By Amarjeet Singh @ AJ
Everyone nods in the meeting.
The problems are discussed. The weaknesses are acknowledged. You explain what needs to improve, why it matters and how the business can move forward. The owners agree. Senior management appears supportive.
You leave believing you have a mandate to act.
Then you start working—and discover that agreement in the meeting does not necessarily survive outside it.
Decisions are questioned. Approvals slow down. People who supported the proposal become hesitant. Instructions reach staff through other channels. The changes everyone said were necessary suddenly become inconvenient.
Eventually, the person brought in to improve the business becomes the person being questioned.
I have experienced this contradiction. It is frustrating because the issue is no longer simply whether the plan is good. It becomes a question of whether the organisation will allow the plan to happen.
Do we really want change, or do we want better results while everyone at the top continues doing exactly the same things?
The agreement ends when accountability begins
Agreeing that sales should improve is easy. Agreeing to examine decisions that weaken sales is harder.
Everyone wants a stronger team. But recruitment becomes uncomfortable when it challenges existing loyalties. Everyone wants accountability, until a report exposes a weakness in a department led by someone influential.
Everyone wants professional management. Then a manager makes a decision that someone close to the owners dislikes.
That is where the real commitment is tested.
A presentation can describe a better future without disturbing anyone today. Implementation changes responsibilities, reporting lines, spending priorities and expectations. It asks people to surrender some discretion and accept that their decisions can be questioned.
Sometimes the resistance is understandable. A proposal may overlook practical constraints. Cash flow may genuinely limit what can happen. Staff may need training before taking on new responsibilities.
Those concerns deserve discussion and adjustment.
But there is a difference between raising a concern to improve a plan and repeatedly raising obstacles so the plan never starts. When every revised solution produces another reason to wait, it becomes necessary to ask what the delay is protecting.
Staff may be waiting for the very changes leadership resists
One of the most difficult things to witness is the gap between staff expectations and management behaviour.
People on the ground often know where the problems are. They deal with the same breakdowns, unclear instructions, delayed decisions and customer complaints every day.
They may welcome clearer responsibilities, proper procedures, fairer workloads, training and managers who listen. To them, change can mean finally having the support to do their jobs properly.
But enthusiasm fades when they see that an agreed decision can be reversed after a private conversation.
Whose instruction should they follow? Will the manager who encouraged them still have support next week? Will speaking honestly create trouble for them?
Staff begin to protect themselves. They stop volunteering ideas and wait to see who has the final say.
Their silence can then be mistaken for resistance to change, even when what they have lost is confidence in leadership's commitment.
Family ties and the unwritten chain of command
Family ownership can bring commitment, continuity and a deep sense of responsibility. The difficulty begins when family relationships override the management structure.
A chart may show who is responsible, while daily decisions follow a different route.
A relative can bypass a manager. A long-serving insider can challenge an instruction privately. Someone's proximity to the owner can carry more weight than the responsibilities assigned to a professional appointed to run the operation.
The manager is then accountable for results without having dependable authority over the decisions that produce them.
You cannot ask someone to lead while teaching everyone around them that their decisions are optional.
Professional standards need to apply consistently. If attendance, conduct, purchasing or performance rules apply only to people without connections, staff will notice.
The issue is whether relationships place anyone beyond fair scrutiny. A business cannot build trust around standards that change according to who is involved.
Micromanagement makes responsibility impossible to carry
Owners have every right to expect information, financial discipline and accountability. Oversight is essential.
But constant intervention can make effective management impossible.
Routine decisions require repeated approval. Small purchases remain pending. Recruitment is delayed while the workload grows. Managers are expected to solve operational problems with resources they cannot authorise.
Meanwhile, instructions may be given directly to staff without the responsible manager knowing.
The consequences eventually appear: delays, confusion, inconsistent service and exhausted employees. Yet the manager can still be asked why performance has fallen short.
In that environment, you spend increasing amounts of time defending decisions, explaining delays and seeking permission to carry out work you were hired to lead.
The pressure can wear a person down. You begin checking every message and anticipating the next challenge. Energy that should go into the business goes into managing uncertainty around your own authority.
When disagreement becomes personal
A healthy organisation can challenge a proposal without undermining the person presenting it.
A difficult environment blurs that boundary.
A request for accountability becomes a complaint about attitude. A clear boundary is described as inflexibility. An uncomfortable finding is treated as disloyalty. Attention shifts from the problem to the person who raised it.
I have felt how demoralising it can be to enter a role with the intention of helping, only to find that carrying out the agreed work creates friction with the people whose support you need.
You can begin to feel pushed aside, closely watched or worn down until leaving seems like the only workable option.
That feeling matters, although it does not establish what every other person intended. What can be assessed is the behaviour: whether authority was repeatedly undermined, whether agreed support was provided and whether concerns were addressed fairly.
A business should be able to examine those questions without turning them into a personal confrontation.
What genuine support looks like
Change needs practical commitments beyond a meeting-room endorsement.
Before holding a leader responsible, owners and senior management need to agree on the scope of the role, decision-making authority, available resources and measures of progress.
Which decisions can the manager make? Which require approval? Who resolves conflicting instructions? How quickly must urgent requests be answered? Do the same procedures apply to relatives and senior insiders?
These questions should have clear answers.
Start with a manageable improvement. Assign responsibility, provide the resources and set a review date. Listen to staff who must make the change work. Adjust when evidence shows a problem.
If an owner disagrees with a decision, discuss it with the responsible manager and communicate the outcome clearly. Repeatedly bypassing that manager weakens both the role and the team's confidence in it.
Leadership also needs to tolerate honest reporting. If every problem attracts humiliation or blame, people learn to hide problems. Accurate information becomes harder to obtain precisely when the business needs it most.
What I have taken from the experience
I still believe in improvement, clear standards and giving people the opportunity to perform. I also believe that someone brought in to make changes must listen carefully and be willing to revise their own approach.
But commitment cannot come from one side alone.
The person leading change needs to document decisions, raise constraints early and remain professional. There also comes a point when they must assess whether the role offers a fair opportunity to succeed.
Working harder cannot indefinitely compensate for withheld authority, contradictory instructions or standards that apply selectively.
Walking away from such an arrangement can be a considered decision about what you can realistically achieve and what the continuing pressure is costing you.
For owners and senior leaders, the harder question remains: When the changes we approved begin to challenge our habits, loyalties and control, will we still support them?
The answer will be visible in everyday decisions—in the approval given, the boundary respected, the honest report accepted and the same rule applied fairly.
That is when staff can begin to trust the promise of change. That is when the person appointed to lead has a chance to deliver.
Plan + Actions = Results. The actions must include the people who approved the plan.
Amarjeet Singh Sran (amarjeetsinghsran5@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
