I’ve been thinking a lot about the phrase, let the work speak for itself. This phrase is often spoken with a certain pride, as though the person saying those words has resisted something corrosive that might cheapen the work if they were to explain it out loud. They believe that good work shouldn’t require a narrator.
The world isn’t exactly short of people willing to overstate their importance. Spend five minutes online, and you’ll find leaders who have personally invented collaboration, resilience and innovation. Eventually it all blurs together until genuine accomplishment starts to resemble performance, and thoughtful people instinctively step back, wanting no part in the performance.
Somewhere in all of this, we’ve made visibility feel morally suspicious.
The irony, of course, is that the people most reluctant to speak about themselves are often the ones with the most interesting things to say. They’ll happily spend an hour explaining why someone on their team deserves a promotion, why a colleague should receive an award or why another executive has been instrumental in a company’s success. They see leadership everywhere except in themselves. Ask them what role they played in building a business or shifting a culture and the language suddenly softens. It was a team effort. They were fortunate. The timing was good. The market helped. Someone else deserves the credit.
All of which is usually true. Leadership is almost never a solo act. The best leaders know this better than anyone.
What interests me is what disappears alongside that generosity.
The difficult conversation that only one person was prepared to have. The conviction to keep moving when everyone else wanted to stop. The judgement that comes from years of pattern recognition. The relationships that had to be built long before they became useful. The ability to absorb uncertainty without passing it on to everyone else. None of those things announce themselves in a financial result or an annual report. They vanish inside the outcome, leaving behind something that looks inevitable, almost as though success simply arrived under its own momentum.
Perhaps that’s what results do. They flatten the story of how they came to exist. We look at outcomes with the benefit of hindsight, forgetting that almost every meaningful piece of work once existed as an unpopular idea, a risky decision or a lonely conviction held by someone prepared to keep going before there was any evidence they were right.
Maybe that’s why I’ve started thinking that good work doesn’t always speak for itself. More often than not, it conceals the judgement, persuasion, patience and conviction that brought it into the world. We celebrate the outcome while overlooking the person who kept choosing the harder path until the outcome existed at all.
This feels especially true at the point where someone leaves an organisation. For years, their reputation has lived inside conversations they never heard. People knew who to call when something complicated landed on the table. Then one day the organisation changes, or the role ends, or retirement edges into the conversation, and all that accumulated understanding stays behind with the people who experienced it firsthand.
Outside those walls, the market sees a job title.
I wonder if this is where the discomfort with personal branding really begins. Not because accomplished people object to being understood, but because the language itself feels artificial. Branding sounds manufactured, as though we’re supposed to polish ourselves into something more marketable than we really are. Most experienced leaders have spent decades trying to become less performative, less interested in appearances, less attached to recognition. Asking them to suddenly build a personal brand can feel like asking a surgeon to become an influencer.
I don’t think that’s what the work is at all.
At its best, it has very little to do with promotion and everything to do with translation. The work already exists and the leadership already happened, the question is whether anyone who wasn’t in the room can understand what actually happened there, or whether the story has become compressed into a title on LinkedIn.
We tell ourselves that the people who matter will know. Sometimes they do, however, often they know the version of us they happened to experience, which is only ever one chapter of a much longer story. Everyone else is left to make sense of whatever fragments they can find.
Human beings are remarkably efficient at filling in missing information. We create neat narratives from incomplete evidence because uncertainty makes us uncomfortable. In the absence of your story, someone else will usually invent one for you.
I wonder if letting the work speak for itself has become one of those ideas that sounds noble but asks too much of the work. Work doesn’t actually speak, people do, stories do and meaning does. The work simply sits there, waiting for someone to explain why it mattered, what changed because of it and what became possible afterwards.
Perhaps that isn’t vanity after all. Perhaps it’s stewardship.
Because there is a difference between claiming every success as your own and quietly acknowledging the part only you could have played. One inflates reality and the other preserves it. The first asks people to admire you, the second helps them understand you. That feels like a far more generous thing to offer.
You do not need to announce every achievement, but I suggest you need enough clarity that the right people understand what you have done and why it matters.
That might mean taking the stage when your instinct is to give the opportunity away. It might mean allowing your name to sit beside work you led.
For many accomplished people, this will feel uncomfortable, but the discomfort does not mean the action is wrong. It may simply mean you are learning to stop disappearing from your own story.
The work matters and the story helps the work travel. So ask yourself a difficult question: Where have you been calling it humility when you were really afraid to be seen?
Kate
Comments +