Latest Articles 

A few weeks ago, I was sitting across from a Gen X leader who manages a team of mostly younger employees. She leaned back in her chair, crossed her arms, and said: "I'm just tired of all the hand-holding. I did not have anyone checking in on me every five minutes when I started out. Why can't they just do the work?" I nodded. I understood her frustration. And I also knew she was asking the wrong question. Here is something worth sitting with for a moment. The employees she wa

When someone isn't doing what we expect, there's a conclusion that forms fast. "They seem disengaged." "They don't really care." "They're not invested the way they should be." It happens quickly because leaders are busy. The tyranny of the urgent is often running the show. And when urgency is in the driver's seat, there isn't much room for curiosity. What fills that gap instead is judgment, and it tends to land on the negative side. But what if disengaged is not actually what

It often arrives as a quiet confusion. Something shifted with the team, but you can't point to the moment it happened. There was no blowup. No grievance. No obvious turning point. People are still showing up, still doing the work. But they're harder to reach than they used to be. Conversations are shorter. The questions have stopped coming. And when you check in, the answers are fine, but something in them has gone a little flat. You didn't break anything. As far as you can t

There's a version of this that almost every team member has experienced at least once. The leader has said, clearly and more than once, that they trust their people to make calls. That the goal is to build a team that doesn't need to be micromanaged. That collaboration matters and good ideas can come from anywhere. And then a deadline arrives. Or a client escalates. Or something goes sideways. And within about forty-eight hours, the decisions that had been delegated are quiet

Here's something that doesn't always make it into the debrief after a young worker leaves. The organization didn't break a big promise. There was no dramatic falling out. What happened was smaller, and in some ways harder to address because of it: something shifted, and no one said anything about it. A training initiative got paused. A supervisor who had been mentoring closely got moved to a different site. A program that had been framed as a priority quietly dropped off the

There's a conversation I hear more often than you might think. A supervisor pulls someone aside after a shift and says, "You did good work today." The apprentice nods, says thanks, walks to their truck and texts their buddy: I don't know how long I'm going to stick around here. The supervisor meant every word. The apprentice believed none of it. This is not a communication breakdown in the way we usually describe one. No one said anything wrong. The message was delivered. I

It’s Tuesday. Ten minutes to go before the stakeholder call. A capable team member leans into your doorway with a document open on their screen. “Quick one. Can you just confirm this is okay before I send it?” It’s not a big decision. It’s the kind of call they’ve made a hundred times and yet you can feel the air in the question: I’d rather you hold the risk. So you look. You suggest a tweak. You give the nod. They leave relieved. You stay behind with a familiar, slightly hea

You know the meeting. The debrief ends, the leader asks, “Any questions?” and the room answers with synchronized nodding. Nobody speaks. Everyone leaves with the same polite smile… and completely different assumptions about what happens next. The nod isn’t agreement. It’s self-protection. That quiet debrief moment looks harmless. Even healthy, but it often signals something else: people don’t feel safe enough to name what they’re seeing, or they’ve learned it’s not worth it.

Most leaders don’t override decisions casually. They step in because the stakes feel high or because timing matters. Whatever the reason, the consequences feel real. When they step it, almost always it’s framed as an exception. “I’ll just take this one.” “Given the situation, I’ll decide here.” “This is a special case.” From the leader’s perspective, it’s practical. Responsible, even. The challenge is, decisions don’t just solve the moment they’re made in. They also teach the

Some decisions seem to travel in circles. A leader delegates. A decision is discussed. Agreement is reached. And then the question comes back. “Can I just check…” “Before I move ahead…” “I want to make sure you’re okay with this…” From the leader’s perspective, it can feel puzzling. We talked about this. They know what to do. Why won’t they just decide? But decisions don’t bounce back because people lack capability. They bounce back because of what deciding has meant before.

Silence in a 1–1 is easy to misread. A leader asks a question. The answer is brief. Nothing else is added. The meeting moves on. Some leaders leave thinking, “All good. No issues.” Others leave uneasy, thinking about what didn’t get said. What silence means in that moment depends heavily on what it has meant before . For many people earlier in their careers, silence was a form of safety. You learned to speak when you were confident, certain, and prepared. Saying less red

Not every uncomfortable 1–1 feels tense in the room. Sometimes the meeting is calm. Polite. Even productive. and yet, one person walks out feeling supported, while the other feels watched. This difference often surprises leaders. They think they’re checking in. Making time. Being available, but for some team members, the same conversation quietly raises their guard. Generational experience plays a big role in this. For many leaders who came up in environments with clear hiera

Two people can walk out of the same 1–1 and have completely different experiences. One feels relieved. The conversation was quick. Focused. No drama. The other feels vaguely unsatisfied. Nothing was wrong, but nothing really changed either. Neither is confused. They’re just operating from different expectations about what a 1–1 is for . That difference often shows up along generational lines. For many leaders who built their careers in environments where time was scarce and

The Real Challenge Culture change efforts often collapse because organizations train executives and frontline staff but overlook the people who carry culture daily: middle managers. These leaders translate strategy into behaviour, connect teams across departments, and shape the everyday employee experience. Yet they frequently lack training, clarity, and support not to mention their often unreasonable workload. McLean’s HR Trends report notes that only 29 percent of HR t

The Real Challenge Leaders often assume culture is shaped by values statements, inspirational speeches, or one-time training sessions. While these can create clarity, they rarely create change. Culture becomes real through continual reinforcement. The things that get celebrated, repeated, corrected, and modelled. McKinsey identifies reinforcing mechanisms such as rituals, hiring practices, recognition, and systems alignment as key drivers that sustain culture long term (McKi

The Real Challenge Most culture problems are not caused by people, they are caused by systems. Leaders often try to fix behaviours without addressing the processes, structures, or expectations shaping those behaviours. Feedback loops, communication systems, accountability processes, and decision rights are often outdated or inconsistent. As a result, even well-intentioned leaders and teams find themselves working against the grain. McLean’s research shows HR is least effecti

The Real Challenge High-growth organizations often assume that culture established early will naturally scale. In reality, culture erodes quickly when new people, new pressures, and new systems enter the picture. What worked for a team of ten rarely works for a team of fifty. McKinsey’s research notes that leaders often believe they are the culture and underestimate the need to deliberately sustain, evolve, and reinforce it (McKinsey, When Building New Businesses, Culture

The Real Challenge When leaders assess their team’s effectiveness, they often rely on gut feelings, energy in the room, general impressions, or a few vocal perspectives. The problem is that these impressions rarely tell the full story. McKinsey’s research found that leaders consistently rate team health higher than their team members do (McKinsey, Go, Teams , 2024). This gap creates blind spots that widen over time. Teams believe they are communicating well, making sol

The Real Challenge Organizations often rely on personality, chemistry, or “hiring the right people” as the foundation for team success. Leaders assume the team will figure it out if the individuals are strong enough. The research says otherwise. In fact, McKinsey found that three out of four cross-functional teams underperform on key metrics (McKinsey, Go, Teams , 2024). It isn’t because people lack skill or commitment, it’s because the team lacks the behaviours that make

The Real Challenge In my discussion with leaders I find a concerning pattern. Many leaders still treat culture as something soft, sentimental, or “nice to have.” Culture gets framed as engagement initiatives, staff perks, or the responsibility of HR alone. This mindset persists even while organizations struggle with declining leadership pipelines, shrinking workforces, and rising burnout. The truth is that culture is not abstract or emotional. It is structural, behavioural,