When leaders make pronouncements about raising the “bar,” they inevitably do so in a context infused with ambition. Such a move will be described as an effort to achieve greater performance, increased execution, greater accountability, or better quality. All of these can be legitimate and beneficial in healthy companies, but there comes a point when the increase of expectations outpaces the capacity of the systems behind them. When workers see a company raise their standards for quality but do not have enough staffing, timelines, or proper decision-making systems in place, they may feel a significant strain from the new standard. Research from Gallup into employee engagement consistently suggests that workers perform best in environments where expectations are clear. As such, it seems that employees’ response to this pronouncement is more likely based on what happens after it is said, rather than on the pronouncement itself. This does not mean, however, that employees ignore the pronouncement entirely. Instead, they may respond positively when the expectations are paired with changes that allow the higher standard to be achieved – for example, prioritizing work, improving tools, or providing additional resources.Employees usually notice quickly whether the system has improved or just the expectationsThe discrepancy becomes clear very quickly within team contexts. Employees observe the extent to which the organization has actually done anything to improve its operations once it has decided to set stricter standards for employees. Has the workload been reduced? Have priorities been clarified? Has there been an improvement in staffing and support for decision-making processes? Or has the organization merely expected higher productivity from the same people under the same working conditions as before? The ambiguity pressures placed on managers in Gallup's manager-squeeze studies indicate how easy it is for organizations to up the ante verbally without improving organizational operations.The Work in America survey conducted by the APA also revealed that workload, communication, and workplace respect play a major role in determining how employees perceive pressure and responsibility. When the goal set for a team seems attainable, teams are more likely to withstand pressures; however, when employees are unable to see how things are supposed to be done amid conflicting priorities or scarce resources, there is usually an increased incidence of burnout among employees. This is why many employees are wary of excellence being talked about before the conditions are met.The healthiest response is translating slogans into operational specificsA second misstep that employees often fall into is equating any “raise the bar” message to an exploitation or burnout warning sign. The third misstep is to believe motivational messaging without evaluating whether management has adequately altered the existing environment enough to sustainably meet the new demands being placed upon employees. A far better response is to take the general motivation and turn it into specifics. Employees need to ask about which benchmarks have been shifted, which compromises will be acceptable moving forward, which objectives need to be deprioritized, and what resources will come with the heightened expectations.The Gallup burnout findings keep highlighting the same message again and again: employees rarely burn out from difficult work, but they consistently burn out from unrealistic standards, excessive workloads, and poor communication regarding the management of the demands being placed on them. Setting higher standards can definitely help companies. However, employees are becoming more skeptical of whether leaders themselves raised the standards or just increased the pressure around them.