reactions only after a difficult conversation has deteriorated. Notice your early signals. Do you speak faster when challenged? Become excessively detailed when uncertain? Take control whenever a deadline approaches? After consequential meetings, ask what changed internally and what you did differently as a result.

Separate the issue from your identity

A challenged proposal can feel like a judgement on competence; a missed deadline can feel like a challenge to authority. When identity becomes entangled with the issue, curiosity is harder to sustain. Ask: What needs to be resolved here, independently of how I feel about being challenged?

Build decision routines that tolerate imperfect composure

Organisations should not depend on leaders regulating themselves perfectly in every difficult moment. Establish routines that legitimise disagreement, clarify decision rights and expose assumptions. Invite disconfirming evidence before major commitments. Distinguish genuinely urgent decisions from those that merely feel urgent. Give people a way to raise concerns before a sensitive meeting.

Examine impact rather than intention alone

A leader may intend to create urgency while employees experience relentless criticism. A manager may intend to remain involved while the team experiences a lack of trust. Ask what the interaction encouraged people to do next. Did ownership increase? Did people become more willing to raise concerns? Did the conversation produce clarity or merely compliance?

The skill beneath other skills

Communication, strategic thinking, empathy and technical expertise all matter. But their expression is influenced by the state in which they are exercised. The same words can convey curiosity or contempt. A sophisticated framework can be misused when a leader becomes attached to proving an existing position correct.

State of being is not a substitute for competence or sound organisational design. A calm but poorly informed leader can still make damaging decisions. A self-aware executive can still work within an unhealthy system. The more precise argument is that our state influences how reliably we can apply capabilities we already possess, especially when circumstances become difficult.

For leadership development, that suggests a deeper test than whether participants can describe effective behaviour. Can they remain open to challenge when their authority feels exposed? Can they make considered decisions while acknowledging uncertainty? Can they uphold standards without transferring anxiety to everyone around them?

A final reflection

We spend considerable time improving what we know, strengthening what we can do and refining how we present ourselves. Those efforts are worthwhile. Yet some of our most consequential moments occur when knowledge is incomplete, the situation is ambiguous and our preferred sense of control is disrupted.

The opportunity is not permanent calm or complete mastery over emotion. It is the growing ability to recognise our internal condition without allowing it to determine every interpretation, conversation and decision.

Perhaps the most revealing question is not whether we possess the skills required for our responsibilities, but whether we can still access those skills when the situation challenges the person we believe ourselves to be.

Research reference

Arnsten, A. F. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2648.