Team members who propose a new approach or originate an innovative idea or program deserve high credit and a chance to showcase their proposal.
But unfortunately, in many cases, they lack the skills, experience, or talent to execute on their own idea.
In those instances, leaders have the misfortune of needing to assign another team member to execute the idea. It’s not hard to imagine that this reassignment is seldom accepted enthusiastically.
Leaders naturally like to reward team members who propose a shining new idea with the desired task of executing it and bringing it to fruition.
But on occasion, the originator of an innovative idea is not ideally suited to execute the project, or after an initial run, it is obvious they can’t meet the standards or quality that the idea deserves.
Taking a project away from the creator is a delicate business, as egos, pride of ownership, and the satisfaction derived from bringing it to life make the originator highly reluctant to pass their “baby” to someone else.
When it is suggested that their idea is going to be assigned or reassigned to another party, they feel as if a theft has occurred.
But good leaders do what is best for the team and to achieve the desired results.
Ideas have two distinct stages—origination and execution. Not everyone is good at both.
In those circumstances where the originator must step aside, leaders follow a well-worn playbook for smoothing over hurt feelings while still insisting on the best people to execute the idea.
Sometimes the originator can stay or be involved, which makes this more manageable, but in many cases, there is no room for them to assist in the execution.
In those instances, good leaders begin by explaining that the idea requires specific skills, knowledge, or expertise that the originator simply doesn’t have. They deserve an explanation, and good leaders give it to them, no matter how uncomfortable the conversation.
The feedback should begin with genuine praise for the idea and their role in producing it. People accept hard news better when they feel appreciated and valued.
Next, it is best to frame the decision around role fit and project needs rather than on personal shortcomings. Avoid statements like “You’re not ready” and “You lack the experience,” and describe what the project needs instead.
To preserve the dignity and pride of the creator, consider establishing an elevated role so they can play a part. Advisor, reviewer, and consulting director come to mind.
If you suspect the originator will put up a fight and disagree with the verdict, acknowledge their disappointment and reinforce their potential and their pathway to future roles where they may be asked to execute, perhaps delivering on someone else’s idea.
Make sure they receive the recognition for their innovativeness before, during, and after the execution phase. Include them in any presentation, update, or display of the idea. It is easier to get over the disappointment when the spotlight remains focused on them.
The outcome leaders hope for is for the originator to be mildly disappointed but not discouraged. This is what makes the discussion so delicate. Telling someone that they can’t have executional control over an innovation they created can feel like a slap in the face.
In actuality, the decision is a wake-up call that proclaims the team is always more important.
A Daily Dispatch from the Front Lines of Leadership.
