PLN 36: You can't manage your way out of this one

Time to Read: 4 mins 

My client was trying to tighten a screw with a ball-peen hammer. 🧰

Okay, not literally. But that's the metaphor I offered during our session, and it shifted their thinking, so I wanted to share it here with you.

Now, for context, we're talking about someone who is really good at managing themselves.

📆 Their calendar is a masterclass in time-blocking.

🎯 They track their goals (both personal and organizational) every single week, without fail.

👥 And their one-on-ones are so dialed in and consistent that their team rarely misses a deadline.

This is a paragon of productivity we're talking about.

And yet, they were stuck.

Partly because the challenges before them weren’t fully in their control.

Their whole industry had been disrupted, fast. Strategies that worked twelve months ago had abruptly stopped working, and they didn’t yet have new systems or strategies in place.

They were essentially using an old playbook for a new game.

So naturally, they did what they always do when things felt off… they managed harder. Their calendar got even tighter, time between check-ins decreased, and they doubled down on their previously successful approach.

It didn't work.

Queue the metaphor.

A hammer is a great tool. But it's useless on a screw, no matter how well you swing it.

Which led us into a very different conversation. Because, here's the thing:

There's a real difference between managing yourself and leading yourself... and most of us were only ever taught the first one.

Managing yourself is what gets you to show up. It's the calendar, the streak, the goal you hit every week like clockwork.

Leading yourself is something else. It's stopping, even mid-streak, to ask whether the goal itself still makes sense.

There's actually a name for this. Organizational psychologists Chris Argyris and Donald Schön called it single-loop and double-loop learning.

Single-loop learning is what happens when you recognize a challenge and adjust your actions to solve for it. You tweak your approach, but the underlying goal and assumptions stay exactly the same.

Think of single-loop learning like a thermostat set to 68 degrees. If the house is too cold, the furnace kicks on. If it’s too warm, it shuts off. Round and round, it works to maintain 68... without ever once asking if 68 is even the right number anymore.

Double-loop learning is different. It's when you stop and question the setting itself. Is 68 even the right number anymore?

In other words, single-loop learning gives you feedback you can actually feel. Did the number go up? Did you hit the goal? Did you keep the streak? Yes or no. It’s clean, fast, and simple.

But double-loop learning doesn't hand you that same easy answer. There's no scoreboard for "am I still solving the right problem?" It's much slower and murkier to navigate through.

And this is exactly why so many high-performers get stuck in single-loop mode.

It feels like it has a quicker, more tangible payoff. But those short-term benefits hold long-term consequences.

My client was a single-loop master. And for a long time, that approach drove their success.

Until… the game changed… and single-loop learning now had them optimizing for a target that no longer existed.

Once my client understood the distinction here, they stopped trying to manage their way through the disruption and instead started asking the double-loop question: is this still the right target?

And that single shift in how they were thinking rippled outward fast.

They brought the same question to their team. It was no longer about whether they were hitting their numbers (which they mostly were), but instead, the focus shifted to “is this still the right product and service package to be bringing to the market?”

That one reframe gave their whole team permission to stop executing on autopilot and actually look up.

Some of what they found was hard to swallow. As an example, a few of their best-performing packages were optimized for a market that was quickly evaporating.

But once that was visible, it was fixable. And since everyone was focused on the double-loop question together, solutions surfaced quickly.

Within weeks, the team had shifted their approach, moving from general busyness to being busy on the right things.

And that's the difference between managing your way through a challenge and leading your way through it. One keeps you moving. The other makes sure you're moving in a direction that matters.

💡 Practionable Takeaway

If you want to make sure you're moving in a direction that matters, start here:

1. Name the target. What are you actually optimizing for right now? Say it as plainly as possible. Make it clear and concrete.

2. Question it. Would this still be your target if you were setting it fresh today, knowing what you know now? If yes, keep going — you're leading, not just managing. If no, that's your sign to stop swinging the hammer and pick up the right tool.

🎥 Want to Go Deeper? 

Reading this might have you pondering whether you’re managing or leading yourself right now. 🤔

If you want more than a gut check on this, take the Self-Leadership Assessment. It'll show you exactly where you're strong and where you might be over-relying on management when the moment calls for something else.

Take the Self-Leadership Assessment →

To Your Success,

Laura 💜🧡