The Black Line: How to Expect Excellence Without Controlling Everyone

This show is powered by others over self. Hit that subscribe button to keep training your brain. You assume that people like you when really they're just avoiding conflict. Now this one cuts really deep because it's all about our blind spot, about how we are perceived. From others over self. It's hardcore and at ease. A show about people who are keeping their edge without going over the edge. I'm host Shelly Rude, and if working with other strong personalities feels really hard, then today's episode is for you. We're exploring what it means to be expect excellence and what Abraham Lincoln knew about managing strong egos like ours. We're revealing why winning hearts and minds through strategic conversation is just as powerful as public demonstration and why the best leaders know when to use each. This is hardcore and at ease. I'm sharing something with you today that a lot of people will not admit. I am often the person that others hesitate to work with because I'm viewed as intimidating. I'm only five foot three and in the military they nicknamed me the five foot Fireball. And you know what showed up on almost every single one of my performance reviews? Right there in black and white. Interpersonal communication needs improvement every single time. Now here's what I want to be clear about from the start of today's episode. The standards that I maintain are not too high. The directness that I bring is not inappropriate. When people are uncomfortable around excellence, that's often their issue to work through. But, and this is the critical distinction that we're going to explore today, here's what I've learned the hard way. Sometimes the problem actually is me. Not because my standards are wrong and not because my drive for excellence can be misplaced, but because I've failed to recognize when people aren't actually on my side, when they're managing me instead of working with me, and when they're being passive aggressive. But I'm perhaps too focused on the mission to even notice. What about when they're complaining about me to everyone except me? Does that sound familiar? Because when you're ambitious and you're zealous like we are, we can be completely blind to this. You assume that most people like you. You assume that they respect your drive or, you know, when they're nodding in meetings, that they're actually agreeing with you. But here's what we can be missing. They're not agreeing. They're avoiding. They don't want to deal with you. And yes, they're the ones often being passive aggressive. But if we fail to recognize this as ambitious People, then we're losing out on the opportunity to gain their input and their point of view. We're missing critical feedback, operating with blind spots that can derail the mission. So here's the uncomfortable question that every personality needs to ask, especially the strong ones. When people hesitate to work with me, how do I know whether it's because I'm maintaining standards that they don't want to meet or because I'm actually steamrolling people and they've given up trying to tell me, you know what I'm talking about? Because if you're like me, you've been on both sides of this. You've partnered on a project where the other coordinator is a lot. She's overbearing, she's controlling, has to have everything done their way. And even though you would love to see the event succeed, you'd rather withdraw than deal with somebody who doesn't actually listen. But have you ever stopped to wonder, am I that person to someone else right now? I'm there right now with a local organization where I was asked to co host an event. The other main coordinator, we'll call her Rebecca. Very strong personality. Overbearing. Honestly, my personality, also strong. And here's what I have to confront. Am I withdrawing because she's actually preventing mission success, or am I withdrawing because working with another strong personality is uncomfortable? And more importantly than that, is she withdrawing from me for the same reasons that I'm withdrawing from her? The question became, am I serving the mission, or am I serving my preference to be the only strong voice in the room? And how would I feel if people are just managing me instead of genuinely collaborating with me? That's what expect excellence actually means. It's not about getting your way. It's not about proving that you're the smartest person in the room. It's about putting the mission first, even when that means recognizing that your zealousness is costing you the very perspectives that you need to succeed. So today we're going to explore the black ring of the hardcore and addies framework. Expect excellence. And we're going to talk about how to recognize when. When you're the intimidating one. How to spot the signs that people are managing you rather than working with you, and what to do when you realize that you've been operating blind. All right, let's talk about what it actually takes to move a mission forward when you're the strong personality, and why the loudest, most directed voices don't necessarily accomplish anything, even when they think that everyone's on board. When Abraham Lincoln won the 1680 presidential election. He did something that shocked everyone. He appointed his three biggest political rivals to his Cabinet. William H. Seward became Secretary of State. Salmon P. Chase became the Secretary of the treasury. And Edward Bates became Attorney General. According to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin in her book Team of Rivals, the these were men who were self assured, well educated and formidable. Each one thought that they were better qualified than Lincoln. The Cabinet was even plagued by rivalry, disagreement, and massive egos. Does that sound like your leadership team? So why did Lincoln do this? When asked, Lincoln said, we needed the strongest of the party in the Cabinet. I had looked the party over and concluded that these were the very strongest. Then I had no right to deprive the country of their services. But here's what's remarkable. Lincoln didn't just assemble strong egos and then hope for the best, put a bunch of lions in a room together. He managed them. And the way he managed them teaches us something critical about expecting excellence, particularly about recognizing when people aren't actually with you. Lincoln had a specific approach for each personality. When Seward tried to control him, Lincoln didn't fight him publicly. He simply made it clear through quiet, firm decisions that he was in charge. And when Chase undermined him, Lincoln waited and then eventually removed him, but later still appointed him to the Supreme Court because Chase's legal mind served the mission. But here's what Lincoln understood that most ambitious people like you and I tend to miss. He could tell when people were managing him versus genuinely collaborating with him. He recognized passive aggressive behavior. He didn't assume that everyone who smiled in Cabinet meetings was actually on his side. And that recognition, that ability to see what was really happening beneath the surface is what kept him from operating blind. This is where we need to talk about the real challenge of leadership for people like us, people who are driven, direct, and convinced that we're right. The concept of winning hearts and minds comes from military counterinsurgency strategy. British General Gerald Tumbler first used this phrase in 1952 during the Malayan Emergency, saying the answer lies not in pouring more troops into the jungle, but in the hearts and minds of the Malayan people. Here's what that actually means. Hearts and minds is not about being nice. It's about persuasion and protection. The modern US Military defines it this way. Hearts means persuading people that their best interests are served by success. Minds means convincing them that you can protect them and that resisting is pointless. Notice it's not about whether people like you, it's about calculated self interest. Isn't today's lesson fun? And here's where ambitious, zealous people like us tend to get ourselves in trouble. We assume that because the mission is objectively right, because our standards are objectively correct, that people will naturally align with us. We think that logic and competence are enough. But people don't resist you because you're wrong. They're resisting you because you haven't won their hearts and minds. And when they resist passively, when they smile and nod, but they never actually buy in, well, you don't often even realize that it's happening. You know what actually changes minds? Sitting across the table from someone and having a conversation where you understand their interests, address their fears, and show them how your solution serves them. This is the art of war applied to leadership. Sun Tzu wrote the ancients called a clever fighter is one who not only wins, but but excels in winning with ease. The best victory is the one that doesn't require a fight. But you can't win hearts and minds if you can't even recognize when you've lost them. And that right there is the skill that most ambitious people never develop. The ability to recognize. When people have checked out on you, when they're managing you instead of working with you, when their agreement is really just another way of avoidance. Marching and rallying for change. Well, those steps only go so far. It's loud and it's visible. It gets attention. It's shock and awe. But Raleys don't change minds. They energize the people who already agree with you. So here's the question that every leader really needs to ask. Am I actually moving the mission forward or am I just making noise while people smile and work around me? Because expecting excellence means that you have to be willing to see what's actually happening, even when what's actually happening is that you are the problem that people are trying to avoid. And I know, I've been there. Lincoln knew this. He didn't try to out ego his rivals. He didn't rally public support against them. He engaged with them individually. He understood what they needed. And when they were actively undermining him, he recognized it and he could deal with it strategically. That's the art of winning hearts and minds. And that's what expect excellence actually requires. Not the loudest voice, but the most aware one. Now let me tell you what the black ring actually represents in the framework. Black is beautiful because it's definite. It's not a color. Technically, it's the absence of color. And that's exactly what expect excellence requires the absence of your selfish preferences about how a task gets accomplished. Think about it this way. When you draw a theory thick black line around the purpose, the what and the why, you create definition, you create clarity. That black and white thinking, it's not limitation, it's beauty through simplicity. It says, here's what we're accomplishing, here's how we're going to judge success. But here's what the black ring doesn't do. It doesn't dictate the colors of execution. It doesn't mandate that everyone accomplish the goal your way, using your methods of excellence, following your process. The black line defines the boundary. The colors, the diverse approaches, the different personalities, and the varied methods, well, those all exist within that boundary. And it's the colors that make the work beautiful. It's the diversity of execution that creates innovation. But without the black line of purpose, there's no container for that color to exist within. Without clear definition of the purpose, diversity is actually chaos. And when you let your ego blur that black line, when you confuse the what with the how, when you can't separate out the mission from your preferred method, well, then you stop the colors from existing. We're preventing other people from bringing their brilliance because you're so busy dictating how they should paint it. Let me give you two concrete examples of this from my own work. One about defining that black line in team coordination, and another about how understanding the marketplace helps you draw that black line with precision. First up is a leadership conference that we host every year. Last year one of our teammates came up with an amazing social event that she wanted to plan. It involved fairly complicated processes about pre registration, prepaying for things, having custom gifts and custom door prizes for the winners of certain team building events. Honestly, it was a beautiful, beautiful structure and beautiful event and it sounded really good, creative, well thought out, and it was the kind of event that people would remember. But as the leadership team sat there listening, we were all hearing the same things and we were doing mental math. How many hours would it take to prepare all those details? Who's going to handle that registration system? Where are we going to source those custom gifts from? And the funding and the coordination of the prizes. And through all of that discussion, I was listening for what wasn't being discussed. And that was the effort required to recruit people to come to the event. You see, you can plan the best event in the world and you can have custom gifts and elaborate games, all the bells and whistles, but if no one shows up, what does it matter. The thick black line that we drew was about people attending. There had to be a certain number of butts in seats in order for that event to be considered a success. Create an event that builds connection and gets strong attendance from our people. That was the what. That was the one success metric that we judged against the colors, the how. It could have been elaborate games and gifts, or it could have been something much simpler that freed up energy for recruitment efforts. What was happening in that moment was how that one person's how was threatening to blur the black line of the what that we were actually trying to accomplish. Her ideas were not bad. They were great ideas. But because the complexity of the execution was going to consume resources that needed to go towards the actual goal. Getting people to show up. Here's what we didn't do. We didn't shut down her ideas because they weren't our ideas. And we didn't say, that's not how to do things. We didn't make it about whose approach was better or try to have her think that we were going to work through some of those ideas, but then in the background, plan something else. What we did do was just refocus on that black line. Our goal is strong attendance. Given our resources and our timeline, what approach gives us the best chance of hitting that goal? Ours had to be shifted away from event planning and into recruitment. And on that truth, there was very little negotiation. The teammate who brought the original idea didn't feel shut down. She felt heard, because we weren't rejecting her how. We were simply clarifying the what so that everyone's how could figure out how to best serve it. Now, let me give you another example where the black line becomes even more critical when you're designing something new, and you need to understand what gap you're actually filling. So right now, in our business, we're in the process of rebranding our women veterans peer support program. And before we can draw the black line around what we're building, we had to research the landscape to understand what already exists. What we discovered is fascinating. There's five distinct types of women veteran programs currently operating throughout the United States. And many of them appear on the surface to be providing peer support. But when you look closer at what they're actually doing, many of them are rallying women veterans to advocate for systemic changes like healthcare reform, policy initiatives, legislative efforts. Now, those types of programs have their place, and advocacy matters. Systematic change absolutely matters. But here's what we realized. That's not peer support. That's mobilization. When you show up to what you think is a peer support group, and you're immediately asked to participate in fundraising efforts or to join a rally or advocate for a cause, you're being asked to give more. You're being asked to serve a third party mission. And for women veterans who are battling their own mental wellness or who are isolated, just trying to figure out how to navigate civilian life, that's a lot to ask. They didn't come to give more. They came to receive support. So we're asking what's missing in this landscape? What gap exists that no one is filling? And the answer became our thick black line. How to expect excellence. A peer support program that focuses solely on the women themselves. Not a third party mission. Not fundraising, not advocacy, just something to give the women where nothing more will be asked of them. That black line is now our measuring stick for every decision that we make about the program. So when someone approaches us asking, can we partner with this or that organization that's working on healthcare reform, it's a simple question of, does this serve the black line or is that blurring it? Are we turning our peer support efforts into advocacy? We can now catch when that's happening. When someone proposes about fundraising campaigns, we do the same thing. And it doesn't mean that we're putting down those other types of organizations or efforts. We're actually giving them additional opportunities to grow their own legs within our organization. We encourage our women to volunteer their time outside of our organization, but that doesn't mean that we have to make it a part of our organization, because after all, the women didn't come to our organization in order to serve someone else's mission. So when we're designing different program elements and someone says, what if we created opportunities for participants to give back, Then we have a space to ask, is that what they came for? Or did they come to us because they need support and not necessarily another place to prove their worth? Now, this understanding of the marketplace, this recognition of a need that exists, it's guiding our entire program. And what's so powerful about having that black line so clearly defined is that we can expect excellence in our peer support efforts because we know that our efforts will never be diluted into fundraising or large scale advocacy. It is a narrow focus. And because it's narrow, we can be excellent at it. We're not trying to be all things to all women veterans. We're not trying to solve every problem or address every need. We're drawing a thick black line around one peer support that asks nothing in return. And we're building excellence within that boundary. The colors of execution, now, those are wide open. Maybe one facilitator runs groups that focus on career, and another focuses on family relationships because her members have young children. Maybe someone else leans into the virtual aspect of it because there's safety for virtual attendance for some people. All of those hows can exist within that black line. But that black line keeps us wonderfully focused. This is peer support. This is for the women. Nothing more will be asked of them. That's what this ring is all about. Drawing that black line thick and clear around the purpose and then stepping back from the colors of execution. Expect excellence in the outcome, but release the control of the method. So when we talk about recognizing when you're the problem, what we're really asking, ambitious person, is, are you maintaining the black line or are you trying to control the colors? So let's get into the tactical framework for how to recognize when our zealousness has crossed from inspiring to intimidating. And how to spot the signs that people are managing you instead of working with you. Warning sign number one. People complain to you about others, but never directly to yourself. This is the biggest red flag, and it's the one that ambitious people like us can miss the most. Often you think that everyone's on your side, meeting go well, People are nodding, they're saying, great idea, Yep, let's do it. But then you hear through the grapevine that someone's venting about you, that you said something too intense, or you're impossible to work with that one time, or they always have to have it your way. Now, your first reaction is probably defensiveness. Well, why didn't they just talk to me directly? I'm approachable. I listen. Maybe if you're like me, maybe we think that we are approachable, but to a lot of other people, we're not approachable. This is a really hard truth. If multiple people are complaining about you to others, but not directly to you, then you're not as approachable as you think that you are. And that's not a personality flaw. That is something for you to be aware of. This happened to me in a previous role. I thought that I was being a strong leader, very decisive, very clear and direct. But then I found out that three of my team members had gone to my supervisor to complain about my communication style. Not one of them had said anything to me. My first thought was that they were being passive aggressive. If they had a problem, they should have talked to me directly. But then I had to ask, why didn't they feel safe coming to me. What did I do or what did I fail to do that made them think that going around me was a better option? So here's what I learned, and I hope that you can learn from it with me. When you're moving fast, when you're focused on the mission, and when you're convinced that you're right, you can unknowingly create an environment where people feel like their input doesn't matter. You might be listening, thinking, yeah, I'm listening. But your energy might be saying, I've already decided. So here's how to check for this. I want you to pay attention to what you hear through informal channels. It's very important. If people are venting about you to colleagues or other departments, that's data. Don't take it personally. Next, I want you to notice who stops bringing you problems. When people go quiet, when they stop pushing back, or when they're only bringing you good news. That's not alignment, that's actually avoidance. Ask somebody that you trust, say, be honest with me. Am I creating an environment where people feel like we can talk things out, or are people afraid to disagree with me? And then brace yourself for the answer. Here's the second warning sign for you to look out for. When people agree with you in meetings, but then they move on and they actually do something different. This is passive resistance and it's an epidemic. When working with strong personalities, you propose a direction, everybody nods. The maybe someone asks a clarifying question, but there's no real pushback. So you leave that meeting like, great, we're aligned. But then a week later you find out that they did it completely differently, or they're moving at a really slow pace, or they've even gone quiet and you haven't gotten an answer. Your assumption might be that they're being insubordinate or they're not following through, or maybe even that they lack integrity. But here's what's actually happening. They never agreed with you in the first place. They just didn't feel like disagreeing outright was an option. I see this constantly with strong personalities, and I see it even in my own business interactions. Oftentimes I can mistake silence for agreement. We can mistake this lack of pushback for buy in. And then we're just shocked when people don't execute or move forward how we thought things were going to go forward. Lincoln dealt with this constantly. Cabinet members would nod in meetings, and then they would go back to their departments and do exactly what they wanted. Now, the difference is that Lincoln recognized it. He didn't assume that their silence meant agreement. He followed up. He checked in. He looked for the gaps between what people said and what they did. So let's talk about how to check for this. After meetings, follow up individually with the key stakeholders, not in that public setting. Instead of asking things like, are we good? Ask what concerns do you have about this approach that you didn't feel like we had time to talk about? Watch for that delayed execution when someone who's normally really fast is suddenly dragging their feet. That's not laziness. That can be silent resistance. And notice the gap between public and private communication that is so important. If someone's agreeable in group settings, but then when you get into the one on one setting and they're really vague, they're managing you. They're managing you. Here's a third warning sign to look out for. You assume that people like you, when really they're just avoiding conflict. Now, this one cuts really deep because it's all about our blind spot, about how we are perceived. When you're ambitious and you're driven, you often can assume that other ambitious and driven people respect you. It's easy to think we're both top performers, we're both business owners, we both care about excellence. Of course we're on the same page. But respect and liking are not the same thing. And more importantly, being willing to work with you and genuinely collaborating with you also aren't the same thing. So here's what this looks like. People are polite to you, but they don't invite you into informal conversations. They'll work with you when required, but they don't seek you out for deeper collaboration. If they're professional with us in meetings, but there's not a warmth or rapport. There's no real connection. You might be thinking, well, that's fine. We don't need to be friends. We just need to get work done. But here's the problem with that. If people are only working with you because they have to and not because they want to, then you're missing out truly on their best thinking. They're not giving you commitment, they're just giving you compliance. And is that what we really want as leaders? They're doing what you ask, but they're not bringing their insights and the challenges to the table. I had to confront this with that event record coordinator. If you remember, Rebecca, I assumed that we were both professionals who could set aside our personality differences for the mission. But the truth was, she wasn't excited to work with me. She was tolerating me, and I was doing the same to her. And in that dynamic, neither one of us was bringing our best to the table. So here's how to check for this. First, pay attention to energy shifts. When you enter a room, does the conversation continue or does it change? When you join a project, do people seem energized or do they start to feel resigned? And then notice who reaches out to you versus those who are just responding when you have to reach out first. Because if you're always initiating, then that's a sign that people aren't choosing to engage with you. Now ask yourself honestly, who actually likes working with me? Who's told you that? And who hasn't told you that? Because they might just be tolerating having to work with you. Now, the fourth warning sign is when you are convinced that everyone else is the problem. Here's the telltale sign that you are operating blind. As a leader, you have a difficult pattern of relationships. Your explanation is always, other people are the problem. They're too sensitive. My boss didn't understand me. They can't handle direct feedback. They're not committed enough. They don't have high enough standards. They're being passive aggressive. They, they, they, they, they, they, they. That type of exclusionary framing of speech should be a red flag for you as a leader, especially if it's coming from you. Now, if this is a pattern and you keep running into the same issues with different people, personal relationships, work relationships, volunteering, belonging to some type of civic organization or a church, the common denominator is you. And this is where ambitious people really struggle. Because we're so focused on the mission that we don't stop to examine our own behavior. We think, I'm right about the goal, I'm right about the standards. Therefore, anyone who has a problem with me is wrong. But rightness about the mission doesn't mean that you're effective at leading people toward it. Let me tell you two stories that haunt me. One about someone else and one about myself. When I worked in the fitness industry, I watched one of the leaders, we'll call him Marcus, destroy himself by chasing business growth. You see, he managed the tanning salons that were attached to our workout facility. And Marcus was always treating investors and partners to expensive evenings out. He was working to add more franchise locations and doing all this work while his existing tanning bed locations were falling apart. The workers were constantly complaining that product orders weren't being fulfilled, the tanning beds weren't being cleaned, the staff wasn't even Being paid on time, Marcus couldn't see it. He thought that the workers were lazy, that the complaints were overblown, and that these were just growing pains of every business. He was so focused on expansion that he couldn't see how his leadership style was alienating everyone around him. In the end, his customers left. Who wants to have a tan in a dirty bed? His staff members lost their jobs, his locations went bankrupt, and even his marriage fell apart. Now, here's my humbling story. In a previous leadership role, I was convinced that I was surrounded by people who didn't care about excellence. They were very slow and they pushed back. When I tried to put new initiatives forward, they seemed very resistant to change. I kept thinking if they would get on board, we could accomplish so much more. It wasn't until I left that role I received honest feedback from a former colleague. And then I realized I was the problem. My ideas weren't necessarily wrong and my standards weren't necessarily too high. But I had created an environment where people felt like their input didn't matter. And when they had the chance to disagree with me, well, it felt risky. They were worried about being fired or even demoted. So in order to preserve their own sanity and just enjoy going to work every day, they smiled and they nodded and they continued to do the minimum. I thought that I was expecting excellence, but really I was demanding compliance. So here's how to check for this. If you have a pattern of difficult working relationships across all different contexts, then that is a signal for you to look inside yourself. Ask yourself, what's my explanation for why people struggle to work with me? If your explanation always blames others, then you are in dangerous territory, my ambitious friend. Get feedback from somebody who's left your orbit because someone who no longer has to manage your reaction is going to give you more honest feedback than somebody that you still might have influence over. Talk to former colleagues, former team members, tell them you're doing some leadership personality work and ask them, what was it really like to work with me? What did I miss? And we're onto the fifth and final warning sign where you're feeling isolated in your ambition. Here's what research confirms about people like us. This penchant for self driven, self defined success, well, it keeps us from nurturing intimate relationships with others. According to a 2025 study published in MedRx IV, loneliness is associated with a 39.3 percentage point increase in the likelihood of depression compared to those who never feel lonely. The research found that individuals experiencing loneliness report an average increase of almost 11 poor mental health days per month. Multiple studies are linking social isolation to increased anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and overall feelings of hopelessness. Are you feeling isolated in your ambition? Are we ambitious people, you and I, so busy with our heads down and just driving forward that we're getting in our own way? If you're achieving your goals but you're losing relationships, if you're climbing high but feeling increasingly isolated, and if you're succeeding by metrics but you're failing to build genuine connection, that's not other people being weak. That's you confusing ambition with excellence. Back in episode four, Nancy Dakin and I talked about the difference between perfectionism and excellence. Nancy said something that I keep coming back to. When you're frustrated with how someone else is moving forward on a project, ask yourself, are they actually doing it wrong, or are they just doing it differently than you would? That's the question. Because sometimes our drive for excellence is actually perfectionism sabotaging the mission. Sometimes our ambition is isolating us from the very people that we need to accomplish what we're after. So here's how to check for this isolation. Take inventory of your relationships. How many people can you call right now that would be genuinely happy to hear from you? Not because you are useful to them, but because they enjoy you. And notice whether your conversations are transactional or relational. Are you only reaching out when you need something? Are people only reaching out to you for work reasons? Ask yourself, am I building something that requires a team, but I'm operating in a way that isolates me from genuine teamwork? There's a pattern that you need to see. If you're seeing multiple warning signs here, then the pattern is clear. We're operating with a blind spot about how to impact the people around us, and here's why that matters. When you're blind to how you're showing up, then you lose access to people's best thinking. You lose honest feedback. You lose the challenge and the perspective that would make you better. You can achieve a lot operating this way. You can. You can climb high and get the biggest ranks out there, but you'll never go far because everything depends on you and you've alienated the people who can multiply our impact. The good news is that recognition is the first step. So once you see the pattern, you can do something about it. All right, let's make this concrete. I'm going to give you a practical framework for actually expecting excellence. Not demanding it or hoping for it, but systematically building an environment where excellence becomes the standard. Your assignment the black line protocol. This is a three part exercise that you're going to use on a real project starting this week. Not a thought experiment, a real, actual project that you're working on that involves other people. So part one is to define the black line. Pick one project or a goal where you need other people to deliver excellent work. And now you're going to define the black line with absolute clarity. You do that by writing down the specific measurable outcome. Not do good work or maintain standards. But what does success actually look like? Use this format, the black line is. And then insert your specific outcome. We'll know we achieved it when. And then put in your criteria. The deadline is make sure that you have a specific time. Now here's the critical part. Identify what is not in the black line. What are the colors of execution that you need to release control of? Try to write down at least three things that are how people might get there and not what they need to achieve. So a bullet, not the black line. The specific format of the event, not the black line. Whether we use elaborate games or simple activities, not the black line. Which team member leads with which component. This clarity is everything. So now that you've defined that Black Line, Part 2 of this exercise is to communicate the black line. You're going to have a conversation with your team this week and you're going to use this specific framework, the black line conversation. I want to make sure that we're aligned on what success looks like for this project. Here's what I see as the black line. State that specific outcome and the measurable criteria. Everything else, the how we get there, I want your input on. I'm not dictating the method, I'm defining the goal. So here's my question. Given this black line, what approach do you think gives us the best chance of hitting it? And if you're really bold as a leader, go ahead and ask, what would you do differently than I might. Oh, that one's going to be interesting. And then the critical part of this part is not to rebuke, don't explain why your way is better. Just listen to their approach and after they've shared, here's some language that you can use, here's what I'm hearing, and then summarize their approach. What I appreciate about that is, and then go into something that you really found valuable, you could also say, here's what I want to make sure that we don't lose. And then restate anything critical about the purpose of the black line. Now this conversation does three things. It clarifies what you're actually measuring. It invites their expertise into the execution, and it separates your ego from the outcome. Now the final part is to establish a check in rhythm. This has to be an ongoing process because excellence isn't set it and forget it. So you need a rhythm for checking whether or not you're staying true to the black line without controlling those colors. Here's your structure. Weekly or bi weekly? Let's check in on the black line. Based on where we are right now, are we on track to hit that specific outcome by that deadline? What does the data tell us? So if your answer is yes, then what's working about your approach and should you keep doing it? And if the answer is no, then what needs to change about your approach to get you back on track? Now, notice what we're not asking in part three, we're not asking, are you doing this the way that I would do it? What we're always asking in part three is, are we hitting the black line? So once a month, make sure that you're coming back to your team to ask that question of are we maintaining the black line or have we let scope creep, blur it a little bit? Because that's where projects really fail. We can start with really strong attendance and have team connection, but suddenly we're adding those elaborate gifts, those complex registration systems, and we're losing sight of the actual goal of butts in seats. So when you start to notice that scope creep, your job as the leader is to bring everyone back to the black line. Say it. Remember our black line is this new thing that we're considering. Does it blur it or does it serve it? Now, here's what happens when you implement this protocol consistently. People stop guessing what you want. They know what that black line is so they can innovate within it. You stop being perceived as a micromanager because you're measuring the outcomes, you're not measuring the methods. And excellence becomes collaborative. People are bringing their best thinking to achieve that shared goal. We're not just executing a playbook here. And the most important part is that you, as this ambitious leader, you can actually recognize and celebrate excellence when it happens because you defined in advance what it looks like. Let's take our scope out just a little bit and refresh ourselves with how this connects to the overall hardcore and addies framework. Right now we're talking about the black ring, which is the fifth ring of expect excellence in the target methodology. You've already built t your tactical center. You've already aligned your Ambition. You've been using resourceful actions and you've generated momentum. Now we're out here, we're expecting excellence. And this is where strong personalities either multiply their impact or, or they sabotage it. So if you expect excellence from people without clearly defining what that excellence looks like, then you'll create confusion and resentment. If you're defining the black line, but then you're trying to control the colors of executing it, we're going to exhaust our team and we're going to lose our best people. And that's happened to me over the years. But what I've learned and what I'm hoping to share with you today is that if you define that black line with clarity and then release control of the colors, maintain that check in system, then you're really going to be building something that scales beyond your personal effort. That is the difference between being inspiring and intimidating. Intimidation gets compliance and inspiration gets commitment. Only commitment creates sustainable excellence. Now, the next ring, the final ring, is the white one. And it's trust the process. And that's where we're going to learn how to maintain our faith and positive futures, even when things aren't going according to plan. But you can't get there if you haven't learned to expect excellence by defining it clearly and then release control of how people achieve it. So define your black line, have that conversation, and establish your check in rhythm. Enjoy watching what happens when you give talented people a clear target and the freedom to hit it their way. What we've covered today is how to recognize when your drive for excellence has crossed into intimidation. From understanding the warning signs that people are managing you instead of working with you, to examining the blind spots that ambitious people create. We've even talked about a practical framework for maintaining that black line while releasing control of the colors. We explored what it takes to see yourself clearly enough to lead effectively, and why strong personalities like us really need to recognize when our zealousness is costing us the very perspectives that we need to succeed. You know what keeps coming back to me? That event coordinator, Rebecca, the one that I almost wrote off working with because she was just too difficult. Well, I did the audit. I asked myself those questions. And what I discovered was that my frustration had almost nothing to do with her and almost everything to do with my own need to control. But more than that, I realized that she probably is feeling the same way about me. So I reached out and asked her to have an open conversation with me about how we might be able to partner for the event. And I'm looking forward to seeing what comes out of that conversation. Our episode is coming to a close, so here is our final segment. It's your favorite, so you say get the gear. Today I want to recommend Greg McCowan's book the Disciplined Pursuit of Less. This book will fundamentally change how you think about focus and excellence and how defining the essential goal actually enables creativity instead of restricting it. You can get the link to that down in the show. Notes if this episode challenged you about how to rethink your blind spots, then stay connected with me and other ambitious leaders@join.othersoverself.com Next Tuesday, I'm joined by Vicki Rwinski, who has spent 212 years transforming Macomb County, Michigan into a $6 billion defense and aerospace hub while building the Detroit Regional Defense Coalition. We'll explore how she generates momentum through authentic collaboration, why her connector strength makes partnership feel natural instead of forced, and why expecting excellence doesn't mean doing everything yourself. She's a master masterclass in building collaborative excellence without burnout. I'm host Shelly Rude. It's been a joy today. Thank you for giving me an hour of your time. You can count on me returning next Tuesday with that conversation. And until then, stay hardcore, be at ease and trust the process you're listening to. Hardcore and at ease.

Keep the conversation going@join.othersoverself.com Joel here with Notion Design Group. When it comes to your website, people don't really care about your company or my company. What they care about is how we can make their lives better or easier. Think about your website for a minute the top of your homepage. It should answer two questions. Number one, what exactly do you do? Number two, how does it make your customers life better? If you answer those two questions, it will drastically improve the effectiveness of your website. Want to learn more? Grab our homepage cheat sheet@notiondesigngroup.com or Schedule A call with us. We'd love to chat with you. At Notion, we design sites that drive sales.

Hi, I'm Doug Slocum, the author of the book Violent Positivity. I was Blessed to spend 35 years in the US military, the Air Force, working with some of the most amazing men and women you'd ever want to meet. Well, throughout my life, throughout my career, I learned lessons. I developed this leadership style that I like to call violent positivity and this book was my opportunity to tell that story, but also put forth those principles. Violentpositivity. Com. More information and how to order the book.