This case study illustrates the central idea in this week’s newsletter, “What If the Consequences Creating Pressure Never Happen?”
Maya is the employee relations manager for a national retailer. Angela is the director of employee relations and Maya’s direct supervisor.
Maya has completed an investigation involving a regional vice president. The evidence supports a serious policy violation, and Maya plans to recommend termination to the executive review committee the next morning.
Response 1 Angela the Director of Employee Relations
Maya: “If the committee rejects the recommendation, senior leaders may decide I overreached. If I soften the recommendation and another complaint comes in, everyone will ask why I failed to act.”
Angela: “You’re right to take this seriously. This could define your credibility with the executive team. Make sure nothing goes wrong tomorrow.”
Angela confirms Maya’s predictions and adds another consequence. Maya is no longer preparing only to explain the evidence and defend the recommendation. Maya is also preparing for a damaged reputation, lost credibility, and blame for a complaint that has not happened.
Response 2 Angela the Director of Employee Relations
Angela: “What does the evidence support?”
Maya: “A serious policy violation and termination.”
Angela: “What part are you predicting?”
Maya: “How the committee will respond and what the response will mean for my career.”
Angela: “What if that prediction is wrong?”
Maya: “The committee may accept the recommendation. Even a rejection would not automatically mean the committee doubts my work.”
Angela: “Can anyone know today whether the committee’s decision will ultimately help or hurt your career?”
Maya: “No.”
Angela: “Does any of that change what a sound presentation requires tomorrow?”
Maya: “No. Clear findings, supporting evidence, the policy connection, and a defensible recommendation.”
Angela: “Good. I’ll review the evidence summary this afternoon and join the briefing. What else would help?”
Maya: “Please confirm that employment counsel will be available for questions.”
Angela: “I’ll take care of that.”
MAP in Practice
Response 2 follows MAP:
- Modest: What if I’m wrong? Maya separates the evidence from the predicted response.
- Ambiguous: How do I know whether the consequence will ultimately be good or bad? No committee decision can reveal the full effect on Maya’s career in advance.
- Present: Do the requirements for success change? The imagined consequences do not change the work required for a clear, evidence-based recommendation.
MAP does not promise a favorable decision or make the stakes less important. MAP challenges the certainty attached to an imagined future and returns attention to the work that can influence the outcome.
How much pressure is being created by a consequence that has not happened and may never happen?
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.
