{
  "id": 7300293,
  "title": "Why good intentions fall short (and the 3 questions leaders should ask instead)",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/14/why-good-intentions-fall-short-and-the-3-questions-leaders-should-ask",
  "topic": "business",
  "section": "Business",
  "published": "2026-09-14T10:00:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Fast Company",
    "slug": "fast-company",
    "url": "https://www.fastcompany.com/91604118/why-good-intentions-fall-short-and-the-3-questions-leaders-should-ask-instead"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "In a recent conversation with a seasoned senior lawyer, the issue of leadership challenges was unveiled. Despite her genuine concern for her team and her well-intentioned interactions, the team was displaying signs of burnout. The root cause lay not in a lack of care, but in a deficiency of clarity regarding three fundamental aspects of her leadership approach. The lawyer had assumed these aspects were clear, but they were not. This revelation highlights a common leadership conundrum: the difference between motivation, intention, and outcome, which collectively form a rigorous filter for effective leadership. This filter is known as the MIO filter—motivation, intention, and outcome. Motivation, the \"why\" behind an action, is a psychological force that inclines us toward certain actions. Intention, the \"what,\" is a forward-looking commitment to a specific course of action that keeps us on track even when motivation drives us. The distinction between motivation and intention is crucial in understanding human action. Self-determination theory, a well-tested psychological framework, separates autonomous motivation—acting from genuine values, interests, or choice—and controlled motivation, acting due to external pressure, reward, or obligation. While motivation is necessary, it is not sufficient for achieving desired outcomes. Even strong intentions do not guarantee good results, as the intention-behavior gap demonstrates. This gap signifies the difference between what we intend and what actually happens in the experience of others. Leaders often assume their intentions are self-evident, but the listener only perceives what is said and done, not the underlying intentions. This is where the third component of the MIO filter comes into play: outcome clarity. Specific, well-defined goals significantly outperform vague intentions. Goals direct attention, energize effort, encourage persistence, and prompt better strategy discovery. They work through four mechanisms: directing attention, energizing effort, encouraging persistence, and prompting strategy discovery. Goals provide clarity on what result an action is supposed to produce, allowing for measurement and evaluation afterward. Many leaders fail to take this final step, which requires envisioning the conversation, decision, or email from the other person's perspective. What outcome do they want to achieve? Without this clarity, leaders risk directing people towards actions that don't serve the ultimate goal. Running the MIO filter before acting offers concrete guidance beyond mere intentionality. Before engaging in a challenging conversation, making a significant decision, or crafting a crucial message, leaders should sequentially ask three questions: What is driving me here and is it something I genuinely value or something I feel pressured into? (Motivation) What am I specifically committing to say or do? (Intention) What outcome do I want this to produce, clearly defined so I can measure success afterward? (Outcome) While the MIO filter does not guarantee perfect outcomes every time, it fosters discipline in reflecting on these questions, surfacing deeper insights instead of defaulting to habitual, rapid-fire behavior. Its application should be viewed as a small, repeatable habit of self-interrogation, enhancing the likelihood that leaders' communication and decisions align with their intended impacts.",
  "summary": "A few weeks ago, I sat across from an accomplished senior lawyer who was struggling with a common leadership quandary. She cared about her team. She meant well in every interaction. And yet, her team was showing signs of burnout . When we unpacked what was happening, the problem wasn’t a lack of care. It was a lack of clarity about three things she assumed she already had straight: what was…",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}