Recently, I issued a formal directive for a change we needed to make to the company.
We had been trying to change an established process for months. The existing process blurred ownership, created an inconsistent experience, and made execution harder than it needed to be.
We explained the problem. We discussed the new direction. More than once, we were told the change had been implemented.
It hadn’t. To make the problem more challenging, the change I advocated for will affect multiple lines of authority across different departments.
Eventually, I decided the organization needed an unmistakable decision from the CEO. I wrote a CEO Directive that defined the new process, assigned ownership, identified the leaders responsible for implementation, and established a deadline.
The decision itself was sound.
The way I communicated it was not.
I had worked through the directive with my COO, but I had not prepared the other leaders responsible for carrying it out. They received it at the same time as everyone else.
Their employees immediately began asking questions. Their leaders didn’t have answers because I had not shared it with them beforehand. They looked unprepared in front of their teams, not because they had failed to prepare, but because I had surprised them.
Sometimes I’m a terrible boss.
Not because I don’t care about people. Not because I make decisions recklessly. And not because the company shouldn’t have changed the process.
I’m a terrible boss when I become so focused on pushing an initiative forward transparently that I fail to see how my call to action will affect individuals in the company.
A CEO Directive can settle a discussion and legislate a change. It cannot replace change management.
One leader remained openly skeptical after the directive. The concerns were not entirely unreasonable. The new process affected the leader’s department, created questions about workload, and included approval requirements that were not as clear as I thought they were.
But the skepticism continued after the decision had been made. Questions about implementation kept turning into questions about whether we should make the change at all.
I asked whether the leader was “onboard.” That was another mistake. I was trying to ask whether the leader would implement the decision professionally. What I actually asked sounded much closer to whether the leader agreed with me. Those are not the same thing.
Leaders should be allowed to disagree. In fact, I want disagreement before an important decision. A leadership team that merely confirms what the CEO already believes is not providing much value.
But once the decision is made, the responsibility changes. A leader does not have to pretend a decision was their idea. They do not have to abandon every concern. But they do have to stop relitigating the decision, communicate the direction professionally, and avoid transferring their skepticism to the people they lead.
That is what “disagree and commit” actually requires.
The CEO has a responsibility too. I cannot create confusion, leave decision rights unclear, expose leaders in front of their teams, and then interpret every delay as resistance. Before I hold someone accountable for undermining a decision, I need to make sure I have given them a decision they can execute.
That means the owner is clear. The approval gates are clear. The deliverables are clear. The deadline is clear. The leaders involved understand the decision before the rest of the company hears about it.
It also means acknowledging my mistake without reopening the decision.
That distinction matters. Owning a poor rollout does not mean the underlying direction was wrong. Correcting the communication failure does not reward resistance. It removes the ambiguity that allows resistance and legitimate implementation concerns to look identical.
After that reset, expectations become simple. Bring forward specific concerns. Offer solutions. Ask the questions required to execute. Then help the final decision succeed.
If the behavior changes, the problem was probably a poorly managed organizational change. If the leader continues delaying, disparaging, or undermining the decision after the expectations are clear, it is no longer a communication problem. It is a leadership-performance problem.
Instead of rushing to litigate change, focus on clearly communicating your intentions before laying down the law.
Have you ever mistaken resistance for a communication failure, or a communication failure for resistance? Reply directly to [email protected] and tell me what happened.
~ Erik
About
Erik J. Olson is the Founder and CEO of Proxa, where he builds and operates multiple marketing agencies focused on predictable, system-driven growth. He has scaled agencies across multiple markets by replacing fragmented execution with structured systems that drive consistent revenue. Erik is the author of Million Dollar Journey and writes The Business of Agency newsletter. He is building Proxa into a $100M platform with a planned private equity exit.