Why STEM Leaders Self-Sabotage in Executive Conversations (and What to Do Instead)

Why This Problem Is So Easy to Misdiagnose

Most STEM leaders assume they’re dealing with a performance problem.

So they respond the only way they’ve always been rewarded for responding:

• More data and logic

• Endless solutioning

• Increased effort

Here’s the paradox:

At senior levels, those moves often weaken your influence instead of strengthening it.

Not because your thinking is wrong —
but because performance is no longer the currency being evaluated.

What’s being evaluated is how you hold yourself together (or don’t) when pressure comes back at you.

The Real Issue STEM Leaders Run Into

At the executive level, leaders aren’t assessed on how hard they work or how correct they are.

They’re assessed on signal clarity under pressure.

When scrutiny rises, senior leaders are subconsciously scanning for things like:

• Emotional steadiness

• Resilience in the face of opposition

• The ability to hold tension without rushing, explaining, or collapsing your objectives

If your authority signals wobble — even subtly — the room registers it immediately.

That’s how technically excellent leaders end up:

• Over-explaining ideas that should stand on their own

• Feeling a persistent lack of buy-in they can’t quite name

• Getting pulled back into “doer mode” instead of trusted with direction

Not because they lack credibility —
but because their presence fractures under pressure.

Why STEM Leaders Are Especially Vulnerable to This

STEM leaders are trained to:

• Reduce uncertainty

• Prove correctness

• Earn trust through output

Executive environments operate on a different operating system.

In senior rooms:

• Uncertainty is constant

• Authority is inferred, not granted

• State matters as much as substance

When pressure hits, many STEM leaders unconsciously shift into fix-it mode:

• Justifying

• Explaining

• Proving

• Tightening their delivery

That shift sends a quiet signal:

“I need this to land.”

And senior leaders don’t follow need.

Need quietly signals desperation.

They follow grounded authority.

What Senior Leaders Are Actually Responding To

Here’s the part almost no one names explicitly:

Senior leaders don’t primarily respond to your content.
They respond to your state.

Before they fully absorb your words, they’re reading:

• Are you steady or reactive?

• Are you leading the moment — or chasing approval?

• Can you hold disagreement without urgency or defensiveness?

If your internal state wobbles in these moments, even briefly, the room discounts what follows — no matter how strong the idea is.

That’s why influence can feel inconsistent.
And why feedback like “we need to see more leadership presence” feels frustratingly vague and impossible to act upon.

What Actually Changes the Game

You don’t fix this by trying harder.

You fix it by changing how you enter and hold executive moments.

In the briefing above, I walk through the PRESS framework — a practical system for stabilizing executive presence under pressure.

Not charisma.
Not confidence theater.
Not becoming someone you’re not.

It’s about learning how to:

• Stay grounded when scrutiny rises

• Stop mirroring senior leaders’ volatility

• Speak less while signaling more

• Establish authority before your ideas are debated

When presence becomes reliable, influence stops being hit-or-miss.

Why This Matters More the Higher You Go

Early in your career, presence gaps are often forgiven.

At senior levels:

• Silence is often misread as insecurity

• Hesitation is often read as lack of commitment

• Small authority leaks start to harden into persistent disrespect from fellow leaders and teammates.

Most leaders don’t stall because of one mistake.

They stall because unaddressed presence breakdowns quietly harden into identity.

This work exists to interrupt that pattern before it calcifies.