Are you holding different success criteria for your team? The answer is probably yes.
While coaching a senior executive several months ago, I will call him Sam, I asked him to think about a project he is currently leading a team towards completion that is not going well. He shared with me that his team has been tasked with developing a coaching framework and professional development process to support the development of junior leaders in his company. After describing his frustrations with his team’s lack of progress on the project, I asked him, "What does success look like for this project?” Sam diligently completed his list. I then asked him to prioritize the “nice to haves” on the list vs the “must haves” on the list. Feeling strong and clear about this work, I finally asked him if his team would have the same list with the same items prioritized. He looked at me and said, “Probably not.”
Excited about this discovery, Sam wanted to immediately present to his team this new information. While I agreed with this next step, first, I wanted to dig a little deeper into why his team wasn’t aligned to his thinking as they were working through this project. Given the great relationship Sam had with his team members, his appreciation for their input and his belief in their brilliance, talent and creativity, he did not understand why the team was struggling to make any substantial movement forward in the work. Listening to him talk through all of his reasons why his team did not share his level of clarity for success on this project, it became clear to me (and eventually him through our conversation), that Sam was sharing this success criteria with some members of his team but not others. He was holding a variety of unwritten success criteria for some members of his team and a different set of criteria for other members of his team.
So why do we share with some colleagues/direct reports and not others? What should leaders do instead?
Like our fearless senior executive Sam, many of us show up to work with clear ideas about what success looks like. For most of us, unfortunately, we do not articulate our definitions of “quality” and “success” explicitly to our teams, and most importantly, to ourselves. And our teams do not have a secret decoder ring that they can use to decode what we are thinking. This secret decoder ring is really a metaphor to describe the ways knowledge, meaning, and we would argue, power, is hidden in the workplace. Having a secret decoder ring means you have the “tool” to decode the information and power that is being transmitted throughout a variety of professional interactions.
A Table Divided
Success is clear, right? Not exactly. It is inconsistently shared and fractured - like the table.
The effects of this type of behavior can be significant. For Sam, his variance in how he led his team members was obvious to each team member. In meetings, they would find out that Sam shared some information with some team members but not others. Team members began to jockey for information from Sam or other senior executives, trying to position themselves as more powerful than their colleagues. The team also started to withhold information from each other. Sam’s team was becoming a collection of individuals.
In my work with Sam, we unpacked some reasons why he was sharing clear success metrics with some team members and not others. Here is what we found:
Most managers have a preference about the ways our direct reports complete their work. We all carry assumptions about how work should be done and we privilege/grant access/share the “decoder ring" with the direct reports that share the work style we prefer. When we unpack those assumptions we find our preferences.
Our preferences are accelerated when we don’t know what success should look like. When success is unclear, we will lean on our preferences for how work should be done as a way to move the work forward. Instead, we should be honest about what we know and do not know and work collaboratively with our direct report(s) to outline which parts of the task should be defined by the manager, by the direct report(s), or someone else.
The goal is to deeply understand what assumptions you carry about your direct reports so that you are clear and explicit in sharing knowledge, skills, and power with them. Oh…and feedback. Yes - Feedback. That is for the next newsletter. Stay tuned!
As always, this section is about unlocking/disrupting your thinking. As you read, think about the ways in which your current models of leadership are serving (or not serving) you well!
It’s a Good Time for a Story: The Invisible Blueprint
In the Clocktower Company, time was built by hand. Master Horologist Sam oversaw a team of watchmakers tasked with crafting a Grand Clock that would guide all the smaller clocks in the city to maintain the correct time. It was delicate work—gears within gears, springs tuned to invisible tolerances.
Sam knew exactly what the Grand Clock should do. He could see it ticking in his mind: precise, elegant, admired.
But he never described it fully to his team of apprentices - Clara, Mateo, and Lin.
To Clara, he spoke of durability. To Mateo, of beauty. To Lin, of innovation. Each apprentice left his workshop believing they understood the mission.
They did not.
In the workshop, whispers began.
“Did he tell you the hands must be gold?” Mateo asked.
Clara responded, “No—he said silver shows craftsmanship.”
Lin added, “He told me the mechanism must never be visible.”
Clara added, “That’s strange. He told me transparency builds trust.”
Soon, the apprentices began guarding information like rare metals. They lingered near Sam’s drafting table, hoping to glimpse a sketch. They competed for time at his bench. They stopped sharing tools.
The Grand Clock stalled. Sam was baffled. He admired their talent. He trusted their intelligence. Why were they pulling in different directions?
One evening, he stood alone before the half-built clock. It was not broken. It was divided—each section built to a different, unspoken definition of success.
The problem was not skill. It was the invisible blueprint only he possessed.
Applying the Learning - A Case Study: The Strategy That Stalled
Jordan, a divisional vice president, charged her team with designing a new internal leadership development program. The mandate was clear in urgency: build something “high quality” that would elevate emerging leaders across the organization.
Jordan had a vivid picture of success. The program needed executive visibility, measurable outcomes, and a polished delivery. She had strong opinions about what “rigor” looked like and what would impress senior stakeholders. Jordan was confident her team knew what she expected in a project like this because they have worked together for over two years.
In her 1:1 meetings with her team members, she made sure she was clear about what was considered high quality. With Alex, she emphasized data and metrics. With Priya, she stressed innovation and bold design. With Marcus, she underscored operational efficiency and speed. Jordan leaned into each of her team members’ areas for growth and checked for understanding from each team member. She felt confident they left their one-on-ones believing they understood what mattered most.
In team meetings about the project, misalignment surfaced subtly. Alex pushed for dashboards. Priya proposed experimental learning labs. Marcus argued for a streamlined pilot. When tension rose, Jordan would clarify—sometimes reinforcing one direction, sometimes another. She was struggling to understand why the team did not understand the clear success criteria for this project.
Team members began comparing notes. Alex shared, “She told me progress monitoring our metrics was non-negotiable.” Priya responded, “That’s strange—she said creativity would differentiate us.” Gradually, side conversations replaced open debate. Individuals sought private access to Jordan to test their ideas before sharing them broadly. Collaboration thinned. The project slowed.
Jordan grew frustrated. She saw a talented team failing to align. From her perspective, she had been supportive and accessible. From the team’s perspective, success felt like a moving target—understood only by those closest to the source. As deadlines approached, the group appeared busy but fragmented. Influence shifted toward those who seemed most attuned to Jordan’s preferences. Others disengaged, uncertain whether their contributions would land.
Case Study Reflection Questions
Where do you see hidden success criteria shaping behavior in this case?
How did selective clarity contribute to power imbalances on the team?
What behaviors signal that team members are competing for access rather than collaborating?
In your own leadership, where might unspoken definitions of quality be influencing outcomes?
