If everything is non-negotiable, then nothing really is.
One of the conversations I find myself having again and again with operators starts something like this: “We’ve got standards… but people seem to be picking and choosing which ones they follow.” And when you dig into it, the issue usually isn’t capability or even attitude; it’s clarity. Or more specifically, a lack of clarity about what’s mandatory and what’s optional.
We talk a lot about non-negotiables, and it’s certainly a popular phrase. But like most leadership buzzwords, when it’s overused without explanation, it quickly loses its impact.
The Black and White Circles
That’s why I often come back to a simple framework, which I’ve been referring to for years now: the Black and White Circles. It’s not clever or complicated, but it’s incredibly effective at helping people understand boundaries, expectations, and where they genuinely have room to think for themselves.
The idea is straightforward. The white circle represents the things that must happen. These are your true standards, the things that protect your brand, your guests, your people, and ultimately your results. There’s no debate about whether these get done; the only real conversation is about how they’re rolled out, in what order, and over what timescale.
The black circle is the flip side. These are the things that must not happen, and they could be behaviours or shortcuts that undermine safety, ethics, quality, or trust. Again, there’s no debate here, just implementation.
And then there’s the overlap; the grey area. This is where leadership becomes interesting, as it’s where judgement, experience, and local context come into play. It’s where people can adapt, experiment, and bring their own personality to the role without compromising the core standards. This is the space where people have a voice and a vote, and it’s also where a lot of innovation is born.
Where organisations often get stuck is when they don’t clearly separate this grey space from the white. They dress up optional ideas as if they’re mandatory. Or worse, we treat genuine non-negotiables as if they’re open to interpretation. Over time, that creates confusion, inconsistency, and frustration on both sides of the fence.
This is where the distinction between good practice and best practice really matters.
Good practice versus best practice
For me, good practice is exactly that. It’s a good idea. Something that’s worked well elsewhere, that you might want to try, adapt, or borrow from another site or leader. It’s optional by design, and so people can take it, tweak it, or leave it based on what their business actually needs.
Best practice, on the other hand, is different because best practice is non-negotiable. There’s no choice about whether it happens. Of course, people absolutely get a voice; they can ask questions, explore the rationale, and influence how it’s implemented. But they don’t get a vote on whether it’s adopted at all. That “voice but not a vote” distinction often makes people uncomfortable, but it’s essential if you want consistency at scale and especially in multi-site environments.
This links directly to what we call clarity of expectations, one of the core operational disciplines in The Mastering Multi-Units Model™, because writing a standard down and hoping for the best simply doesn’t work.
Most organisations already have brand standards manuals, playbooks, SOPs, or all three. But let’s be honest: just because it’s written down doesn’t mean it’s been read. Just because it’s been read doesn’t mean it’s been understood. And just because it’s understood doesn’t mean it’s been consistently applied on a wet Tuesday afternoon when the place is short-staffed!
This article is an excerpt from a LinkedIn article by Lee Sheldon. If you’d like to read more on this topic and find out how to be clear on non-negotiables, you can read the full article here: Good practice, best practice… and the grey bit in between.
