Donna Patterson
Stagen Executive Leadership Coaching
- 1.
Your strongest evidence this week is disciplined decision framing. Across lending, PSO, and exec prep, you keep forcing the room back to operating model, decision path, owners, and dates instead of collapsing into premature vendor answers.
- 2.
You are naming enterprise constraints more clearly than before. Shared capacity, Orion stewardship, and the tradeoff between speed now and capability later are more explicit in your framing.
- 3.
The clean miss is still interpersonal proof. I still do not see evidence that you asked someone directly how they are experiencing you or that someone explicitly experienced you differently this week.
- 4.
The risk to bring Donna is that your system leadership may be maturing faster than your relationship data. You can show better architecture for decisions than evidence of changed felt experience in the room.
- 5.
The next rep is concrete: one direct feedback ask, one plain-language learning-tax conversation, and one live moment where you ask one more question before solving.
"I am clearer this week about the why behind the work, especially around stewardship and durable capability. I still do not have a strong example of someone getting more of me personally during business hours."
"This week I can show better structure under pressure. I am keeping the room on decision quality, sequencing, and ownership longer before jumping to the answer. I still cannot prove yet that people feel more coached than corrected when the stakes rise."
"This is still open. I have more self-observation than second-person data."
"I am closer to naming the tradeoff cleanly. The framing is there. I still need one live leadership conversation where I say it simply and make it a shared choice, not just a private lens."
"This is the commitment with the clearest proof this week. I am doing a better job keeping my first answer from becoming the room's answer before the evidence is ready."
- ›My best evidence this week is that I am structuring decision quality better under pressure.
- ›I am keeping the room on operating model, sequencing, owners, and dates longer before letting it collapse into vendor preference.
- ›I am also naming the enterprise constraints more plainly: shared capacity, Orion stewardship, and the tradeoff between speed now and durable capability later.
- ›What I still cannot prove is whether people feel more coached by me or just more clearly directed by me.
- ›The emotional driver still looks like stewardship through the lens of waste. Drift still feels expensive to me.
- ›That helps me see weak sequencing early, but it can also make the urgency leak into how I show up.
- ›My system leadership may be maturing faster than my relationship evidence.
- ›I am more able to hold the first answer back. I am less able to prove yet that other people are experiencing that as growth.
- ›The missing rep is still second-person feedback.
"This week I can show better discipline in how I frame hard decisions than in how people experience me. The evidence is strongest in lending and portfolio work where I kept pushing for operating model, sequencing, ownership, and the learning-tax tradeoff instead of premature answers. The clean gap is that I still have not done the direct feedback ask, so my growth is better evidenced in my decision architecture than in my relationship data."
- 1.Ask one person directly, verbatim: "How are you experiencing me as a leader right now?"
- 2.In one Greg- or Tim-level conversation, name the learning-tax tradeoff plainly: what capability the bank must own, what it should buy, and how much short-term inefficiency it will tolerate.
- 3.In one urgent room, ask one more question before giving the answer you already see.
- 4.Share one human why during business hours, not just the business rationale.