Why don't your employees listen to you?

Because the authority you have is the kind you earned by doing the work, and you're not doing that work anymore. Great founders are not automatically great leaders. Employees who agree in the meeting and then go their own way don't have the expectation built in, and building it starts with knowing them well enough that your word carries weight.

Why does founder authority stop working?

Nobody feels the weight of the business the way you do. Nobody ever will.

I want to say that plainly before anything else, because it's the part that gets waved away in leadership content and it's the truest thing in this whole post. You signed the lease. You covered payroll the month it was tight. You are the one who wakes up at four in the morning doing math. Your best employee, on their best day, is not carrying that, and transferring even a fraction of it to another person is one of the hardest things a founder ever attempts.

So the frustration is real and it isn't whining. But the diagnosis most owners reach for is wrong.

The usual read is that people have gotten lazy, or that this generation doesn't want to work, or that you need to be firmer. Occasionally one of those is true. Far more often what's happened is structural: you built your authority out of one material, and you've moved into a job where that material isn't load-bearing anymore.

What kind of authority are you actually running on?

Social psychologists have been picking at this since the fifties. John French and Bertram Raven's framework of the bases of social power separates the different reasons one person will do what another person says: expertise, position, reward, punishment, and personal regard. They are not interchangeable, and the research since has consistently found that the two which produce willing compliance are expertise and personal regard, while position and punishment produce the appearance of it.

Read your own history against that list.

You got your authority from expertise. You were the best framer, the best closer, the fastest reader of a balance sheet, and everyone around you could see it every day because you were doing it in front of them. That is genuine authority and it works remarkably well, right up until you stop doing the work.

Now you're setting direction on estimating, or scheduling, or client management, and the person hearing you hasn't watched you be excellent at that in eighteen months. What they've watched is you being busy. The expertise is still in your head; it just stopped being visible, and authority that nobody can see stops functioning fairly quickly.

Meanwhile the other kind of authority, the kind that comes from position, was never really established. It didn't need to be. In a business of five, position is a formality. In a business of twenty-five, it's the only thing holding the room together when you're not there.

What does pastoral leadership have to do with running a company?

I spent twenty years in pastoral leadership before I did any of this, and it turns out to be the most useful training I have for this exact problem.

Church leadership is legislative. It's closer to politics than to a corner office. You cannot stand up and announce that we're doing this now, because your people are volunteers and members, not employees, and they have a vote with their feet and their wallets. If you start leading a congregation the way a CEO leads a company, people get annoyed and then people leave, and there's no severance conversation because there was never a contract.

So you learn to lead by vision casting. You learn that people give their Saturday, or their money, or their loyalty, because they can see where this is going and they want to be part of it. Compliance was never available to me as a tool. Persuasion, relationship and a clear picture of the destination were the only things I had.

A lot of employers would do very well to learn from former pastors, because we understand something about earned authority that a lot of businesses never had to figure out.

The reverse is also true, and I'll say it since I'm one of them. A lot of pastors would benefit enormously from learning from CEOs. We can be far too soft. We avoid the decision, we call it patience, and we let a problem run for two years because confronting it feels unkind. Somewhere between the two is where a founder-led business actually needs to be led, and most owners are stuck at one end or the other.

I'm working through this myself right now, which is a strange thing to write in public. Van Dycke is moving from being a founder with a practice to being a real firm with other advisors in it, and every question in this post is a question I'm sitting with rather than one I've finished. That's the honest version.

Where do you actually start when nobody's following?

Relationship. Before systems, before consequences, before a new org chart.

I mean this concretely. Pick a Friday. Tell the crew you're not picking up tools today. Go golfing, go bowling, go to the range, go fishing, take everyone for a long lunch that has no agenda attached to it. Whatever fits the people you actually employ.

Founders hear this and think it's soft, and it isn't. It's the cheapest way to build the thing that makes direction land, which is a group of people who know you and want the same outcome you want. You cannot instruct your way into that. You can only spend time on it.

Daniel Coyle's The Culture Code is the book I recommend most often on this, and the research at its centre is worth knowing. Will Felps and his colleagues ran a series of studies on what a single negative person does to a group, published as How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel. They planted a disruptor into teams and watched performance fall by a wide margin, which is the finding everyone quotes. The finding that matters more is the exception. In one group the disruption didn't take, because a single member kept asking questions, kept including people, and kept the temperature down. One person neutralised the whole effect.

That's what culture is. Not a poster. A handful of people whose behaviour sets what's normal in the room. If the room's behaviour isn't what you want, that is your most urgent piece of work, and it will not be solved by repeating the instruction louder.

What are the two wrong moves?

There are two, and they map almost perfectly onto personality.

The hot one is blowing up on the job site. Emotion is not the problem here, and I want to be careful about that, because sanitised leadership advice tends to tell founders to become emotionless and it produces leaders nobody believes. Anger is a normal response to work being done badly. In a skilled trade you're going to get more of it, and some heat on a site is just the industry. Losing control is the problem. Learning to keep your cool while still being direct is one of the genuinely hard skills of this job, and it's as much art as science, because it depends entirely on who you are and who's in front of you.

The cold one is worse and gets discussed less. The passive owner goes quiet. He notices the problem, decides not to make it awkward, waits for the person to figure it out on their own, and by the time he finally says something it's been eight months and it comes out as an ultimatum. Nobody had a chance to fix anything, because nobody knew.

Gallup found that fifty-two percent of employees who quit voluntarily said their manager or organisation could have done something to stop them, and that fifty-one percent had no conversation about their satisfaction or their future in the three months before they left. Half of the people who walk out are people nobody talked to.

Radio silence feels like patience. It's usually just avoidance in better clothes.

What has to be true for people to actually follow?

Three things, and only one of them is about them.

You need to know your team. Not their birthdays. What they want out of the next three years, what they're good at that the job doesn't currently use, what would make them leave.

You need to know your own strengths and shadows as a leader. Every founder has both. The intense ones under-communicate and over-correct. The warm ones avoid and let things rot. You are one of those, and you will not lead well until you know which.

And the expectation has to be built in, said out loud, and attached to something. This is where it stops being a personality question and becomes an architecture one. In most founder-led businesses nobody has ever written down what qualified work looks like, who owns which decision, or what happens when the standard isn't met, because for years all of that lived in the founder's judgment and was dispensed on request. That worked. It just doesn't scale, and the symptom it produces at scale is a room full of people nodding at instructions they intend to interpret.

You're not going to fix that with a template someone sold you. Every business needs its own version, built for how the work actually moves through it. That's the part we do, and it's slower and less satisfying than a system you can install on a Tuesday.

Putting it to work

Do these in order. The order is doing most of the work.

Spend unstructured time with your people before you change anything. One afternoon, no agenda, nothing about the business required. If that sounds like a waste of a billable day, notice how strongly you reacted, and then do it anyway.

Write down, for one role, the three decisions that person owns outright. Outright means they don't check with you. If you can't name three, you've found why they don't act like they own anything.

Say the expectation out loud on a day when nothing has gone wrong. Standards delivered as corrections get heard as personal criticism. The same standard delivered on a calm Tuesday gets heard as information.

Ask one person you trust what you're like to work for. Not in a survey. Out loud, and then be quiet long enough for them to say the real answer. Most founders have never once heard this, and it's the fastest read available on which of the two failure modes is yours.

Then adapt all of it. Nobody can hand you the version of this that fits your business, because the right answer depends on who you employ, what they do, and which kind of leader you actually are.

Sources

• A Research Review of French and Raven's (1959) Power Dynamics — Journal of Values-Based Leadership
• How, When, and Why Bad Apples Spoil the Barrel, Felps, Mitchell and Byington, Research in Organizational Behavior vol. 27 (2006)
• This Fixable Problem Costs U.S. Businesses $1 Trillion, Gallup
• Daniel Coyle, The Culture Code (2018), cited at book level.

Frequently asked

My employees agree in meetings and then do it their own way. What does that mean?

It usually means the expectation was described but never established. Agreement in a meeting costs nothing. An expectation exists when the person knows what the standard is, knows you'll notice, and knows something follows either way. Without those three, a nod is politeness rather than a commitment.

Do I need to be tougher?

Probably not, and if the instinct is strong that's worth examining. Firmness without relationship reads as arbitrary, and people comply while you're watching. The founders who get this right are usually warm in the room and unmoving on the standard, which is harder than being one or the other.

Does this get better as the business grows?

It gets more urgent. At five people your presence covers the gaps. At twenty-five the gaps are where most of the work happens, and authority that only functions when you're standing there stops functioning most of the time.

How long does building this take?

Longer than a quarter. Relationship and credibility accumulate at the speed of ordinary interactions, and there's no way to buy the time back. The upside is that it compounds, and once it's real it survives your absence, which is the whole point.

Ready to look at the architecture honestly?

Book the conversation. We'll tell you what we see, and whether the work we do fits where you are.

Book the conversation →