Behaviors Have Consequences: Is It Kinder to Hold High Standards?

Here’s the deal. I want to share an observation about how people operate within a company, and I want to be upfront that I am not entirely sure I am one hundred percent accurate about it. So I am going to frame it as a question. The observation comes first, and the question comes at the end.

Short answer: Behaviors have consequences. When a company avoids accountability and difficult conversations, performance drifts, and the cost lands on the workers and foremen in the field, and sometimes on the people who later get laid off. Holding high standards takes an operating system, scaled training, and monthly field walks. I think it is kinder to hold high standards in a psychologically safe way and keep jobs for good people.

What I See in Some Companies

There are companies that say they are not into holding people accountable. They are not into protecting their culture. They are not going to be consistent with asking their project delivery teams to perform in a certain way. I do not want to use the word forceful, and I do not want to use the word strict. But anytime these companies get anywhere near even a little bit of conflict, they shy away from it. They say, no, that is not our culture. We want to be soft and nice and fluffy all the time.

That is their business, and that is fine. The pattern is easy to recognize. A conversation that might be a little uncomfortable gets avoided, and the avoidance gets described as culture. But the result, in what I have seen, is drift. When expectations are not held consistently, performance drifts, and nobody quite knows what the standard is anymore.

What Does a Company Need to Hold High Standards?

We have constantly seen, in the format of operating system, training, and field walks, that if you are missing any one of those three, you have a lack of performance. Here is what I mean:

1. You have to have an operating system that your company uses.
2. You get to scale training. I think “get to” is a better word than “have to.”
3. You do monthly field walks, for the purpose of working shoulder to shoulder, helping people out, and providing support.

Each of the three covers something the others do not. The operating system tells people what the company does. The training equips people to do it. The field walks show whether it is actually happening, and they are where you say, this is what we expect, and we are going to expect to see progress. We call the guides yellow brick road documents. It is follow the yellow brick road. They hold the instructions from one field walk to the next field walk. You have to do that if you want progress.

What Companies Do With That

I know there are companies that say, I am fine to adopt the system. Elevate will even adopt yours. We will buy all the books. I am also fine to do boot camps. Last year, three companies had us go out to their location for Super PM Boot Camps, at considerable expense, I might say, and train their people. It was remarkable and very effective.

After that, some companies say, yes, let’s do the field walks, and within months they take it all the way. They scale it, and they have the results.

Other companies say something different:

• The jobsite teams would not like us checking in.
• We do not like that much transparency.
• I know they are not following the system, but you have to let the superintendent run it his own way.
• I do not want to have that difficult conversation.

Each of those statements is about avoiding a difficult conversation or avoiding transparency. My answer to that is, that is fine. That is your company culture.

Where I Have a Problem With It

I do not think it is fine in two situations. It is fine for you to say you are going to be nice, and it is fine for you to say you are not going to hold people accountable. It becomes a problem when it affects the workers and foremen in the field. That is when the following happens:

• It disrespects a trade partner.
• Somebody gets hurt.
• Somebody is disrespected.
• Workers have to live in chaotic conditions and environments.

When I say it is a problem, I mean the cost lands on somebody. If standards are not held, the people who pay for it are not the leaders who avoided the conversation. They are the people in the field. On a project, that might be a superintendent who never addresses a trade partner leaving its area cluttered, until a foreman trips on the debris and gets hurt.

The Economy and Layoffs

The second thing I have seen recently, with the economy, is that companies that were too nice to hold their people accountable, to actually perform and hold standards, will then go lay people off.

I am not saying I am innocent of thinking about laying people off. As companies get big, candidly, I have thought about it. I know it is a possible reality in the future for some companies, maybe even for us. But I do not like it being the default. Let me frame it this way.

One scenario is that, as a company, we help everybody succeed. We train them. We invest in them. We hold them accountable, and we hold ourselves accountable, and we perform. Then the market turns, and we have to downsize the company. That is one thing.

The other scenario is being irresponsible. We lose track of finances. We do not hold teams accountable, and we do not hold ourselves accountable. We do not perform, and we lose work and margins because of complacency, because we were, quote unquote, nice. And then we turn around and immediately terminate people or lay people off. That sounds a little gross to me.

I want to be clear that I am not criticizing any company’s right to choose its culture. I am describing what I have watched, and what I wonder about. I am not perfect, and I do not have the perfect stance on this. Candidly, I probably have a million miles to grow in this regard. But recently I was watching this happen, and I thought, did it really come down to being soft on standards, only to lose performance, only to then have to lay people off?

Is It Kinder to Hold High Standards?

Here is the question that I hope turns this from an okay post into a good one. Which is nicer? One option is to provide jobs in a company, for good people, on a consistent basis, where we have high standards, say something when we need to, do the field walks, and perform. The other is to be super sweet until we dump somebody on their butt and they do not have a job.

I personally think it would be nicer, kinder, to hold high standards, to actually do those field walks, and to actually perform and have jobs for the people around us. That is my personal stance.

But I am not any kind of authority on this. I may not even know what I am talking about. So I am going to leave the answer to you, because you know how to gauge it in your own company. Should I hold project delivery teams accountable or not? Should I say something? Should I have high standards?

Can You Hold High Standards in a Psychologically Safe Way?

I would just encourage us to ask whether it can be done in a psychologically safe way. I have not done that perfectly. Maybe I have not even done it well at all. But if it can be done in a psychologically safe manner, while still holding teams accountable and driving progress, is that kinder than dumping somebody once we stop performing or we are not making money? I will leave it to you. If you are thinking about your own company right now, sit with that question, and decide which approach is truly the kinder one for the people you serve.

So here is the challenge. Look at your own company and ask which of the three is missing: the operating system, the training, or the monthly field walks. Then ask which approach is really the kinder one for the people you serve.

Bottom line: I personally think it is kinder to hold high standards, do the field walks, and perform so we have jobs for the people around us.

If your project needs superintendent coaching, project support, or leadership development, Elevate Construction can help your field teams stabilize, schedule, and flow.

On we go.

FAQ

Why do behaviors have consequences in a company?

When expectations are not held consistently, performance drifts, and the cost lands on the workers and foremen in the field. In what I have seen, companies that stay soft on standards sometimes end up laying people off.

What are the three things Jason says a company needs for performance?

A company needs an operating system it uses, scaled training, and monthly field walks done shoulder to shoulder to help people, provide support, and set the expectation of progress. If any one is missing, there is a lack of performance.

What are yellow brick road documents?

They are the instructions that carry from one field walk to the next, so people know what progress is expected.

When does a soft culture become a problem, according to Jason?

When it affects workers and foremen in the field, meaning it disrespects a trade partner, someone gets hurt or disrespected, or workers have to live in chaotic conditions.

What question does Jason leave with readers?

Which is nicer: holding high standards, in a psychologically safe way, and having jobs for people, or being very nice until the company has to lay people off? My personal stance is that holding high standards is kinder, but I leave the answer to you.

People Also Read:

Conversations & Consequences
Authenticity for Leaders: It’s Not About You
The Ladder of Accountability