Difficult, Not Damaging, Conversations

"The truth is rarely pure and never simple."

— Oscar Wilde

You are avoiding a conversation. Most leaders have one. Sometimes more.

You know the one I mean. The team member who keeps missing the mark but hasn’t heard the hard truth yet. The thing you keep wishing will fix itself.

That won’t do, and the longer you wait, the more complicated it gets for everyone involved.

A Moment Worth Paying Attention To

As a new Supervisor in the behavioral health world, it took time to build confidence as a leader and practitioner before I felt I was in a position to correct others. This would become a very hard lesson in leadership for me.

Early in my tenure, I noticed a team member who seemed to lack specificity in their documentation. It did not present as a big problem, but it was one that I was not comfortable with. When I sought to discuss the issue with them, I avoided addressing it because I felt I lacked expertise in organizational policy.

In human services, sometimes the unfortunate occurs. It did so with a client of this team member, and in the ensuing records review, the issues I had seen but not addressed were brought to light.  The issues did not contribute to the problems. I met with leadership to hear the assessment, and I knew it could have been changed, but I chose not to. Not a fun day.

The Avoidance Is the Problem

There are good reasons most leaders tend to avoid hard conversations. They don’t want to damage a relationship they’ve worked to create. They're not sure they can handle the emotional response on the other end, or really their own. And the timing is never quite right.

Avoidance always has a cost, but its often a quiet cost that grows slowly. Your team sees that. The person you need to talk to doesn't know there is a problem, which means the behavior continues, and you bear the burden of the unspoken conversation every time you walk past them in the hall.

Kim Scott, in her book "Radical Candor," frames aviodance like this: "avoiding a hard truth because you care about someone is not really caring, it's ruinous empathy. Not talking about a real problem isn't kindness; it's avoidance under a kinder name."

Prepare Before You Walk In

Take time before the conversation to be clear about two things: your intention and the specific behavior you need to address. Often times leaders are not prepared for the importance of their intent. If you walk in wanting to vent about what's been building for weeks, the conversation will likely go sideways quickly.

If you go in there really wanting to make things better for them and for the team, it shows in your voice. People can tell the difference.

When you look at the behavior, it's specific. Not 'your attitude has been a problem recently,' but 'last Tuesday in the team meeting, you interrupted a colleague three times while she was presenting. Respectful specifics. When the feedback is vague, people get confused and defensive, leaving them with nothing concrete to go on to make any changes.

The Conversation Itself

The structure that works is simple: situation, behavior, impact, way forward. The situation is: What behavior did you see? Share the impact it is having on the team or the work. Then ask together about the way forward.

That last bit matters. The purpose is not to sentence. It’s not about them; it's about solving something with them.

Begin with something that shows your intention. I want to talk through something I've noticed, and I'd like us to work through it together," hits differently than "We need to talk." One opens a door. The other tries somebody before they've said a word. Anticipate feelings on the other side. Be calm. Be curious. Don't rush in to fill the silence. Let them answer. Say what you have to say and listen more than you talk.

After the Conversation

Check in after the conversation and be authentic. The conversation doesn't end when you walk out the door, and a follow-up shows you meant what you said about wanting things to get better and being willing to help

On the other hand, if it didn't go the way you hoped, say so. 'I don't think that landed the way I wanted. 'Can we try again?' is not a weakness. It's the very thing that rebuilds trust after a hard conversation has left someone feeling raw.

Current research is unanimous on this truth: leaders who address difficult issues head-on, with authentic intent, develop more trust than those who shy away from conflict altogether. Both issues are noted by your team. They clearly notice when you address something, and also notice when you don't.

Try This Week

Name one conversation you've been dodging. Identify the exact behavior you want to change and explain why it's important. Write your first sentence, then schedule it. Ensure it is an actual date and time, not "soon or later."

Waiting won’t make the conversation any easier. But it’s going to get harder.

Reflection

What is the conversation you have been dodging, and what has the delay already cost the team?

What was your intention going into the last difficult conversation you had? Did that intention work out the way it worked out?

What would it look like to check in with someone after a hard conversation in a way that actually deepened the relationship?

Lace up your Boots and Go Lead

You've Got This!

Suggested Reading

Patterson, Kerry, Joseph Grenny, Ron McMillan, and Al Switzler. Crucial Conversations: Tools for Talking When Stakes Are High. McGraw-Hill, 2002. The foundational text on navigating high-stakes conversations. Practical, research-grounded, and directly applicable to the kinds of conversations frontline leaders face every week.

Scott, Kim. Radical Candor: Be a Kick-Ass Boss Without Losing Your Humanity. St. Martin's Press, 2017. Scott's framework for caring personally while challenging directly is one of the most useful lenses for leaders trying to give honest feedback without damaging the relationship.

Stone, Douglas, Bruce Patton, and Sheila Heen.Difficult Conversations: How to Discuss What Matters Most.Penguin Books, 2010. From the Harvard Negotiation Project. Breaks down why hard conversations go wrong and how to approach them in a way that preserves understanding and relationship

Coach in the Moment

“The mediocre teacher tells. The good teacher explains. The superior teacher demonstrates. The great teacher inspires.”

William Arthur Ward

Most coaching never happens.

It gets saved for the monthly one-on-one. Or the quarterly review. Or the conversation you keep meaning to have. And by the time you sit down to have it, the moment that triggered it is two weeks old. Your team member barely remembers the situation. You’re reconstructing it from memory. The feeling of it is gone.

That’s the problem with scheduled coaching. The context that makes it land, the actual work, the real stakes, the visible behavior…doesn’t travel well. It often fades fast.

The leaders who develop their teams fastest are coaching in real time, right there on the floor. Two minutes. Right after something happened. When everything is still visible and fresh.

A Moment Worth Paying Attention To

A personal coaching approach in the workplace is often seen as a “lesser” or “touchy-feely” approach to leadership that many find uncomfortable.  I would challenge you to see coaching not as a gimmick, but as a way for a leader to identify the true strengths and passions of his team members and best draw out each person’s most effective input to the team effort.

A leader certainly can lead directly and with a “one size fits all” mentality, but doing so leaves so much on the table… specifically, your individual team members feeling like they matter as people.  Coaching bridges the gap between professional expectations and the personal passions and strengths that lead to better outcomes.

Community mental health leadership was my first encounter with true leadership in a Co-Ed environment, and it was humbling. I was used to leading the same type and focus of individual, but found myself leading a struggling team with 5 very different individuals, all good-hearted and capable, but all going in different directions.

Taking the time to get to know each team member individually allowed me to better understand each employee's needs.  Their goals, their past, their “why” in choosing community mental health to serve in; all of these combined laid out a road map as to how I could lead well by supporting the individual while completing the organizational goals. None of that would have been possible without taking the time needed to develop a coaching, not managing, relationship with each person.

The Framework: Observe → Ask → Offer

Three steps. Keep them in order.

Observe. Say what you saw. Specifically. “I noticed when the customer pushed back, you paused and let them finish before you responded.” Or: “That handoff to the next shift was rushed. I could see the incoming team didn’t have what they needed.” Name the behavior, not your interpretation of it.

Ask. Before you coach, get curious. “How did that feel to you?” or “What would you do differently?” Most people already know what went sideways. Your job isn’t to tell them; it’s to ask in a way that helps them get there themselves. One question is enough.

Offer. If they’ve got it, affirm it. If there’s something to add, say it simply: “The one thing I’d add…” Keep it to one thing. Two or three things at once are a lecture, not coaching.

That’s it. The whole framework fits in under two minutes.

Two Situations, One Framework

After a mistake: The reflex is to jump to the correction. Resist it. Start with what happened before you go to what should have happened. Ask before you tell. And separate the behavior from the person; remember you’re coaching the action, not the character. “That approach didn’t work in that situation” is coachable. “You’re not great under pressure” is just damage.

After a win: This one gets skipped constantly, and it’s just as important. When something goes well, name what worked and why it worked. “You gave them a specific timeline instead of a vague answer, that’s why it settled them down.” If they don’t know what they did right, they can’t repeat it.

The Surveillance Problem

In-the-moment coaching can feel like being watched if you’re not careful. The difference is in how you show up.

Managers who coach out of frustration, who walk over right after something goes wrong with an edge in their voice, often feel like a complaint. Managers who coach with genuine curiosity feel like a resource.

The other thing that helps: ask permission. “Hey, can I share something I noticed?” takes about three seconds and completely changes the dynamic. It signals that this is a conversation, not a verdict. Most people say yes. And if they’re in the middle of something, or if the timing is genuinely bad, they’ll tell you, and you can come back.

Read the moment before you coach the moment.

Try This Week

Pick one moment, just one, where something happened that deserved a coaching conversation. A mistake. A win. Anything with a lesson in it.

Don’t schedule it. Do it right there, or within the next few hours while it’s still fresh.

Keep it to two minutes. What happened. What did you notice? One question.

That’s the habit. One conversation this week. Build from there.

Reflection

What happened last time you held a coaching conversation back for the one-on-one? What did you lose by waiting?

When you observe something worth coaching, a win, a mistake, a close call, what stops you from addressing it right then?

If the floor is your classroom, what’s one thing you saw this week that deserves a follow-up conversation?

Lace up your Boots and Go Lead

You’ve Got This.

Suggested Reading

Stanier, Michael Bungay. The Coaching Habit. Box of Crayons Press, 2016. Short, practical, and completely aligned with this post’s thesis: ask more, tell less. The most usable coaching book for frontline leaders who don’t have an hour for a formal session.

Whitmore, John. Coaching for Performance. Nicholas Brealey Publishing, 1992. The foundational text on the GROW model. A structured way to move from observation to action without just telling people what to do. Still the clearest framework available.

Rock, David, and Linda Page. Coaching with the Brain in Mind. Wiley, 2009. Why questions work better than instructions, grounded in neuroscience. Explains why Observe → Ask → Offer produces lasting behavior change in ways that direct feedback doesn’t.

One Size Fits None: Leading Across Generations

"The art of communication is the language of leadership."

— James Humes

You've got a team. Somewhere on that team, you probably have someone who has been doing this job since before you were born, someone who was hired six months ago and thinks every meeting should be a text message, and a few people somewhere in between.

They all show up. They all have skills. And they all need something a little different from you.

If you're leading everyone the same way, you're probably leading most of them wrong.

A Moment Worth Paying Attention To

When I transitioned out of the Special Operations world just before my retirement, I experienced a significant paradigm shift in my understanding of leadership. Up to this point, I had been surrounded by team members who were focused on high achievement and operated very independently. I was to find that was not the way it was everywhere.

I do not write this to speak ill of the folks I encountered at Ft Rucker, but it was clearly a different environment. Leadership was very centralized and micromanaged. I was not used to that at all. I immediately ran into issues with a few people who were very used to being catered to and not doing much for themselves because of their longevity in the post. 

I found that many of the younger soldiers were just used to doing whatever they were asked because if they did not, it would be a problem. It took quite a few sit-downs and the involvement of some senior leadership to empower my team and help some of the older folks understand that they were expected to do all their jobs, not just what they wanted to do. 

The attitude of the senior folks alienated the younger folks, and the younger folks dismissed their wisdom and experience because of their projection. Sadly, both age groups were doing what they could to take care of themselves because neither was being led in ways that reflected their values and perspectives. Leading each differently, based on strengths and needs, changed the entire dynamic of the workplace and dramatically decreased interpersonal issues.

This Is Not About Age. It Is About Experience and Expectation.

4 generations are working alongside each other right now: Baby Boomers, Gen X, Millennials, and Gen Z. Each came of age during different cultural moments, in different workplaces, and with different assumptions about what a job is supposed to mean.

Boomers and many Gen X team members will often tie identity to work. They value stability in the workplace, respect others for experience, and offer direct communication. They want to know you as a leader, see what they've built.

Millennials in the workspace tend to want more context. This means being open to questions as a leader. Why are we doing this? What does it mean? They'll only truly work hard for a mission they believe in, but they push back on top-down directives with no explanation behind them.

Gen Z employees grew up in a world with instant information and constant feedback. They want to know where they stand, and they want it regularly. A quarterly review feels like a lifetime to wait for feedback to someone used to real-time everything.

Flexibility Is Not Favoritism.

New leaders worry that treating people differently is unfair. It is not. Treating everyone the same when everyone is different is actually the unfair part.

Situational Leadership, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard, has been a cornerstone of frontline leadership training for decades. The core idea is simple: your leadership style should match where the person actually is, not where you wish they were or where someone else on your team is.

A 25-year veteran who runs circles around everyone does not need the same level of direction as a new hire still figuring out the basics. Giving the veteran a script is insulting. Leaving the new hire to figure it out on their own is negligent.

Your job is to read the room individually.

Draw from Strengths. Don't Just Manage Gaps.

Every generation brings something real. Experienced team members carry institutional knowledge that cannot be googled. They know why the process works the way it does, who to call when things go sideways, and how to stay calm when the building is on fire.

Younger team members bring great energy, fresh perspective with objectivity, and a comfort with technology that can genuinely help move things forward at an accelerated pace. They ask questions that may feel inconvenient but will illuminate and often expose outdated assumptions that need challenging.

The leader who connects those two things deliberately, who creates space for experienced people to mentor and newer people to challenge, builds a team that compounds over time.

Marcus Buckingham's research on strengths-based management is worth your attention here. His data shows that people who use their strengths every day are significantly more engaged, more productive, and less likely to leave. You can't get there if you're forcing everyone into the same mold.

Try This Week

Pick 2 people on your team at different career stages. Have a 10-minute conversation with each one, not about performance, but about what motivates them at work, what frustrates them, and how they prefer to receive feedback. Write down what you hear and look for the differences. Then ask yourself honestly, if you are leading both of them in a way that actually works for who they are?

Reflection

Who on your team are you probably leading based on what works for you, not for them?

Where are you relying on assumptions about a generation instead of actually knowing the person?

What would change if you led from each person's strengths instead of managing to a standard?

Lace up your Boots and Go Lead

You've Got This.

Suggested Reading

Hersey, Paul, and Ken Blanchard. Management of Organizational Behavior. Prentice Hall, 1969. The foundational text on Situational Leadership. One of the most directly applicable frameworks for frontline leaders managing teams with different skill levels and experience.

Buckingham, Marcus, and Donald O. Clifton. Now, Discover Your Strengths. Free Press, 2001. The research behind strengths-based management and why leading to gaps is the wrong instinct. Read this if you believe your job is to fix what's broken in people.

Strauss, William, and Neil Howe. Generations: The History of America's Future. William Morrow, 1991. The original generational framework. Dense but foundational for understanding why each cohort sees work, authority, and loyalty the way they do.

Zemke, Ron, Claire Raines, and Bob Filipczak. Generations at Work. AMACOM, 2013. A practical, workplace-focused guide to what each generation actually wants and how managers can close the gap. Less theory, more application.

Building Credibility When You Have Limited Formal Authority

“Trust is built with consistency.”

— Lincoln Chafee

You got the title and maybe a new office. Maybe even a few people who now report to you. Then you showed up on day one and realized something nobody warned you about: the title doesn’t make people trust you.

They’ll do what you ask because the job description says they have to. Getting them to actually follow you, to believe in what you’re building together, that takes something else entirely.

It takes credibility, and credibility doesn’t come with the job position.

A Moment Worth Paying Attention To

Early in my career as a Maintenance Officer in Special Operations Aviation, I had the opportunity to spend Christmas deployed overseas.  Our activity level was high in that position, with a common cycle of fixing helicopters all day to support the missions flown all night. 

Though not new to the unit, I was new to the position and the team.  As luck would have it, Christmas Eve brought a great deal of snow to our deployed location, giving us an opportunity to catch up on scheduled maintenance that had been deferred due to our high activity level. As we spent the day moving aircraft in and out of the hangars, we received close to 2 feet of snow. 

Though I was unable to perform the specific maintenance tasks, there was always something I could do to help.  I got food for meals, shoveled the ramp to allow us to move the aircraft, and took care of as many logbook entries as possible…the simple, annoying stuff that slowed the processes down.

We found ourselves working through the night until early Christmas Morning. Once everything was completed, I sent the team home, closed up the flightline, and headed back.  I got to my rack for a second and was invited out to the back of the building, where the team had lit a fire, were smoking cigars, and were hanging out together.

I was handed a cigar by my senior enlisted team member. He said, “Thanks Sir!” I replied, “No problem, I like to help.” “It wasn’t anything you really did, we could have done all that without you. It was a big deal that you were there and stayed when you could have left. The guys saw that and it means something.”

That night changed my credibility with the team and my position from Officer in Charge to Team Leader. They saw that when it was tough, I was there, and they learned they could count on me as a leader. Truly a Christmas I will never forget.

Authority vs. Credibility

Positional authority is assigned in your job. Your title tells people where you sit in the structure, but credibility tells them whether you’re worth listening to.

James Kouzes and Barry Posner have been studying leadership for over 30 years, and their findings are very direct. The single quality followers most want in a leader is credibility… not intelligence… not charisma… credibility.

The Credibility Equation: Competence + Character + Caring

An easy way to think of it is in three parts, noting that a deficit in any one of them creates doubt. All three together build the kind of trust that makes teams actually work, and work well.

Competence doesn’t mean knowing everything. New leaders get tripped up here. They either overclaim, pretending to have answers they don’t, or they pull back so far they seem useless. What your team actually needs is for you to know enough to help, to be honest when you don’t know, and to follow through on finding out. That’s it…no rocket science or Chinese algebra involved.

Character shows up under pressure. It’s the gap between what you say and what you do when things get hard. Stephen M.R. Covey puts it plainly that character is what you do when no one requires it of you. Your team watches those moments more carefully than you think, and they remember who was there in the good times and especially the bad.

Caring is the aspect leaders underestimate most and, as such, do not focus on developing. Research from Amy Cuddy and colleagues at Harvard shows that warmth, or the sense that someone genuinely gives a damn about you, is what people assess first. Before your competence and before your credentials. Your team can feel whether you’re invested in their success or just going through the motions. You can fake it for a bit, but you can’t fake it long-term.

Credibility Compounds. And It Can Erode Fast.

Every time you follow through, every time your behavior matches your words, you add capital to your credibility account as a leader. Every time you don’t, you make a withdrawal, often a permanent withdrawal. The pattern you project, over weeks and months, becomes your reputation. Your reputation either opens the doors with your team or closes them.

You can’t improve what you don’t see.

That’s why the honest self-assessment matters.

Try This Week

Rate yourself 1 to 10 on each leg of the credibility equation: competence, character, and caring. Be honest. Identify your lowest score. Write one specific action you could take this week to move that number up. One action. One week.

Reflection

Where do you feel strongest right now?

Where are you avoiding a hard look?

What would your team say if they scored you on the same three things?

Lace up your Boots and Go Lead

You’ve Got This.

Suggested Reading

Kouzes, James M., and Barry Z. Posner. Credibility: How Leaders Gain and Lose It, Why People Demand It.Jossey-Bass, 2011. The most research-backed book on leadership credibility. Thirty years of data on what followers actually need from leaders and how trust gets built or broken.

Covey, Stephen M.R. The Speed of Trust: The One Thing That Changes Everything. Free Press, 2006. Breaks down trust as a business asset built on character and competence. Practical and specific in ways most leadership books aren’t.

Maister, David H., Charles H. Green, and Robert M. Galford. The Trusted Advisor. Free Press, 2000. Introduces the Trust Equation and gives a clear framework for what actually makes someone trustworthy in professional relationships.

Cuddy, Amy. Presence: Bringing Your Boldest Self to Your Biggest Challenges. Little, Brown, 2015. Research-backed look at how warmth and competence interact in people's perception, with real implications for how leaders show up.

The 'Why' in One Sentence

"People don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it."

Simon Sinek

Every team direction that lacks a reason creates 10 hallway conversations trying to invent one. Say the “why” behind every decision. It takes 10 seconds and saves hours.

Most new leaders skip it and focus on communicating the task. Not because they don't care, but because they're moving fast and assume the team will “get it” and follow. Sometimes they might,  but direction without purpose produces compliance, and compliance has a shelf life.

A Moment Worth Paying Attention To

About 2 months into my service in community mental health, I was having issues with the treatment plans in clients' charts being updated. I explained the standard the agency was expecting and generated lists of all clients, by provider, who needed to be updated. A couple of weeks passed, and there was little change to the deficiencies.

At a morning meeting, I pointed out the problem and asked what the problem was…”They have been like that for the whole time I have been here, and it has not mattered at all. Why now?" was the response. 

It was clear the team did not understand why it was important. I spent the next 20 minutes explaining how the treatment plan connects to our services, to developing client self-efficacy and esteem, and to linking billing and our paychecks to appropriate treatment plans. Slowly, but consistently, the problems were corrected over the next two weeks. 

It was not that the team did not know it needed to be done….They did not understand why and how important their role in the process was. When understanding changed, outcomes changed.

Why the 'Why' Matters

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in-depthly studied what actually drives human motivation. Their theory of self-determination makes a simple argument. They found people need to feel autonomous, competent, and connected to the meaning of their work. As a leader, when you issue a direction without a reason, you cut off that third leg. The work becomes a task of obedience instead of a contribution.

Gioia and Chittipeddi (1991) added an organizational layer to the concept. They stated that leaders don't just inform; they also shape how teams interpret direction. When you attach a clear reason to what you're asking for, you're giving your team a lens for every decision they'll make as they carry it out.

The One-Sentence 'Why'

The 'Why' is simple, honest, connected, and tied to real impact. That's the formula.

 It's not a memo, email, or Teams message. It's one sentence that a person could repeat to a coworker in the break room and get exactly right. something like...' We're changing the shift rotation because we had two coverage gaps last month and one customer complaint.' That's it... Direct, real, and complete.

If you can't put it in one sentence, you probably haven't landed on the actual reason yet.

What Happens When You Skip It

Your team doesn't sit in silence. They fill it. And the reason they invent is almost always worse than the truth.

'They don't trust us to handle it.' 'This is about cutting costs.' 'Management has no idea what we actually do here.'

You didn't say any of that. But you left the space open. That's not a character flaw in your team. It's a communication gap you created.

When You Don't Fully Agree with the Decision

This one is a tad bit harder. At times, as a leader, you're passing down directions you're not entirely sure about. The temptation is to oversell it, pretending you're more on board than you are, or to distance yourself from it: 'they're making us do this.'

Both are wrong and create problems.

What works is to find the part you do believe, and lead with that. Such as...'I know this adds a step. The reason behind it matters, though, and I'll walk you through it.' Your team doesn't need you to be enthusiastic about everything. They need you to be straight with them and know they can trust you with the good and bad.

What Changes When You Get It Right

A team that understands the purpose behind their work makes better decisions when their playbook lacks specific directions. That's what Deci and Ryan's research ultimately points to. They found that autonomy without context is noise, and purpose changes the signal.

The practical truth is that a team running on 'because I said so' stops when you're not in the room. A team that understands the why keeps moving and solves problems.

You can't lead from behind the reason. Say that out loud.

This Week's Challenge

Before your next instruction, briefing, or policy rollout, write the why in one sentence. Read it out loud. If it doesn't sound like something you actually believe, revise it until it does.

Then say it.

Reflection

Think of the last direction you gave. Did you explain why?

If your team had to explain your reasoning to a new hire, what would they say?

Is there a direction you're currently carrying that you don't fully understand yourself?

Lace up your Boots and Go Lead

You’ve Got This.

Suggested Reading

Sinek, Simon. Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action. Portfolio/Penguin, 2009. The book that reframed how leaders think about purpose and direction.

Deci, Edward L., and Richard M. Ryan. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. Springer, 1985. The foundational framework on why purpose and autonomy drive real motivation, not just compliance.

Gioia, Dennis A., and Kumar Chittipeddi. "Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation." Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 12, No. 6, 1991. The research behind what leaders actually do when they communicate direction well.

Lencioni, Patrick. The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business. Jossey-Bass, 2012. Strong chapter on cascading communication and why clarity at every level matters.

Psychological Safety: What It Is and How You Create It

“The most important thing a captain can do is to see the ship from the eyes of the crew.”

D. Michael Abrashoff

Silence in a team meeting isn’t agreement. It’s information. And what it usually tells you is that your team doesn’t feel safe enough to say what they actually think.

That’s a problem. And most new leaders don’t realize they’re causing it.

A Moment Worth Paying Attention To

Following my retirement from active duty, I ran into a fellow pilot who had come to my last unit as a young pilot. We talked a bit over some frosty beverages, and when we both had to depart, he said, “It was great seeing you. I am glad you have changed so much.  All the young guys hated flying with you because you were so hard on us. I would not say a thing, for fear you would ask some question I did not know.” 

This hit me like a brick.

I knew I was hard on guys…it was the nature and culture of that unit.  I did not know how my attempts to “strongly encourage” and develop young guys were actually undermining the essential open communication necessary in Special Operations Aviation to ensure safety and mission success.  I was the stumbling block, because I did not care as much about psychological safety as I did about maintaining the cultural status quo and demonstrating my expertise.  It was hard to hear this, but life changing for me and my approach to leadership.

What Psychological Safety Actually Is

Amy Edmondson at Harvard Business School has spent decades studying this. Her definition is deceptively simple: psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking. In short, it’s the belief that speaking up won’t cost you.

Psychological Safety is very different from just being comfortable. A team can feel psychologically safe and still have challenging conversations, high standards, and real accountability. Safety does not equate to softness. Psychological Safety is the foundation that makes all of that actually work.

What Google Found

In 2012, Google launched Project Aristotle. It was an internal study aimed at figuring out what made their highest-performing teams different. They looked at everything regarding team leadership and operations: talent, experience, seniority, personality types. None of it predicted success reliably.

The one factor that did in every case was psychological safety. The teams where people felt safe to speak up, admit mistakes, and ask questions consistently outperformed those that didn't. Google had access to some of the most talented people in the world, and what determined their performance was whether those people felt safe to use their voices.

What It Looks Like When Safety Is Missing

We have all seen it... Silence when you ask for input. Team members who figure things out for themselves rather than asking questions. Mistakes that get hidden or minimized. Nobody pushes back on a bad idea, especially yours.

Edmondson’s research found something worth chewing on: she noted that the best-performing medical teams reported more errors than average-performing teams, not fewer. It was not that they were making more mistakes; they were just talking about them. That willingness to surface problems only exists when people believe it's safe to do so.

How You Build It (and How You Destroy It)

The behaviors that build psychological safety are small, consistent daily habits. How you respond when someone brings you bad news. What do you do when someone makes a mistake in front of the team? Whether you genuinely welcome a question or whether your face says otherwise.

What destroys it happens fast. One bad reaction to a mistake. One moment of public embarrassment. One time, you punished the messenger. Your team notices. And they adjust their behavior accordingly. Remember, your words as a leader are like a bullet from a gun; once you pull the trigger, you cannot take the bullet back, and any damage will leave scars.

You can’t improve what you don’t see. So start by looking at yourself.

This Week’s Challenge

Think about the last time someone on your team made a mistake. Write down exactly what you said and did. Not what you meant to say… what you actually did say.

Ask yourself: what message did that send about what happens when things go wrong on this team?

If you’re not sure, ask someone. That conversation alone is an act of psychological safety.

Reflection

When did someone on your team last disagree with you out loud?

How do you typically respond when someone admits a mistake?

What would your team say if you asked them how safe it feels to speak up?

Lace up your Boots and Go Lead

You’ve Got This.

Don't Pass Confusion Downhill

"The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place."

George Bernard Shaw

You get a message from your director / VP. It's vague, filled with org-speak, and short on context. You're already behind schedule. So, you relay it to your team as-is, quickly, matter-of-factly.

And then you watch the confusion multiply.

That's not a communication breakdown. That's a poor leadership decision.

You Are the Translation Layer

Frontline leaders aren't just information messengers. They're also translators.

Organizational decisions get made at levels where the daily work looks alot different from the way life is on the floor. By the time a directive travels from senior leadership to your team, it's usually compressed, jargon-heavy, and short on context. Your job isn't to forward it intact. Your job is to make it usable.

Karl Weick's foundational work on sensemaking (Sensemaking in Organizations, 1995) explains why this matters structurally. People don't receive new  information and process it directly and well.  They interpret it through their existing knowledge. When that interpretation is shaky, behavior becomes inconsistent. A team that receives a confusing message doesn't usually ask for clarification. They guess and they fill in blanks, then guesses compound.

Dennis Gioia and Kumar Chittipeddi's research on sense-giving (Strategic Management Journal, 1991) tells us even more. They point out that frontline supervisors are not just making sense of information for themselves, their presentation shapes how their team interprets it. That provides a structural influence over how work actually happens, whether you choose to exercise it deliberately or not.

A Moment from the Field

While working at Ft. Rucker as the intermediary between the government contractors and the military aviation assets I was consistently placed in a position to deliver bad news. I joked that they paid me to say “no” and referee arguments. I recall an event in which the neighbor of a high-ranking officer made a comment at a personal function that “the maintainers are taking part off static displays to fix working helicopters.” Anyone that works in the aviation maintenance world knows that this would be shear lunacy.

The officer spoke to other high-ranking folks and presented the information as truth, not coming from a backyard BBQ, and the word came from my command that we would physically check every serial numbered part on the 2 static displays and all flying helicopters. Angry and frustrated, I briefed my team, telling them what had been said (again as if it were factual) and what we would do to fix it. 

My team was beside themselves and as they complained I told them what our directions were and why, and to just go do it. Two days later, we confirmed that the acquisition was false, maintenance was done by the book, and we went on about our lives. That afternoon, my team called me in and asked directly why the command accused them of endangering others by allowing such a crazy idea to occur. That is when it hit me…I had just regurgitated messages, and in doing so, radically offended some very experienced professionals. It was not a communication issue; it was poor leadership on my part that hurt the integrity of my team.

Diagnose Before You Pass It On

Before your next team briefing, ask three questions on any info you plan to relay.

Plain language test: Can you explain it without using the same words it came in? If not, you don't have it yet.

The "why" test: If someone asks you why, do you have an honest answer? "I don't know yet, or I don't have the full picture yet" counts, but "Because they said so or that’s what I was told" doesn't.

Conflict check: Does this message create competing priorities for your team? If you can spot the friction point before the briefing, you can address it before it becomes an execution problem.

The goal isn't to filter every message through your own interpretation. It's to close the gaps before they reach people who have no way to close them from where they sit, and who’s uncertain actions can negatively impact outcomes.

Honest Beats Confident

When you don't fully understand information or directions, the impulse is to project confidence anyway. To avoid looking uninformed and to project certainty you don't have.

That impulse is understandable, but it's also one of the fastest ways to lose credibility.

Your team reads the gap between what you're saying and what you know. When they catch the mismatch, that erodes is trust in you as the leader.

The fix is simpler than it feels in the moment. Just tell them what you know. Tell them what you don't have yet. Tell them how you're going to get them the rest. That transparency isn't weakness. It's credibility built in real time.

Vulnerability with your team doesn't require you to have all the answers all the time. However, it requires you to be honest about which ones you're still working on.

Weekly Leadership Challenge

Before your next team briefing, review every message you plan to pass down. Note anything that felt unclear when you received it and ask yourself: have you resolved the confusion, or are you about to pass it on intact?

If you find something unresolved, make the call or send the message before that briefing. Ask the clarifying question up the chain. Your team can't do that from where they sit. It is your job.

You can't translate what you haven't decoded yourself.

What message have you received recently that you passed on without fully understanding it?

What would it have taken to stop and ask the question first?

What does your team experience when you're honest about what you don't know yet?

Lace up your Boots and Go Lead

You've Got This.

Suggested Reading

Weick, Karl E. Sensemaking in Organizations. Sage Publications, 1995. The foundational text on how people construct meaning from ambiguous organizational information, and why inconsistent interpretation follows unclear direction.

Gioia, Dennis A., and Kumar Chittipeddi. "Sensemaking and Sensegiving in Strategic Change Initiation." Strategic Management Journal, vol. 12, no. 6, 1991, pp. 433-448. Essential reading on how leaders actively shape the way their teams interpret organizational direction.

Edmondson, Amy C. The Fearless Organization. Wiley, 2018. Relevant for understanding why teams absorb confusion rather than surface it, and what conditions change that dynamic. Great book with great examples of where leadership failed due to lack of psychological safety.

Kotter, John P. Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press, 1996. Chapter 5 on communicating vision applies directly to the work of translating organizational direction into language your team can use.

Understanding Your Leadership Values

“It is not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are.”

Roy E. Disney

BLUF: You cannot lead from the values you haven’t identified.

Most Leadership Training Starts with the Wrong Question

Before you learn what to do, you need to decide who you will be.

Walk into any new leader training, and you will get tools. Communication frameworks. Delegation techniques. It is all great stuff, but none of it is complete on its own. Techniques without grounded values are just knowledge, and techniques run out exactly when you need them most.

The leaders who struggle most on the frontline are those who haven't yet figured out what they stand for. The skills might be there, but when a hard moment arrives, and it will, they reach for a technique and find it does not quite fit. The hard moments call for a person who has already decided who they are.

Why Values Come Before Everything Else

Our values are our decision-making infrastructure.

When your values are clear, you do not have to think as hard in difficult moments because you already know what you stand for. The decision is almost made before the situation develops. When they are not clear, every hard decision becomes an internal negotiation with yourself, and your team can feel that hesitation.

The common shaping values that we see on the frontline often include fairness, development, accountability, transparency, and compassion. None of these is really any better than the others. What matters most is that you know yours, because your team will figure them out whether you tell them or not. They learn your values by watching your decisions: the small daily choices that fly under the radar of formal leadership moments.

The Values Clarification Exercise

Know this is uncomfortable in a productive way, but essential to you as a leader.

Write down the top three values that genuinely drive your decisions when the pressure is on, and no one is grading you.

For each one you note, write down a specific behavior that demonstrates it and one situation where it might be tested. By tested, I mean pushed on, challenged, and made inconvenient. For example, if your value of fairness has never cost you anything, it has not really been tested yet.

A Moment in the Trenches

Early in my time as an addiction counselor, I was tasked with doing intake assessments over the phone for recently released Department of Corrections clients. Due to the interview method, there was a strong expectation that the clients would be honest in their discussions. Human nature suggests that we are often not, so I did my diligence to dig into things I thought might not be accurate.

I recall a client who had one occurrence of Meth use that resulted in incarceration, and a well-supported life focused on recovery and distancing himself from those he once knew who used following his release. My digging found that he had a great family that supported him well and had insulated him from the issues and lifestyle he once had.

Given this verifiable change, I did not recommend him for follow-up treatment. After submitting the recommendation, I was immediately contacted by my supervisor and told that "If we do an evaluation, we find a problem." When I supported my findings, I was told, "find something wrong." I could not, and the client was given to an evaluator who did. I learned so much from this interaction about my values and the importance of values in leadership. I also found a new job quickly thereafter.

When Values Conflict

Here is where it gets real… You will have personal values that do not always line up with organizational values, or you will work for a leader whose values visibly conflict with yours.

You need to be crystal clear on which values are non-negotiable for you and which allow for reasonable flexibility. Knowing that difference ahead of time means you will navigate it with integrity rather than just reactive justification.

Making Your Values Visible

You do not want your team to have to guess what you stand for. Tell them specifically. Share your top three values, what they mean to you in practical terms, and where they came from, and invite your team to share theirs.

This is a simple investment in predictability. Teams that can predict their leader's decision-making criteria operate with more confidence and more autonomy. They trust you faster because they understand you better.

What the Research Tells Us

Bruce Avolio and Bill Gardner's 2005 work on authentic leadership, published in The Leadership Quarterly, identifies value clarity as one of the four core components of authentic leadership. Leaders who have done the work of naming and examining their values show greater consistency in their decision-making, and their teams report higher levels of psychological safety and trust as a direct result.

James Rest's Four Component Model of ethical decision-making, developed through decades of research at the University of Minnesota, shows that moral motivation, which is essentially knowing what you stand for and being committed to it, is a prerequisite for ethical action. Knowing the right thing to do is not enough. You have to have already decided you are the kind of person who does it.

Your values do not just show up in the big moments. They show up every day in how you assign work, how you respond to a mistake, and whether you address a problem directly or let it slide. They are already operating and guiding you. The question is whether they are operating with your full awareness or without it.

Reflect on This

When did you last make a decision that felt right but was hard to explain? Is there a value underneath that choice you have not fully named yet?

When your team watches your micro-decisions today, what values do they see?

This Week's Challenge

Identify your top three leadership values. For each one you list, write a specific behavior that demonstrates it and a situation where it might be tested. Share them with at least one person on your team. Ask for honest feedback.

Lace up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You’ve Got This.

Suggested Reading

Authentic Leadership: Rediscovering the Secrets to Creating Lasting Value by Bill George.

Jossey-Bass, 2003. The foundational text on values-based leadership. George's argument that self-awareness and clarity of values are the bedrock of effective leadership is grounded in years of research and executive experience. Directly applicable to any leader at any level.

“Authentic Leadership Development: Getting to the Root of Positive Forms of Leadership” by Bruce J. Avolio and Bill A. Gardner.

The Leadership Quarterly, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2005. The primary academic source for authentic leadership theory. Identifies values clarity, self-awareness, relational transparency, and balanced processing as the four pillars. Readable for a journal article and worth the time.

The Leadership Challenge by James M. Kouzes and Barry Z. Posner.

Jossey-Bass, 6th edition, 2017. One of the most widely researched leadership books in print. Kouzes and Posner’s decades of data show that credibility, which is rooted in values alignment, is the single most consistent predictor of leadership effectiveness. Practical and evidence-based.

Developing the Leader Within You 2.0 by John C. Maxwell.

HarperCollins Leadership, 2018. Maxwell's updated classic offers practical clarity on the role of character and values in leadership development. A solid companion for new supervisors doing this work for the first time.

Fix the Process, Not the Person

"Every system is perfectly designed to get the results it gets."

Paul Batalden, adapted from Arthur Jones

BLUF: An effective leader focuses on ensuring the stage is set for success and then helps the team develop individual ways to thrive on a well-set stage.

Before You Blame the Player, Check the Field

Imagine this: A young leader walks into a one-on-one with a team member who keeps making the same mistake. They have the talk. The employee nods, apologizes, and says they understand. Two weeks later, it’s the same mistake. So, the supervisor has the talk again…and again... Though the leader took action, the mistake never stopped because the conversation was never aimed at the right target.

Most chronic performance problems are not character flaws or attitude issues. They are symptoms of other issues. When a team keeps missing the same step, making the same error, or falling short on the same standard, that pattern is a signal to leaders, but patterns belong to systems, not individuals.

Before you engage the person, examine the environment and processes they are working with. A leader focuses on setting the stage for success and helping employees develop individual ways to thrive on a well-set stage.

What Your Brain Does to You

Social psychologist Lee Ross coined the term Fundamental Attribution Error in 1977 to describe something we all do: when we see someone fail, we instinctively attribute that failure to who they are rather than to the situation they are in. We blame the worker before we question the process.

Leaders constantly fall into this trap, and it costs them credibility and time. When your team watches you confront someone for a problem that is clearly rooted in a broken process, they do not think you are holding the line; they think you missed it entirely.

The 5-Factor Diagnostic

Before you schedule a coaching conversation, answer these five questions honestly:

1.     Is the process itself clear? Are the steps documented, agreed upon, and accessible to everyone who needs them?

2.     Do they have the right tools? Can they reliably access what they need to do the job correctly?

3.     Have they been trained to standard? Not just shown once and checked off, but trained to observable, demonstrated proficiency?

4.     Are they getting useful feedback? Do they know in real time when something is off, or do they find out weeks later?

5.     Is this a pattern or an isolated event? Patterns point to systems. A single incident may point to the person.

If you cannot confidently answer yes to the first four questions, fix those before you have any performance conversation.

A Moment from the Field

As a Special Forces Medic, I spent a great deal of my time teaching others the basics of combat care. I recall a time when I was teaching IV therapy, and I had one team member who just could not start the IV. He struggled through each available team member’s arms, but could not get it started. I continually critiqued his lack of steadiness and timidity in the process. About halfway through the 4th “victim,” I noticed he was sweating and pale. I asked and was told that he had a significant fear of needles stemming from a past traumatic situation and was barely staying upright through the training.  I had not taken the time to ask about such concerns prior to the training and dismissed his issues as a lack of ability.  He was doing the best he could; I was not. After some discussion and intentional 1-on-1 time, he was able to work through his fear and succeed in the task. The problem was my process, not his performance. A great deal of frustration (and painful sticks) could have been avoided if I had done better for him.

When It Really Is About the Person

However, know that system fixes will not solve every problem. Once the process is solid, the tools are available, training has been completed to standard, the feedback loop is working, and you are still seeing the same failure from the same person, then it is time for a direct accountability conversation.

The signals that it is a people issue: the problem is exclusive to one person, while others in the same system succeed. The person has been clearly coached and has previously demonstrated the ability to meet the standard. The behavior continues despite genuine support and clear expectations.

Even then, lead with curiosity before you lead with judgment. Ask what is getting in the way and be willing to look in the mirror. You might be surprised by what you find.

Fixing It Without Making It an Accusation

When you change a process, be intentional about how you frame it. Avoid language that implies your team has been doing it wrong all along. Instead, acknowledge what they have been working with and name what you are changing and why.

"I’ve found some challenges in the process and we are going to change them" lands completely differently than "you've been doing this wrong and I will fix it."

One builds trust. The other builds resentment. Your team will never forget which one you chose.

What the Research Tells Us

W. Edwards Deming pointed out in Out of the Crisis (MIT Press, 1982) that between 85 and 94 percent of all quality and performance problems in an organization are caused by the system, not the individual worker. His entire philosophy of management rested on the idea that leaders own the system, and blaming workers for system failures is not only unfair but also counterproductive to effective leadership.

Peter Senge extended this thinking in The Fifth Discipline (1990), showing that organizations that develop the ability to see systemic root causes, rather than surface-level symptoms, perform better and retain people longer. Systems thinking is not a luxury for large organizations. It is a practical, learnable skill for any frontline leader willing to ask better questions before jumping to conclusions.

This research is not ambiguous. When performance problems show up in patterns, your systems are telling you something. As a leader, your job is to listen before you lecture.

Reflect on This

Before your next performance conversation, ask: Have I done everything I can to set this person up for success? Is the process designed for them to win?

What is one chronic issue on your team right now that might actually be a process problem wearing a people mask?

If you mapped the process around that issue today, what friction points, gaps, or missing resources would you find?

This Week's Challenge

Take one chronic performance issue on your team. Before you address the person, map the process around that task. Write down every step. Mark where the documentation is unclear, where the tools are unreliable, or where training was skipped or done to a low standard. Fix one of those gaps this week. See what changes.

Lace up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You've Got This.

Suggested Reading

Out of the Crisis by W. Edwards Deming.

MIT Press, 1982 (reissued 2018). Deming's foundational argument that management, not the worker, owns responsibility for system performance. This is the source of the 85/15 rule and the bedrock of modern quality management thinking. Dense in places, but worth it.

The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization by Peter M. Senge.

Currency Doubleday, 1990. The classic text on systems thinking and why organizations that learn to see systemic root causes outperform those chasing individual blame. One of the most cited management books of the last 35 years.

"The Intuitive Psychologist and His Shortcomings" by Lee Ross.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 10, 1977. The original academic source for the Fundamental Attribution Error. More readable than most journal articles. Directly applicable to how supervisors interpret their team's performance.

The Human Contribution: Unsafe Acts, Accidents and Heroic Recoveries by James Reason.

Ashgate, 2008. Reason's systems approach to human error, developed across aviation, healthcare, and nuclear industries, translates powerfully to any frontline setting. Helps you understand why well-intentioned, capable people make mistakes in broken systems.

Your First 90 Days: What Actually Matters

“Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”

Stephen R. Covey

The Pressure to Prove Yourself

You step into a new leadership role and feel it immediately: the urge to act. To show your team you know what you are doing. To show your boss they made the right call. So you make changes. You set new expectations. You call out what is not working. And then, about six weeks in, you notice the team has gone quiet. Doors that used to be open feel closed. The energy is different. You did not do anything wrong. You just moved faster than understanding could keep up with.

I Have Been There

The first time I stepped into an independent leadership role, I had a list of what I would do. I was super proud of my list. I thought I knew what needed to change, and what needed to happen…I was ready. Within two weeks, I made three obvious changes that needed improvement. What I did not know was that one of those "obvious" changes eliminated an internal workaround the team had developed to cover for a failed admin process regarding digital documentation that could not be corrected in programming. I, in my days of experience, had not experienced the problem. I fixed the symptom and made the actual problem worse. My team knew it. I did not. Not yet.

That was the moment I learned that moving fast without listening and understanding first is not leadership. It is just a loud noise coming out of a pile of positional authority. 

What the Research Actually Says

Michael Watkins, in his research on leadership transitions, found that the most common reason new leaders struggle in the first 90 days is not lack of skill. It is moving too fast to understand the context they stepped into. The leaders who learn the terrain first stop making the expensive mistake of solving the wrong problem at full speed.

Linda Hill’s research at Harvard Business School on new manager transitions found that the leaders who earn credibility fastest in a new role are not the ones who change things first. They are the ones who ask the best questions. Listening is not passive. Coming in with questions before you come in with answers is one of the most effective things a new leader can do.

The Three-Phase Map

The first 30 days are for listening. Not just observing from a distance, but genuinely sitting with your team, asking what is working, what is getting in the way, and what they wish the last leader had known. This approach helps your team feel heard and valued, building trust early on.

Days 31 through 60 are for your first deliberate moves. Choose something that addresses a real problem you heard in month one. Make it visible and explain why you are doing it. When your team sees you listened and acted thoughtfully, it fosters respect and trust in your leadership.

Days 61 through 90 are for locking in your rhythm. This is when your habits start to show. How do I run my meetings? How do I follow up? How do I hold people to what was said? In three months, your team has already decided on a picture of who you are as a leader, it is up to you what picture they see.

What Not to Do

Do not reorganize before you understand the informal structure. Do not make personnel calls in the first 30 days without significant cause. Do not confuse urgency with importance. And do not mistake a quiet team for a content one. When a team goes quiet, it usually means they are still figuring out if they can trust you as a leader or not.

Reflection

What are the three most critical insights you need to gain about your team through listening before making any significant changes? Reflect on how understanding their obstacles can shape your leadership approach.

If you asked each person on your team what the biggest obstacle to their best work is, how many different answers would you get?

You cannot lead what you do not understand. Asking is not stalling. It is Leadership applied.

This Week’s Challenge

Schedule one short conversation with each team member this week. Not a check-in. Not a performance conversation. A listening conversation. One question only: "What is getting in the way of your best work?" Write down what you hear. Do not fix anything yet. Just listen.

Pull up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You’ve Got This.

Suggested Reading

The First 90 Days: Proven Strategies for Getting Up to Speed Faster and Smarter. Michael Watkins. Harvard Business Review Press, 2013. The definitive guide on leadership transitions. Watkins’s research on new leader assimilation is essential reading for anyone stepping into a role for the first time or the fifth.

Becoming a Manager: How New Managers Master the Challenges of Leadership. Linda A. Hill. Harvard Business Review Press, 2003. A research-based account of what new managers actually experience and what separates the leaders who build credibility fast from the ones who don’t.

The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change. Stephen R. Covey. Free Press, 1989. The source of the opening quote. Habit 5, “Seek first to understand, then to be understood,” applies directly to every new leader navigating a team they have not yet earned the right to change.

Right from the Start: Taking Charge in a New Leadership Role. Dan Ciampa and Michael Watkins. Harvard Business Review Press, 1999. A practical companion to The First 90 Days, focused specifically on the transition period and how to avoid the most common derailment traps.

How Managers Become Leaders. Michael Watkins. Harvard Business Review, June 2012. A concise, research-grounded article on the seven seismic shifts new leaders must make when moving from individual manager to organizational leader. Highly applicable to frontline leaders stepping up for the first time.

Catch People Doing It Right

“People work for money but go the extra mile for recognition, praise, and rewards.”

Dale Carnegie

The Problem Nobody Talks About

A supervisor I worked for told me she never recognized her team because “doing the job well is just the expectation.” Six months later, the team had the highest turnover in the organization. She was not a bad person or leader. In fact, she was trying very hard to do a good job. She was running the same basic and developing operating systems most use when we step into leadership: notice what’s broken, fix it, move on. Nobody taught her that recognition is not a reward for exceeding expectations. It is how you condition your team to see what excellence looks like.

I Have Been There

I spent my formative years in leadership positions in very high-standard military units. Everyone operated at a level above expectations daily. I was raised to see praise as something you reserved for the incredibly extraordinary. My logic felt solid: why would I call attention to what's normal? What I didn't realize was that my silence was also a powerful form of communication. My team had no idea what I valued because I never told them. They defaulted to the basics, not the exceptional. The culture I supported, without meaning to, was one where people did just enough to avoid getting corrected but saw no benefit in excelling.

What the Research Actually Says

B.F. Skinner's perspective on reinforcement theory is simple and direct: a behavior that gets noticed tends to be repeated. When a behavior is followed by positive reinforcement, it tends to be strengthened. When it is ignored by leaders, it fades. Gallup's ongoing research reinforces this as well: They found that 70% of a team's engagement is directly tied to the leadership values. When individual recognition is specific and immediate, it creates a feedback loop that shapes positive culture faster than any policy manual ever could.

Five Ways to Change Culture with Recognition

1. Recognition provides more than morale. It signals what good looks like. When you name a behavior out loud, you are writing your team's culture manual in real time. Your attention tells your team what matters here.

2. Name the specific action, not just the result. "Great job today" tells your team nothing. "I noticed you walked that new employee through the process without being asked. That's exactly how we take care of each other here," tells them everything.

3. Timing matters. Recognition delivered hours after a behavior has a fraction of the impact of recognition in the moment. Catch it when it happens, and say it when it happens. In the space between action and acknowledgment is where the learning lives.

4. Tie praise to impact. Try this approach: “When you did that, it meant this for the team." When you connect behavior to outcome, it makes the recognition land. It moves praise from personal opinion to a professional signal.

5. Build the habit without making it feel performative. Leaders do not manufacture praise; they identify and provide it. Attention is a skill you will have to develop. The more you practice noticing what is right, the more your team learns that excellence and effort are not invisible.

Reflection

Think about the last time you recognized someone on your team. Was it specific? Was it timely? Did they know why it mattered?

What behaviors do you want to see more of on your team? Have you ever said them out loud?

You cannot build what you refuse to notice. Attention is how culture gets made.

This Week’s Challenge

Before your next shift ends, catch at least one person doing something right and name the specific behavior out loud. Be precise and engaging. Connect the action to results. Then watch the energy in the room shift.

Pull up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You’ve Got This.

Suggested Reading

The Behavior of Organisms. B.F. Skinner. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1938. The foundational text on operant conditioning and reinforcement theory. Essential background for understanding why recognition works at a behavioral level.

Strengths Based Leadership. Tom Rath and Barry Conchie. Gallup Press, 2008. Research-backed examination of how leaders who focus on strengths build more engaged, productive teams. The data on recognition and engagement is directly relevant.

How to Win Friends and Influence People. Dale Carnegie. Simon and Schuster, 1936. A classic text on human motivation and the power of genuine appreciation in shaping behavior and relationships. Still holds up.

State of the Global Workplace: 2024 Report. Gallup, Inc., 2024. The most comprehensive ongoing study of employee engagement worldwide. Foundational for understanding the manager’s outsized role in team performance and culture.

The 2-Minute Huddle

“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”

Dwight D. Eisenhower, address to the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference (1957)

Most team briefings fail because they try to cover everything and end up accomplishing nothing. The day starts, the information dump ends, and somehow everyone still leaves the room, heading in different directions. This post is not about adding another meeting to your day. (please don’t do that) It is about improving what you are already doing and doing it well in two minutes or less.

A 2-minute huddle is a demonstration of discipline, not just a meeting... and it may be the highest-leverage, lowest-cost habit a frontline leader can build.

Why Most Huddles Fail

The average team meeting has three problems. First, it has no structure; it is a stream of consciousness delivered standing up. Second, it has no brevity; someone always remembers one more thing, and that one more thing takes four minutes. Third, it has no follow-through; no one is named, nothing is owned, and 10 min later, it might as well have never happened.

The result is a team that is informed but not aligned or accountable. There is a meaningful difference between those three things. Informed means everyone heard the same words. Aligned means everyone has the same picture of the day in their heads. Accountable means that someone is making sure it gets done. Research on shared mental models, the degree to which a team holds a common understanding of the task, the roles, and the risks, consistently shows that alignment at the start of a day is one of the strongest predictors of how a team responds when things do not go according to plan….because they rarely do. 

My Hard Lesson

Early in my leadership experience, I ran what I thought were solid morning meetings. I covered the schedule, discussed challenging cases, reviewed policy updates, and asked if there were any questions. People nodded. I felt prepared and like a good “leader”. About three hours into the day, someone would be in the wrong place doing the wrong thing, not out of negligence but because they had left the meeting with a completely different set of priorities than I thought I had communicated.

It was not a team motivation problem. It was not a team attention problem. It was a leadership structure problem. I conveyed information, but I did not build alignment. The morning I started to ask the same four specific questions, in order, every time, things began to change. I wish it were, but it wasn't because I suddenly became an effective communicator or because the questions were brilliant. I wasn't, and they aren't. They were consistent. They invited a partnership. They made the team do the thinking, not just receive it.

The 4 Questions

Demand attention in the huddle. This is not the time to work on your documents while listening with one ear. The moment people break eye contact, their minds follow. Keep it to two minutes. If it is running longer, you are covering too much. End every huddle with one thing named as a priority and owned by the team. This is not a general reminder but a specific action assigned to each specific person.

Here are the four questions (4 P’s), in order:

Purpose:  What are we doing today? Name the single most important focus today, not everything, one thing.

Problems:  What could go wrong? Surface the risks, the gaps, the wildcards. Say them out loud before the day, not after.

Plan:  Who does what? Clarify roles and assignments so no one has to spend time figuring out what they are supposed to do.

People:  Who needs support today? Someone is stretched, someone is new to a task, someone had a rough night. Name it and address it before the shift starts.

Four questions. Two minutes. One owned action at the end. That is the whole system. This is an exercise in effective communication and efficient use of time. This is not the time for "no sh**, there I was" stories, or personal feelings. Cut that off quickly and kindly, reminding the team that the focus is to respect their time.

What the Research Tells Us

Janis Cannon-Bowers and Eduardo Salas, whose research on shared mental models has been foundational in team psychology for three decades, showed that when team members share a common understanding of the task, roles, and risks, they coordinate more effectively, including in high-pressure, rapidly changing situations. Their work showed that this shared understanding does not develop passively. It must be built deliberately, and the daily huddle is one of the most accessible tools for doing exactly that.

A 2021 review in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, examining huddles across frontline clinical settings, found consistent evidence that structured huddles improve team coordination, reduce errors, and help staff catch problems before they escalate. Importantly, the research pointed to the huddle's consistency and structure, rather than its length or formality, as the key variables. Teams that huddle the same way every day, with the same questions, build a shared mental model of the day faster and more reliably than those that improvise.

This is what Eisenhower understood about planning. The plan itself may not survive first contact with the real world. However, the act of planning, of aligning the team around the same picture before the day starts, is what makes adaptation possible when the unexpected arrives.

Reflect on This

If I asked three people on my team right now what today’s single most important focus is, would they give me the same answer?

Does my current briefing build a shared picture of the day, or does it deliver a list of information?

When did I last end a huddle with one specific action, named and owned by a specific person? 

Remember…Self-awareness is essential to Leadership! You cannot improve what you do not see.

Weekly Challenge

Run your huddle this week using the four questions: Purpose, Problems, Plan, and People. Time yourself. Keep it engaged. End with one thing named and owned. If it takes more than 3 minutes, you are covering too much; cut it down and try the next day again until you find your sweet spot.

Do this for 3 days in a row and pay attention to what shifts not just in the team's performance, but also in the quality of the conversation. When people grow to expect the questions, they start preparing answers before they get there. Preparation and forethought are where alignment begins. Consistency develops comfort, and comfort leads to better communication.

Take a second and think about this:

- What would your team look like if every day started with the same clear picture in everyone's head?

- How can you simplify your current meetings this week to make room for the four questions?

- What is one specific first action you can name and assign at the end of your next huddle?

The team entrusted to your leadership is not looking for perfection. They are looking for a leader who helps them understand the day before it starts and puts them in a position to succeed. Two minutes of structure and one owned action is enough to give them that. It is enough to change everything going forward.

Pull up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You’ve Got This.

SUGGESTED READING

These resources informed the ideas in this post and are worth spending time with.

“Shared Mental Models in Expert Team Decision Making” by Janis A. Cannon-Bowers and Eduardo Salas (in Castellan, Ed., Individual and Group Decision Making, Lawrence Erlbaum, 1993). The foundational paper demonstrates that teams perform better when members share a common cognitive picture of the task, roles, and risks.

“Huddles and Their Effectiveness at the Frontlines of Clinical Care: A Scoping Review” by Pimentel, Snow, Carnes, Shah et al. (Journal of General Internal Medicine, 36(9), 2772–2783, 2021). A comprehensive review confirming that consistency and structure, not length, drive huddle results.

Leading Teams: Setting the Stage for Great Performances by J. Richard Hackman (Harvard Business School Press, 2002). Hackman’s landmark research on what makes teams effective, including the critical role of shared norms, structured communication, and pre-task coordination.

The Advantage: Why Organizational Health Trumps Everything Else in Business by Patrick Lencioni (Jossey-Bass, 2012). Lencioni’s practical framework for organizational clarity, including how consistent team rituals build cohesion and reduce confusion. Heck, read everything by Lencioni.

Managing the Unexpected: Sustained Performance in a Complex World by Karl E. Weick and Kathleen M. Sutcliffe (Wiley, 3rd ed., 2015). Weick and Sutcliffe's research on high-reliability organizations shows why pre-task situation awareness is a core safety habit, not a nice-to-have.

Leading Former Peers: Navigating the Relationship Shift

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.”

— Robert G. Ingersoll, speaking in tribute to Abraham Lincoln (Washington, D.C., 1883)

The day you were promoted, something significant changed. It was not just in your title, but in the professional world as you knew it. The teammates who texted you memes on Friday are now looking at you differently on Monday. This is a very disorienting and fragile moment in any new leader's journey, and it has nothing to do with a lack of skill. It has everything to do with the complicated renegotiation of relationships that almost no one tells you to prepare for. If things feel awkward right now, that is not a sign you did something wrong. It is a sign you are paying attention to the shift taking place around you.

 The Shift Nobody Warns You About

The peer-to-supervisor transition is one of the most psychologically complex shifts a front-line leader will ever navigate. One day, you are sitting across the table from your teammates, sharing frustrations about management, and the next day, you are that management. That is not a small adjustment. It is a full identity reset.

What makes this particularly hard is 3-fold: 1. You want to keep the friendships that kept you sane at work. 2. You want to prove you deserve the role. 3. You do not want to become the person everyone whispers about at lunch. These pressures collide daily in huddles, the bullpen, in one-on-ones, in the moment someone makes a joke about “the boss” and looks right at you.

The tension runs in two directions. Your former peers may wonder whether they can still vent to you, whether you will repeat what they say, and whether you are still trusted or “on their side." At the same time, you are wrestling with whether maintaining closeness protects your team's integrity or quietly undermines your credibility. Both concerns are legitimate, and both need to be named out loud, intentionally.

 I Have Been There

In my first supervisory role, I made what I now recognize as textbook mistakes and paid for them in what I call "Stupid Tax." I tried to keep everything exactly the same so "my friends" would see me the same way.  Same lunch routine, same inside jokes, same venting sessions. I told myself I was being authentic and staying true to who I was before the promotion. What I was actually doing was avoiding the discomfort of accepting that something real had changed.

About three weeks in, a team member, now MY team member, was about 10 min late for two days in a row. I had heard her joking about it after a meeting, "Nobody cares, it’s not a big deal, no one has said anything.” I listened attentively, not grasping the challenge ahead. When I tried to have a very direct conversation later, the response was: “I thought we were good; you never said a thing in the past.” I did not have a good answer, because I had not done the work of clarifying what “good” now meant. That conversation was harder than it needed to be, and it set us back in time and trust that should have been addressed at the start.

 When This Goes Unaddressed

When front-line leaders fail to navigate this transition with intention, the consequences ripple outward in ways that are easy to see and hard to reel back in.

Harvard Business School professor Linda Hill (2003) spent years following newly promoted managers through their first year on the job. She noted was that the hardest part of the transition was rarely performance management or technical skill, it was the identity shift and the relationship renegotiation that came with it.  Teams led by supervisors who have not renegotiated peer relationships often show elevated conflict, blurred accountability, and inconsistent enforcement of standards. Some team members push limits because they sense the supervisor will not act. Others grow frustrated that expectations seem to shift depending on who is in the room.

There is also a cost to the leader. Trying to be everyone’s friend while carrying accountability for performance is exhausting. Many new frontline leaders describe this period as lonely and disconnected from their former peer group, but not yet fully connected to their new leadership team. That loneliness is common, but it is not permanent. And it is far easier to navigate when it is handled early through intentional mentorship.

 What Changes When You Get This Right

When a new leader navigates the relationship shift with honesty and care, something remarkable occurs: the team becomes more stable, not less connected. Former peers often describe leaders who handled this transition well as “the same person, just clearer.” That clarity is a gift to the team, not a barrier.

When expectations are clear from the beginning, team members stop guessing and start trusting. A leader who can say "our friendship matters to me, but so does my responsibility to this team and organization; those two things can coexist," models the kind of direct communication that the entire team will begin to replicate.

Leaders who handle this transition with intention and consistency earn something more lasting than popularity; they earn respect. Earned Respect, unlike likeability, compounds month by month, and it builds into a culture where people feel both cared for and held accountable. This is exactly where sustainable performance and effective leadership live.

 What Research and Experience Tell Us

Organizational psychologist Nigel Nicholson (1984), whose research on work role transitions has influenced leadership development for decades, found that the most successful transitions occur when leaders actively adjust their social relationships to match their new role, rather than hoping existing relationships will naturally adapt. He called this process "role development," and it requires intentional action, not just time.

Equally relevant is the work of Henri Tajfel and John Turner (1979), whose research on social identity theory sheds light on exactly what new frontline leaders experience. When you are promoted, you shift from being a peer (in-group) to a supervisor (a different social category entirely). Your former peers may experience this shift as a kind of loss, and some of that grief is real. Acknowledging it honestly, rather than pretending the transition is seamless, is one of the most grounding things a new leader can do to establish stability and identity.

Both bodies of research point to the same truth: this transition does not manage itself. The leaders who emerge from it well are those with the courage to name what changed, early, directly, and with genuine care for the people sitting across from them.

 Personal Reflection

–  Is there a former peer with whom things feel slightly off? Maybe a bit more guarded, more formal, or oddly more casual in ways that feel uncomfortable?

–  Do you find yourself adjusting what you say, or to whom, depending on who might be listening now that your role has changed?

–  Have you had a direct conversation with a former peer about the shift, or have you been waiting for it to resolve on its own?

Remember! This isn’t about guilt or power; it is about awareness.

You can’t improve what you don’t see.

Leadership Challenge

If this transition is something you are working through, consider having one honest, direct conversation with a former peer whose relationship has felt different since your promotion. You do not need a script, but here is a framework for thought:

Acknowledge the shift:  “I know things have changed between us since my promotion, and I don’t want to pretend they haven’t.”

Name your values:  “Our relationship matters to me, and so does my responsibility to this team. I believe both can be true.”

Invite their voice:  “Is there anything about how we’re working together that feels unclear or uncomfortable for you?”

3 simple moves: acknowledge, name your values, invite their voice. It will not be a perfect conversation. It will probably be brief and awkward, but it will matter more than almost anything else you do in your first month.

What about a colleague who also wanted the job? That conversation matters most of all. Acknowledge that it is real. Offer them your genuine respect. Ask how you can support their growth. You may not resolve it overnight, but you will plant something worth growing.

–  What would your team look like if every relationship were grounded in both genuine care and honest clarity?

–  How can you take one step this week toward a more direct conversation with someone whose relationship feels unresolved?

–  What is one thing you will do in the next five days to clarify the new dynamic, not from behind your title, but from the person you have always been?

The team already knows something has changed. They are now watching to see if the change made things better or just different. Deciding to engage the change with honesty, openness, compassion, and kindness is not the easy path, but it is the right one. These conversations are not the end of good relationships; they are the beginning of different ones.

Pull up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You’ve Got This.

SUGGESTED READING

These resources helped develop the ideas in this post and are worth spending time with:

Becoming a Manager: How New Managers Master the Challenges of Leadership, Linda A. Hill (Harvard Business School Press, 2003) The definitive research-based account of what actually happens during the peer-to-supervisor transition, based on Hill’s longitudinal study of 19 new managers at Harvard Business School.

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni (Jossey-Bass, 2002) A story-driven look at why trust, accountability, and clarity are the foundation of every high-performing team.

Dare to Lead, Brené Brown (Random House, 2018) Brown’s research on courageous leadership speaks directly to the vulnerability required when navigating difficult role transitions.

“An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict” Henri Tajfel & John C. Turner  (in Austin & Worchel, Eds., The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, pp. 33–47, Brooks/Cole, 1979) The foundational paper introducing social identity theory, which explains why role changes like peer-to-supervisor transitions trigger real identity disruption in both the leader and the team.

What Got You Here Won’t Get You There, Marshall Goldsmith (Hyperion, 2007) A practical guide to the behavioral shifts required as leaders move up — including how peer relationships must evolve.

The Effective Manager, Mark Horstman (Wiley, 2016) Straightforward, direct guidance on the mechanics of front-line supervision, including managing people you once worked alongside.

The One Metric That Matters Today

“What gets measured, gets managed.”

— Peter Drucker

Most leaders are drowning in data, and by the time we've read it all, the day has started without us. This post is about pulling one focus out of the noise and letting it do the work it was meant to do.

Before each day or week, identify the single metric that would tell you whether it went well. Not eight numbers…one. When everyone on the team knows the focus and why it matters today, attention stops splitting, and work starts to pull together. Choosing one doesn't mean the others don't matter or aren’t tracked. It only means you know which one matters most right now.

My Hard Lesson

There was a time I thought more information meant better leadership. When I stepped into leadership in Community Mental Health, I quickly realized that there were a great deal of metrics that all had to be sustained above an organizational goal level.  I was initially determined to review and communicate the metrics, the current state, and expectations daily in morning huddles.  Nothing improved. It wasn’t until I caught a comment stating,” That is a lot of numbers,” that I realized how much I was throwing on the team each morning.  My “Most Important Thing” was lots of things, all the time.

The meeting was full, the team was informed, and every day still felt like ten directions at once. It wasn't until I started asking one question, “What would make this day a success?” that something finally settled. I started presenting 3 priorities each week, on Mondays, and we discussed the outcomes on Fridays.  The greater focus and space to address it resulted in almost immediate improvement.  Not radical change, but slow, focused, significant change.

If Everything is the Most Important Thing, then Nothing is

When every metric feels equally urgent, teams stop tracking any of them carefully. Edwin Locke and Gary Latham's research on goal-setting shows that the specificity of focus is one of the strongest predictors of execution quality. When the target is blurry, people default to familiar, and the performance board becomes wallpaper.

The Juice is Worth the Squeeze

When a metric is named at the start, checked at the midpoint, and reviewed at close, ownership shows up without being demanded, and accountability becomes shared. At the end of a tough day or week, there's something concrete to talk about.

Locke and Latham's work clearly presents that specific, measurable goals outperform vague ones in nearly every workplace context. A team that knows exactly what they're aiming for today is more likely to get there, not because they're more talented, but because their effort has direction and a clear purpose. Reflect on this:

- If I asked three people on my team right now what today's most important focus is, would they agree?

- Am I tracking what matters most or what's easiest to report?

- When did I last name one daily target and actually close the loop on it?

Weekly Challenge

Before your next meeting, choose one metric that will tell you whether the day went well. Share it with the team, check in at the midpoint, and discuss it at the close. Do these things three days in a row and notice how the team's focus sharpens. Ask yourself each morning:

1.    What would your team look like if every day/week started with a focus they actually believed in?

2.    How can you simplify the team's focus today or this week to make room for that clarity?

3.    What is one number/metric you will name Monday morning and commit to reviewing before the week ends?

You don't need a new system; you need a specific focus, clearly stated at the right moment. The people entrusted to your leadership are waiting for someone to cut through the noise and give them something real to aim for. That is exactly what good frontline leaders do.

Pull up your Boots, and Go Lead!

You've Got This.

Why Frontline Leadership is Different (And Why That Matters)

If you've ever felt like the leadership advice you're reading doesn't quite fit your reality as a frontline leader, you're not alone. Here's why—and what we're going to do about it.

The conversation that started it all

A few months ago, I sat across from a newly promoted supervisor in a community mental health program who was three months into their first leadership role. They are smart, capable, deeply committed to the work, and completely overwhelmed.

"I feel like I am drowning," she said. "I thought I understood being a Supervisor. But nobody told me what to do when one of my Community Support Specialists is crossing boundaries with a client, the client's family is calling to complain, I've got two other CSS out sick, so we're scrambling to cover visits, and I need to document everything for the upcoming meeting with my Director."

She paused, running her hand through her hair. "The books talk about 'creating space for dialogue' and 'coaching for growth.' I don't have space. I need to address the boundary violation, keep the team running, and make sure nobody gets forgotten—all before my next crisis happens."

Her frustration wasn't about lacking leadership principles. It was about the gap between leadership theory and the reality of leading on the front lines.

The leadership gap nobody talks about

Here's the truth: most leadership content is written for people who lead from conference rooms, not from the field. For leaders who schedule "touch-base meetings" instead of managing boundary violations, safety risks, and ethical dilemmas in real-time. For managers who have robust HR departments to back them up and the luxury of time to "reflect on their leadership approach."

That's not your reality.

As a frontline leader, you're:

• Managing interpersonal and ethical issues that can't wait—boundary violations, safety concerns, medication crises, suicidal ideation

• Supervising staff who are emotionally invested in their clients, which makes accountability conversations exponentially harder

• Balancing fidelity to evidence-based practices with the messy reality of understaffing, high turnover, no-shows, and clients in active crisis

• Leading people who are experiencing secondary trauma, burnout, and compassion fatigue—often while managing your own

• Making calls with incomplete information where the stakes are someone's safety, recovery, or wellbeing

• Navigating regulatory requirements, documentation demands, and billing pressures while trying to keep your focus on quality client care

And here's the kicker: you probably got minimal leadership training before being handed a caseload of clients and employees. Maybe you got promoted because you were an excellent clinician or provider. Then suddenly, you're responsible for staff development, performance management, clinical oversight, risk management, and regulatory compliance—and you're supposed to figure it out as you go.

The principles of good leadership absolutely apply to you. But the application? That's where most resources fall short.

Here we are going to dig into leadership in the heart of operations, where the rubber meets the road, and where action is demanded. This is not strategic leadership on a white board in the office, this is real, emotional, face to face, heart to heart, frontline leadership.

The Most Important Leader in the Building

"The speed of the boss is the speed of the team, but the frontline leader is the one who actually sets the pace."  Adapted from Lee Iacocca.

Look at most organizational charts, and you'll find frontline leaders near the bottom of the page…on the bottom. This framing is exactly backwards.

The Frontline Leader is not the bottom of leadership. You are the critical link between what the organization intends and what actually happens on the floor, in the unit, in the field; The “Trenches” of the business world. Strategy gets written in boardrooms. It lives or dies under your watch. If you've ever felt like you're being pulled in every direction at once, that's not dysfunction. That is the job.

Every day, directives come down from above: policy changes, performance expectations, new priorities, often without context, nuance, or room to negotiate. Every day, the reality of your team pushes back: personal issues, family problems, job concerns, capacity issues, things leadership doesn’t see yet. Your job is to translate both directions, simultaneously, without distorting either one.

What senior leadership says and what is meant are often different. What your team reports and what they actually experience are often different. You live in that foggy gap every single day. That’s not a complaint, it’s a job description. And most leadership books don’t talk about it.

The Frontline Leader is the critical link.

Employees don't leave organizations; they leave poor leadership. Decades of workforce research backs that up. You directly influence the variables that matter most in daily engagement; whether someone feels seen, whether expectations are clear, whether mistakes become learning moments, or whether jobs are at risk. A senior leader can give a great all-hands speech on Friday, and by Monday, it's mostly forgotten. Frontline Leaders show up on Monday morning, face-to-face, and set the tone and direction.

Here’s the rub Frontline Leaders feel: You were promoted because you were excellent at doing the work. You were crushing it! But that’s not what the job requires now. Your value is no longer in what you produce; it’s in what your team produces because of your leadership. The attached identity shift is completely normal, but often more challenging than expected. When things get busy or go sideways, it feels faster and safer just to do it yourself. That's called leadership regression and it's toxic in the workplace. It signals to your team that you don't trust them, and it takes you out of your actual job.

The skills that got you promoted, your technical expertise, personal reliability, and independent problem-solving, are not the skills that make someone an effective supervisor. Coaching, feedback, psychological safety, delegation, and conflict navigation are different competencies entirely, and many organizations often fail to invest in the skill-building part of transition.

Weekly Challenge:

Find the person on your team you haven’t really checked in with lately. Block 20 minutes out of your day, not to review performance, not to assign a task. Just ask: “How are things actually going for you? What’s getting in your way that I might not be seeing?”

Then listen. Don’t fix. Don’t redirect. Listen.

That conversation is your most important deliverable this week because the frontline leader who knows how to ask that question and sit in the answer is the one whose team stays, grows, and performs when it counts.

Now Pull up your Boots…Go Lead!

You’ve got this.