This case study illustrates the distinction explored in this week’s newsletter, “Does High-Stakes Work Have to Be High-Pressure?”
At 3:30 Wednesday afternoon, Maria, a senior payroll specialist, discovered that a corrupted file may produce incorrect paychecks for nearly 600 employees on Friday.
Maria immediately reported the problem to David, the payroll manager and Maria’s direct supervisor.
Response 1 David the Payroll Manager
David: “Maria, this absolutely cannot happen. Employees could miss rent, incur overdraft fees, or be unable to pay for childcare, medication, or groceries. Payroll could spend weeks correcting mistakes, employee trust could take a serious hit. This needs to get fixed, and failure is not an option!”
Every consequence David named was a legitimate possibility; however, Maria understood all of those potential consequences before David laid them out. In fact, they have been all that had been going through Maria’s head since she identified the problem.
Repeating the potential consequences of failure does not make failure impossible or improve the odds of success. The warning simply crowds the employee’s attention with missed payments, angry employees, damaged trust, corrective work, and possible career consequences.
Response 2 David the Payroll Manager
David: “Maria, 600 employees are counting on Friday’s payroll, and the corrected file needs to be verified by noon tomorrow. What do you think we need to do next?”
Maria: “First, I need to determine how much of the file is corrupted. Then I can decide whether the file can be repaired or whether payroll needs to be rebuilt.”
David: “What do you need from me?”
Maria: “Priority access to the backup files…and another payroll specialist to verify every correction would be helpful, too.”
David: “Done. I’ll contact IT and assign another specialist to the review.”
Response 2 does not minimize the potential consequences or tell Maria how to solve the payroll problem. In Response 2, David stated the stakes once, directed attention toward the work, left the solution with the payroll expert, and provided the resources Maria requested.
STEP in Practice
- S State the stakes once. Name the real consequences honestly, without dramatization or repetition.
- T Turn attention toward execution. Ask what needs to happen next.
- E Encourage ownership. Invite the employee closest to the work to recommend a path forward.
- P Provide resources. Ask what support, information, access, or authority is needed—and follow through.
David’s first response prioritized and directed Maria’s attention toward the potential consequences of failure. David’s second response prioritized and directed Maria’s attention toward the actions and resources necessary for success.
That’s the point. David can’t determine whether Maria experiences pressure; Maria still interprets the situation. But David can absolutely make pressure more likely by keeping the potential consequences of failure at the center of the conversation. Similarly, David could reduce the likelihood of pressure by making the necessary resources available, and helping Maria focus on the task-relevant things she can do right now in order to maximize the likelihood of success.
When the stakes rise, does leadership language strengthen execution—or become another obstacle?
I help leaders and high-performing individuals eliminate pressure, reduce stress, prevent burnout, sustain motivation, and build cultures where teams perform at their best when it matters most. Mention this LinkedIn series when you schedule a free 60-minute session to discuss your organization’s challenges and how we could work together.
