Situations from the Book

Imagine you've recently joined a service operation with about twenty employees. Revenue has declined over several reporting periods. Customer complaints have increased. Turnover is high, several positions remain unfilled, and service quality varies considerably from one employee to another.

As you spend time in the operation, you begin noticing other things. Employees tend to work independently. Different people have different ideas about the right way to perform the same work. Experienced employees rarely mentor newer ones. Complaining is common, and accountability can quickly become blame.

New employees receive different training depending on who happens to work with them. The manager spends relatively little time with the team. Coaching conversations are uncommon. Meetings happen irregularly and usually focus on whatever problem is most urgent. Expectations aren't consistently reinforced, and most communication occurs after something has already gone wrong.

There is plenty here that could grab our attention: revenue, turnover, customer complaints, staffing, productivity. Any one of those could become the problem we immediately begin trying to solve. But we've learned to look beyond the scoreboard.

We can observe inconsistent standards. We can observe employees working largely independently. We can observe limited coaching, irregular meetings, reactive communication, inconsistent onboarding, and expectations that aren't consistently reinforced.

Those observations don't tell us that employees don't care. They don't tell us the manager is a poor leader. And they don't tell us why revenue has declined. They give us somewhere to begin asking questions.

How clearly do people understand what is expected? What have employees learned they can consistently count on from leadership? How are standards established and reinforced? What happens when someone needs help? How might leadership's inconsistent presence be influencing what people experience?

Notice what those questions do. They move our attention away from finding someone to blame and toward understanding the environment in which the behaviors are occurring.

If I were standing beside you looking at these observations, I would probably begin near the Leaderless place marker on the Sustainable Environment Pathway™. Not because there is literally no leader. And not as a judgment of the manager. The observations suggest that leadership isn't yet providing enough consistent influence for people to experience common expectations, dependable communication, coaching, or shared ways of working. That gives us direction.

The first question probably isn't: How do we get employees to take more ownership? It may be much earlier: What needs to become more dependable before we ask people to build on it?

If this situation feels familiar, don't decide what it means about your organization yet. Just keep the question.

Now imagine a different operation.

It had been struggling, but something is changing. Revenue has stabilized after a period of decline. Customer retention is no longer falling. Overtime is beginning to decrease. Turnover has slowed, and service quality is becoming more consistent. The manager is much more visible than before. Expectations are discussed regularly. Commitments are followed through. One-on-one coaching occurs routinely, and problems are being addressed earlier. Employees are responding. Common procedures are being followed more consistently. Team meetings occur regularly. People are beginning to raise concerns before they become crises. Collaboration is improving, and new employees receive a more consistent introduction to the work.

Those are meaningful changes. But look at where much of the energy is still coming from. The manager. Leadership is establishing expectations. Leadership is coaching. Leadership is following through. Leadership is reinforcing standards and addressing problems. That's not a criticism. At this point, it may be exactly what the environment needs.

We can observe increasing consistency. We can observe leadership becoming more predictable. We can observe employees beginning to respond differently. And we can observe that leadership remains the primary source of much of that consistency.

That raises different questions. Which leadership behaviors are helping create stability? What are people beginning to trust? Which conditions have become dependable? What still requires continual leadership reinforcement? What happens when the manager isn't there? Those questions point somewhere different from Situation One.

I would probably orient this environment near Stabilizing.

Leadership is no longer merely responding to whatever happens. It is intentionally influencing the environment. But that doesn't mean the work is finished. In fact, this may be where a capable manager is especially tempted to push ahead. Now let's empower everybody. Now let's delegate more. Now let's get people to take ownership. Maybe. But first I would ask: What has become dependable enough to build on? Stability isn't the destination. It's something the next stage can stand on.

Now consider an operation that appears healthy.

Results are strong. Customer retention is good. Turnover is low. Productivity is consistent. Standards are clear, communication is dependable, and people generally understand what is expected of them. The manager has worked hard to create that consistency. Coaching occurs. Commitments are followed through. Problems are addressed. Employees trust the manager and know where to go when something needs attention.

From the scoreboard, there may be very little to fix. But suppose you notice something else. Most significant decisions still come through the manager. Improvements are usually initiated by the manager. Coaching depends on the manager. Employees perform well, but when something falls outside the normal routine, they tend to look upward for direction. When the manager is present, the operation runs extremely well. When the manager leaves, things still function—but some of the energy leaves with them.

This is where looking only at results can mislead us. Nothing here suggests failure. Quite the opposite. Leadership has built something dependable. The question is whether that dependable environment has begun creating enough room for other people to contribute to maintaining and improving it.

That raises questions such as: Where do decisions go? Who identifies opportunities for improvement? Who develops other people? What happens when an unfamiliar problem appears? Where is responsibility already spreading? Where does it still return to leadership?

I'd probably begin around Foundation.

The posts are holding. People know what they can count on. But now another possibility appears. Can we begin connecting those posts in ways that allow other people to contribute more fully? This is where the leader's work can begin changing. Not because leadership matters less. Because the environment may finally be ready to support more participation.

Now imagine walking into an operation where something different is happening.

People aren't simply following clear expectations. They're participating. An experienced employee notices a newer employee struggling and helps without being asked. Someone identifies a recurring customer problem and brings an idea for addressing it. Employees coordinate directly with one another instead of routing every question through the manager. People understand where they can make decisions and when they need to involve someone else. Good work is noticed by people other than the manager. When problems arise, employees increasingly arrive with observations and possible solutions rather than simply handing the problem upward. Leadership is still present. Expectations still matter. Coaching and accountability haven't disappeared. But the manager is no longer the only connection between the pieces.

Responsibility is spreading. Information is moving differently. People are developing judgment. Contribution is beginning to extend beyond completing assigned work. And leadership's role is beginning to change.

That raises another set of questions. Where have people developed enough clarity to act without waiting? What has made that possible? Where is contribution increasing? What still depends unnecessarily on the manager? How are people learning from one another?

These observations begin pointing toward Design.

The frame is doing its job. People increasingly understand how they fit, how responsibilities connect, where decisions belong, and how they can contribute. The question is no longer only whether the manager can create a healthy environment. A new question is beginning to emerge: What happens when people start helping build it too?

Now imagine an environment where people don't merely participate. They begin protecting what they've built.

A new employee joins the team, and coworkers—not only the manager—help that person understand how things work. Someone notices that a standard is slipping and addresses it before leadership intervenes. People recognize one another's contributions. Experienced employees develop others. When a process no longer works, people raise the issue rather than quietly working around it. When circumstances change, the organization adapts without every decision returning to the leader. Leadership is still active. The difference is that leadership is no longer the organization's only source of stability, development, and direction.

People are beginning to behave as though the environment belongs partly to them. They protect expectations. They help others succeed. They raise concerns. They contribute to improvement. They preserve what matters while helping the organization adapt.

That gives us another set of questions. Who notices when something begins slipping? Who protects standards when the leader isn't present? Who helps new people understand the environment? Where does improvement originate? What happens when circumstances change?

These observations begin pointing toward Stewardship.

Not because the organization has arrived at some permanent destination. Discovery Nine already taught us that it hasn't. The environment will change again. But responsibility for noticing, protecting, strengthening, and renewing it is becoming increasingly shared. Leadership hasn't become unnecessary. Leadership has helped create more people capable of participating in the work of leadership. And that may be one of the clearest signs that the environment is becoming more sustainable.

The first five situations were relatively straightforward.

Now let's make things harder. Imagine taking responsibility for an operation whose scoreboard still looks troubling. Revenue remains below target. Customer retention hasn't recovered. Staffing remains difficult. Productivity is uneven, and some customer complaints continue.

If we looked only at outcomes, we might conclude that very little has improved. But spend some time inside the operation. Employees are beginning to raise problems earlier. Team meetings have become more useful. Expectations are clearer. Coaching is occurring consistently. Employees who once worked independently are beginning to help one another. The manager isn't solving every problem personally anymore. People are beginning to make appropriate decisions within clearer boundaries. A few employees have started suggesting improvements without being asked.

The results haven't caught up. But the environment may already be changing.

Both things are true. The business outcomes are still weak. And some of the conditions capable of producing healthier future outcomes appear to be developing. That doesn't mean we ignore the scoreboard. It means we resist allowing the scoreboard to erase everything else we're observing.

Questions worth asking might include:

That last question matters.

We aren't trying to convince ourselves things are improving. We're trying to observe whether they actually are.

This environment may be farther along the Pathway than its current results suggest. That should make us cautious about abandoning work that hasn't yet had time to show up on the scoreboard.

Sometimes leaders change direction because the results haven't moved quickly enough. Sometimes that's necessary. Sometimes it interrupts the very development that was beginning to produce something healthier. Orientation gives us another possibility: The outcome may be lagging behind the environment producing it. That's worth knowing before we decide what to change.

Now reverse the problem. Revenue is excellent. Customer retention is strong. Productivity is high. Turnover is low. The operation consistently ranks among the best in the organization. From the scoreboard, there isn't much to question. The manager is experienced, respected, highly involved, and exceptionally capable.

And then we look closer.

Most important decisions still go through the manager. The manager drives improvement efforts and handles the toughest problems. Employees execute extremely well but rarely challenge existing methods or initiate significant changes themselves. When development or coordination is needed, the manager often provides the connection. The operation is excellent. And much of that excellence still runs through one person.

Again, two things can be true. The organization can be highly successful. And the environment can still have room to develop. This isn't a reason to diminish what the manager has accomplished. It's a reason to ask a different question about success.

How much of the organization's capability resides in the environment—and how much still resides primarily in the leader? What happens when the leader is away? Who develops others? Who initiates improvement? Who makes unfamiliar decisions? Where could responsibility expand without sacrificing what already works?

The scoreboard might tempt us to call this Stewardship. The observations may lead somewhere else. I would probably orient it around Foundation, with characteristics of Design beginning to emerge.

Leadership has created a dependable and successful operation. The next opportunity isn't necessarily better business performance. It may be expanding participation in producing and protecting that performance. This is why we learned to look beyond the scoreboard. Sometimes the environment changes before the outcomes. Sometimes the outcomes remain strong while development of the environment slows. Both are worth noticing.