Leaders forfeit their right to be frustrated by subpar work if their quality bar is subjective and hasn't been explicitly communicated. To hold a team to a high standard, particularly one based on 'gut feeling,' you must document those expectations in specific detail. This transforms a subjective bar into an objective, referenceable standard.
Related Insights
Most corporate values statements (e.g., "integrity") are unactionable and don't change internal culture. Effective leaders codify specific, observable behaviors—the "how" of working together. This makes unspoken expectations explicit and creates a clear standard for accountability that a vague value never could.
This powerful maxim highlights a core cause of conflict in teams and relationships. When you expect someone to do something without clearly communicating it, you are setting them up to fail and preparing yourself to be resentful when they inevitably do. This frames clear communication not as a preference, but as a mandatory prerequisite for avoiding bitterness and maintaining healthy dynamics.
Exceptional people in flawed systems will produce subpar results. Before focusing on individual performance, leaders must ensure the underlying systems are reliable and resilient. As shown by the Southwest Airlines software meltdown, blaming employees for systemic failures masks the root cause and prevents meaningful improvement.
Leaders can reduce team anxiety and prevent misinterpretation by explicitly categorizing input. 'Do' is a direct order (used rarely), 'Try' is an experiment, and 'Consider' is a low-stakes suggestion (used 80-85% of the time). This ensures a leader's random thoughts aren't treated as gospel.
Stated values are meaningless without enforcement. True operational standards are set by the lowest level of performance a leader is willing to accept. If you tolerate messy common areas or late reports, that becomes the actual standard, regardless of the rules.
Instead of vague values, define culture as a concrete set of "if-then" statements that govern reinforcement (e.g., "IF you are on time, THEN you are respected"). This turns an abstract concept into an operational system that can be explicitly taught, managed, and improved across the organization.
Before labeling a team as not resilient, leaders should first examine their own expectations. Often, what appears as a lack of resilience is a natural reaction to systemic issues like overwork, underpayment, and inadequate support, making it a leadership problem, not an employee one.
When given unclear feedback like 'be more strategic,' don't ask for a definition. Instead, ask for concrete examples: 'What would it have looked like for me to be strategic?' or 'What would you have done differently?' This forces managers to provide actionable guidance instead of abstract criticism.
The term "strategic" is often a catch-all excuse used by managers during performance reviews when they fail to provide concrete, coachable feedback. It's a sign the leader needs to clarify their own expectations before they can effectively coach their team member.
Leaders who complain their team isn't as good as them are misplacing blame. They are the ones who hired and trained those individuals. The team's failure is ultimately the leader's failure in either talent selection, skill development, or both, demanding radical ownership.
