HAS THE WORLD GONE MAD? Building Leadership Confidence Through Metacognition

By Leslie Rohonczy, IMC™, PCC

I’ve been learning to play Mad World by Tears for Fears on the baritone ukulele. I've had this damned song as an earworm for months, so I thought, if I learned how to play it, maybe it’ll somehow magically resolve and finally leave me. Yeah, I see that my solution to hearing it constantly in my head is to practice it repeatedly out loud; a questionable strategy, for sure. But given the headlines lately, at least I’ve chosen an appropriate soundtrack to the news.

But sometimes it really feels like the world has gone mad, doesn't it? For Canadian leaders, tariff uncertainty and geopolitical upheaval collide with the organizational pressures already waiting on the calendar. You can start the morning wondering where the world is headed, then spend the afternoon approving a strategy that depends on where you've predicted the world is headed.

Somewhere between those two activities, a familiar question jangles in the background, with increasing volume: What if I make the wrong call?

In my executive coaching conversations, I see capable leaders hesitating to take up their full space. They have experience and valuable perspectives, but the possibility of being wrong feels so consequential that they hold back, and just when their perspectives and judgment are needed most.

The thought underneath can be painfully personal: Can I still be a good leader when I have no idea what happens next?

WHEN DID EVERY DECISION START FEELING CATASTROPHIC?

Some decisions carry substantial risk. No amount of positive thinking will make an exposed supply chain secure or restore funding that has evaporated.

But there’s another layer worth examining: the meaning we attach to making those decisions. “I don’t know whether this will work” can become “I shouldn’t recommend it.” And from there, it’s a short trip to “Maybe I’m no longer up to this job.” Notice the distance traveled. An uncertain outcome has become a judgment about your capability.

For some leaders, that activates an old rule: I earn my place by getting things right. Or a limiting belief: If I get this wrong, they’ll question whether I belong at this level. Others may be developing new rules in response to current conditions: With everything so unstable, I can’t afford a single mistake.

Those beliefs can sound responsible. But they set a standard that no human leader can be expected to meet. If you’re judging your fitness to lead by your ability to predict an unpredictable world, what evidence could ever convince you that you’re doing well?

METACOGNITION: A LEADERSHIP SUPERPOWER

University of Waterloo psychologist Igor Grossmann and co-author Samuel G. B. Johnson offer a useful perspective. In their 2025 paper, Cultivating Wisdom Through Metacognition: A New Frontier in Decision-Making Under Radical Uncertainty, they propose that becoming more aware of how we think, and learning to regulate that thinking, can help us approach uncertain situations more wisely. This includes recognizing the limits of our knowledge and considering perspectives beyond our own. Their work provides a foundation for the leadership practices I've developed and am offering here.

First, a definition: Metacognition means noticing and examining how you’re thinking, then adjusting your approach when needed. You might be evaluating a recommendation while also noticing: I’m dismissing this quickly because it challenges that position I defended last week. Or preparing to contribute while realizing: I’m waiting until I can make an argument nobody could possibly question. That awareness creates an opportunity to choose your next move.

There’s experimental evidence behind one practice in particular. In research involving 555 participants across experiments, Grossmann and colleagues found that practicing reflection from a distanced, third-person perspective promoted wiser reasoning about interpersonal challenges. Rather than asking, “Why am I so upset about this disagreement?” you might ask, “Why is [ your name ] reacting this way, and what might they be overlooking?” The benefits included greater intellectual humility and consideration of other perspectives. How can you put this into practice when a decision is waiting and your confidence is wobbling?

CATCH THE MOMENT BEFORE IT BECOMES YOUR RESPONSE

You probably wouldn't stop a heated discussion to announce that you’re conducting a metacognitive assessment (haven't your colleagues suffered enough jargon?). But what if you had a recognizable cue you could watch for, to remind you to check your thinking?

For example, you might notice yourself rehearsing a defense while someone is still speaking. Or you find yourself about to request another analysis, although you couldn't say how that additional information would change your recommendation. Or you’ve started writing an email explaining why a decision belongs to someone else, because you're feeling uncomfortable with the weight of the consequences if you're wrong.

A physical sensation, such as a tightening jaw or a heavy chest, can serve as a reminder too. It doesn’t diagnose what’s happening; it gives you a cue to go and look.

Ask yourself: “What am I assuming right now?” You may not have time for a full exploration. Even identifying the thought, "I’m assuming disagreement means they’ve lost confidence in me", can help you listen differently to the next sentence.

MAKE THE BELIEF SPECIFIC ENOUGH TO EXAMINE

“I’m overthinking” doesn’t give you much to work with. Try putting the underlying rule into words.

“If I ask for help, they’ll question why I have this role.”
“Changing my recommendation will make me look unreliable or flaky.”
“Until the external situation settles, committing to anything is irresponsible.”
“If this fails, it will prove I wasn’t ready.”

Then ask: “What does this belief have me doing, and what is that costing?”

The leader who believes asking for help exposes weakness may exclude precisely the expertise a decision requires. The leader determined never to appear inconsistent may keep defending a recommendation after its assumptions have changed.

As I explored in WHY EGO BELONGS IN THE C-SUITE, a more useful question to ask yourself is "What happens to my sense of self when my judgment is challenged?" You need enough confidence to contribute, while allowing that contribution to be examined.

The caution here is that some workplaces do punish candor or mistakes. If your belief reflects actual experience, it deserves a realistic response, perhaps a clearer decision mandate, or an explicit agreement about acceptable risk. Calling every concern a “limiting belief” would be a convenient way to ignore the conditions that leaders actually face.

BORROW YOUR PERSPECTIVE BACK

When the decision feels inseparable from your worth, try looking at it as though you were advising another capable executive. “If a respected colleague brought me this situation, what would I want them to consider?” Would you expect them to forecast every political development? Would you tell them that seeking a competing view disqualified them from leadership? Or would you help them examine the available evidence and decide what level of commitment it supports? That little shift can expose a double standard. We may allow other leaders to exercise judgment, while expecting ourselves to produce certainty.

This also extends the idea behind LEADERSHIP ALTITUDE. Sometimes the perspective you need includes seeing the way you’re interpreting the situation, and how that interpretation affects the people depending on you.

WHAT YOU NOTICE NEEDS SOMEWHERE TO GO

Awareness becomes useful when it changes a choice. Imagine you catch the thought: I can’t recommend this until I know it will succeed. Simply telling yourself to be more confident probably won’t help. You could instead ask: “What would make a recommendation responsible with the knowledge we have?”

Perhaps you need a limited pilot, a clear spending boundary, or agreement about what would trigger a review. Your recommendation might become: “Based on what we know, I recommend proceeding with the pilot. Our biggest unresolved assumption is customer demand. We’ll review it before committing further funding.” You’re taking up your leadership space and giving others something concrete to examine.

Likewise, if you notice that you’re defending a position to protect your reputation, you can choose a different response: “That challenges an assumption behind my recommendation. Let’s examine it before we go further.” The discomfort may remain, but you can make a more useful leadership move.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

For the next week, before you give a recommendation, respond to disagreement, or ask for more information, ask yourself three questions:

What am I treating as a fact that may be an interpretation?
What am I afraid this decision could say about me?
What does my leadership responsibility require now?

Afterward, write down what you noticed and whether it changed your response. Your reflection can be brief, or you can go all the way to the lava; it's up to you.

Over time, you may see patterns, and be able to catch a familiar belief earlier, before it edits your contribution or turns a useful challenge into a personal threat.

I’ll keep working on Mad World, although I’m losing faith in my earworm-removal strategy. Meanwhile, the world will keep giving us reasons to doubt what happens next. Our job is to not turn them into reasons to doubt ourselves.

For more leadership articles, connect with Leslie Rohonczy on LinkedIn, or visit www.leslierohonczy.com