LEADING THREE LEVELS ABOVE – THE INVISIBLE ART OF SEEING WHAT IS NOT YET REAL

There is a skill that separates technically excellent professionals from strategically indispensable leaders — and it rarely appears in job descriptions. It is something simultaneously more subtle and more decisive: the ability to see three levels above where you are, to map invisible connections between seemingly isolated decisions, and to create alignment where no formal authority exists to impose it.
This sophistication is not taught in workshops. It emerges from a deep transformation in how you process organizational reality — a passage from operational to systemic thinking, from execution to architecture, from the urgent to the structural.
Most professionals operate at the level where they were positioned. If they manage projects, they think in timelines. If they lead teams, they think about individual performance. If they coordinate areas, they think about process optimization. There is nothing wrong with that — it’s what their functions demand. The problem arises when this way of thinking crystallizes as the only possible one.
Because while you are solving the problem in front of you with admirable competence, someone three levels above is seeing something you don’t see: that this problem is a symptom of a deeper structural issue. That your solution, however efficient in the short term, may be perpetuating a pattern that sabotages strategic objectives. That there are invisible connections between what you are doing and something happening in another department — and no one is connecting those dots.
This is the difference between operating at the tactical level and thinking at the strategic level. It is not a matter of intelligence. It is a matter of altitude. Of being able to simultaneously execute with precision where you are and see with clarity where it fits into the bigger picture. Of perceiving not only what is happening now, but what will happen three moves ahead if nothing changes.

THE ILLUSION OF COMPLETE INFORMATION
Organizations do not fail for lack of talent. They fail for lack of alignment. And alignment is not decreed — it is built through thousands of everyday decisions that either converge towards a coherent direction or fragment collective energy into contradictory efforts.
What makes this particularly insidious is that misalignment rarely stems from bad intentions. It stems from something more banal and devastating: distorted information traveling up the hierarchical chain.
A director asks a manager for an action to please a strategic client. The manager immediately accepts and overloads the team. Weeks later, critical deadlines for other projects are not met. Team morale deteriorates. Financial results disappoint. The director questions the execution. The manager blames the team for a lack of commitment. The team resents leadership for not protecting them from impossible demands.
No one asked: did anyone calculate the real operational cost of this action? Did anyone validate with the client what they actually need, or are we assuming? Did anyone map the impact of this decision on the company’s other strategic projects? Did anyone consider that there might be a smarter way to serve the client without destroying our delivery capacity?
These questions were not asked because each level was operating with incomplete information. The director didn’t know the team’s real overload — because that information was filtered, softened, or simply didn’t come up. The manager didn’t question the premise of the decision because they assumed it had already been validated above. The team executed because they had no visibility into the strategic context that would justify pushback.
Bad decisions at the top rarely result from executive incompetence. They result from noisy, incomplete, or distorted information that traveled three levels up without anyone ensuring its quality. They result from assumptions that solidified as facts during transmission. They result from well-intentioned filters that removed precisely the critical data that should have arrived.
Professionals who think three levels above develop an obsession with information quality. They not only consume data — they question premises, validate sources, identify what is missing. They not only pass on directives — they translate strategic context to operational levels and ensure operational reality travels up with fidelity to strategic levels. They become intelligent filters, not just passive conduits.
This role is invisible. No KPI measures how many bad decisions you prevented by ensuring the correct information reached the decision-maker. No evaluation explicitly values your ability to translate between worlds — strategic to operational, technical to executive, urgent to important. And precisely because of that, this skill becomes a brutal competitive advantage.

WHAT EXECUTIVES SEE WHEN THEY PROMOTE
There is a common misconception among technically excellent professionals: they believe superior technical mastery is what guarantees promotion to strategic levels. They study more, get more certifications, specialize more — and become frustrated when someone with less technical expertise is promoted.
What they don’t realize is that the higher the position, the less the function is about technical execution and the more it requires systemic thinking. Executives do not promote technocrats. They promote those who have demonstrated the ability to see the organization as a business, not just as a set of isolated functions.
You recognize this sophistication in small signs. Someone is in a meeting discussing the implementation of a new tool. Everyone debates features, timelines, budgets. One person raises a point: “Before we decide how to implement, should we revisit whether this tool actually solves our most critical problem? Because if the problem is approval speed, this tool doesn’t touch the root cause — which is three redundant levels of approval in the process.”
This intervention reveals someone operating three levels above. They are not just evaluating the tool. They are questioning whether we are solving the right problem. They are connecting the proposed solution with a structural cause that no one named. They are forcing the group to go up a level before going down to execution.
Or you are in a discussion about a recurring conflict between two areas. Everyone proposes mediations, escalation processes, definition of responsibilities. Someone asks: “Do these two departments have metrics that naturally collide — one is measured by speed, the other by compliance. Wouldn’t it be more effective to review the metrics system than to keep mediating symptoms?”
Again, systemic thinking. They are not solving the incident. They are identifying the pattern. They are not proposing a palliative solution. They are pointing to a structural cause. They are not operating on the presented problem. They are operating three levels above, where the real problem lives.
Executives look for exactly this when promoting. They look for those who have demonstrated they can move fluidly between altitudes — operate in detail when necessary, rise to systemic vision when appropriate. They look for those who are not limited to the formal scope of the function, but naturally connect dots between areas. They look for those who ask questions that shift frames, not just answer questions within existing frames.
This does not replace technical competence. It complements it. You need to have technical credibility to be taken seriously. However, technical competence is a minimum requirement, not a differentiator. The differentiator lies in being able to use that competence to see patterns that other technically competent people don’t see because they are only looking at their own areas.

ALIGNMENT IS NOT DECREED — IT IS BUILT
Strategic leaders create alignment without formal power because they have developed the skill of asking questions that others don’t ask. Not technical questions about how to implement — those keep everyone at the operational level. Questions that force the group to go up a level: “Before we solve how to do it, are we aligned on why we are doing it?” Or that connect isolated points: “Does what we’re discussing here relate to what area X is facing? Aren’t we solving symptoms of a common cause?”
These interventions do not come from a position. They come from perception. From you having seen something others didn’t see — not because you are smarter, but because you were looking at different layers of organizational reality. And they come from the courage to name what you see, even without hierarchical authority. Even knowing it may cause discomfort. Even risking appearing to complicate something that should be simple.
Here lies a tension that needs to be named: most organizations do not explicitly value this capacity. It is not listed in evaluated competencies. It doesn’t generate direct bonuses. It may even cause discomfort, because systems prefer predictability over complexity.
So why develop it? Because this is exactly what differentiates those who will eventually be promoted from those who will be sought out when truly critical decisions need to be made. When top leadership faces complex dilemmas — where there is no clear technical answer, where brutal trade-offs need to be navigated, where alignment between conflicting areas needs to be built — they don’t look for the best executors. They look for the best systemic thinkers.
You don’t build this reputation overnight. You build it through repeated small choices. Choices of when to speak and when to be silent. Choices of which questions to ask. Choices of how to frame problems. Choices of when to accept the dominant narrative and when to gently challenge it.
Every time you perceive that a group is debating solutions without alignment on the real problem — and you intervene to realign — you practice leadership without authority. Every time you identify a decision being made in one area that will generate an unforeseen consequence in another — and you create the connection before the problem materializes — you demonstrate thinking three levels above. Every time you perceive a recurring pattern of conflict and propose a conversation about the structural cause instead of mediating another incident, you operate systemically.
These interventions rarely generate immediate recognition. What happens is more subtle: people begin to notice that when you are in the room, conversations become more productive. That you have a skill for untying knots that seemed intractable. That you see connections others missed. And slowly, your influence grows — not because you were promoted, but because you became indispensable for navigating complexity.
Developing this requires you to be simultaneously inside and outside the system. Inside enough to deeply know dynamics, people, pressures, real limitations. Outside enough not to be captured by dominant narratives, to question premises accepted as given, to see patterns that excessive proximity renders invisible.
It is cognitively demanding. It requires you to sustain multiple perspectives simultaneously. To understand the operational logic of area A without losing sight of the logic of area B — and identify where these logics collide, even if both are rational. To follow the tactical without losing sight of the strategic. To execute today with excellence while thinking about how this prepares or sabotages what needs to happen tomorrow.
Most people don’t do this because it is genuinely difficult. It demands cognitive energy. It demands processing information from multiple sources and synthesizing non-obvious patterns. It demands tolerance for ambiguity — situations with no clear right answer, where stakeholders have legitimate and conflicting perspectives, where alignment is built through patient navigation of tensions, not through resolution that ignores complexity.
Strategic leaders develop discernment to navigate this tension. They learn when it’s worth spending political capital raising uncomfortable questions. When it’s worth planting seeds of awareness knowing they will take time to germinate. When it’s worth accepting that not all battles can be won, but that naming them creates the possibility for others to also begin to see.
This is not individual heroism. It is distributed leadership. It is recognizing that organizational alignment is not the responsibility of one person, but of everyone who has developed the sophistication to see it as a priority. Who have developed the courage to name it when it is lacking. Who have developed the skill to build it through influence, not authority.
Because formal authority can force compliance, but it does not create true alignment. It can make people execute orders, but it doesn’t make them understand why they matter. It can suppress conflict, but it does not dissolve the tensions that generated it. Real alignment — where people in different parts of the organization make daily decisions that converge naturally because they share a deep understanding of where they are going and why — that can only be built through conversations, connections, translations between different worlds.
You recognize these leaders not by their title, but by the effect they cause. Impossible-to-align projects gain traction because they created conversations between stakeholders who weren’t talking. Intractable conflicts dissolve because they reframed the problem in a way that everyone could see their interests contemplated. Changes generating massive resistance gain adherence because they translated strategic logic into practical implications that made sense to each group.
None of this is in individual KPIs. None of this generates immediate recognition. Sometimes, it’s not even clear that it was your intervention that unlocked it — and mature leaders don’t need it to be. What matters is not receiving credit. It’s seeing the system work better. It’s knowing you contributed to collective energy converging. It’s recognizing that you practiced a form of leadership that transcends formal authority — and that is exactly what complex organizations need most.
The irony is that many professionals wait for promotion to start thinking strategically. Wait to have a position to then act as systemic leaders. The process works the other way around. You are promoted because you have already demonstrated the capacity to think three levels above. Because you have already created alignment where you had no formal authority. Because you have already proven you can navigate complexity with a sophistication that does not depend on hierarchical power.
And here is the question that should bother you: if you already have technical competence, already deliver results, already manage your area well — but have not yet been recognized as a strategic leader — what is missing? It’s probably altitude. It’s the capacity to operate simultaneously at the level where you are and three levels above. To execute with excellence while thinking systemically. To solve immediate problems without losing sight of structural patterns. To create alignment through influence, not authority.
This is developed through deliberate practice. Through the conscious choice, in every meeting, to pay attention not only to the technical content, but to systemic dynamics. To ask not only “how do we solve this,” but “why is this happening and what does it reveal.” To observe not only what is being said, but what is being silenced. To map not only your territory, but connections between your territory and adjacent ones.
It is developed by taking calculated risks to intervene where you have no formal authority, but have relevant perception. By offering perspectives others are not seeing. By creating bridges between groups that weren’t connecting. By naming patterns others feel but don’t articulate.
And fundamentally, through the humility to recognize that seeing three levels above does not mean having all the answers. It means asking better questions. It means creating conditions for answers to emerge from collective intelligence. It means being comfortable not knowing, while continuing to navigate complexity with integral presence.
Perhaps the greatest sophistication is recognizing that strategic leadership is not about being the smartest person in the room. It’s about making the room smarter. It’s not about having a vision others don’t have. It’s about helping others develop the capacity to see. It’s not about creating dependency on your ability to align. It’s about distributing that ability until alignment becomes an emergent property of the system.
This is leadership three levels above. And it begins not when you receive a position. It begins when you decide to stop operating only at the level where you were positioned and start exercising the muscle of seeing — and acting — systemically. When you choose to develop a sophistication that does not depend on formal authority. When you accept the responsibility to create alignment, even though no one gave you that function.
Because in the end, organizations that navigate complexity with mastery are not those with the most brilliant formal leaders. They are those where the capacity for leadership is distributed. Where multiple people, at multiple levels, have developed the skill to see three levels above and the courage to act from that vision. Where alignment is not imposed from above, but built through thousands of micro-interventions by people who decided that developing this sophistication was worth the effort.
The remaining question is simple, but brutally honest: are you waiting for permission to start leading strategically? Or are you willing to develop this capacity now, where you are, with what you have — knowing that this is exactly what will determine where you will be three years from now?

Did you like this article?
I invite you to explore hundreds of original texts on cognitive-behavioral development, conscious leadership, and organizational transformation on my blog: https://marcellodesouza.com.br

#StrategicLeadership #SystemicThinking #OrganizationalAlignment #LeadershipWithoutAuthority #ExecutiveSophistication #StrategicVision #LeadershipDevelopment #OrganizationalComplexity #InfluenceWithoutPower #DistributedLeadership #MarcelloDeSouza #MarcelloDeSouzaOfficial #CoachingAndYou