I walked this knife edge many, many times. All too often the upper-level decisions were “unethical, immoral, or illegal.” Yes, illegal. Since I worked at universities there was another wrinkle: faculty have their own influence on governance although the extent of it varies from institution to institution.
Trying to lead a somewhat autonomous faculty to execute a boneheaded (or worse) policy is not for the faint of heart. And I know I failed in going too far in expressing my opposition a few times, just like I failed in going too far in supporting really awful, damaging mandates from above. I often had to shield the people I was charged with leading (faculty, staff, and students) from the damage caused by the very policies I was implementing.
Fun times. Thanks for sending me down memory lane. I’m gonna give my shrink a call now.
I believe it is possible to tell the team you don't care for the method/means (depending on your relationship with them). At the same time; let the team (which includes you) know we are going to execute the orders with excellence.
You’re a thinker on this and I love it. Here are my thoughts:
So many orgs either lack values or fail to actually live by them that oftentimes, there’s nothing to hang on to. That’s why I avoid viewing them as the center of gravity.
Your point that leaders may not like decisions from above, but should likely execute them shines a light on a movement of recent times when employees voice concerns, or even stage work stoppages or walk-outs because they don’t like those decisions. This is their decision to make, but companies simply are not obligated to act on these things. I get that people have their own set of morals and beliefs, but if they choose to constantly and consistently invoke them as more important than their employers goals or strategies, then it’s their job to lose.
I see no real upside to the team leader sharing their disagreement but leading the execution anyway. This, in my experience, gives dissenters a rationale to protest and bellyache about it. I’m an advocate for transparency because I believe it makes for a better functioning organization. However, the bosses and decision makers are in those roles for a reason.
So, summarily, people may choose to voice their thoughts and concerns but it’s their job to execute nonetheless. If they choose not to, it’s insubordinate and their job to lose.
Of course, truly atrocious direction that is repulsive or illegal introduces another dimension to this in which I’d be the first to raise hell about it.
Do you have a sense of where your transparency stops? For instance you mentioned seeing no upside in a team leader sharing their disagreement and leading the execution anyway... you wouldn't be transparent about something like that?
Hey there. I could list 100 different scenarios, and my stance on transparency would shift based on each one. Transparency should be applied to the appropriate degree—sometimes encouraged, sometimes not. It’s personal. A leader’s comfort level with transparency is their own challenge to manage. But as a leader, you have a responsibility to speak your mind, to speak truth to power. That alone carries its own risks. The context determines the appropriate level of transparency.
In my experience, I've often shared as much as possible about business decisions with my team, both as a learning opportunity and to prepare them for potential employee conversations. Leading HR, I've had to manage many consequential decisions, so it’s crucial my team is ready to handle sensitive discussions.
For 'high impact' decisions—reorgs, layoffs, cost-cutting, terminations, etc.—companies gain more by sharing enough to create understanding and control the narrative truthfully, though that doesn't mean full disclosure. Big decisions often trigger fear, so honest communication is key.
Workplaces aren’t democracies. Decisions get made, and they must be executed. A leader must weigh the consequences and determine how transparent they want to be. Leaning too heavily into hyper-transparency, especially when it signals dissent, often serves only to protect the leader’s image. Ultimately, they need to consider what’s best for the team and the organization.
In my opinion, you many not like what plays the coach is calling, but it's your job as quarterback or team captain to make sure your team understands them and executes to the best of their ability regardless of how you personally feel about them (I'm assuming they don't violate ethical or legal norms). It doesn't do any good to complain in front of your team. Best to spend your energy in figuring out the best way you and your team can support/execute said decision. Complaining about things never moves you closer to achieving the goal.
I think it can also depend on the size of the organisation. In a small organisation, decisions or directions are often discussed with all levels of leaders before being implemented, allowing any issues to be nutted out. This doesn’t happen in large organisations simply due to their size and this can cause the issues spoken about in the article. A ‘clever’ leader in a large organisation may be able to achieve the desired results by not so much implementing the ‘toxic’ directive, but getting to the result using other means that wash better with their workers - after all, they know their workers best.
A ‘leader’ that does every bidding of their superiors, regardless of them or their workers disagreeing with the directive, soon loses the confidence of the workers as being a ‘yes’ man/woman’. When this happens, morale (& production) plummets and workers lose trust and respect in their leader. It can be a fine line to tread.
I walked this knife edge many, many times. All too often the upper-level decisions were “unethical, immoral, or illegal.” Yes, illegal. Since I worked at universities there was another wrinkle: faculty have their own influence on governance although the extent of it varies from institution to institution.
Trying to lead a somewhat autonomous faculty to execute a boneheaded (or worse) policy is not for the faint of heart. And I know I failed in going too far in expressing my opposition a few times, just like I failed in going too far in supporting really awful, damaging mandates from above. I often had to shield the people I was charged with leading (faculty, staff, and students) from the damage caused by the very policies I was implementing.
Fun times. Thanks for sending me down memory lane. I’m gonna give my shrink a call now.
Creating a heaven inside of a hell. That's the obligation a team leader needs to accept.
Sounds like you've done it more than once.
Yes, and over many years across three universities. It’s why I’m no longer in higher ed.
Good morning,
I believe it is possible to tell the team you don't care for the method/means (depending on your relationship with them). At the same time; let the team (which includes you) know we are going to execute the orders with excellence.
That said you better know the why...
Thank you for your time.
Good caveat about the relationship being solid.
Great leadership is harder to execute without it.
You’re a thinker on this and I love it. Here are my thoughts:
So many orgs either lack values or fail to actually live by them that oftentimes, there’s nothing to hang on to. That’s why I avoid viewing them as the center of gravity.
Your point that leaders may not like decisions from above, but should likely execute them shines a light on a movement of recent times when employees voice concerns, or even stage work stoppages or walk-outs because they don’t like those decisions. This is their decision to make, but companies simply are not obligated to act on these things. I get that people have their own set of morals and beliefs, but if they choose to constantly and consistently invoke them as more important than their employers goals or strategies, then it’s their job to lose.
I see no real upside to the team leader sharing their disagreement but leading the execution anyway. This, in my experience, gives dissenters a rationale to protest and bellyache about it. I’m an advocate for transparency because I believe it makes for a better functioning organization. However, the bosses and decision makers are in those roles for a reason.
So, summarily, people may choose to voice their thoughts and concerns but it’s their job to execute nonetheless. If they choose not to, it’s insubordinate and their job to lose.
Of course, truly atrocious direction that is repulsive or illegal introduces another dimension to this in which I’d be the first to raise hell about it.
Hi Joe.
Do you have a sense of where your transparency stops? For instance you mentioned seeing no upside in a team leader sharing their disagreement and leading the execution anyway... you wouldn't be transparent about something like that?
Hey there. I could list 100 different scenarios, and my stance on transparency would shift based on each one. Transparency should be applied to the appropriate degree—sometimes encouraged, sometimes not. It’s personal. A leader’s comfort level with transparency is their own challenge to manage. But as a leader, you have a responsibility to speak your mind, to speak truth to power. That alone carries its own risks. The context determines the appropriate level of transparency.
In my experience, I've often shared as much as possible about business decisions with my team, both as a learning opportunity and to prepare them for potential employee conversations. Leading HR, I've had to manage many consequential decisions, so it’s crucial my team is ready to handle sensitive discussions.
For 'high impact' decisions—reorgs, layoffs, cost-cutting, terminations, etc.—companies gain more by sharing enough to create understanding and control the narrative truthfully, though that doesn't mean full disclosure. Big decisions often trigger fear, so honest communication is key.
Workplaces aren’t democracies. Decisions get made, and they must be executed. A leader must weigh the consequences and determine how transparent they want to be. Leaning too heavily into hyper-transparency, especially when it signals dissent, often serves only to protect the leader’s image. Ultimately, they need to consider what’s best for the team and the organization.
In my opinion, you many not like what plays the coach is calling, but it's your job as quarterback or team captain to make sure your team understands them and executes to the best of their ability regardless of how you personally feel about them (I'm assuming they don't violate ethical or legal norms). It doesn't do any good to complain in front of your team. Best to spend your energy in figuring out the best way you and your team can support/execute said decision. Complaining about things never moves you closer to achieving the goal.
I think it can also depend on the size of the organisation. In a small organisation, decisions or directions are often discussed with all levels of leaders before being implemented, allowing any issues to be nutted out. This doesn’t happen in large organisations simply due to their size and this can cause the issues spoken about in the article. A ‘clever’ leader in a large organisation may be able to achieve the desired results by not so much implementing the ‘toxic’ directive, but getting to the result using other means that wash better with their workers - after all, they know their workers best.
A ‘leader’ that does every bidding of their superiors, regardless of them or their workers disagreeing with the directive, soon loses the confidence of the workers as being a ‘yes’ man/woman’. When this happens, morale (& production) plummets and workers lose trust and respect in their leader. It can be a fine line to tread.