Deep Dive: The Power of Strategic Restraint in Leadership

Olivia Carter

Good afternoon, Mark. Today, we’re continuing our ongoing series about negotiation and influence. As I was reading our show prep, today's topic really seems a tad different.

Mark Putnam

Yes, glad to be with you, Liv. Today, we're diving into what might sound academic but is absolutely everywhere in campus life: preference falsification. You probably see it every week, even if you don't know or use the term.

Olivia Carter

Yeah, thanks Mark. So, this is a term from economist Timur Kuran, and it basically means people hide what they really think—just to survive in the system. Like, you might say “Sure, this is a great idea!” at a meeting even when your gut says, “Oh this is headed for disaster.” And I feel like in higher ed, you see it at all levels. Faculty who nod along with new policies but vent privately in their offices, or a CIO who reassures the board everything’s “on track,” even though, let’s be honest, the wheels are coming off behind the scenes.

Mark Putnam

Absolutely. It’s self-preservation—a way to avoid calling attention to yourself, or to keep the peace, but it eats away at trust over time. When I think back on campus culture shifts, the biggest problems often weren’t the open disagreements. They were the silent, collective pretending, where people wouldn’t challenge ideas in public even though most folks clearly had reservations. That... that environment, it stifles real solutions. Everyone buys a little time, but collectively you’re sowing confusion and resentment.

Olivia Carter

Definitely. I remember reporting on a university—can’t name names—that had this “all-in” campaign for a new ERP overhaul. On the surface? Total unity. But privately, so many stakeholders—from deans to IT leads—were worried it was doomed, but nobody felt safe to say that out loud. By the time concerns surfaced, it was way too late, and the culture really suffered for it.

Mark Putnam

There’s a difference between tact and falsification. The former is about respectful timing, the latter is corrosive over time. As Kuran said, institutions look stable on the outside but can become brittle underneath... then one day, everything unravels at once.

Olivia Carter

It shows up everywhere—and the costs are real. Truth gets warped, bad decisions linger, and morale slides. So I guess the question is: why do we cling to it? Is it fear, or just habit?

Mark Putnam

It’s partly fear, partly that leadership often rewards quick, confident answers. The impulse is to assert your position and hope it settles the issue. But when you do that immediately, especially by email—speaking from plenty of experience here—you basically lock in the tension. People dig in, and instead of dialogue, you get bargaining or a standoff.

Olivia Carter

Right, I mean, how many times have we all dashed off a late-night email to “clear the air," but really just cranked things up a notch? It never solves the problem. Actually, both Chris Voss—the negotiation guy—and Chester Karrass say something similar. Voss talks about using calibrated silence, and Karrass is all about emotional discipline. Just… don’t blurt out your position too soon. That just puts everyone on defense, and now it’s a fight, not a conversation.

Mark Putnam

Exactly. I learned that—sometimes the hard way. There was this one moment back in my CIO days: a cross-department conflict was boiling over. My first instinct? Get in that room and state the facts, cut through the noise. But… I stopped. Listened. Some of that pause was uncomfortable, honestly, but it let the group share what they actually cared about. Instead of escalating, we caught the real issues and created a solution everyone could back. The agreement that followed lasted so much longer because people felt heard.

Olivia Carter

That’s a great point. It’s so counterintuitive—sometimes saying less gets you way further. But it’s tough. You wanna fix things right away. I’m definitely guilty of jumping in too fast. Calibrated silence, though… letting it breathe, actually works.

Mark Putnam

It’s discipline. Not avoidance. Strategic, not passive. And yeah, it runs against some of our instincts—especially in moments of conflict or when stakes feel high.

Olivia Carter

So I think this gets to the idea of strategic restraint. Like, if you can listen longer, you actually build more trust before showing your cards. You let people tell you what matters to them—then you can respond in a way that pulls everybody toward the same goal. You’re not hiding your opinion forever, just pacing it out so it has real impact.

Mark Putnam

Right. The art is timing—holding your idea until you’ve learned what’s at stake for others. When leaders do this, they end up reframing problems in terms of common goals instead of competing positions. For example, by asking, “What’s your biggest concern here?” you move from confrontation to collaboration. And when you finally state your perspective, it lands with far more credibility.

Olivia Carter

But how do you know when to open up versus hold back? Like, in your role, how did you judge the right moment to reveal your stance? Were there signals you watched for?

Mark Putnam

You look for understanding, not just agreement. When people stop posturing, start asking questions of their own, or loop back to shared principles, you know the groundwork’s laid. I’ll admit, I didn’t always get the timing right. It’s a skill you build—and, honestly, it needs to be modeled from the top. If you show you value listening, not just fast answers, others will too.

Olivia Carter

It almost sounds like what we talked about a few episodes back—especially around negotiation and credibility cycles. Trust gets built when you align expectations, not just assert authority. And the weird thing is, the less you look like you’re trying to win, the more influence you end up having—because people can actually trust you to care about outcomes instead of ego.

Mark Putnam

Exactly. It’s slow work, but lasting. And frankly, higher ed needs more of it, not less—especially with cross-functional change on the table nearly all the time.

Olivia Carter

And I think nowhere does this play out more dramatically than during ERP implementations. Mark, you’ve lived through enough of these to know how preference falsification and too-early disclosure show up in those rooms, right?

Mark Putnam

These projects are the perfect stage for this. Early on, everyone wants their vendor to win. When that doesn’t happen, silent resistance kicks in—people publicly smile but quietly withdraw support. If you’re too direct in calling that out, you lose them totally. It’s about questions: “How can we ensure your priorities get addressed now, even if your preferred platform didn’t make the cut?” That draws people back into ownership instead of sowing disengagement. The same applies when assigning leaders—executives want to protect their best staff, but a gentle prompt: “Who do you trust to represent you when problems arise?” surfaces the real dilemma without a fight.

Olivia Carter

Totally. I covered a selection stalemate at a regional university once—two teams just couldn’t agree on a platform. The CIO could have pressed harder, but instead he rephrased: “What would a successful launch look like for your team, even if we go with the other vendor?” That immediately shifted the energy from defending a choice to collaborating on outcomes. Nobody got everything, but everyone ended up sharing the win—and sanity was preserved.

Mark Putnam

And when the go-live window closes in, people get anxious, want to delay, or secretly hope for scope cuts. Pushing them doesn’t help. But pausing, asking, “What truly needs to be available on day one?” gets honest answers. Then, trade-offs get made together, not dictated from the top. The difference is trust—and trust always outlasts the initial implementation pain.

Olivia Carter

I like that—restraint as a path to genuine, productive negotiation. Reminds me of the episode we did on why ERP implementations fail: most disasters weren’t from technical missteps, but cultural ones stemming from hidden concerns and rushed decisions.

Mark Putnam

So, maybe to wrap this up, let’s talk about what happens when leaders overdo restraint. There’s a line between restraint and opacity—if you stay silent too long, people start to question your commitment altogether. You can lose influence, or worse, credibility. The art is timing: speak up when your voice reinforces trust and clarity, not when it adds more ambiguity.

Olivia Carter

Yeah, if folks can’t tell what you stand for, they can’t really trust you. Even with strategic restraint, there’s gotta be a moment where you say, “Here’s my view and why it matters.” Otherwise, teams feel left out in the dark. I’ve seen that happen in change management projects—leaders waited so long to weigh in that by the time they did, trust was already fraying at the edges.

Mark Putnam

It comes down to balancing timing, transparency, and durability of relationships—especially when the stakes are high. It’s not about always being the last to speak, but about making sure your truth lands when it can do the most good. You can’t build trust by staying hidden behind a curtain, but you can erode it by speaking too soon or too little.

Olivia Carter

Exactly. The impact of your words depends on when and how you share them—so strategic silence has its power, but if nobody knows where the leader stands by the end, you haven’t led at all. All right, Mark, any last words before we sign off?

Mark Putnam

Only that leadership is an ongoing conversation, not a performance. Influence is built over time, by listening with intent and speaking when the room is ready to hear you. Thanks for another great discussion, Liv.

Olivia Carter

Thanks, Mark. And thanks to all of you for listening. If you found this helpful, don’t forget to check out our previous episodes—we’ll keep unpacking the tough stuff at the intersection of tech, leadership, and culture. Take care, and see you next time!