I have been reflecting on two recent experiences, and the contrast between them has been difficult to ignore.

In one instance, I came across a post from a former leader who is now working as a consultant. In their reflection, they spoke about the importance of letting people go when those individuals could not get on board with their vision. On the surface, this is a familiar leadership message. It echoes a common theme found in leadership books and blogs. Alignment matters. Buy-in matters. Culture matters.

But for those who had visibility into that leader’s work at the time, the statement lands differently. Many of the initiatives they were referencing failed. In fact, the consequences of those decisions cost that institution well over $20 million. In several cases, the individuals who could not get on board were not resistant for the sake of resistance. They were raising concerns. They saw risks. They had insights grounded in day-to-day realities that leadership had overlooked or dismissed.

In hindsight, it is difficult not to wonder whether those voices, rather than being obstacles, were actually sources of wisdom that went unheard. It also raises a harder question: whether positional authority is sometimes mistaken for insight, and whether all leadership perspectives truly carry the weight we assume they do.

The second moment could not have been more different.

I recently attended an employee development retreat that brought together colleagues from across the institution. As I listened to staff in entry level roles share their perspectives, I was struck by the depth of their insight. They articulated challenges with clarity. They named barriers that are often invisible in leadership conversations. And perhaps most importantly, they offered thoughtful and practical ideas for how we might improve.

Sitting there, I found myself thinking that we would be a significantly stronger institution if we created more space to truly listen to voices like these.

Not performative listening. Not listening that is filtered, summarized, and reshaped before it reaches decision makers. But real listening. The kind that allows uncomfortable truths to surface and challenges our assumptions about what we think we already know.

These two experiences raise a broader question that continues to surface for me. Not only why we listen primarily to those at the top, but whether we have been too quick to assume that every voice in leadership carries equal insight. Experience and title do not always guarantee clarity, and in some cases, they may even create distance from the realities others see more clearly.

So, why does most leadership advice come from the top?

Walk into any bookstore or scroll through any leadership blog, and the dominant voices are CEOs, presidents, and senior executives. Their perspectives are valuable. They carry responsibility for vision and direction, and their experiences matter.

But they are not the only ones with insight.

Some of the most grounded and actionable understanding of an organization lives elsewhere. It lives with the advisor who sees where students get stuck. It lives with the front desk staff member who hears confusion and frustration in real time. It lives with the coordinator who is navigating processes that look efficient on paper but break down in practice.

These individuals may not carry positional authority, but they carry something just as important: proximity to reality. And yet, their voices are rarely the ones shaping the broader conversation about leadership.

We have unintentionally created a model where wisdom is assumed to flow downward, when in reality, it exists at every level of the organization. When leaders fail to recognize this, the consequences are significant. Good ideas are dismissed. Early warnings are ignored. And decisions are made with an incomplete understanding of how they will actually play out.

Over time, this not only leads to failed initiatives. It erodes trust. People learn that speaking up is not worth the effort, and organizations lose access to the very insight that could have helped them succeed.

The alternative is not complicated, but it does require intentionality.

It means creating structures where input from all levels is actively sought and meaningfully considered. It means developing leaders who are not only confident in casting vision, but also disciplined in listening. It means recognizing that disagreement is not always a lack of alignment, but often an invitation to deeper understanding.

Most importantly, it requires a shift in mindset. Leadership is not about having all the answers. It is about creating the conditions where the best answers can emerge. And those answers are rarely found in one office alone. They are found in the collective wisdom of the people doing the work every day.