A hospital administrator recently shared a concern: “We are transitioning to a new electronic health record (EHR) system, and one of my experienced nurses continues using paper notes and is consistently late entering data.”

“Did the nurses receive sufficient training?” I asked.

“Yes.”

“Did you communicate the reasons for making the change?”

“Yes.”

Did you ask the nurse why she did not want to comply?”

 “Yes. She says it feels impersonal, disrupts the workflow, and she worries that nurses will spend less time with patients.”

In any organizational change, typically five to ten percent of a team will resist. Effective leaders balance empathy and accountability when dealing with resistors.  Consider:

1. Listening without arguing.

2. Showing examples of how the new system improves service and reduces costs.

3. Pairing the reluctant employee with a tech-savvy colleague who can offer firsthand assistance.

4. Setting firm, reasonable deadlines.

5. Celebrating small wins.

6. Spending more time with employees who embrace the change.

7. Avoiding over-investing in those who remain resistant.

9. Implementing appropriate consequences.

Changes are rarely seamless. Focus your energy on those who are moving forward—and let their momentum lead the way.

Most of us would rather endure a visit to the dentist than face uncomfortable conversations with a teammate. Even in the most collaborative and respectful team cultures, leaders inevitably find themselves navigating awkward moments.

Author Farley Ledgerwood notes that during difficult discussions, we often fall back on worn-out phrases like “I’m just being honest,” “That’s not my problem,” “I told you so,” “Let me play devil’s advocate,” “I warned you about this,” or “That’s just how I am.” While these expressions may feel familiar, they often convey insensitivity and a lack of empathy.

Ledgerwood suggests that shifting our language toward understanding and collaboration can dramatically improve outcomes. Consider alternatives such as:

• “Fill me in on your perspective.”
• “Can you give me an example?”
• “I may have contributed to the issue.”
• “I understand your position.”
• “How do you think you could do this differently?”
• “My expectation is…”
• “How can I help?”

In every interaction, relationships matter. But when discussing tension or disappointment, they matter even more. A foundation of trust and mutual respect increases the likelihood of productive dialogue. Team members are more willing to hear feedback—especially tough feedback—when they know their leader genuinely wants them to succeed and cares about them as individuals.

Do you prefer to lead employees who are agreeable, tolerant, dependable, follow the rules and pursue realistic goals? 

Or would you rather supervise contributors who take risks, push back against authority, challenge current strategies, and pursue audacious goals?

A study of 12,058 managers reported in Managers Don’t Love Innovators, researchers report that most managers prefer employees who are agreeable and tolerant. These individuals have a high-security drive. However, superstars may possess an adventure drive, that is, they are nonconformists who challenge conventional practices and enjoy taking risks.

Even though teams are likely to have few high-adventure superstars, their motivators are different from members with a high-security drive. 

The article, How to Motivate Your Superstars suggests training programs that help managers recognize the unique needs of adventure-driven performers, allow them more freedom and challenge them with new assignments. Managers can also encourage adventure-driven performers to lead project teams consisting of members from different functional areas. And  evaluations should assess behaviors like “assists in executing change,” “takes risks,” and “innovates.”

A caution, some superstars may have a high-security drive.  Since they are thriving in a conventional environment, traditional forms of recognition, reward and growth opportunities may be sufficient motivators.    

What do you believe?

X. Too much information to employees creates suspicions and rumors. Employees often struggle to offer meaningful suggestions for improvements.  When leaders do not hold employees accountable, teams perform poorly. Well-paid employees are less concerned about recognition and appreciation.

Y. Fully informed employees act responsibly . Most employees offer valid suggestions for improvements if management listens.  Employees perform better when management helps correct reasonable mistakes without placing blame.  When employees’ talents match job requirements, they are less concerned about pay.    

Professor Douglas McGregor in 1957 labeled these assumptions as Theory X and Theory Y. 

Theory X leaders embrace structure and rely more heavily on lists, deadlines and measurements.  They believe rules govern behavior and often micromanage projects.

Because they believe most employees are inherently committed, trustworthy and collaborative, Theory Y leaders rely less on structure while granting employees more freedom and opportunities for growth.   

Overusing structure can lower motivation.  Employees may feel restricted, increasing the likelihood of turnover.  A leader’s confidence in team members’ abilities and commitment may encourage greater productivity and loyalty. That is, leaders’ beliefs sometimes cause them to act in ways that create the very behaviors they were trying to prevent—a self-fulfilling prophecy.   

Most organizations allocate a percentage of the current payroll to each department for merit increases. For example, a merit pool may be 3.0% of a department’s payroll.  Thus, increases greater than 3.0% must be offset by lesser amounts for others.

Manager A said to me, “For my absolute best producers, I recommend 3.5% based on a 3.0% pool.  Marginal contributors get 2.5%, but most everyone’s increase hovers around 3.0%.”  

“Why do you use this approach?” I asked.

“I want to keep my team happy.  If I give too much to my stars, others complain.”

By contrast, Manager B said, “I recommend a 6% to 7% increase for my stars. I may recommend 2% for my average producers and 0% for a marginal performer, but I take care of my top performers.”

“Do you get complaints?” I asked.

“Yes, but the complaints come from team members who produce less.  I don’t want to base financial rewards on whether average or low performers complain.”

TalentGuard, a training company, reports that it takes $250,000 to $500,000 to replace talented producers.  Star performers, according to studies, create four times the value of average employees.  Recommendation: Pay your top performers. 

“We want to hire the best,”  a talent manager said to me.

I asked, “How do you define the ‘best’?”

“We look for candidates who have the education, skills and talents required for the job.”

“Do you discuss your company mission and core with candidates?”

“I don’t think we do.”

Well-known author and consultant, Simon Sinek, says “If you hire people who can do the job, they will work for you for money.  But if you hire people who believe what you believe, they will work for you with blood and sweat and tears.”

How can you determine if a candidate believes what you believe?  Traditional selection tools—resumes, interviews, reference checks—do not clearly identify candidates’ beliefs.

Try this.  Spend more time with candidates.  Take them to dinner. Get to know them.  Talk about common interests. Ask your high performers to spend time with candidates.  What do candidates know about your company’s purpose and core values?

If hired, use the probationary period (typically three to six months) to learn more about the new hire. If a new hire’s actions are not consistent with what you believe, it is better to acknowledge the misfit and let the person go.

Two contributors informally compared their leaders during a coffee break.

“My manager is very smart, ambitious and confident.  He has achieved a lot and has a grand vision for our company.  But he is hard to work for.  He does not listen and thinks he must prevail on every issue.  He comes to every meeting with a strong point of view and quickly criticizes opposing views. If one of his suggestions goes South during implementation, he is quick to blame others.”

“My boss is hard to work for also but for different reasons.  He lacks confidence, seldom proposes suggestions and defers to the most verbal members of our team.  We spend a lot of time passionately debating differing views.  Most meetings end without a clear path forward.  And we are slow to take advantage of opportunities.”

These two descriptions represent leaders with differing egos—individuals’ sense of self-worth.  The first leader appears conceited with an exaggerated ego.  The second leader is modest, humble, and perhaps insecure.

Effective leaders balance confidence and humbleness.  They are true to themselves and value input.  Healthy egos proudly recognize others’ successes and confidently make “tough calls” when facing risky alternatives.