The Rapid Move from Process to Results Orientation, When Employees, Staff, and Stakeholders Have Never Heard of Such a Thing, is a monumental task. These people have never heard of such a thing.
· “Oh, my god, the boss has come up with some new shenanigans to disrupt our lives. I have been here for 15 years, and this is the way we have always done it. I will keep my mouth shut, and soon this new crap will pass.”
· “I am happy with my process orientation because it allows me to shake by, perform at a near-zero productivity level, and get paid for my daily and weekly camping-out and hiding.”
· “I hope you are on my side, and not the side that the boss is recommending. Collectively, we can out-strategize him and end up as we always have been.”
· “We can Play his game, better than he can.”
· “It does not bother me that I get paid more than I am worth, because I am entitled, and this company makes a ton of money.
· “They owe me!”
· “They will never notice my deficiencies because I have learned how to kiss up to the boss.” He is a powder puff in my hands, ripe for the slaughterhouse.
· “If I switch from the new thing called results orientation, I will be far more accountable, and the entire staff, including the boss, will discover what I am all about.”
· “I can’t let that happen.”
Goal: move people from “agreement theater” (sounds good, no change) to ownership of the outcomes (clear deliverables, deadlines, tradeoffs, evidence).
By changing the environment so that only real commitment can survive—and coaching, supporting, and applying consequences when needed-you foster a safe space where team members feel trusted and valued.
1) Start With the Right Diagnosis: Unwilling vs Unable
Before you try to “convert” commitment, determine which problem you have.
A. “Unable” (Capability/authority constraints)
People may look resistant when they’re actually:
- Missing decision rights or budget authority
- Buried under conflicting priorities
- Lacking skill (they don’t know how to drive outcomes)
- Facing unclear definitions of “done.”
Fix: empowerment, training, and re-priority clarity.
B. “Unwilling” (Incentive/identity/political constraints)
People may perform an agreement when:
- Process compliance has historically been safer than ownership
- Past initiatives punished candor or risk-taking
- Incentives reward visibility, not outcomes
- They fear being exposed to measurable accountability
Fix: redesign incentives, transparency, and consistent consequences.
Key idea: Most “fake commitments” are adaptive behavior in a system. Change the system first.
2) Convert Vague Agreement into a “Commitment Contract.”
Fake commitments thrive on ambiguity and self-interest. Real commitment requires specificity.
Use this template in writing (email/Slack) for any meaningful initiative:
Outcome (what will be different):
Metric (how we’ll measure it):
Baseline (today):
Target (by when):
Owner (single accountable person):
First milestone (48–72 hours):
Weekly proof (what evidence will be shown):
Tradeoff (what we will stop/deprioritize):
Dependences (who/what is needed):
Guardrails (quality/compliance constraints):
Escalation path (if blocked):
Why it works: It turns cooperation into something falsifiable. If someone won’t fill this out, you don’t commit it yet.
3) Shrink the Time Horizon: Use 48–72 Hour Proof
The #1 antidote to performative alignment is near-term evidence.
The “72-Hour Rule.”
If someone claims commitment, there should be a visible first move within 72 hours:
- A customer call is scheduled
- A workflow changed
- A pilot started
- a metric instrument
- A decision drafted for approval
- An experiment launched
If the first proof never arrives, the commitment is still theoretical.
Manager line:
“Great—what is the first visible action you will complete in the next 72 hours?”
4) Require Tradeoffs (This Is the Lie Detector)
Real commitment costs something. Fake commitment avoids cost.
Ask:
- “What will you stop doing to make room for this?”
- “Which priority drops if this becomes priority #1?”
If they can’t name a tradeoff, you’re hearing aspiration, not commitment.
5) Replace “Updates” with “Commitments” in Your Operating Rhythm
To shift behavior, leaders must change what they ask for weekly.
Weekly Meeting Structure (20–30 minutes per team)
· Scoreboard: 3–7 outcome metrics (trend + variance)
· Commitments: what will be delivered by next week
· Blockers: what needs leadership removal
· Decisions: what is decided today
· Learning: what we tried; what worked; what we stopped doing
Rule: No meeting ends without named owners + deadlines.
6) Make Progress Public (Transparency Reduces Games)
Games require fog. Use light.
- Keep a simple shared scoreboard (even a spreadsheet)
- Publish commitments and due dates
- Track “done / not done” without drama—just facts
- Log blockers and escalation dates
Neutral framing:
“This isn’t about blame. It’s about seeing reality early enough to act.”
7) Coach the Skill of Ownership (Some People Don’t Know How)
A common reason for fake commitment: people were promoted for process reliability rather than outcome leadership.
Teach 3 micro-skills
A) Framing outcomes
- “Reduce cycle time from X to Y.”
- “Increase conversion from A% to B%.”
B) Driver thinking (inputs → outputs)
- What levers move the metric?
C) Experimentation
- Small tests, quick learning, weekly iteration
Manager prompt:
“What’s your hypothesis, what’s the test, and what result would prove it?”
8) Remove the “Punishment for Candor.”
If people believe honesty is unsafe, they’ll commit.
Leaders must reward early bad news:
- Praise early escalation
- Protect teams who surface risks
- Separate “accountability” from “humiliation.”
Say it explicitly:
“I’d rather hear a problem Tuesday than an excuse Friday.”
9) Align Rewards and Consequences with Outcomes (Not Theater)
If promotions/bonuses/recognition are still tied to:
- meeting attendance
- reporting volume
- responsiveness
- “being busy.”
…you will get fake commitment forever.
Fix in performance management.
- Weight outcomes heavily (with quality/compliance guardrails)
- Recognize teams that stop low-value work
- Penalize repeated “miss-and-explain” cycles
Important safeguard: Pair results with quality metrics so people don’t “win” by cutting corners.
10) Use the Accountability Ladder (Escalate Calmly, Not Emotionally)
When “commitments” repeatedly fail, don’t debate motives. Raise clarity and stakes.
Step 1 — Clarify (assume good intent)
“Here’s the outcome, deadline, and what ‘done’ means.”
Step 2 — Commit (written contract)
“Put the target, first milestone, and tradeoff in writing.”
Step 3 — Verify (72-hour proof + weekly evidence)
“Show progress via the scoreboard and deliverables.”
Step 4 — Constrain (reduce scope, tighten decision rights)
“If you can’t own the outcome, we’ll adjust your scope to what you can own.”
Step 5 — Consequence (role fit decision)
“This role requires outcome ownership. If it isn’t happening, we need a different fit.”
Key point: Consequence isn’t punishment; it’s role alignment.
11) The Conversion Conversation: A Script That Works
Use this when you suspect performative agreement. Calm tone, facts only.
“Let’s define the outcome in one sentence.”
“What metric proves we achieved it?”
“What will be different by next Friday?”
“What are the first two actions in the next 72 hours?”
“What will you stop doing to make room?”
“What do you need from me—decision, budget, or air cover?”
“If you miss, what will be the reason—and how will we prevent it?”
“Great—summarize the commitment in writing today.”
If they resist writing it down, that’s your signal that you don’t commit yet.
12) A Practical 30/60/90-Day Plan to Turn “Fake” into “Real.”
Days 1–30: Install clarity + proof
- Define outcomes + owners
- Launch a simple scoreboard
- Require 72-hour first steps
- Start tradeoff conversations
Days 31–60: Install empowerment + capability
- Decision rights (DACI/RACI)
- Manager coaching training
- Pilot experiments with tight feedback loops
Days 61–90: Align incentives + enforce consistency
- Update performance rubrics
- Recognize outcome wins publicly
- Apply the accountability ladder for repeat non-delivery
What If It’s Chronic with a Specific Person?
If someone repeatedly produces agreement without evidence, do a clean reset:
· Narrow their scope to a small, measurable outcome
· Shorten the horizon to weekly deliverables
· Increase transparency (public commitments)
· Provide support (tools, training, authority)
· Evaluate after 4–6 weeks
If it still doesn’t move, you are likely to have misalignment (role fit, motivation, or incentives). At that point, the kindest move is a role change—or exit—rather than endless friction. I call it a career adjustment, called firing them. No more than three changes, and that is a gift.
Quick Self-Check for Leaders (Often the Hidden Cause)
If you want real commitment, ensure leadership isn’t unintentionally rewarding fakery:
- Do we punish missed forecasts more than we reward early truth?
- Do we overload teams to the point that they must pretend?
- Do we demand outcomes but block authority?
- Do we tolerate meeting culture over decision culture?