The legendary economist Thomas Sowell wrote, “there are no solutions, only trade-offs.” He’s referring to public policy and is making the argument that when politicians present solutions to societal problems, we citizens should be poking around for what it is going to cost and who is going to pay because the politician is unlikely to be transparent about the trade-offs.
But the trade-offs are inevitable. For every proposed “solution” there is always a cost and someone always pays.
Business leaders know this intuitively because part of their job is weighing the needs of the organization against the needs of individuals. When the organization gets what it demands, there is always a cost and someone always pays.
What do I mean by the demands of an organization? I mean a commitment to vision and culture. Any project, product, or process that does not move the organization closer to the compelling and aspirational future vision has to go.
That is, or at least feels like, a cost. People invest so much sweat and treasure into those projects, products, or processes. Cutting them loose is the right cost to pay. But it is not painless for the people who invested. They are the ones who pay.
And most likely they are not going to take it lying down. The decision-maker (i.e., you) will get knocked about by some of his or her closest friends in the company. Some members of your team will be assuaged by a logical explanation of the trade-offs.
Others, conversely, will take it personally. This will ding the relationship. Few will understand, leaving the leader with feelings of isolation.
The same is true of culture. When there are people in an organization whose behavior is not aligned with the culture, at best the business’s efforts lack focus which means that execution slows. At worst, the people aligned with the culture and cherish its values see the writing on the wall. They recognize that leadership simply does not take culture seriously and they leave for an organization that does.
This is too great a risk for a serious business leader. Thus, people whose behavior is not aligned with the culture must go. If they cannot be coached to a higher level of flow with the culture, cutting them loose is the right cost to pay. But it is not painless.
Certainly, it is not painless for the person whose employment is being terminated. But it is also difficult for the rest of the team. Again here, the decision-maker (i.e., you) will get knocked about by some of his or her closest friends in the company. Some will be assuaged to a degree by a logical explanation of the trade-offs.
Others will see it as a threat. This will create instability in relationships, leading to feelings of isolation for the leader.
“It’s not personal, it’s just business.” I’m pretty sure the source of that adage is the film The Godfather, where the character Sal Tessio is being escorted to his murder as revenge for arranging the murder of his boss, mafia kingpin Michael Corleone. In his moment of realization that it is, in fact, the end of the road for him, Tessio requests of his executioners, “Tell Mike it was only business. I always liked him.”
What do we learn from this? That nothing is ever just business. Everything is always personal because it is impossible to make decisions outside the realm of human relationships.
Yet tough decisions for the business still must be made, inevitably leaving the leader feeling lonely.
A case study:
One of our clients, a founder and CEO of a seven-figure non-profit, has a bold and aspirational vision for the organization. To achieve it, the senior leadership team must level up considerably.
The challenge: Some senior leadership team members proactively look for problems to solve, own those problems, and demonstrate urgency and work ethic. Others wait to be told what to do and are less than urgent about execution, always making excuses for why projects or tasks are delayed.
The client naturally wants to know what to do–i.e., to find the solution. As Dr. Sowell would say, there isn’t one. In a recent coaching discussion, we confronted the trade-offs.
One approach is to keep the team as is, and only give the highest-impact projects to the team members who demonstrate the desired leadership behaviors. What are the benefits of this approach? Stability.
What are the costs? Culture.
The culture was defined clearly: ownership, urgency and work ethic. The longer this CEO tolerates contrary behavior, the more deeply ingrained is the message to the rest of the company that the opposite of those values is the real standard.
Who pays? The organization. Why? Because over time, the people who want to be a part of an ownership culture will leave.
The other approach is either to move senior team members demonstrating behaviors contrary to the ownership culture to positions in which they fit better, or transition them out of the organization entirely. What are the benefits of this approach? A culturally consistent leadership team, all of whom demonstrate ownership, urgency and work ethic.
What are the costs? Hurt feelings and damaged personal relationships.
Who pays? Certainly poor-performing members of the senior leadership team.
You know who else pays? Our client. Why? Because of the depth of regard and relationship she enjoys with every team member, and because everything is always personal.
I get the fear and by no means wish to minimize it. Our responsibility as leaders is to confront the costs. This client can either pull from the culture account to pay for short-term stability. Or pay out of the personal relationship account to get long-term results.
I saw it on my client’s face in our coaching session. There were long silences. The client’s face fell at one point, as we visualized a future in which those personal relationships had not been compromised, but the vision of the organization’s compelling future had.
I saw in that expression fear, but also resolve. In that moment, a courageous founder-CEO opened up a pathway for radically increasing the odds of actualizing the aspirational vision of the future.
These kinds of decisions are often the ones that send tidal waves through an organization. In the short term, they cause major disruption in the emotional equilibrium of the team. This must be managed carefully.
And it will be lonely for the leader. Few will understand, as most have not assessed the costs of taking an alternate path.
The leader will have to carry the burden of criticism and damaged relationships. But not the costs of narrowing the odds of actualizing the compelling vision of the future.
As a business leader, when your instinct tells you to design a solution to a business problem, remember Thomas Sowell’s admonition and start with an assessment of the trade-offs. Every decision you make has benefits. But there is always a cost. And either people pay the cost in the short term, or your compelling vision of the future pays in the long run.
Amongst all the rewards of leadership, like seeing a high-performing team succeed, or actualizing an inspirational vision, part of the call of duty sometimes includes an element of loneliness.
Are you a business owner/CEO looking for executive coaching and training solutions? Book a complimentary 15-minute strategy call to see how IGW can help you scale your leadership, build a performance culture, and take your business to the next level.
