Sometimes unknowingly and other times deliberately, team members can follow their own priorities and fail to follow yours.
This can be a source of great frustration for leaders, as the work they want to get done takes a secondary position or, worse, gets ignored.
While talented team members will take the initiative to set some of their own goals and objectives on occasion, the leader’s priorities should always take precedence.
Rectifying this disconnect isn’t typically as simple as reminding them of the agreed-upon priorities or redirecting their focus.
In many cases, even after drawing their attention to the discrepancy, a team member may follow their own song and underperform on expectations as a result.
Leaders faced with the challenge of a team member who ignores their priorities are best served by initially NOT presuming bad intent.
Exploring with the team member why they are underplaying the leader’s priorities will sometimes expose the issue, but whether it does or not, the conversation indicates how seriously the leader is taking this misalignment.
It’s possible the team member has received competing priorities from other leaders; they are simply overloaded, and it only appears they are avoiding the priorities. Or, perhaps, they don’t understand the priority set.
The parties can work through these issues relatively easily in this exploratory discussion.
In the case where the root cause is not obvious to the team member, or they are unwilling to share it, the leader needs to make one point perfectly clear: the priorities they set are non-negotiable.
This means the team member’s evaluation and success depend on their accomplishing them.
The leader must also set the timeline, establish the order of the priorities, and indicate what can be delayed (if anything) and what needs immediate attention.
By connecting the priorities to the team’s vision, purpose, or long-range goals, the leader can further imprint the consequences of placing anything ahead of the priorities.
This is also a good moment to discuss any obstacles or impediments the team member faces that might prevent them from making fast progress.
In the rare case where this pattern repeats itself, and it is now obvious the team member won’t accept the priorities, the conversation takes a much different turn.
It is no longer about the priorities but now focuses on the leader/team member relationship and the clarity of the reporting line. The issue transforms itself from one of understanding to one of accountability.
By plainly naming the refusal and avoiding any debate over the priorities, the leader must act decisively to define the role the team member is asked to play and to offer them a clear choice to accept the role or exit the team.
If, after agreeing to commit to the priorities, they return to their subversive behavior, the leader is left with no choice but to ask them to leave.
Effectiveness in anything is about doing the right things.
Leaders set priorities to make the team more effective. If someone can’t or won’t align with those priorities, trust gets broken.
As author Jim Collins likes to say, “The moment you feel the need to tightly manage someone, you likely have the wrong person.”
