PL 
You believe you are encouraging experimentation. Your team may believe you have already decided which answer you want.
You describe an AI initiative as an opportunity to improve work. Employees may still be wondering what it means for their responsibilities, professional standing or future in the organisation.
These are possible differences in interpretation, not assumptions about your team. They deserve investigation because leadership intentions and the experience of being led are different sources of information.
At Mentor EU, the Perception Gap describes the difference between how an executive understands their value, how they are perceived internally and how the external market sees them. AI adoption provides a useful setting in which to examine its internal dimension: how your account of your leadership compares with what colleagues observe.
Start with behaviour people can describe
An executive might describe themselves as open, curious and willing to hear difficult feedback. Those qualities are easier to assess when connected to a particular event.
What happened the last time someone questioned an AI-supported recommendation? Did you ask them to explain their concern? Was there time to investigate it? Did the final decision acknowledge what had been raised?
An invitation to speak and the response to someone speaking are separate things. Examining both provides a fuller picture.
Strategic Reflection begins by comparing your interpretation with observable events and other people’s accounts. It requires enough openness to discover something you did not intend.
Four differences worth investigating
“I am encouraging experimentation”
Employees may distinguish between experiments they are genuinely free to evaluate and initiatives they are expected to endorse. If every pilot is presented as a success before its results have been examined, they may reasonably ask whether a negative finding is welcome.
An illustrative test is a pilot that saves time but introduces additional checking work. Does the team have permission to report the full picture? Could the organisation revise or stop the approach?
Ask what would count as a useful learning outcome, including a finding that the application is unsuitable.
“I have made accountability clear”
A leader may have told people that they remain responsible for their work. Employees may still lack clarity about what they are authorised to change.
Can someone reject an output? Who resolves disagreement about its quality? What happens when checking it takes longer than the expected time saving?
These questions can expose ambiguity in the process. Repeating the message that people are accountable will not resolve a conflict between responsibility, available time and decision authority.
“I welcome challenge”
An executive may welcome objections in principle while making them difficult in practice. A concern raised near a deadline may receive a different response from the same concern raised earlier.
Examine how challenge is handled when it is inconvenient. Does the person raising the issue receive a considered response? Is the concern assessed on its merits? Is disagreement followed by a clear explanation of the decision?
The relevant evidence includes what happens after the meeting, when assignments, access and relationships continue.
“I am communicating openly”
You may have explained the commercial purpose of an initiative while leaving employees’ immediate questions unanswered.
They may need to know which responsibilities are changing, what remains undecided and how they will contribute to the design of their work. Where answers are unavailable, clarity about the uncertainty is more useful than reassurance that cannot yet be supported.
Review the questions people actually ask. They may reveal a different communication need from the one your presentation addressed.
Reconstruct one decision with your team
Choose a recent AI-supported decision with enough substance to examine. Avoid beginning with a general question such as “Am I a good leader?” Ask colleagues to help reconstruct the process.
Useful prompts include:
- What did you understand we were trying to achieve?
- Which parts of the recommendation seemed open to question?
- What concerns did you raise, and what happened next?
- Was anything important left unsaid? What made it difficult to raise?
- What would make the next decision clearer or easier to challenge?
Explain why you are asking and how the responses will be used. Do not promise anonymity in a setting where comments can readily be attributed. Where direct reporting relationships may constrain candour, consider an appropriately facilitated process with clear confidentiality boundaries.
Interpret differences before trying to close them
Different accounts do not establish that one person is right and another wrong. People may have had different information, responsibilities or exposure to the consequences.
Compare perspectives across the process. A sponsor may see a clear objective; a team member may see unresolved implementation choices. Both accounts may be accurate.
Look for repeated examples and concrete points of friction. Distinguish an individual misunderstanding from a recurring pattern. Then choose a response proportionate to the evidence.
That response might be a clearer decision boundary, a different review sequence or a change in how you react to objections. Sometimes the most useful action is to acknowledge that a question was raised and not properly addressed.
Make the next interaction different
A reflection exercise becomes meaningful when it changes something observable. Choose one adjustment and explain it to the people involved.
For the next decision, you might request an explicit review of reasons to reject the recommendation. You might reserve time for concerns before committing to a deadline. You might return to an unanswered question and explain what has been decided.
Afterwards, ask whether the change helped. This is a practical learning process, not a score of your leadership quality.
From Mentor EU’s advisory perspective, understanding the Perception Gap gives experienced leaders a more grounded basis for development. It allows you to work with the leadership people experience, alongside the leadership you intend to provide.
Where might your team’s account of a recent decision differ from your own?
Start with a diagnosis where you stand. Our Career Capital Review can help you assess that.
Contact me on my e-mail: beata.staszkow@mentoreu.com I will send it through.
Would you like to discuss your results? A confidential Strategic Conversation with Mentor EU can help you examine that question and identify what deserves further attention.
