Watch the recording of the webinar:
View the slides (downloadable PDF):
Listen to the recording via our podcast:
At the start of this session, Sarah Baker asked the live audience a simple question: what does buy-in mean to you? The responses came quickly. Investment. Commitment. Trust. Agreement. Support. Ownership. One person wrote: "honestly, it's a mystery to me."
That last answer is probably the most honest. Most of us use the word constantly and understand it poorly. We treat buy-in as something to acquire -- a box to check before we can proceed -- rather than a condition that develops through a specific process. When buy-in doesn't materialize, we tend to push harder, communicate more urgently, or escalate to whoever has the authority to compel the behavior we want. None of those responses produce genuine buy-in. They produce compliance at best and resentment at worst.
Sarah Baker is a consultant and facilitator at IQC with an MS in Industrial and Organizational Psychology and a BA in Philosophy and Psychology. This session presents a practical four-step framework for building authentic commitment to change -- grounded in motivation science, tested through organizational experience, and applicable to improvement work of any scale.
The second question Sarah posed to the audience was equally revealing: what does it take for you to buy in to something? The dominant answer: trust. It appeared in the chat again and again, in various forms -- trust in the person, credibility, transparency, understanding the why, confidence in the outcome.
Sarah's observation: notice how few of these are rational. You can't produce data that proves you're trustworthy. You can't calculate your way to confidence. Buy-in is an emotional state, not a logical conclusion. People sense whether they trust someone or not before they've consciously processed the evidence. They make the call in that part of the brain that runs before the analytical faculties catch up.
This has a direct implication for how CI leaders should think about the buy-in problem. If buy-in were a rational process, better data and clearer logic would reliably produce it. Most experienced practitioners have learned the hard way that they don't. Presenting the business case more clearly to someone who doesn't trust you doesn't move them. It just gives them more specific things to argue about. The buy-in problem is a trust and motivation problem, which requires a different approach than the information problem most leaders assume they're solving.
And it cannot be forced. This is the foundational principle the entire session builds on. You can compel compliance. You can mandate behavior. You cannot mandate someone's internal commitment to an outcome. Trying to force buy-in doesn't accelerate it -- it destroys the trust that buy-in requires.
The first step sounds straightforward. It isn't.
The most common failure at this stage is vagueness. Leaders want buy-in for "improving the culture" or "getting people engaged with improvement" or "fixing how we work." These aren't problems. They're directions. And people can't commit to a direction -- they can only commit to something specific enough to act on.
The problem with vagueness isn't just imprecision. It's that when the problem isn't clearly defined, the person you're asking for buy-in can't evaluate whether they agree there's a problem at all. They haven't been shown what's wrong. They're being asked to commit to a solution without first accepting the diagnosis.
Sarah's prescription: define the problem concretely, with data where possible. Not "morale is an issue" but "turnover in this department has increased 18% over the last year and exit interviews consistently point to a specific set of conditions." Not "our improvement process isn't working" but "of the 47 ideas submitted in the last quarter, only 3 have been implemented, and no one who submitted the other 44 has received any feedback."
Specificity does two things. It demonstrates that you understand the problem rather than reacting to a vague feeling. And it gives the other person something to respond to -- they can confirm or dispute the specific claim in ways they can't dispute a general assertion. Even if they push back on the data, you're now in a productive conversation rather than a circular one.
The other reason specificity matters: when you're vague about the problem, people assume you're also vague about the solution. And vague solutions don't earn trust.
Of the four steps, Sarah identifies this one as the most important and the most commonly skipped. It's also the step the live audience identified as their biggest challenge, which is consistent with what Sarah sees in her work.
The core insight: you cannot successfully argue someone into buy-in if you're making the argument in your language about your motivations. You have to translate the message into the language of what matters to them.
People in organizations are generally motivated by a recognizable set of things: effectiveness and results, learning and growth, living out the mission and values, reputation and how they appear to others, and the possibilities created by bigger-picture change. These aren't wildly different, but the rank order varies significantly from person to person. Someone who primarily values mission alignment will respond to a very different argument than someone who primarily values personal effectiveness, even if the underlying proposal is identical.
The personal finance story Sarah tells is the clearest illustration. A friend was spending everything he made, bank account near zero, causing stress. She tried the logical argument: save money, build security, reduce stress. He didn't care about security, found the concept of restriction unpleasant, and wasn't moved. When she reframed it around freedom -- specifically, that his spending patterns were trapping him in a job with a schedule he resented, and that saving money was actually how he could buy more autonomy -- he responded completely differently. Same advice. Different language. The difference was understanding what actually motivated him.
The practical question is how you find out what motivates someone. For individuals you know well, you've often already observed it through the decisions they make and the concerns they raise. For people you don't know well, Sarah's answer is direct: ask. Most people won't immediately articulate their core motivations when asked directly -- self-awareness is genuinely limited in most of us -- but questions about what's working well, what's frustrating, what outcomes they care about most, all surface the information you need to find the alignment.
For large groups where individual conversations aren't feasible, the approach shifts to covering multiple motivational languages simultaneously: the communication about a change addresses effectiveness concerns, mission concerns, autonomy concerns, and growth concerns in the same message. Not one of these connects with everyone, but together they cast a much wider net than a purely logical business case.
The reason this step is so frequently skipped is simple: we're absorbed in our own perspective. The problem is obvious to us. The solution is obvious to us. The path forward is obvious to us. It doesn't occur to us to question whether our map of the territory matches anyone else's. Alignment to others' motives requires the discipline to step outside that internal certainty and genuinely ask what this looks like from where someone else stands.
Most organizations treat this step as optional. They have the proposal, they have the plan, they have the stakeholder list, and they want to move. Testing the idea before presenting it feels like slowing down. It's actually the step that most reliably prevents coming to a standstill later.
The marketers' equivalent: you don't launch a product without testing it. You run pilots, gather feedback, identify where the gaps are between what you designed and what users actually want. The same logic applies to any significant organizational change. The people who need to buy in will have questions, concerns, and objections. You want to encounter those before the formal pitch, not during it.
The practical method: toss the idea by a few people who represent the type of stakeholder you'll be asking for buy-in. Watch their reactions -- not just what they say but where they hesitate, what they don't say, what questions they ask. These are the gaps in your proposal and in your alignment work from step two. If the VP of finance's first reaction is about budget impact and you haven't addressed that, you need to address it before you ask for commitment. If the frontline supervisor's reaction is about workload, you need to understand whether that concern is valid and how you're going to respond to it.
The harder part of step three is what to do with what you hear. Sarah is direct about this: people often close themselves off from feedback at this stage because hearing it would mean changing their plan. They've done the work. They believe in the approach. Being told it needs adjustment feels like rejection rather than information. This defensive posture destroys the value of the testing step -- you go through the motions of asking for reactions and then don't actually incorporate what you learn.
Whether you're right or not doesn't matter if you can't get buy-in. That phrase is worth sitting with. The goal isn't to have the correct answer. The goal is to achieve the outcome -- and the outcome requires other people to act. If your correct answer doesn't produce buy-in, you haven't solved the problem.
Before you develop the action plan, Sarah asks three questions that most change efforts skip entirely.
What do you absolutely need for this to work? This is the minimum -- the non-negotiables without which the effort can't succeed. Being clear about this internally prevents you from agreeing to conditions that make success impossible.
What are you going to ask for? This is distinct from the minimum. You ask for more than the minimum because the negotiation will produce something less than what you asked for. Knowing the difference between what you need and what you're asking for gives you room to accommodate others' concerns without giving up what's essential.
What are you willing to give? This is the question most people forget to ask. When you approach buy-in as something you extract from others, you frame the relationship as adversarial. When you approach it as a two-way exchange -- here's what I'm asking from you, here's what I'm offering in return -- you communicate something very different. You communicate that you're not just here to take.
The willingness to give is also what separates genuine collaboration from the appearance of it. Leaders who arrive at a negotiation with a fixed conclusion and no flexibility don't actually want buy-in. They want validation. People can tell the difference, and when they sense it, trust erodes. Agreement on an action plan has to be genuine -- not 50/50 necessarily, but real flexibility about how the outcome gets achieved even when you're clear about what the outcome needs to be.
A question from the live session brought this into focus. An attendee described working in a compliance culture and asked how to shift a leader who had built a successful career on it.
Sarah's answer: start by asking what problems they have. Don't start by telling them why compliance is wrong. Ask them what isn't working -- specifically with people, because people challenges tend to be the most tangible manifestation of compliance-culture problems. Let them tell you what's frustrating. Then help them see the connection between those frustrations and the approach.
You can't force someone to see that connection. You can create the conditions where they're more likely to see it themselves. Showing respect for them and what they've built -- not as a tactic but as a genuine starting point -- makes them less defensive about entertaining the idea that something might need to change.
Mark Graban's observation during the session is worth noting: a compliance culture and a continuous improvement culture are not the same thing. You can compel someone to follow a process. You cannot compel them to notice problems, surface ideas, take initiative, or care whether the process works. Those behaviors require internal motivation. Compliance provides the behavior without the motivation. It's a house of cards that holds up as long as the authority structures enforcing it remain intact -- and fails the moment the manager isn't watching.
One of the sharpest questions in the session came from an attendee named Julie: how do you know you have real buy-in versus someone who says they're on board but won't put in the work?
The short-term answer: ask. But make it explicitly safe to say no. If people aren't confident that saying "I'm not actually bought in yet" will be received without consequences, they'll say what they think you want to hear. The invitation has to be genuine -- and its genuineness gets tested immediately the first time someone actually says "not yet."
The longer-term answer: surface agreement that was never real, or assumption-based agreement that wasn't earned through steps one through three, tends to fail at the implementation stage. People who said yes to avoid conflict won't sustain the effort the change requires. The only reliable indicator of genuine buy-in is the willingness to act over time without being compelled.
There's also an important distinction Sarah draws here, echoing the psychological safety theme that runs through many sessions in this webinar series: in organizations where dissent has historically been punished -- where ideas get ignored, where disagreement earns disapproval -- people have learned to perform agreement rather than express it. That pattern doesn't disappear when a new leader arrives and says things are different now. It takes repeated, consistent evidence that things actually are different before the behavior changes. One incident of someone expressing doubt and being treated badly resets the whole pattern. Trust builds slowly. It breaks quickly.
The buy-in problem Sarah describes is structurally identical to one of the core problems KaiNexus is designed to solve: engagement that's wide and genuine rather than narrow and performed.
Traditional improvement mechanisms -- suggestion boxes, manual tracking, infrequent review cycles -- produce surface participation at best. People submit ideas into systems that don't respond, and they stop. The futility problem is the same as the buy-in problem: people opt out not because they're resistant to the idea of improvement but because the experience of participating has taught them it doesn't lead to anything.
What changes when improvement work is visible, responsive, and acknowledged: the loop that produces real participation actually closes. An idea gets submitted. It gets acknowledged, routed, and responded to. The person who submitted it sees what happened. That experience -- being heard, being taken seriously, seeing action result from contribution -- is what builds the internal motivation that genuine buy-in requires. It can't be manufactured through a communication strategy. It has to be produced through real experience of the system working as promised.
The platform is designed around step four of Sarah's framework at scale: what do you absolutely need (visibility, accountability, closure on every item), what will you ask for (full engagement across all personas), and what will you give (transparent tracking, acknowledged impact, connection back to the people who surfaced the opportunity). That exchange, repeated at volume across an organization, is what produces a culture where people are genuinely bought in to improvement -- not because they were persuaded but because the experience earned it.
Sarah Baker is a Consultant and Facilitator at IQC, where she partners with organizations on consulting, training, and performance excellence work. She holds an MS in Industrial and Organizational Psychology and a BA in Philosophy and Psychology, and brings both disciplines to her facilitation work -- drawing on behavioral science to help leaders shift perspective and develop more effective approaches to change, engagement, and leadership. IQC's website is iowaqc.org.
What does "buy-in" actually mean, and why is it so hard to get?
Buy-in is the internal commitment someone has to an outcome -- the difference between doing something because they're motivated to and doing it because they're compelled to. It's hard to get because it's an emotional state, not a rational conclusion. People decide whether to trust you and whether what you're proposing speaks to what they care about before they've consciously processed your argument. Better data and clearer logic help at the margins but don't reliably produce buy-in from someone who doesn't already trust you or see the connection to their own motivations.
What are the four steps?
Choose an opportunity (define the problem specifically, with data, not just a general direction). Align to others' motives (translate your proposal into the language of what motivates the specific people you're asking for buy-in from). Ask for reactions (test the idea with representative stakeholders before you present it formally, and actually incorporate what you learn). Agree on action (approach the action plan as a genuine exchange -- knowing what you need, what you'll ask for, and what you'll give in return).
Why is step two -- aligning to others' motives -- the most important and most skipped?
It's most important because this is where buy-in actually originates. People commit to things that connect to what they care about. Without alignment, you're making an argument in your language about your motivations and expecting it to land with people who have different motivations. It's most skipped because finding that alignment requires stepping outside your own perspective, which requires the discipline to question whether your obvious answer is obvious to anyone else.
How do you identify what motivates someone if they can't tell you directly?
Watch the decisions they make and the concerns they consistently raise. These reveal what they value more reliably than self-reported answers, because most people have limited self-awareness about their core motivations. For people you don't know well, ask questions about what's working, what's frustrating, and what outcomes matter most to them. The patterns in their answers will surface the motivational language you need to find alignment.
What's the difference between compliance and buy-in?
Compliance is the behavior without the internal motivation. People do what's required because the structure compels them. Buy-in is the internal motivation that produces the behavior even when the structure isn't watching. Compliance culture tends to fail at improvement work specifically because improvement requires people to notice problems, surface ideas, and take initiative -- none of which can be compelled. You can require people to attend huddles. You can't require them to care.
How do you test whether buy-in is real or just performed?
Ask directly -- but only if you've genuinely made it safe to say no. If people believe that expressing doubt will have negative consequences, they'll perform agreement. The invitation has to be sincere, and its sincerity gets tested the first time someone actually says "I'm not bought in yet." Organizations with histories of punishing dissent have trained people to perform agreement. Breaking that pattern takes repeated evidence -- over time, through many individual interactions -- that things actually are different now. One incident of someone being treated badly for honest feedback can undo months of trust-building.
![[Watch Now] The Why, How, and What of Continuous Improvement](https://no-cache.hubspot.com/cta/default/326641/060c8cc9-44ad-4fd1-ad7b-7b4ab71c7632.png)
.svg)
Copyright © 2026
Privacy Policy