While positively framed goals often feel empowering, are there scenarios where negative framing might be more effective? For example, in highly regulated environments or safety-critical industries, goals like “reduce safety incidents to zero” might resonate more deeply with the urgency of compliance or risk mitigation. How might leaders decide when negative framing is the right choice?
Beyond motivation, how does goal framing affect emotional engagement and resilience? Positive goals may energize teams, but do they risk fostering complacency if challenges aren’t explicitly acknowledged? Similarly, negative goals might spur action in moments of crisis.
Hi again, Jo Lein your comment was specifically referenced and discussed in more detail as we took 15 extra minutes to unpack today’s Field Notes entry here:
Hello Jo Lein... regarding your specific example about reducing safety incidents, you probably have already seen they way most have already transitioned that to a positive framing by reporting "[consecutive days] since a negative incident occurred"
A challenge can still be explicitly acknowledged while still framing a goal positively.
Our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is a goal-focused leader. He conscientiously frames aims and object gives in a way that will be for the good of all Australians, rich and poor , young and old, and of all persuasions. He cares.
While positively framed goals often feel empowering, are there scenarios where negative framing might be more effective? For example, in highly regulated environments or safety-critical industries, goals like “reduce safety incidents to zero” might resonate more deeply with the urgency of compliance or risk mitigation. How might leaders decide when negative framing is the right choice?
Beyond motivation, how does goal framing affect emotional engagement and resilience? Positive goals may energize teams, but do they risk fostering complacency if challenges aren’t explicitly acknowledged? Similarly, negative goals might spur action in moments of crisis.
Hi again, Jo Lein your comment was specifically referenced and discussed in more detail as we took 15 extra minutes to unpack today’s Field Notes entry here:
https://x.com/admiredleaders/status/1881431109436883115
Hello Jo Lein... regarding your specific example about reducing safety incidents, you probably have already seen they way most have already transitioned that to a positive framing by reporting "[consecutive days] since a negative incident occurred"
A challenge can still be explicitly acknowledged while still framing a goal positively.
Great question, Jo Lein, but I would still think the greater risk for complacency would be in a negative goal framing than a positive one.
Hope others chime in on answers too.
A positively framed goal draws people in with the promise of progress and possibility.
On the other hand, negative framing can feel like steering clear of hazards and rocks without knowing where the goal lies.
Leaders need to wield words carefully because language creates emotional energy.
Our Prime Minister Anthony Albanese is a goal-focused leader. He conscientiously frames aims and object gives in a way that will be for the good of all Australians, rich and poor , young and old, and of all persuasions. He cares.