Why just noticing something isn’t working won’t spark change

All positive change starts with discontent. Something isn’t working at all. Something is sort of working. Something exists that doesn’t need to – or is needed, but doesn’t exist.

But if you aim to be a force for change in your workplace, you can’t just express discontent and expect someone else to take it from there.

When you say “This isn’t working,” you’re expressing frustration, not proposing change. That distinction matters more than it feels like it should. 

From your side of the desk, the problem may be obvious. From the side where the decision makers sit, it often isn’t actionable. Here are three reasons why that kind of statement tends to stall out, even when you’re right.

1. It doesn’t define the problem tightly enough to act on.

“This process isn’t working” sounds clear, but to leadership it’s vague. 

Take a common example: Customer complaints are rising, and you tell your manager the current ticketing workflow isn’t working. 

From your perspective, you see delays, rework, and irritated customers every day. From theirs, “isn’t working” could mean too slow, too expensive, poorly trained staff, bad software, or unrealistic expectations. 

When the problem isn’t clearly scoped, higher-ups often dismiss it as anecdotal or emotional rather than operational. They may assume you’re reacting to a bad week rather than identifying a systemic issue.

The simple boost here is to anchor your concern to a specific failure point. Not a solution. A failure. 

Instead of saying, “This isn’t working,” try something like this: “Tickets are sitting unassigned for an average of two days before first contact, and that’s where customers start escalating.” 

You’re still not doing cost analysis. You’re just naming the breakdown. That gives leadership something concrete to evaluate, even if they ultimately disagree.

2. Jumping straight to a specific program skips the “Why.”

This makes your discontent easy to dismiss.

Saying “We should add a mentorship program” or “We should adopt this new platform” sounds proactive, but it often triggers resistance. Leaders hear a solution without context and immediately start listing reasons it won’t work: bandwidth, culture, competing priorities, past failures. 

For example, imagine you suggest adding a formal onboarding buddy program because new hires keep struggling. If you lead with the program itself, leadership may see it as unnecessary structure or another HR initiative layered onto an already crowded system. They may dismiss it as trend-chasing or personal preference.

What’s missing is the problem the program is meant to solve. Without that, your idea competes with every other idea in the organization. 

The simple boost is to frame your suggestion as a response to an observed pattern. 

“New hires are taking six months to become independent, and most of the questions they ask aren’t documented anywhere. That’s why I think a structured buddy system could help.”

You’re not asking for approval of the program yet. You’re establishing relevance. That makes dismissal harder, because now rejecting your idea means not addressing the underlying issue, not just swatting away a proposal.

3. Simply expressing discontent doesn’t show that you’ve considered trade-offs.

Not every trade-off is a financial one, but every trade-off is a potential sticking point. Leadership lives in trade-offs. 

When you say “This isn’t working” or “We should add X,” it can sound like you’re only seeing your slice of the organization. 

For example, you might push for adding a weekly cross-team sync because miscommunication keeps causing rework. 

From your seat, that meeting feels essential. From theirs, it sounds like another hour taken from already overloaded calendars. Without acknowledging the downsides, your input may be dismissed as narrow or self-serving, even if it isn’t.

You don’t need to do a cost analysis to address this. The simple boost is to name one legitimate downside yourself. 

You could say something like, “A weekly sync would take time, and I know meeting fatigue is real. The reason I think it’s still worth discussing is that we’re already spending more time fixing preventable mistakes.” 

This signals maturity. You’re showing that you understand leadership constraints, not ignoring them. People are far more likely to engage with your idea when they don’t feel you’re blind to the impact on others.

Across all three issues, the common thread is this: statements alone don’t create momentum. 

Leaders aren’t paid to react to dissatisfaction. They’re paid to prioritize, and prioritization requires clarity, context, and credibility. When those are missing, even good instincts get brushed aside. Not because leadership doesn’t care, but because they can’t work with what you’ve given them.

In proposing change, framing is everything.

The good news is that boosting your case doesn’t require authority, a title, or a spreadsheet. It requires a shift in how you frame what you already know. 

Be specific about where things break. Tie ideas back to observable patterns. Acknowledge trade-offs before someone else does. None of that guarantees change, but it turns your input from noise into signal.

And signal gets noticed.

For more on this subject, sign up today for Presenting a Business Case for Change!