Was it intended to apply globally? To Western societies? To English-speaking countries? The wheel depicted thin people as privileged, but what about cultures in which larger body size has historically been associated with status rather than disadvantage?

After I posted those questions, the author responded that I was deflecting from the exercise’s purpose of self-reflection.

My immediate reaction was irritation and defensiveness. Why was he questioning my motives rather than addressing my questions?

“Only later did I realize that while neither of us had misunderstood the other’s words, we had fundamentally misunderstood the conversation we thought we were having.”

As we continued the discussion privately, however, I came to better understand his concern. He approached the wheel as a vehicle for self-reflection. I approached it as a framework to be tested and understood. In his view, my questions risked shifting attention from reflection to debating the framework itself.

That realization prompted some self-examination of my own. I knew my intent was to understand the model’s assumptions and applicability. But readers of the discussion could not know my intent. Nor did they have to. People respond to what they see and hear, not to the motivations hidden inside someone else’s head.

Complicating matters further, discussions about privilege often arrive with emotional and ideological baggage. Participants may enter the conversation with vastly different expectations, experiences, and levels of fatigue. That reality doesn't make the discussion less important. It does make alignment more difficult.

With the colleague’s blessing, I deleted my public comments from his post so as not to hijack the discussion. The tit-for-tat was devolving into the type of back-and-forth worthy of a .gif of a rapt Michael Jackson shoveling popcorn in his mouth in a movie theater.

Only later did I realize that while neither of us had misunderstood the other’s words, we had fundamentally misunderstood the conversation we thought we were having.

He was talking about self-reflection. I was talking about assumptions and applicability.

Both conversations were legitimate. They simply were not the same conversation.

As security leaders, we encounter that issue constantly. A manager presents a plan and an employee asks a question. The employee is earnest. The manager sees a proverbial grenade tossed into the room.

My LinkedIn interlocutor encapsulated the issue nicely. Regardless of what I intended, the discussion risked being interpreted differently by many readers. That doesn't automatically make those readers correct. But it does mean that intent alone cannot carry a message. Leadership communication succeeds or fails at the point of reception, not transmission.

Dr. Gavriel Schneider, founder of the Presilience Institute and an expert in leadership, resilience, and human behavior, sees a deeper issue at work.

"One of the most overlooked leadership disciplines is alignment,” he says. “We often move straight into discussion, debate, or decision-making without first ensuring we are aligned on purpose, expectations, and intent.”

That observation resonated with me. My colleague and I were not aligned on the purpose of the conversation. He viewed the wheel as an exercise in self-reflection, while I saw it as a framework to be examined.

"Participants may enter the conversation with vastly different expectations, experiences, and levels of fatigue. That reality doesn't make the discussion less important. It does make alignment more difficult.”

Misalignment of purpose often lures leaders into three common leadership traps.

First, assuming intent. The moment we become more interested in assigning motives than understanding statements, we enter dangerous territory.

Second, confusing questions with opposition. Security leaders shouldn’t complain about groupthink and simultaneously stifle inquiry. At the same time, questioners should recognize how their questions may be perceived.

Third, believing intent is enough. Intent alone doesn’t guarantee understanding, and leaders are judged by outcomes and perceptions.

The lesson is that two people can understand each other's words perfectly and still misunderstand the conversation they are having.

The privilege wheel was just the catalyst. Leadership often succeeds or fails in the space between inquiry, intent, perception, and interpretation. Alignment helps leaders navigate that space.