Think With Your Feet
Judge commitment by follow-through rather than agreement
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~weeks to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 96%
Think With Your Feet is a behavioural test of commitment. After a decision, define what supporting action would look like and observe what people actually do. Some participants may nod in agreement but then obstruct the initiative; others demonstrate support by moving it forward. Their feet, meaning their behaviour after the meeting, communicate the real position more accurately than their mouths. Leaders should compare agreed ownership with observable follow-through, surface contradictions, and model the action expected from others. The model also works personally: an intention that is repeatedly contradicted by behaviour is not yet a functioning commitment. Apply it fairly by ensuring expectations, authority, and resources were clear first.
Origin
Miles learned the phrase from CIO mentor Jay Kabiny, who asked him to observe which executives supported a global change project with their actions after an approving off-site meeting.
Core principles
- 01Actions communicate commitment more reliably than assent
- 02Public agreement can conceal private resistance
- 03Follow-through reveals the real direction of support
- 04The same test applies to leaders and individuals
How to run it
- 1
Make commitment observable
Translate agreement into a named action, owner, and near-term signal of progress.
Pro tip Choose evidence visible without intrusive surveillance.
Watch out Vague ownership makes later judgement arbitrary.
- 2
Watch the feet
Observe whether post-meeting behaviour advances, ignores, or obstructs the commitment.
Pro tip Look for a pattern rather than overreading one delayed action.
Watch out A resource or authority constraint can resemble resistance.
- 3
Compare words and action
Identify where stated support and observable behaviour align or conflict.
Pro tip Discuss the specific contradiction rather than assigning motive.
Watch out Do not label disagreement as disloyalty when the decision itself remains open.
- 4
Respond and model
Remove legitimate blockers, address covert obstruction, and demonstrate your own commitment through action.
Pro tip Reward useful follow-through, not performative enthusiasm.
In the wild
At a global company off-site, leaders nodded in unison around a change initiative. In the following weeks, some did everything possible to thwart the project while others actively moved it forward.
→ Post-meeting behaviour revealed who truly supported the initiative.
Common mistakes
Mistaking assent for commitment
Agreement in a room may reflect social pressure rather than an intention to execute.
Ignoring structural blockers
Before judging behaviour, confirm that the person had the clarity, authority, and resources to act.
Is it for you?
Best for
Leaders implementing change where meetings produce apparent consensus but execution remains uncertain.
Not ideal for
Judging commitment before people have clear ownership, resources, or a reasonable opportunity to act.
From the transcript
“you're going to see pretty clearly who is speaking with their mouth and who is speaking with their feet”
“you had people who were speaking in their feet in the opposite direction who were coming out of the meeting and doing everything that they…”
From the episode
John R. Miles: Escape Quiet Desperation and Transform Your Life with Intentional Living
John R. Miles