John, the Sales Director, walked into the EOS Level 10 meeting frustrated and out of patience. The day before, a longtime customer had canceled a significant order, citing long lead times. It wasn’t the first time—he had been warning about this issue for weeks, but nothing had changed. Now, it was costing the company real revenue.
As soon as the team got to the issues list, John leaned in and made an aggressive demand:
“Operations needs to step up! We have to cut lead times by 30% immediately. This is non-negotiable. At this rate, operations is going to put us out of business!”
Lisa, the Operations Leader, immediately pushed back:
“You always do this—throw out unrealistic expectations without considering the impact on the team. We’re already stretched thin!”
Tension spiked. The meeting spiraled into blame, defensiveness, and frustration, with no clear commitments or next steps. John left even more frustrated than when he walked in.
This kind of breakdown is common in leadership teams, especially when issues are framed as demands rather than requests. According to Patrick Lencioni’s Five Dysfunctions of a Team, without ideological conflict—healthy debate about real issues—teams struggle to generate clear commitments everyone buys into. Without commitment, accountability erodes, and results suffer.
John’s aggressive demand created conflict—but not the kind that drives clarity, buy-in, and execution. To avoid this, leaders must surface competing needs before debating solutions and frame requests in a way that fosters collaboration rather than resistance.
In this article, you’ll learn how to:
- Differentiate between aggressive demands and assertive, thoughtful requests that foster collaboration instead of conflict.
- Surface competing needs before debating solutions to ensure alignment.
- Formulate clear, actionable requests that generate buy-in, increase accountability, and improve results.
Demands vs. Requests: Why It Matters
One of the biggest obstacles to productive leadership discussions is the difference between a demand and a request. While both communicate an expectation, they create very different reactions and outcomes.
A demand is an ultimatum—it communicates what must happen without room for discussion. It is typically rigid, focused on a single solution, and does not consider the needs or perspectives of others. Demands often trigger defensiveness and resistance, making getting buy-in and reaching a real solution harder.
On the other hand, a request is an invitation to collaborate—it still expresses a clear need but does so in a way that encourages dialogue and problem-solving. A request is specific, actionable, and framed in a way that allows for multiple solutions to be considered.
The Problem with Speaking in Demands
When leaders communicate in demands, they:
- Reduce engagement and buy-in—People feel forced rather than included in the solution.
- Limit problem-solving—A demand assumes only one path forward, shutting down creative alternatives.
- Erode trust and teamwork—Demands can feel controlling or dismissive, which discourages open communication.
- Create compliance, not commitment—Even if the demand is met, it’s often done out of obligation rather than real alignment.
When leaders shift to making clear, constructive requests, they:
- Encourage collaboration—The team works together to find a path forward.
- Generate buy-in—People feel heard, making them more likely to commit.
- Increase accountability—When people participate in a solution, they are more invested in its success.
- Create space for better solutions—Instead of being limited to one approach, the team can explore multiple ways to meet the need.
Getting All Competing Needs on the Table Before Making a Commitment
One of the biggest mistakes leadership teams make when solving issues is jumping to solutions before fully understanding all the competing needs at play. This often leads to surface-level solutions that don’t stick, resistance from key stakeholders, and commitments that quickly unravel.
A strong decision-making process in an EOS-run company ensures that all key stakeholders’ needs are surfaced, heard, and understood before debating strategies. This doesn’t mean that the final solution will meet everyone’s needs perfectly, but it does mean that everyone will have clarity on the trade-offs and the rationale behind the commitment the team makes.
When teams move too quickly to strategies, they risk:
- Solving the wrong problem – The loudest voice in the room may dominate the conversation, leaving other concerns unaddressed.
- Missed opportunities – A single solution may not be the best path forward, but without exploring all perspectives, better options are never considered.
- Low commitment and accountability – If people don’t feel heard, they are less likely to fully commit, even if they say they will.
By pausing to get all key needs on the table first, teams make smarter decisions, increase buy-in, and reduce second-guessing down the road.
Debating Strategies and Formulating a Clear Request
Once needs are surfaced, teams can debate strategies (aka solutions) that address the core problem while balancing competing needs.
The best strategies:
- Solve the root issue while considering different stakeholders.
- Balance conflicting needs by optimizing, not overcompensating.
- Are realistic and executable within current constraints.
Once the strategy is selected, it must be turned into a clear request. According to Nonviolent Communication (NVC), an effective request should be:
✔ Actionable – Defines a specific next step.
✔ Clear – Eliminates ambiguity.
✔ Time-bound – Includes a deadline.
✔ Owned by Someone – Accountability is built in.
Putting It All Together: A Better Way to Make a Request
Instead of John’s aggressive demand, he could have used the Constructive Communication Framework to express his concerns more effectively:
- Fact-Based Observation – “Over the last month, we’ve lost three deals due to long lead times, including one yesterday from a long-time customer.”
- Feeling & Story – “Right now, I feel frustrated and afraid. The story I am telling myself is that if we don’t fix this, we’re going to keep losing customers, and then we’re going to have to start laying off employees.”
- Unmet Need – “I need a clear understanding of our plan to improve lead times and awareness of our progress so I know we’re moving in the right direction.”
- Consideration of Other Needs – “I know operations is already managing a full workload, so I want to find solutions that improve efficiency without overwhelming the team.”
- Clear, Thoughtful Request – “Can we work together to identify ways to reduce lead times while balancing team capacity? Would it be possible for operations to analyze bottlenecks and propose three potential improvements at our Level 10 meeting in two weeks?”
By shifting from a demand to a thoughtful request, John would have transformed the conversation from an argument into a problem-solving discussion. Instead of walking away frustrated, he would have left the meeting with a clear commitment and a path forward.
The next time you find yourself about to make a demand, ask:
“Am I framing this in a way that encourages problem-solving and buy-in?”
That small shift can mean the difference between resistance and execution, frustration and accountability, and conflict and results.
