We’ve all heard the aphorism that the leader who tries to make everyone in her organization happy will only succeed at making everyone unhappy. Most of us probably believe it. (I certainly do.) But what does that aphorism mean, and what leadership principles does it elucidate?

The most obvious reality behind this statement is the fact that sometimes, members of your organization are going to want mutually exclusive things. One person will want the library to stop charging late fees; another will insist that keeping late fees is essential. One department will want to expand its work area into the space of another department, which wants to keep all of its current space. Two staff employees will apply for the same faculty position. In some of these circumstances, a compromise might be possible: space can be divided between departments; late fees can be kept but reduced. However, in some cases, a compromise is not possible: if only one faculty position is open, both staff employees can’t be hired into it. 

This means that a leader’s job is sometimes a matter of brokering compromises and looking for win-win solutions, and sometimes a matter of deciding who will win and who will lose. The former requires patience, analytical thinking, an ability to help competing individuals see mutual benefit in compromise, and the creative ability to discover new options when only two options appear possible. The latter requires analytical thinking and the strength to do the right thing even when doing so will be uncomfortable and will make one of his employees angry or unhappy. 

The leader who can’t accept that win-lose solutions are sometimes the only ones available will be paralyzed when such situations arise (as they inevitably will), and the leader who insists on trying bring every conflict to a win-win solution will end up forcing poor and possibly destructive solutions.

So what’s the leadership principle that applies here? It’s simple, but not easy:

Leaders must care about the feelings of their employees. But leaders can’t let their decision-making be driven by the feelings of their employees. 

Managing this balance between caring and not being driven by is one of the most difficult challenges leaders face. In an earlier column, I discussed some ideas for dealing with resistant or recalcitrant employees when tough changes are necessary, saying that leaders must avoid the false choice between simply bulldozing them (“This is happening; sit down and shut up”) and letting staff reluctance prevent necessary change. This is that same principle, applied in a context broader than change management. 

What does the application of this principle look like in practice? Earlier I suggested one specific conversation-opener when dealing with an employee who objects to necessary change: “I realize that this change is going to be very distressing to you. The change is necessary, and we have to do it. What can I do to help make this transition less difficult for you?” 

Here are some other examples of language a leader can use to simultaneously signal genuine care for the employee and the fact that the employee is not going to get his or her way. Note that each of these examples incorporates three essential elements: clear and direct communication of the decision; a brief explanation of why the decision was made; an invitation to engage in further discussion about what might help the affected person deal with the decision:

• “We carefully evaluated both your proposal and the other one, and decided to accept the other one [decision], because we believe it will most benefit our patrons [explanation]. What impact do you expect this to have on you and your department, and what can we do to help mitigate that impact? [invitation]”
• “We received five requests to attend the same conference, and we only have enough budget to support three of them. Yours was one of the ones we denied [decision], because the conference is most specifically relevant to the work of the other three [explanation]. Is there anything else we might be able to do to support your professional development this year? [invitation]”
• “I’ve decided not to reallocate the other department’s space to your department [decision]. Although I can see why you need more space, their work is also important and it would have been significantly impacted by a space reduction [explanation]. Can we meet to discuss the implications of this decision for your area, and talk through some possible solutions that don’t involve increasing your space? [invitation]”

Good leaders often have to deal with a certain amount of emotional anguish, because being good leaders means both caring about the people you lead and also, regularly, making those people unhappy. But leaders who are willing to accept that anguish in the short run will find that it’s alleviated in the long run by the joy of leading an organization that is healthier and happier overall. 

Takeaways and Action Items

• When people want mutually exclusive things, one will have to win and the other will have to lose. Making such decisions and communicating them both effectively and empathetically are essential tasks of leadership. 
• Ask yourself: when was the last time you found yourself giving in to an employee’s unreasonable demand? What led you to do that? How would you handle that situation if you faced it again today?
• Before you meet with someone to whom you must give bad news, take a moment to write down an opening statement that incorporates the three elements discussed above: decision, explanation, and invitation. Don’t memorize the statement or (heaven knows) read it when you meet, but have the idea of it in your head.