Disappointing People at a Rate They Can Handle

Leadership has a plethora of descriptors that evoke positivity. Words like "transformational", "visionary", and inspirational" always seem to make the list, glamorizing the activity of leadership. Mel Gibson shouting at the top of his lungs on top of a horse with paint on his face in Bravehart could be a poster child representation of these evocations of leadership.

But what if I told you that the most powerful (and realistic) description of leadership is not quite that "exciting"? That true leadership evokes far less positive and less energizing moments that typically do not get captured on a movie camera? That the work of leadership is far more difficult than crafting a transformational vision for others to follow after a strong sales pitch?To borrow (and paraphrase) the words of Marty Linsky, leadership is about "disappointing people at a rate they can handle."

That begs the question:

Why is it necessary to "disappoint" people?

For leaders, making meaningful change often requires introducing new ideas, altering familiar routines, or letting go of outdated practices. These shifts inherently create discomfort because they challenge people’s beliefs, habits, and roles. If you push too hard and too fast, you risk resistance, disengagement, or even outright rebellion. But if you avoid hard conversations or refuse to challenge the status quo, you end up stalling progress and potentially enabling deeper problems.

Many organizations struggle with being upfront and honest about the losses their people might take. This is no surprise, as delivering bad news is not something most people enjoy. People will avoid losses and news about expected/potential losses as much as possible, even to their own detriment.

Change always involves a loss of some kind. Facing those losses all up front is a very difficult thing to ask of people, hence the quote's key ending "at a rate they can handle" - aka pace the losses.

Why does pace matter in disappointing people?

Disappointing people at a manageable pace allows you to keep them engaged without pushing them into a state of panic or paralysis. Pacing helps ensure that people have the space to process changes, ask questions, and adjust without becoming overwhelmed. Pacing the losses means giving time to process to losses.

Pacing the losses also reduces the risk of burnout.  When people are confronted with too much change too quickly, they can feel overwhelmed and anxious, which can lead to burnout, decreased morale, and ultimately, disengagement. Pacing losses ensures people have the emotional bandwidth to handle each transition step-by-step, making it more likely they’ll stay engaged and resilient throughout the process.

Additionally, pacing the losses increases the long-term commitment to change. Adaptive changes often require people to alter their behaviors, habits, and even their sense of identity within the organization. Pacing these losses allows individuals to incorporate each new expectation gradually, making the change feel more manageable and sustainable. This measured approach helps build lasting commitment rather than short-term compliance, creating a stronger foundation for meaningful transformation.

For example, asking a sales department to change their commission structure from individual metrics to a blend of individual and team metrics might spark a mutiny if you implement this change right away. However, if you experiment with a slower rollout - say in phases - and communicate the potential losses at each phase, then the sales department might be more tolerable towards that disappointment.

But why would anyone want to tolerate disappointment or losses at all? Why make a commitment to change That leaves a critical point to remember in all of this:

You have to co-create a vision for the future.

If losses occur with no trade-off, then it would be quite difficult for people to stay on board. But if you have a vision for the future, and you co-create that vision with the key stakeholders involved, then people have a better chance of tolerating disappointment and loss. Keeping that shared purpose for the future in mind is cirtical throughout every step of the challenge you are trying to make progress on.

In our previous example, the end-goal for the blended metrics is to combat the hyper-competitive culture in the sales department. That culture has led to a high turnover rate, leaving gaps in staffing and workloads higher than desired. The shared goal might then be to retain good quality sales reps longer and keeping workloads balanced throughout the year.

The Takeaways:

Change involves loss; too much loss, and people will resist the change you are trying to push for. Pacing the losses at a rate people can handle allows time to process the losses on a more manageable time schedule.

Additionally, without a shared vision for the future, those losses will not be sustainable at all.. People will push back, leave, or you might find yourself out of a job! In addition to pacing losses, you have to keep the end-game in mind.

True leadership isn’t about grand gestures or easy wins—it’s about guiding others through the hard truths and steady sacrifices, all while holding space for a shared future worth striving for.