Setting Expectations

Most leaders eventually discover that the hardest part of change is not setting direction. It is living with how that direction is received.

John Stankey, CEO of AT&T, recently learned that lesson in public.

An internal memo he wrote for his front-line managers in the 140,000 employee company was meant to reset expectations around performance and accountability. The message was straightforward. Employees have to earn their keep with the customer. Commitment matters. Standards matter. In the middle of a large and costly transformation, clarity was the goal.

The reaction told a different story.

Many employees did not object to accountability itself. What they reacted to was how one-sided the message felt. Obligation was clear. Reciprocity was not. The memo sparked criticism because it landed as directive rather than relational.

Months later, in a leadership podcast, Stankey returned to the same topic. This time, the framing was broader. Yes, employees must earn their keep with the customer. But companies, he added, must also earn their keep with employees. Culture, in his words, is a two-way street.

The standard had not changed. The message had.

And that is where the leadership lesson lives.

This Week’s Lesson: Reframing the Message

Reframing is not retreat. It is responsibility.

When leaders set hard expectations, they also inherit responsibility for how those expectations are understood and carried. A message can be factually correct and still incomplete.

Stankey took a hard leadership stance, one that may well have been necessary given the scale of change underway. There were likely people inside the organization who needed to hear it exactly as it was delivered.

The problem was that it was delivered to everyone.

In a message aimed at the masses, some strong contributors heard a correction that was not meant for them. The pushback that followed suggested not just disagreement, but the risk of losing the locker room, not because the standard was wrong, but because the message did not distinguish between who needed the warning and who was already carrying the load.

Reframing does not weaken authority. It clarifies the risk.

When leaders recognize that not everyone needs the same message at the same volume, trust has room to survive even hard change.

Three Ways to Practice Setting Expectations this Week

• Name the Issue. When leaders issue broad messages about standards, commitment, or performance, high performers often internalize the message first. They replay the words, scan their own work, and wonder what they missed. That is why vague language is dangerous. When you fail to name the behavior or outcome that prompted the reset, your strongest people fill in the blanks themselves.

• Buffer the Message. Hard messages feel different to people who consistently carry the load. These are the employees who stay late to make sure something is done right, who step in when others fall short, and who take ownership without being asked. When they hear a blanket correction, they don’t feel motivated. They feel unseen. Leaders do not need to shield high performers from standards, but they do need to distinguish between those who are struggling and those who are steady. Calling out that distinction, even briefly, signals fairness and judgment. It tells your best people that their effort is recognized, especially in moments when correction is necessary.

• Reframe as Needed. Sometimes a message does more harm than discipline. You see it in the room, in the follow-up conversations, or in the quiet withdrawal of people you rely on. When that happens, the mistake is not the original expectation. The mistake would be pretending the impact doesn’t matter. Reframing is not retreat. It is leadership acknowledging that words travel further than intended and returning to clarify what was meant and what was not. Coming back to the message, and doing so without defensiveness, can restore trust while keeping the standard intact.

The Wrap

Leaders are often judged by their boldest statements. But cultures are shaped by what happens after those statements land.

Sometimes a message misses. It may have been necessary. It may even have been right in intent. But the reaction reveals a gap between what was said and how it was received.

When that happens, leadership is not disqualified. It is tested.

Acknowledging a mistake is not an admission of weakness. What matters is whether a leader is willing to return, to clarify, and to complete the message without lowering the standard.

John Stankey reframed after the reaction made clear the original message had swept too broadly. Whether that reframing was sufficient, whether it carried enough ownership or contrition, remains to be seen. That answer will not come from a podcast. It will come from how the message lands inside the organization over time.

Leadership is not about always getting it right the first time.

It is being willing to own the miss, say it again with clarity, and let actions determine whether trust is restored.

That is higher ground.

Your Turn: Think about the last message you delivered that didn’t land the way you expected. Ask yourself two things. Did I acknowledge the miss clearly enough? Before the week ends, choose one conversation where a reset, clarification, or acknowledgment is still owed. Say it plainly. Then watch what happens. Leadership isn’t proven by never missing. It’s proven by how you respond when the message doesn’t land and people are watching what you do next.

---