Know Yourself, But Adapt to Others: Why Good Leaders Must Play Different Games

The other day during Sunday open mat, I was working drills with one of the brown belts, Romain.

He's a 50-something French guy who works in the healthcare industry, and he's really strong and tough on the mat.

We've been partnering up for a couple months now—30 minutes before the noon class on Mondays and Wednesdays and sometimes on Sundays when he can make it in.

We've been working guard passing, and it's really been helping me a lot.

The other day we were commiserating about some of the new guys who've joined the academy and how big they are, even for Romain, who already has a good 50-60 pounds on me.

And I was saying that we all need to learn to play different strategies in our grappling, no different than what I had to learn in hapkido. I then broke it down into a simple 2×2 grid for him and the 4 games we all need to learn how to play—stronger or weaker, and fast or slow—so that depending on where you are relative to your training partner, you need to be able to adapt your game.

For example, as the smaller, older guy, I tend to be in the weak and slow corner of the box, so I've had to learn how to use frames effectively, how not to extend myself out and be easier to attack/submit, and learn how to breathe and slow down even more to be able to conserve my energy when openings become available.

But, now with over 2 years in my BJJ journey, I'm beginning to develop the skills and strengths that it's not only about surviving. And that I'm finding when I'm actually stronger or even faster than some of the white belt students.

And in those situations, I've been learning how to apply a different strategy to my BJJ game, not just surviving but also getting into advantageous positions and even some of the more rudimentary attacks.

As I was sharing this with Romain, I realized that in some way, I've been doing this most of my life—being adaptable to the situation and not a "one size fits all" kind of guy.

In fact, I actually use a 3×3 grid, based on the 80/20 Rule and learning how to adapt accordingly for the outliers of the 20% good and bad.

You could take it even further, and I do sometimes, making a 3×3×3 cube so that I can filter out for the 1% best people in any group.

I do this by filtering each individual along 3 important metrics and then placing them in their bell curve distribution—i.e. character/integrity (always the first and most important), then skill/expertise, and then lastly, some third metric relevant to each unique situation, maybe abundance thinking versus poverty thinking, growth vs. fixed mindset, bad vs. good training partner, etc.

Leadership is an important part of this.

You need to not only be able to lead different kinds of people, but you also need to modulate yourself in dealing with different kinds of people so that you can be appropriate for each individual situation.

And that's where most leaders mess up.

There's a saying that I like which captures this perfectly:

This is why even good leaders struggle with poor leadership.

We are not all alike.

You can't just be the same way with everyone.

The Foundation: Know Who You Are

Certainty, Confidence, and Conviction

Before you can adapt to others, you must know yourself:

• What you stand for
• What you're capable of
• What your values are
• What your strengths are
• What your weaknesses are
• What your natural style is

This is the foundation.

Without it, you're not adapting—you're just reacting.

You're shapeless, not flexible.

You have no center.

As a leader:

• You must know your principles (what you won't compromise)
• You must know your capabilities (what you can deliver)
• You must know your style (how you naturally operate)

But here's the critical part:

Knowing who you are doesn't mean being the same with everyone.

It means having a solid center from which you can adapt to different people and situations.

The Hammer Problem

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

This is the failure mode of most leaders:

• They have one leadership style
• They apply it to everyone
• They wonder why it doesn't work with certain people
• They blame the people instead of adapting their approach

Examples:

• The authoritarian leader who barks orders at everyone (works with some, alienates others)
• The empathetic leader who tries to be everyone's friend (works with some, gets walked over by others)
• The analytical leader who wants data for everything (works with some, frustrates others)
• The visionary leader who inspires with big ideas (works with some, confuses others who need concrete steps)

Each style works with some people and fails with others.

The problem isn't the style—it's the inability to adapt.

The Matrix Approach

What martial artists learn:

• Different opponents require different strategies
• You can't use the same game with everyone
• Adapting is a skill, not weakness
• The more games you can play, the more effective you are

What leaders must learn:

• Different people require different approaches
• You can't lead everyone the same way
• Adapting is a skill, not inconsistency
• The more leadership styles you can employ, the more effective you are

This is where the matrix framework becomes invaluable.

The 2×2 Matrix: Four Games You Must Learn to Play

The Grappling Framework

On the mat, I have to assess two variables relative to my training partner:

Variable 1: Strength

• Am I stronger or weaker than them?

Variable 2: Speed

• Am I faster or slower than them?

This creates 4 quadrants:

1. Stronger AND Faster (rare, but happens)

• Strategy: Pressure game
• Use superior attributes to dominate position
• Force them to defend
• Capitalize on mistakes

2. Stronger BUT Slower

• Strategy: Control game
• Use strength to maintain dominant positions
• Don't chase, be patient
• Make them work to escape, then recapture
• Conserve energy, let them tire

3. Weaker BUT Faster

• Strategy: Movement game
• Use speed to avoid bad positions
• Stay mobile, don't get pinned
• Create angles, use technique over strength
• Hit and move

4. Weaker AND Slower (me, often)

• Strategy: Technical/survival game
• Use frames to create space
• Don't extend limbs (harder to attack)
• Breathe, slow down even more
• Conserve energy for critical moments
• Use superior technique and timing
• Accept bad positions temporarily to set up escapes

The key insight:

I can't use the same game with everyone.

I have to assess where I am relative to my partner and adapt my strategy accordingly.

If I try to play a pressure game when I'm weaker and slower, I get destroyed.

If I try to play a survival game when I'm stronger and faster, I waste my advantages.

Adaptation isn't optional—it's essential.

The Leadership Framework

The same matrix applies to leadership.

Let's use Competence and Motivation as an example:

Variable 1: Competence

• Is this person more or less skilled/experienced than me in this area?

Variable 2: Motivation

• Is this person highly motivated or struggling with motivation?

This creates 4 quadrants (similar to Situational Leadership Model):

1. High Competence + High Motivation

• Strategy: Delegate
• Give them autonomy
• Set clear outcomes, let them determine how
• Get out of their way
• Check in periodically
• Recognize and reward

2. High Competence + Low Motivation

• Strategy: Inspire/Support
• Understand what's blocking their motivation
• Reconnect them to purpose
• Remove obstacles
• Provide support, not direction
• Address burnout or misalignment

3. Low Competence + High Motivation

• Strategy: Coach/Teach
• Provide clear direction and training
• Break down tasks into learnable steps
• Give frequent feedback
• Celebrate small wins
• Build their skills while maintaining their enthusiasm

4. Low Competence + Low Motivation

• Strategy: Direct/Decide
• Provide very clear, specific instructions
• Monitor closely
• Hold accountable
• Decide quickly if they're a fit
• Either help them find the right role or help them exit

The mistake most leaders make:

• They use the same approach with everyone
• Often their natural style (what works for them)
• They get frustrated when it doesn't work
• They blame the person instead of adapting

Example:

A leader who's naturally a "delegator" (because they're high competence/high motivation themselves) tries to delegate to someone who's low competence/high motivation.

The person fails because they don't have the skills yet.

The leader gets frustrated: "Why can't they just figure it out like I would?"

The problem isn't the person—it's the mismatch between their needs and the leader's approach.

A good leader would recognize: This person needs coaching, not delegation.

The 3×3 Matrix: The 20/60/20 Refinement

Why 2×2 Isn't Enough

The 2×2 matrix is useful, but it's binary:

• Stronger or weaker
• Fast or slow
• High or low

Reality is more nuanced.

Most people fall in the middle—the 60%.

But there are outliers—the top 20% and bottom 20%—who require different treatment.

This is where the 3×3 matrix becomes valuable.

The 3×3 Framework

Instead of binary (high/low), use three categories:

1. Top 20% (Exceptional)2. Middle 60% (Normal)3. Bottom 20% (Problematic)

Applied to the same variables:

Grappling example:

Strength: Strong / Average / Weak

Speed: Fast / Average / Slow

This creates 9 quadrants instead of 4:

1. Strong + Fast (rare, elite athletes)

• Strategy: Highly technical game, study their patterns, survive and capitalize on rare mistakes

2. Strong + Average Speed (common big guys)

• Strategy: Movement and angles, don't engage in strength battles

3. Strong + Slow (big, older, or tired)

• Strategy: Movement game, tire them out, technical escapes

4. Average Strength + Fast (common young guys)

• Strategy: Slow the pace, use frames, technical control

5. Average Strength + Average Speed (most training partners)

• Strategy: Balanced game, work fundamentals, experiment

6. Average Strength + Slow (some older practitioners)

• Strategy: Maintain pace, use superior conditioning if you have it

7. Weak + Fast (smaller, quick people)

• Strategy: If that's you, use speed and technique; if that's them, control and pressure

8. Weak + Average Speed (many smaller practitioners)

• Strategy: Technical precision, frames, defensive excellence

9. Weak + Slow (me with many partners)

• Strategy: Ultra-technical, survival-based, energy conservation, perfect timing

The advantage:

More granular assessment leads to more precise strategy.

You're not just adapting to "stronger" or "weaker"—you're adapting to degrees of difference.

The Leadership Application

The same refinement applies to leadership:

Competence: Expert / Competent / Developing

Motivation: Highly Engaged / Moderately Engaged / Disengaged

This creates 9 leadership approaches:

1. Expert + Highly Engaged

• Strategy: Empower and amplify
• Give them leadership opportunities
• Let them mentor others
• Get out of their way
• These are your force multipliers

2. Expert + Moderately Engaged

• Strategy: Re-inspire
• They may be bored or unchallenged
• Give them stretch assignments
• Reconnect to mission
• Address any obstacles

3. Expert + Disengaged

• Strategy: Investigate and address
• Something's wrong—burnout, misalignment, personal issues
• Have honest conversation
• Either fix the issue or help them transition
• Don't let them poison the culture

4. Competent + Highly Engaged

• Strategy: Develop and challenge
• Give them growth opportunities
• Provide coaching to reach expert level
• Recognize their effort
• These are your emerging leaders

5. Competent + Moderately Engaged

• Strategy: Standard management
• Clear expectations and accountability
• Regular check-ins
• Provide support when needed
• The majority of your team

6. Competent + Disengaged

• Strategy: Direct conversation
• Understand the cause
• Set clear expectations
• Performance plan if necessary
• Decide if they're in the right role

7. Developing + Highly Engaged

• Strategy: Intensive coaching
• Provide clear training and structure
• Give frequent feedback
• Celebrate progress
• Invest heavily—they have potential

8. Developing + Moderately Engaged

• Strategy: Coach and monitor
• Provide clear direction
• Set short-term goals
• Monitor progress closely
• Decide if they're improving

9. Developing + Disengaged

• Strategy: Decide quickly
• Are they trainable and motivatable?
• If yes, intensive intervention
• If no, help them exit quickly
• Don't let them drag down the team

The insight:

Leadership isn't one-size-fits-all. It's nine-sizes-fit-nine-types (at minimum).

The leader who can only operate in one mode will fail with most people.

The 3×3×3 Cube: Filtering for Excellence

Taking It Further

Sometimes you need even more nuance, especially when selecting people for critical roles or partnerships.

This is where the 3×3×3 cube comes in.

The framework:

• Filter individuals along 3 important metrics
• Place them in bell curve distribution for each metric
• This creates 27 possible combinations
• Allows you to identify the top 1% across all three dimensions

The Metrics I Use

Metric 1: Character/Integrity (ALWAYS first and most important)

• High: Consistently honest, principled, trustworthy
• Medium: Generally good, occasional lapses
• Low: Untrustworthy, unethical, self-serving

Metric 2: Skill/Expertise

• High: Expert level, proven track record
• Medium: Competent, developing
• Low: Beginner, unproven

Metric 3: Context-Specific (varies by situation)

Examples:

• Growth vs. Fixed Mindset
• Abundance vs. Poverty Thinking
• Good vs. Bad Training Partner
• Cultural Fit
• Work Ethic
• Communication Style

The Application

For critical roles, I filter for:

High Character + High Skill + High [Context Variable]

This is the 1%.

These are the people you:

• Invest heavily in
• Give significant autonomy to
• Build your organization around
• Partner with long-term
• Protect and retain

For example, selecting a business partner:

• Character: High (non-negotiable)
• Skill: High (in their area of expertise)
• Abundance Thinking: High (critical for partnership)

If someone is High-High-High, they're in.

If someone is High-High-Medium, maybe—depends on how critical that third metric is.

If someone is High-Medium-High, maybe—can we develop the skill?

If someone is Medium or Low on Character, they're out. Period.

The cube allows me to:

• See all 27 possible combinations
• Identify where someone actually is (not where I wish they were)
• Make informed decisions about investment of time and resources
• Adapt my approach to their specific combination

Training Partners Example

Metric 1: Character (respectful, safe, humble)

Metric 2: Skill (technical ability)

Metric 3: Training Style (good partner vs. just rolling for themselves)

High-High-High partners:

• I seek them out
• I learn the most from them
• I'm willing to get beat up by them
• They make me better

High-Medium-High partners:

• Great for drilling and development
• We grow together
• Mutual benefit

High-High-Low partners:

• Skilled but selfish
• I'll train with them occasionally for the challenge
• But I limit exposure—they don't make me better long-term

Low on Character (unsafe, ego-driven, disrespectful):

• I avoid them entirely
• No amount of skill makes up for it
• Risk of injury or bad culture

The matrix helps me be strategic about who I invest time with.

Why Good Leaders Still Struggle: The Adaptation Problem

The Leadership Trap

Most leaders know who they are.

• They have clarity on their values
• They understand their strengths
• They have confidence in their approach

This is good.

But it becomes a trap when:

• They assume everyone else is like them
• They lead everyone the same way
• They can't adapt to different people
• They blame people for not responding to their style

The failure pattern:

1. Leader has natural style (e.g., high autonomy, figure-it-out approach)

2. Leader succeeded with this style (it worked for them)

3. Leader applies it to everyone (assumes it's universal)

4. It fails with people who need different approach (coaching, direction, support)

5. Leader blames the people ("They're not self-starters")

6. Leader doubles down on same approach (more of what doesn't work)

7. People fail or leave

8. Leader concludes "good people are hard to find"

The actual problem:

The leader can't play different games.

Real-World Examples

The "Delegator" who can't coach:

• Great with high-performers
• Terrible with developing talent
• Frustrated that people "can't figure it out"
• Loses good people who just needed guidance

The "Coach" who can't delegate:

• Great with beginners
• Micromanages experts
• Drives away top talent
• Creates dependency instead of autonomy

The "Motivator" who can't direct:

• Great at inspiring
• Terrible at executing
• Team is excited but unclear
• Nothing actually gets done

The "Operator" who can't inspire:

• Great at execution
• Terrible at vision
• Team is efficient but disengaged
• High turnover despite good systems

Each leader has a strength. Each also has a blind spot.

The best leaders:

• Know their natural style
• Understand its limitations
• Consciously adapt to different people
• Can play multiple games

The Modulation Skill

Modulation means:

• Maintaining your core values and principles (non-negotiable)
• Adapting your style and approach (flexible)
• Meeting people where they are (not where you wish they were)
• Giving them what they need (not what you would need)

This requires:

• Self-awareness (knowing your default)
• Other-awareness (reading what people need)
• Behavioral flexibility (ability to shift approaches)
• Discipline (doing what's effective, not just what's comfortable)

Example from the mat:

My natural game is patient, technical, defensive (because I'm smaller and older).

But when I'm rolling with someone smaller and newer than me, I need to modulate:

• I can't use my usual defensive, survival game (they need me to provide some pressure)
• I need to give them realistic resistance (so they learn)
• I need to create situations where they can practice (so they improve)
• I need to be a good training partner (not just do what's comfortable for me)

This is adaptation.

Example in leadership:

My natural leadership style is high autonomy, low direction (I like to figure things out myself, so I assume others do too).

But when I'm leading someone who's new and developing, I need to modulate:

• I can't just delegate and expect them to figure it out (they'll fail)
• I need to provide clear direction and coaching (even though it's not my comfort zone)
• I need to give them structure and support (so they can learn)
• I need to be a good leader for them (not just lead the way I like to be led)

This is effective leadership.

How to Develop the Adaptation Skill

Step 1: Know Your Default

Identify your natural style:

• How do you prefer to learn?
• How do you prefer to be managed?
• What's your default approach to problems?
• What's your communication style?
• What do you assume everyone else is like?

Write it down. Be honest.

Step 2: Recognize It's Not Universal

Understand:

• Not everyone is like you
• What works for you doesn't work for everyone
• Your strengths can become weaknesses when misapplied
• Adaptation is a skill, not a betrayal of self

Accept that your way is one way, not the way.

Step 3: Learn to Read People

Develop assessment skills:

• What does this person need right now?
• Where are they on the competence spectrum?
• Where are they on the motivation spectrum?
• What's their communication style?
• What third variable matters in this context?

Use the matrices:

• 2×2 for quick assessment
• 3×3 for more nuance
• 3×3×3 for critical decisions

Step 4: Build Your Range

Develop multiple approaches:

• Can you direct when needed? (even if you prefer autonomy)
• Can you delegate when appropriate? (even if you prefer to be involved)
• Can you coach patiently? (even if you learn by doing)
• Can you inspire with vision? (even if you're tactical)
• Can you provide structure? (even if you prefer flexibility)

Practice the approaches that don't come naturally.

Step 5: Match Approach to Person

Consciously choose:

• Assess the person using your matrix
• Identify what they need
• Select the appropriate approach
• Implement it (even if it's not your default)
• Observe and adjust

This is deliberate leadership.

Step 6: Maintain Your Core

While adapting:

• Don't compromise your values
• Don't pretend to be someone you're not
• Don't be inconsistent with principles
• Do adapt your style and approach
• Do meet people where they are
• Do give them what they need

Your core is fixed. Your methods are flexible.

Conclusion: The Paradox of Effective Leadership

Know who you are—this gives you a center.

But don't be the same with everyone—this makes you effective.

The paradox:

• Strong identity + Adaptive approach = Effective leadership
• Strong identity + Rigid approach = Limited effectiveness
• Weak identity + Adaptive approach = Inconsistent, unprincipled

You need both:

• Certainty about your values and principles
• Flexibility in how you apply them with different people

On the mat, I've learned:

• I'm a smaller, older, technical grappler (that's who I am)
• But I play 9+ different games depending on my partner (that's how I adapt)
• My identity is stable, my strategy is fluid
• This makes me effective across a wide range of training partners

In leadership, the same applies:

• I have core values and principles (that's who I am)
• But I lead differently with different people (that's how I adapt)
• My character is stable, my approach is fluid
• This makes me effective across a wide range of people

If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Develop more tools.

Learn to play different games.

Know who you are—and adapt to who they are.

That's leadership.