June 13, 2026

The CEO Who Learned to Feel

The CEO Who Learned to Feel For most of my career, I trusted spreadsheets more than sensations. If a decision could not be defended on a slide, it did not exis...

The CEO Who Learned to Feel

For most of my career, I trusted spreadsheets more than sensations. If a decision could not be defended on a slide, it did not exist. And then, somewhere between a ten-day silent retreat and a very ordinary Tuesday morning, I noticed that my body had been trying to tell me things my mind had been overruling for years.

The Question I Keep Returning To

How did we get here? How did so many of us — leaders, engineers, founders, doctors — end up trusting only one instrument in the orchestra? I do not think it was one decision. I think it was a slow drift, one KPI at a time. And the question I sit with now, on the cushion and in the boardroom, is simple: what if logic, brilliant as it is, was never meant to work alone?

The Instrument That Was Never Meant to Play Solo

I remember a specific meeting. The numbers were good. The strategy was defensible. Every voice around the table nodded. And something in my chest — not dramatic, just a quiet tightening — kept whispering not yet. I overrode it. Logic won. Six months later, I understood what that tightening had known. It had read something the deck could not show: a founder's exhausted eyes, a subtle inconsistency in how a partner spoke about their team, a pattern my body had catalogued before my mind had permission to name it.

I am not suggesting we abandon reason. I would be a poor CEO if I did. But I am asking, honestly: when did we agree that the felt sense — the somatic, the intuitive, the emotional — was less rigorous than the analytical? Because when I look at the traditions humans have built over thousands of years, almost none of them made that agreement.

In Vipassana, we are taught to observe vedanā — the subtle bodily sensation that accompanies every thought and event. Not to indulge it, not to suppress it, simply to notice. In Ayurveda, the pulse tells a story that no blood test alone can. In Thai massage — which I have studied slowly, humbly, with teachers far more patient than I deserve — the practitioner listens with their hands. The body is not an object being fixed; it is a text being read.

Here is a small table I keep returning to. It is not exhaustive, and I am sure a scholar could refine it. But it helps me see the pattern.

Tradition	The felt dimension	What it is trusted to know
Vipassana (Theravada Buddhist)	Vedanā — sensation	The truth of impermanence, the roots of reaction
Ayurveda (Indian)	Prakriti and pulse	Constitution, imbalance, timing
Traditional Chinese Medicine	Qi and meridians	Flow, blockage, seasonal alignment
Thai medicine (Nuad)	Sen lines, breath	Where energy is stuck, where life wants to move
Sufi practice	Qalb — the heart	Discernment beyond the rational mind
Stoic philosophy	Prohairesis	The felt quality of assent and judgment
Indigenous Andean	Reading of ayni	Reciprocity, right relationship
Modern somatic therapy	Interoception	Trauma, safety, coherence

Different words. Different cosmologies. But something like a shared intuition: that the body, the heart, the felt sense — whatever name we give it — is a genuine organ of knowing. Not a decoration on top of thought. Not a weakness to be managed. An instrument.

So how did we, in the modern professional world, come to trust only one instrument? I have some guesses, and I hold them lightly. The Enlightenment gave us extraordinary gifts — science, measurement, the humility to test our beliefs against evidence. But somewhere in the inheritance, we may have quietly discarded the parts of knowing that were harder to measure. Feelings became "subjective." Intuition became "bias." The body became a machine that carries the brain to meetings.

And then we built companies on top of that inheritance. We rewarded the leaders who could defend everything on a spreadsheet. We were suspicious of those who said something feels off. We used the word emotional almost exclusively as a mild insult. I did this too. I am not writing from a mountain; I am writing from the middle of the road, still learning.

What I have started to notice, slowly, is that my best decisions — not my most defensible, but my best — have almost always involved both. The analysis was necessary. The felt sense was necessary. Neither was sufficient. When I trusted only the numbers, I sometimes optimised for the wrong thing beautifully. When I trusted only my gut, I sometimes mistook fear for wisdom, or excitement for signal. The two together, held in patient attention, seem to know things that neither can know alone.

I keep wondering what would change if we treated the felt sense with the same rigour we bring to analysis. Not romantically. Not mystically. Just as another data stream — one that requires training to read, calibration to trust, and humility to interpret. What if EQ was not a nice add-on but a discipline as demanding as financial modelling?

The Deeper Layer: What Are We Actually Afraid Of?

I think there is a reason many of us, especially in leadership, resist this. It is not stupidity. It is not even arrogance, most of the time. I suspect it is fear.

If I let my body speak, it might tell me I am tired. If I let my heart speak, it might tell me I am in the wrong role, or the wrong relationship, or the wrong industry. If I let the felt sense have a vote, it might vote against something I have spent ten years building. Logic, at least, can be argued with. Feeling is harder to negotiate. It just sits there, quietly, being true.

So we develop elegant strategies to not-feel. We call them focus, discipline, professionalism. And they are sometimes exactly those things. But sometimes they are armour. I have worn that armour. I still put it on some mornings without noticing. Vipassana taught me, more than anything else, that suppression is not neutral. The sensation does not disappear; it goes underground, and it runs the show from there. The unfelt feeling becomes the unexamined decision.

The invitation — and I use that word deliberately, because I do not want to prescribe — is not to become less rational. It is to become more whole. To bring the analytical mind and the feeling body into the same room, and to let them have an actual conversation. Most of us have never introduced them.

What I Am Still Learning

I do not have this figured out. On many days, I still lead with the spreadsheet and only notice the tightening in my chest hours later, in the car, alone. I still catch myself dismissing a team member's hesitation because it was not articulated well. I am a beginner at this, and I suspect I will be a beginner for a long time.

What I can say is that the days I remember to pause — one breath, one honest scan of what my body is actually saying — seem to go differently. Not always better in the short term. Sometimes harder. But more true. And I am starting to trust that truth, over time, is a better foundation than certainty.

I am a temporary guest in this body and mind. I would like to learn to listen to both before my stay is over.

FAQ

Q: Are you saying leaders should make decisions based on feelings? A: No. I am saying that ignoring feelings is also a decision, and usually an unexamined one. I try to include both the analysis and the felt sense, and to notice when they disagree. The disagreement itself is often the most useful data.

Q: How do you actually develop this "felt sense" as a busy CEO? A: For me, it started with Vipassana — ten days of silent observation of bodily sensation. But it does not require a retreat. Even two minutes of honestly scanning what your body is telling you before a meeting is a beginning. The instrument sharpens with use.

Q: Isn't intuition just bias in disguise? A: Sometimes, absolutely. Untrained intuition is often just fear or preference wearing a costume. That is why traditions like Vipassana emphasise years of patient observation before trusting the signal. The point is not to romanticise the gut, but to train it.

Q: How do you distinguish a wise feeling from an anxious one? A: I am still learning. But I notice that anxious signals tend to be loud, urgent, and narrowing. Wiser signals tend to be quieter, steadier, and to open rather than close the field of possibility. This is a working hypothesis, not a rule.

Q: Do you talk about this openly at work? A: More than I used to. Less than I probably should. I still calibrate depending on the room, which is itself something I am examining.

Q: What role does Ayurveda play in this for you? A: Ayurveda taught me that the body has seasons, constitutions, and rhythms — and that ignoring them has costs. It gave me a vocabulary for what I was already sensing but could not name.

Q: Is this compatible with running a serious business? A: I hope so. I am running one. The businesses I most admire seem to be led by people who can hold both the numbers and the human — not as opposites, but as two eyes looking at the same world.

Paweł Sokołowski is a CEO, Vipassana meditator, and student of Ayurveda and Thai massage. He writes from the intersection of technology, consciousness, and the ancient body.

← Back to the journal