Commitment and compliance get used as if they mean the same thing. Commitment persists when nobody is paying for it. Compliance persists exactly as long as the reward does. This Sidebar takes one idea from Tuesday's conversation with Jeff Burstein (he/him), that when a team that was improving slows down, something in its environment changed, and follows it all the way in.

Why "we didn't get real buy-in" is the wrong argument. Why commitment and compliance look identical on a dashboard right up until the reward moves. Why the team is where a problem shows up and almost never why it happened. And why done is not holding: the declaration is the moment the tending ends.

And three things to do Monday, none of which cost money or need permission: build a two-column timeline, read one person's objectives against what you're asking them to do, and name one thing you declared done, then find out who is still holding it.

The full conversation with Jeff Burstein, "It Never Sticks": https://thelaggingteam.com/podcast/0013-it-never-sticks

Jeff Burstein (he/him): Founder, Advanced Enterprise Agility and L-EAF.org · Co-founder, L-EAF Lab. https://www.L-EAF.org

Talk about your team: https://thelaggingteam.com/start?episode=0014-nothing-changed-but-the-reward&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=nothing-changed-but-the-reward

A transformation can look done and be gone six months later. The deck was fine. The team drifted back to the old way of working, and the signs showed up there months before anyone upstairs wrote them down.

Jeff Burstein has spent more than 20 years coaching enterprise transformations. His argument: when a team that was improving slows down, the question is rarely what the team is doing differently. Something in the environment changed: a new rule, a new policy, a reward that no longer supports the way the team works. And no change in mindset ever simply sticks. You let it go, and the pen comes back to your hand.

Along the way: why people come before process and tools, what velocity is for and what happens when a leader demands it doubled, rote work versus knowledge work, why breakdown comes before breakthrough, and what to tell a leader whose team is behind right now.

Talk about your team: https://thelaggingteam.com/start?episode=0013-it-never-sticks&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=it-never-sticks

Jeff Burstein (he/him) is an innovator, founder, consultant and enterprise transformation coach. He is the founder of Advanced Enterprise Agility and L-EAF.org and a co-founder of L-EAF Lab.

L-EAF: https://www.L-EAF.org

L-EAF Lab: https://www.L-EAFLab.org

Advanced Enterprise Agility: https://www.AdvancedEnterpriseAgility.com

L-EAF on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/L-EAF

Informed and included get used as if they mean the same thing. Informed means a decision reaches you. Included means you were there while it could still go a different way. This Sidebar takes one line from Tuesday's conversation with Melanie Shires (she/her), accountable for work she wasn't invited to help shape, and follows it all the way in.

Why "the new leader just needs to communicate more" is the wrong argument. Why a well-informed team can still be behind. Why title and standing move independently, and only one of them is written down. And why shielding a team doesn't spare it: the consequences land anyway, with the cause taken out.

And three things to do Monday, none of which cost money or need permission: name the last decision that changed your team's work and who was in the room, move one person from informed to included, and say the cause out loud once.

The full conversation with Melanie Shires: https://thelaggingteam.com/podcast/0011-new-boss-same-team

Melanie's free Inner Authority Alignment Assessment is on her website: https://www.positivelymelanie.com/

Talk about your team: https://thelaggingteam.com/start?episode=0012-in-the-loop-is-not-in-the-room&utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=shownotes&utm_campaign=in-the-loop-is-not-in-the-room