Leadership Behavior Change: The Math Your Team Is Running on You

New results require new behaviors — and real accountability starts with naming them. But unless leaders name, model, and practice those behaviors together, teams will keep relying on the old equation. ✨

Accountability in leadership rarely starts because someone announces that behaviors need to change.

Simon Sinek wrote a piece last month, “Why Your Team Stopped Taking Risks.” Ten sentences in, I was hooked. Clearly, he’s been in the same meetings I have.

“We need more accountability.” Or agility. Or innovation. Or efficiency. We have to work smarter, not harder.

I’ve said those words, for sure.

We say it at the all-staff. The words show up on the slide. Leaders mean it. Leaders want different outcomes or different ways of working. They walk out feeling they’ve delivered a north star, and from that seat, the work of clarity looks finished.

Then everyone goes back to their desks and does what they did last week, or does less, distracted by their own confusion, by what was said, and what wasn’t.

In huddles of peers, people start pouring out their questions in between sips of coffee.

“And what about…”

“They didn’t mention…”

“Do they even realize…”

In the exec’s office two weeks later, one person is looking for an update; the other thinks they’re showing up to learn more. The tension sucks the air out of the room, and nobody speaks candidly because everyone would rather the meeting end.

Behaviors stayed the same because nobody knew what they were supposed to do differently.

Nobody pushed back in that room full of senior people, even when they were invited to. Nobody flagged the risk most people were thinking.

Or did they, once? And what happened?

Whatever the answer was, everyone watching still remembers it.

Behaviors stayed the same because nobody knew what they were supposed to do differently.

Sinek diagnoses the silence precisely. When a team goes quiet, it’s not a lack of care, a shortage of ideas, or an inability to communicate. It’s a choice, made on evidence.

They’ve raised concerns before and watched nothing move. So each person runs the same quiet math: pushing back isn’t safe, or it won’t matter anyway.

Either answer produces silence. But silence doesn’t reverse one brave person at a time.

Accountability in leadership starts at the top

Gallup’s mid-2026 data shows that fewer than half of U.S. employees strongly agree they know what’s expected of them at work. Even fewer strongly agree their opinions count at work.

People are being asked to work differently while doubting that anything they say about it will register.

That’s not a courage problem. That’s a payoff problem.

And left unaddressed, it hardens into a culture problem.

Culture is behaviors at scale, done on purpose. “On purpose” is the part that gets skipped.

If the behaviors haven’t been named, trained, and reinforced, the culture you have is the one you already had. No matter what the deck says. And the results you want won’t align with what you’re going to get. No matter what you choose to believe will change.

If the behaviors haven’t been named, trained, and reinforced, the culture you have is the one you already had.

New results require new behaviors

When a business wants an outcome it has never produced before, it needs behaviors it has never practiced before.

The gap between the outcome you want and the behaviors you have is a practice deficit, not a people deficit. And practice deficits are investable.

Naming the behaviors and practicing them together is some of the highest-return work a senior team can do, and it starts with the leadership team.

Take “work smarter, not harder.” Who defines smarter? Does it mean we skip steps? Does it mean I need approval before building a custom solution? Ten people will answer ten different ways, and every one of them will believe they heard you correctly.

The gap between the outcome you want and the behaviors you have is a practice deficit, not a people deficit. And practice deficits are investable.

What leaders model matters more than what they announce

Clarity alone doesn’t do it. People need to understand the behavior and see it held consistently across the leadership team, or they will keep reading the room instead of the deck.

In my experience, most strategies don’t stall because the idea was wrong. They stall because the behavior underneath the idea was never defined.

If you lead at any level, ask yourself how often your leadership team is wrestling with these questions:

1. What outcome are we asking for that requires behaviors we haven’t practiced yet?
2. If we were already producing it, what would we see this team doing every week? Not values. Verbs.
3. Which of those behaviors do I model, and which do I quietly punish?

The third one is hardest.

The behaviors that earned the seat are the hardest ones to retire, because experience makes the old way feel like judgment instead of habit.

We rarely catch ourselves rewarding behaviors that run contrary to the outcomes we say we want.

But our teams see it. And they calibrate accordingly.

Most strategies don’t stall because the idea was wrong. They stall because the behavior underneath the idea was never defined.

Accountability requires permission to tell the truth

Which raises the tougher question in real life: How does the boss know when the behaviors they reward have drifted out of alignment with the outcomes they want?

Someone tells them.

Permission to tell them has to be built on purpose, and it gets built at the top, as a group.

When a senior team decides it wants new outcomes, the real work is aligning on the behaviors that will produce them and agreeing, out loud and in advance, to hold one another accountable for fostering those behaviors.

Peer accountability under a standing agreement is the safest form of truth-telling there is. It’s also why the third question belongs in the room, not the journal.

Answered alone, it’s reflection. Answered in front of peers who have agreed to hold you to it, it’s the mechanism working.

Activation happens from above, or every level below keeps running the math based on a different equation.

And if you’re reading this thinking of the leaders above you, one caution:

Somebody below you is running the same math about you.

Everyone is the top of someone’s system.

An aligned team can name the behaviors that matter

Not sure whether your team is aligned or just quiet? Here’s a test that takes one meeting:

Ask each member of your team, separately, to name the specific behaviors your next outcome requires. Then compare answers.

One list, you have alignment. Seven lists, you have seven confident interpretations of you.

Clarity from a party of one is still a guess at scale.

The honest answer usually starts with asking, measuring, and being willing to hear what comes back.

Ask each member of your team, separately, to name the specific behaviors your next outcome requires. Then compare answers.

“New results + old behaviors” is an equation that never balances

So, do new results mean new risk? Not the way we usually fear it.

They require new behaviors, named out loud, modeled from the top, and practiced together until they stop feeling new and start becoming how work gets done and how people treat one another.

The real risk was never the new behavior. It was dropping your team’s effort into the wrong equation:

New results = old behaviors + louder announcements.

That one has never balanced, anywhere, for anyone.

The one that does:

New results = new behaviors, named × modeled × practiced.

Multiplied, not added, because any factor at zero zeroes the product.

Your team is running the math on you either way.

The only thing you choose is the equation you hand them.

Leadership Consultant, Kayla Carmichael, is passionate about helping leaders navigate the now, the near, and the far while connecting their work to broader organizational results.

Additional insights from ADVISA