Executives set the tone for how responsibility is interpreted at work. A human being can experience the same exact task with joy, opportunity, responsibility, service, pressure, punishment, or stewardship. The task may be the same, but the frame and mindset change how people interpret a situation and the energy they bring to it.

A slight shift in language from “have to” to “get to” can be an unlock for the executive leader. The underlying psychology research on motivation, cognitive reappraisal, regulatory focus, and autonomy-supportive leadership all points in a similar direction. People shoulder responsibility better when they can connect it to ownership, meaning, joy, and support.

This does not mean leaders should turn every to-do into a motivational coaching session. Some responsibilities are in fact heavy, poorly designed, or under-resourced. However, executives should be able to distinguish between work that needs reframing and work that needs redesign.

Obligation Creates Friction

Think about the last time you told yourself you had to do something. It might have been something you usually value, like getting to the gym on a Tuesday night. The moment it became a “have to,” the task probably started to feel like a pain in the ass. Maybe work ran late, your family needed something, or your energy was lower than you expected. Maybe the workout mattered to you, but the language around it made it feel like another demand. That feeling, the feeling of demand or obligation is the friction that “have to” language creates.

Research supports what most people have felt in ordinary life. Milyavskaya, Inzlicht, Hope, and Koestner found that “have-to motivation” often leads to greater effort and more friction.¹ Deci, Olafsen, and Ryan’s workplace review shows that employees perform better and feel better when they understand the purpose of their work, feel a sense of ownership, and receive support.²

Slemp, Kern, Patrick, and Ryan’s meta-analysis adds another layer for leaders. Their work shows that autonomy-supportive leadership correlates with stronger work motivation, well-being, and positive work behavior.³ In plain language, people carry responsibility better when they have some ownership over it.

The implication for executives is that how people frame their work affects the energy they bring to it. When everything sounds like a “have to,” motivation takes a hit before the work even begins.

Reframing Changes Appraisal

The human brain responds not only to circumstances but also to interpretation. Buhle and colleagues analyzed 48 neuroimaging studies and found that reframing operates through meaning-making systems rather than vague positivity.⁴ For leaders, this means instead of telling your team to feel better, ask them to interpret the responsibility through a different lens or point of view.

Challenge-and-threat research defines challenge as an appraisal involving opportunity for gain or growth. On the other hand, threat involves anticipated harm or loss.⁵ Uphill, Rossato, Swain, and O’Driscoll show that challenge and threat can coexist, which matters because demanding work often contains both risk and upside. Leaders who are trying to reduce a threat appraisal might ask, “What support would make this responsibility feel like a healthy challenge and a growth opportunity?”

Higgins’ regulatory focus theory defines “prevention focus” as having one’s attention centered on duties and avoiding losses. Higgins defines “promotion focus” as being centered on growth and accomplishment.⁶ “Got to” or “have to” language often pulls people toward a prevention focus, while “get to” language can help people see progress, contribution, or capability-building, giving them a “promotion focus”.  This distinction matters because senior leaders operate inside pressure every day. Forecasts need scrutiny, customers have questions, and investors need answers. If every responsibility lives in the “have to” bucket, the executive calendar becomes a list of burdens instead of a map of influence and a joy of leadership.

The Executive Reframe

The most useful version of a “get to” reframe is specific. A leader does not need to say, “I get to attend another meeting,” when the meeting has no purpose or they have no decision rights. A more honest reframe would be, “I get to create clarity before the team spends another week working on this project.”

A customer escalation can be an opportunity to protect trust. A forecast review can feel intimidating, but it can also become a place to improve judgment and commercial discipline. As a leader, apply the “get to” reframe to yourself and your own experience.

Teams often mirror executive language. When a leader repeatedly says, “I have to deal with this,” the team hears a sense of burden. When a leader says, “We get to solve this while the customer still believes we can,” the team hears urgency and purpose. Check your own personal experience and language before coaching your team.

Questions That Help People Move From “Got To” To “Get To”

Good reframing starts with good questions. Here are a few starting points.

What choice do we still have?

Even when the task is required, there is usually some choice left. Perhaps the timing is up to us. Perhaps we can influence the approach. For sure, we still have a choice about the person we become in the process.

Who benefits if we do this well?

This question moves the task from inconvenience to an act of service or compassion. Understanding who is impacted can help make a task feel lighter.

What skill does this build?

Following up builds discipline. Listening to objections builds market fluency. Help people see the development path inside ordinary responsibilities and watch routine tasks become learning moments.

What value does this let us practice?

This question is especially useful when the work is emotionally demanding. A mistake may let the team practice accountability. A stressful launch may let the group practice focus.

What needs to change if this keeps feeling like a burden?

Some responsibilities require redesign. Leaders earn trust when they can tell the difference between helping someone view a task from a positive place versus a structural issue that needs to be addressed.

The New Standard

Executives strive for better language, better questions, better systems, and company growth. The “get to” reframe works because it turns everyday tasks into growth opportunities. It asks people to see where choice and autonomy exist, who the work serves, and what skills they are building. It helps executives see a to-do item as a joyful experience. The “get to” reframe can help people do hard things and move forward with joy.

‍

References

1. Milyavskaya, M., Inzlicht, M., Hope, N., & Koestner, R. “Saying ‘No’ to Temptation: Want-To Motivation Improves Self-Regulation by Reducing Temptation Rather Than by Increasing Self-Control.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2015. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25984785/

2. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. “Self-Determination Theory in Work Organizations: The State of a Science.” Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2017. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108

3. Slemp, G. R., Kern, M. L., Patrick, K. J., & Ryan, R. M. “Leader Autonomy Support in the Workplace: A Meta-Analytic Review.” Motivation and Emotion, 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30237648/

4. Buhle, J. T., Silvers, J. A., Wager, T. D., Lopez, R., Onyemekwu, C., Kober, H., Weber, J., & Ochsner, K. N. “Cognitive Reappraisal of Emotion: A Meta-Analysis of Human Neuroimaging Studies.” Cerebral Cortex, 2014. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4193464/

5. Uphill, M. A., Rossato, C. J. L., Swain, J., & O’Driscoll, J. “Challenge and Threat: A Critical Review of the Literature and an Alternative Conceptualization.” Frontiers in Psychology, 2019. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01255/full

6. Higgins, E. T. “Promotion and Prevention: Regulatory Focus as a Motivational Principle.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 1998. https://business.columbia.edu/sites/default/files-efs/pubfiles/529/HIGGINSADVANCES_1998REG_FOC_.pdf

‍