Learning to read the signals behind the signals
Reading Calm Differently
I used to trust a green dashboard. All lights aligned, metrics smooth, everything humming along. Relief. Or so I thought. But the longer I truly watched, the more any wall of green felt less like safety and more like silence settling after an argument nobody wants to continue.
Silence has weight, a hush that muffles what’s happening underneath. Calm becomes camouflage for problems learning to hide better.
Meetings taught me the same lesson. Arguments, even heated ones, mean people still believe change is possible. What unsettles me are the too smooth meetings where consensus slides in without resistance, where nobody slows things down with a hard or pointed question. Frictionless agreement often masks deeper trouble.
Silence itself carries information. A teammate who once challenged assumptions now just nods along. A team builds workarounds in private. Problems stop getting mentioned, not because they’re solved, but because people long ago ceased expecting solutions.
Behavior shifts first. Numbers follow later. Always.
Watching for Contradictions
I’ve witnessed quarters that looked flawless on paper while hallway conversations told another story. Informal updates contradicted reports. Anecdotes in the coffee line revealed stressors that never made it into status meetings. At first, people laughed off the mismatches. Eventually, the gaps stop being funny.
That’s when trust begins to erode. Teams route around the official system, leaning on their own experience instead. Success becomes a mask for cracks widening underneath.
The most dangerous contradictions hide in plain sight: teams hitting targets while morale sinks, customer scores rising while support queues overflow, efficiency metrics improving while the work itself gets harder. When official metrics and lived experience drift apart, people stop trusting the numbers. Decisions migrate to side chats and backchannels, while the dashboards keep updating as if nothing changed.
Questions That Help
When calm feels too clean, I tug on threads. Not from cynicism, but from curiosity about what’s really holding things together.
| What I Ask | What I'm Really Looking For |
|---|---|
| What are we constantly working around? | The gap between designed process and actual practice. Broken steps everyone steps over without naming. |
| What's the thing we all pretend is fine? | Trouble we’ve normalized just to keep moving. The elephant that’s been in the room so long it feels like furniture. |
| Where do we succeed despite our systems? | Individual heroics mistaken for process. Luck reframed as strategy. Effort stretched thin and treated as baseline. |
| What do new hires ask that we stopped questioning? | Misalignments we’ve trained ourselves not to notice. Fresh eyes catch what familiarity hides. |
| What breaks if two key people disappear? | Critical knowledge kept only in memory. Relationships propping up what structure never covered. |
| What gets skipped when pressure rises? | The steps that show their true value the moment they’re dropped. Props in a play versus load-bearing beams. |
| Who stopped speaking up, and when? | Voices that went quiet after being ignored. Early alarms that learned not to sound. |
| What story do we tell ourselves about why this works? | The narrative gap between how we explain our success and what actually drives it. Stories polished into strategy. |
Sometimes I add a little stress, not to break things, but to see where they’re already fragile. The fractures that appear under light pressure were always there. They just needed a reason to show.
The Archaeology of Problems
Healthy systems can withstand examination. Fragile ones deflect inquiry, change the subject, or treat curiosity as disloyalty. I’ve learned to watch what happens when someone asks an uncomfortable question in a meeting. Do people take it seriously, or pivot immediately to safer ground? Does curiosity get labeled as negativity? Do follow-ups get brushed off?
How people respond to inquiry often tells more than the answer itself. The most brittle systems develop elaborate defenses against uncomfortable truths. They reward smooth consensus over messy accuracy. They punish skepticism instead of treating it as vigilance.
After the All-Clear
By the time dashboards flip red, the problem already has roots. Calm periods demand the most vigilance, because smooth metrics invite smooth meetings, and smooth meetings discourage hard questions.
The hardest work is to make room for unease, trusting discomfort when official stories feel too neat. Real problems rarely begin with alarms. They creep in as small inconsistencies, unexplained improvements, and the silence of voices that once spoke up. They spread in the gap between what we measure and what matters.
By the time the numbers admit a problem, the culture has already shifted. The warning signs were always in the quiet: questions left unasked, cracks papered over. Calm is never an ending. It is the interval where roots push deeper, unseen, until they finally break the surface.
Related reading
Latest entries
Like this? Subscribe via email here.
