By the time you’re handed the keys to your new office — whether you’re the incoming CEO, a freshly-minted manager, or the latest external hire parachuted in to “fix things” — one truth tends to reveal itself quickly: the team you’ve inherited may not be the one you would have chosen. But it’s yours now, with all its hidden gems, fragile dynamics, and sometimes dormant potential. Leading such a team isn’t just a leadership challenge, it’s an emotional and political test of your maturity, patience, and vision.
Unlike the romantic notion of building a dream team from scratch, inheriting a team means working within pre-set dynamics, loyalties, and cultures. As Michael Watkins, Professor of Leadership and Organizational Change at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD), notes, “The whole process is fraught with trade-offs. You need to maintain stability while moving ahead” [1]. The challenge is not simply to assess and replace, but to preserve what works, address what doesn’t, and make progress without alienating those whose support you will need most.
Start with curiosity, not conclusions
The worst mistake a leader can make when stepping into a new team is assuming they already know what’s wrong. “Quick assessments and defaulting to replacing people often stem from unconscious biases, not data,” writes Marlo Lyons in Harvard Business Review [2]. Whether it’s the availability heuristic (judging based on the most visible information) or affinity bias (favouring those who resemble ourselves), new leaders often fall into cognitive traps that cloud their judgement.
Rather than rushing to conclusions, start by listening. Tinna Jackson, President & CEO of Jackson Consulting Group [3], and Janine Schindler, MCC, Founder of JAS Leadership [4], each recommend going on a “listening tour” to sit down with each team member and hear their view of the business, the team, and their role within it. Ask open questions: “What’s working well?”, “Where do you see obstacles?”, “If you had a magic wand, what would you change?” You’re not just gathering data, you’re signalling respect.
This isn’t about passivity. It’s about information. As Jackson puts it: “You have to be a sponge before you’re a sculptor” [5]. Once you truly understand the team’s dynamics, only then can you shape them effectively.
Make objectivity your discipline
Leadership is not intuition, it’s structured judgment. That means codifying what you’re looking for in your team, assessing performance systematically, and resisting the allure of “gut feel.” Watkins recommends a framework where leaders score team members not just on competence, but also trustworthiness, energy, people skills, and judgement [6]. These aren’t soft metrics; they’re indicators of future performance and cohesion.
Joe Moglia, former CEO of TD Ameritrade and head football coach at Coastal Carolina, used an A-B-C system when inheriting teams: A-players are clear keepers, C-players are clear exits, and B-players are the development pool [7]. This model is reductive but helpful. It forces clarity and prompts development plans rather than passive inertia.
Just as important is triangulation. Review past performance appraisals, survey results, 360-degree feedback, and stakeholder interviews. Your job is not to protect egos or cling to loyalty, your job is to be fair. As Lyons argues, “Fairness doesn’t guarantee that everyone will stay, but it does mean everyone gets a fair review” [8].
Build trust before you break ground
There’s a seductive logic to bringing in your own people. Trusted lieutenants speak your language, anticipate your cues, and create a sense of psychological safety in unfamiliar terrain. But replacing an inherited team too swiftly — particularly before investing the time to build relationships — can backfire in ways that are difficult to reverse.
The impulse to act decisively is understandable. Yet the most effective transitions start not with authority, but with transparency. Let your team know how they’ll be evaluated, what values will guide your decisions, and how they can succeed under your leadership. Offer a “performance runway”, giving workers the time and clarity needed to demonstrate their capabilities in the context of your expectations.
It’s also essential to acknowledge the trust capital that long-tenured team members may already hold. As Watkins puts it, “Sometimes team members are essential for running the business in the short term, but not the right people to lead it into the future” [10]. Their institutional knowledge and internal relationships can be vital during periods of transition even if their long-term fit remains in question. If you handle their presence with respect, these individuals can become advocates for your leadership rather than sources of resistance.
Lyons highlights the cautionary tale of “Maya,” a new leader who quickly swept in with her own team and sidelined experienced internal leaders. “Her goal was to ‘raise the level of talent,’ but the move created lasting damage,” Lyons writes [9]. Engagement plummeted. Trust evaporated. Fear replaced initiative. The lesson: moving too fast can not only destabilise culture, but also cast a long shadow over your credibility.
Reshape, don’t just replace
If the team you inherit isn’t performing, the instinct to clean house can be strong. But as Lyons warns, “urgency is not an excuse for recklessness” [11]. Sudden or sweeping changes may satisfy a desire for control, but they can also erode morale, sever critical informal networks, and discard valuable institutional memory.
Instead, approach change with precision. Michael Watkins outlines four levers for reshaping a team effectively: composition, alignment, operating model, and behavioural integration [12]. Begin with composition — not by making cuts, but by reconfiguring roles, shifting responsibilities, and uncovering underutilised talent. Can high-potential players step up into new challenges? Can marginal performers thrive with a different scope? Often, reallocation — not removal — is the smartest first move. This layered approach avoids the blunt instrument of wholesale replacement and allows change to unfold with both dignity and direction.
From there, turn your attention to alignment. This is not just a matter of lofty mission statements or vague KPIs. Alignment means answering — clearly and consistently — who does what, why it matters, and how success will be measured. In one of Watkins’ case studies, poor alignment on incentives and goals had caused even skilled teams to splinter. “People weren’t as aligned on goals, metrics, and incentives as they needed to be,” he observed. Once those mismatches were corrected, performance soared [13].
Together, transparency, trust, and thoughtful restructuring set the foundation for sustainable leadership. It’s not about acting slowly. It’s about acting wisely.
Redesign the operating rhythm
Inherited teams often carry inherited rhythms — standing meetings, reporting lines, decision-making bottlenecks. Many new leaders fall into the trap of preserving these by default, not design. Don’t.
Take a hard look at how the team operates: How often do they meet, and for what purpose? Are decisions made collaboratively or top-down? Are meetings dominated by operations, leaving no room for strategy or reflection?
Watkins suggests distinguishing between three types of meetings: strategic (long-term direction), operational (day-to-day execution), and learning (reflection and development) [14]. Too often, teams mash all three into one overcrowded session — where short-term urgencies squeeze out long-term thinking. Redesigning this cadence can transform both pace and culture.
At Coastal Carolina, Moglia enforced a discipline of accountability that extended to how people showed up, not just what they did. “We only wanted players who were going to take personal responsibility for their actions, treat others with dignity and respect, and not make excuses,” he said [15]. Behavioural expectations aren’t a footnote, they’re your culture.
Secure early wins without sacrificing the future
Your early days in a new leadership role are more than symbolic. They’re formative. What you do — or fail to do — becomes lore. That’s why early wins matter. They build credibility, reassure doubters, and create momentum.
But not all wins are created equal. Look for actions that reinforce your values. Solving a persistent pain point, simplifying a broken process, or celebrating an unsung contributor can send a signal: things are changing, and your leadership has teeth.
At the same time, don’t mistake motion for progress. Change must be earned, not enforced. A CEO profiled by Watkins resisted the urge to clear the decks immediately, opting instead to gradually reshuffle roles and realign incentives. The result? Sales growth that beat targets three times over within the first year [16].
Lead like you’re watching yourself
Ultimately, how you lead the team you inherit says as much about your character as your competence. Do you come in as a fixer, a disruptor, a saviour? Or as a steward, a student, a strategist?
“The best leaders lead with both urgency and patience,” writes Lyons. “They make decisive moves, but only after gathering the right information. They bring fresh vision, but also honour the work that came before them” [17].
And they understand that leadership isn’t a performance — it’s a pattern. The tone you set in week one may echo for years. So ask yourself: Are you modelling the collaboration, accountability, and openness you expect from others?
How to lead the team you inherit
Inherited teams are not blank canvases. They come with texture — some of it beautiful, some bruised. You may need to redraw lines, reassign roles, or rewire operating rhythms. But if you begin with curiosity, act with fairness, communicate with clarity, and build trust brick by brick, you can convert even the most sceptical group into believers. Not overnight, but through the consistency of your intent.
If done with care, you may discover that the team you didn’t choose becomes the one you’re proudest to lead — not because they were perfect when you arrived, but because they evolved with you. The real question is not: “Is this the team I wanted?” It’s: “Can I be the leader this team needs?”
Sources
[1] https://cic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Leading-the-Team-You-Inherit.pdf
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/06/5-steps-for-leading-a-team-youve-inherited?ab=HP-hero-latest-1
[6] https://cic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Leading-the-Team-You-Inherit.pdf
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/06/5-steps-for-leading-a-team-youve-inherited?ab=HP-hero-latest-1
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/06/5-steps-for-leading-a-team-youve-inherited?ab=HP-hero-latest-1
[10] https://cic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Leading-the-Team-You-Inherit.pdf
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/06/5-steps-for-leading-a-team-youve-inherited?ab=HP-hero-latest-1
[12] https://cic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Leading-the-Team-You-Inherit.pdf
[13] https://cic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Leading-the-Team-You-Inherit.pdf
[14] https://cic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Leading-the-Team-You-Inherit.pdf
[16] https://cic.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Leading-the-Team-You-Inherit.pdf
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/06/5-steps-for-leading-a-team-youve-inherited?ab=HP-hero-latest-1
For decades, businesses have rightfully focused on supporting working parents. Childcare subsidies, parental leave, flexible working — these benefits have become fundamental to any serious talent strategy. But a new caregiving frontier is emerging, and too few organisations are prepared: eldercare. With ageing populations, fragmented care systems, and rising long-term care costs in countries like the United States and Ireland, companies must urgently respond.
In the United States, more working adults now provide care for ageing family members than for preschool-aged children — 23 million compared to 21 million [1]. Similar demographic shifts are occurring across the developed world. By 2050, Americans aged 85 and over — those most likely to require intensive support — will more than double in number, increasing by 150% to 17 million [2]. Yet “health spans,” the number of years people live without major disability, are not keeping pace with longer lifespans. The result: a growing pool of working-age adults facing intense, prolonged caregiving demands.
The implications for employers are profound. Eldercare responsibilities — like managing medications, coordinating with medical providers, and helping with daily tasks such as bathing, cooking, or transportation — often resemble a part-time job layered on top of full-time employment. According to an AARP and S&P Global survey, half of all working caregivers have made changes to their work schedules because of these demands. A third have taken leave. One in six has turned down a promotion, and another one in six has left the workforce entirely [3].
The Problem
The cost to companies is significant. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association estimates that family caregiving results in $264 billion annually in lost productivity, absenteeism, and health-related impacts in the US alone [4]. And this burden doesn’t fall equally. Women shoulder the lion’s share of eldercare, making up 59% of unpaid caregivers. For mid-career women, the consequences are severe. New research from Brown University found that women aged 50–60 who began caring for ageing parents experienced an average 4.2% drop in hourly wages, compared to a 2.7% increase for their non-caregiving peers [5]. The penalty was more than double — 9.5% — for those providing high-intensity care. Crucially, these women did not reduce their working hours. They remained in the workforce but became invisible to promotion and pay advancement cycles [6].
The so-called “daughterhood penalty” is now compounding the already well-documented “motherhood penalty.” And for those who are part of the “sandwich generation” — caring for both children and elderly relatives — the risk of burnout is acute. Caregivers are more likely to suffer from depression, chronic stress, and physical illness than their non-caregiving peers, with negative repercussions for their work performance, morale, and engagement [7].
Ireland
The Irish system tells a similar story. In hospitals across Ireland, hundreds of elderly patients remain in beds not because they are too sick to leave, but because there is nowhere for them to go. Their families often cannot or will not take them home, not out of selfishness, but because the infrastructure for home-based eldercare is insufficient. Under the Fair Deal scheme, financial support is available for nursing homes but not for in-home care. This forces families to choose between institutionalising their loved ones or trying to “wing it” with insufficient public support [8].
This status quo is not sustainable. It’s neither humane nor economically sound. Businesses have a clear incentive — and responsibility — to address the eldercare gap in the same way they stepped up for childcare decades ago.
What Businesses are Doing
Some leading organisations are already doing so. Bank of America, for instance, provides backup eldercare for up to 50 days per year, access to care managers who assess needs, and mental health support through counselling services. Its global Parent and Caregiver Network gives employees a space to share experiences and find community. The key, according to Anne Oxrider, the company’s senior vice president for benefits, is “getting the right support to teammates at the right times in their lives” and making benefits “very easy to understand and access” [9].
AbbVie, the biopharmaceutical company, has built a comprehensive suite of benefits that includes support for navigating elder healthcare and legal matters, concierge services, flexible leave policies, and a dedicated employee resource group for caregivers. “When their family’s needs are met,” said vice president Demetris Crum, “employees can perform at their best” [10].
Microsoft has expanded its eldercare support substantially, offering tailored resources for those navigating dementia care, a support group for caregivers, and access to expert advocates for complex medical situations. The message is consistent: eldercare support boosts productivity, enhances retention, and reduces burnout.
What Businesses are Not Doing
But the gap between companies doing this well and the rest of the field is vast. Only 25% of US employers offer paid family leave for eldercare. Just 19% provide subsidised care services [11]. This underinvestment is partly driven by a cultural blind spot. Many employees don’t self-identify as “caregivers.” They see themselves as dutiful sons or daughters, quietly adjusting their lives while trying not to rock the boat. Their needs accumulate gradually, and employers frequently underestimate the number of staff affected [12].
The policy response in Ireland has likewise been fragmented. The Fair Deal scheme is helpful in certain contexts but fails to meet the growing desire for people to “age in place.” Families want — and need — home care packages that actually reflect real needs: daily support, transportation, and mental health services for caregivers. As Brendan Courtney’s documentary We Need to Talk About Dad made plain, the current system makes it extremely difficult to keep loved ones at home without significant financial and emotional strain [13].
In both the US and Ireland, public systems are overstretched and incoherent. In America, Medicaid remains the largest single payer of long-term care, but only after families have exhausted their assets. Nursing homes cost over $100,000 a year, and home care agencies charge roughly $27 an hour, quickly adding up to tens of thousands annually [14]. Only after financial depletion can families access support, often leaving spouses with as little as $50 per month to live on [15]. Efforts to reform long-term care funding have failed repeatedly in Congress, leaving middle-class families in a precarious position. “You basically want people to destitute themselves and then you take everything else that they have,” one woman said after navigating Medicaid’s labyrinthine rules on behalf of her mother [16].
What Can Business Leaders Do?
First, business leaders must recognise that eldercare is now a widespread and pressing reality for their workforce. According to Bright Horizons, 92% of working caregivers wish they had more support, citing needs such as flexible schedules, financial assistance, reliable care referrals, and mental health resources [17]. Just as support for working parents has become a standard feature of responsible employment practice, companies must now extend similar consideration to those supporting ageing relatives.
But introducing benefits alone is not enough. Companies must ensure that employees know what is available, feel safe using those benefits, and can access them easily. This means communicating clearly, training managers to respond with empathy and flexibility, and embedding caregiving into the culture of the workplace through inclusive policies and supportive peer communities.
A well-structured eldercare policy should reflect the diverse realities employees face. This may include paid or unpaid leave dedicated to caregiving, flexible hours, and remote work options that allow employees to manage care without jeopardising their professional responsibilities. Employers can also provide concierge-style services to help employees find and coordinate appropriate care, whether in-home support, assisted living arrangements, or specialist services.
Mental health support is essential. Employee assistance programmes (EAPs) should offer counselling and wellbeing resources that acknowledge the emotional strain caregiving can bring. Peer-led caregiver networks can further reduce isolation and create space for shared experience and solidarity within the organisation.
Critically, managers and HR professionals need training to recognise the pressures caregivers face and to respond constructively. When leaders understand the challenges and offer meaningful accommodations, they help reduce stigma and ensure that policies translate into real support.
Finally, leadership must set the tone. Executives who have experienced caregiving themselves should speak openly, champion the cause, and participate in building a culture where eldercare is treated not as a private burden, but as a collective responsibility. Cultural transformation begins at the top, but its success depends on everyday practices that make empathy and flexibility part of the organisational norm.
Why Every Business Needs an Eldercare Policy
The costs of inaction on eldercare are too high. Burnout, attrition, lost productivity, stalled careers — these are not abstract risks but real consequences already playing out across every sector. The organisations that understand this will be better positioned to attract, retain, and support the talent they need to thrive in an ageing world. The “silver tsunami” is not coming. It is already here. And the best companies will be the ones that learn how to surf.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[8] https://www.businesspost.ie/more-life-arts/elder-care-in-ireland-an-age-old-question/
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
[13] https://www.businesspost.ie/more-life-arts/elder-care-in-ireland-an-age-old-question/
[14] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/health/long-term-care-facilities-costs.html
[15] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/health/long-term-care-facilities-costs.html
[16] https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/14/health/long-term-care-facilities-costs.html
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/07/your-company-needs-an-eldercare-policy
Across boardrooms, hospital wards, classrooms, and home offices, a quiet epidemic is spreading — not of illness itself, but of working through it. Presenteeism, the practice of working while sick, has become so widespread that it now affects nearly 90% of the American workforce, despite many employers offering formal sick leave [1]. In Ireland, where statutory sick pay is slowly improving but still limited to five days per year as of 2024, the implications are equally alarming. Presenteeism, once seen as a harmless show of diligence, is now understood to be a key driver of burnout, illness, and economic loss. It is quietly undermining workplace productivity and health. It’s time leaders took it seriously.
The cost of presenteeism is not metaphorical. Recent research places the annual financial toll of presenteeism on US businesses at up to $150 billion — nearly ten times the cost of absenteeism [2]. Workers who show up ill are slower, less focused, and more error-prone, with their reduced performance often affecting team output. Far from being the reliable cogs in the machine they imagine themselves to be, sick employees become unintended saboteurs of efficiency.
These costs may be harder to quantify in an Irish context, but the parallels are evident. In a workplace culture that valorises toughness, where showing up has become shorthand for commitment, and where absence — no matter how justified — is perceived as weakness, presenteeism is not just tolerated. It is expected.
The Slacker Myth
Despite increased attention to workplace well-being, presenteeism remains alarmingly misunderstood. In popular discourse, absenteeism draws scrutiny: the empty desk, the out-of-office reply, the workload shuffled onto colleagues. But presenteeism is stealthier. It does not set off HR alerts or fill spreadsheets. It’s a quiet erosion of capability, carried out by employees who appear to be present but are not functioning at full capacity.
As Raquel Baldelomar, founder and CEO of marketing agency Quaintise, reports, a significant portion of the workforce doesn’t even use the sick leave they are entitled to. A 2016 survey found that only 16% of employees used all their paid sick days, while 32% didn’t use any [3]. The reasons range from wanting to save leave for a more serious illness to fears of appearing unreliable. Notably, 20% believed that not taking time off would help them advance in their careers. The logic is self-defeating: in striving to appear indispensable, these workers render themselves unproductive — and contagious.
This last point is critical. When sick employees come to work — whether physically or remotely — they endanger others. While working from home may reduce the risk of infection, it does not reduce the strain on the worker or the long-term organisational cost. The assumption that a remote setting makes it “safe” to work through illness is misguided. As noted by Erik Pham, the Founder of Health Canal, a health and wellness website that empowers people to lead healthier lives: “Presenteeism is still a risk” even in remote workplaces, especially given how digital surveillance and constant availability blur the lines between rest and productivity [4].
Structural, Not Personal
What makes presenteeism especially pernicious is how often it is treated as a personal failing. We tend to ask why individuals work while sick instead of asking what kind of system makes that behaviour rational. Monica L. Wang is an associate professor of community health sciences at Boston University School of Public Health and an adjunct associate professor of health policy and management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Her research into presenteeism, published by Harvard Business Review, reframes the issue entirely. According to Wang, presenteeism is not about a lack of grit or self-awareness. It is a structural outcome of how work is designed, valued, and managed [5].
The causes, Wang argues, are systemic. Using a nationally representative sample of over 168 million American workers, her research identifies three core organisational drivers of presenteeism: inflexible job design, gendered occupational norms, and the imbalance between job demands and job resources.
Take the first of these: job flexibility. While we might assume that flexibility enables workers to rest when needed, the data suggests otherwise. In jobs with little flexibility (nursing, teaching, administration), women report high levels of presenteeism, often driven by fears around job security or letting their teams down. In highly flexible jobs (tech, finance, consulting), men report similarly high levels, driven instead by cultural expectations of constant availability. As Wang puts it, “some employees — particularly men — may feel pressure to remain constantly available, reinforcing cultural norms that equate being ‘always on’ with commitment” [6].
This leads into the second driver: occupational segregation. In female-dominated professions, rigid schedules, chronic understaffing, and limited autonomy create structural barriers to taking sick leave. In male-dominated sectors, an “availability culture” perpetuates the idea that only the most responsive and visible workers succeed. Both models discourage rest, just in different ways.
The third driver — an imbalance between job demands and available resources — draws from the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, a framework developed by organisational psychologists to understand workplace stress. It distinguishes between the pressures employees face, such as heavy workloads, emotional strain, and tight deadlines, and the support they’re given, like schedule flexibility, managerial backing, and autonomy. When demands consistently outweigh resources, presenteeism rises. But it rarely stops there. Burnout, absenteeism, and turnover often follow in its wake. [7]
The Illusion of Productivity
Presenteeism thrives because it masquerades as productivity. It is deceptively easy for a manager to believe that a sick employee, replying to emails or sitting in a meeting, is contributing. But productivity is not presence. In fact, Wang’s study finds that employees working while ill experience a reduction in individual productivity of up to one-third, a loss that can ripple across teams through delays, miscommunications, and errors [8].
Baldelomar makes the point more bluntly: “You are more likely to make mistakes” [9]. Medications, fatigue, stress, and diminished cognitive functioning all make errors more likely. These aren’t minor lapses; they are the kind that can delay major projects or risk safety in sectors like healthcare or construction.
And the impact is not limited to short-term inefficiency. Pham warns that employees who repeatedly engage in presenteeism are more likely to suffer from long-term health decline, stress-related illness, and future absenteeism [10]. This is the hidden cost: what looks like resilience today is often tomorrow’s disability claim.
From Culture to Contagion
Culture is one of the most overlooked vectors of presenteeism. Many workplaces claim to support health, but fail to communicate that taking time off is truly acceptable. In remote and hybrid environments especially, the lack of explicit norms around rest creates confusion. If a manager logs on while coughing, what message does that send? If the team continues to celebrate those who “power through,” who really feels safe taking time to recover?
Heather V. MacArthur, writing in Forbes, suggests reframing the question entirely: “Be interested in why [employees] felt so much pressure to show up.” Managers should not shame those who come in sick, but rather interrogate the structural forces that made staying home feel riskier [11].
Education is one part of the solution. Employees need to understand that presenteeism has real costs. But education is meaningless without structural change. Without redesigning the systems that make working while sick feel necessary — unrealistic deadlines, unfilled vacancies, ambiguous expectations — any policy encouraging sick leave remains performative.
What Effective Leaders do Differently
If presenteeism is structural, then leaders hold the tools to dismantle it. Wang outlines a strategic approach based on the JD-R model that offers a concrete path forward. First, organisations must conduct diagnostics: mapping where job demands exceed resources across role categories. This can be done through pulse surveys, focus groups, or heat maps to identify departments most at risk [12].
Second, train managers to spot early warning signs: the employee sending emails at midnight, joining meetings while visibly unwell, or hesitating to take leave. Intervention might include redistributing workloads, adjusting deadlines, or offering temporary flexibility. Wang cites a study of over 7,000 UK firms in which mental health training for line managers significantly reduced presenteeism across the board [13].
Third, build ongoing feedback mechanisms. Continuous surveys, open forums, and transparent actions build trust and responsiveness. Microsoft’s pandemic-era “daily pulse” system, where employee feedback was collected and acted upon weekly, is a case in point. This responsiveness doesn’t just prevent burnout, it cultivates a culture of care [14].
Moving Forward
The lesson is clear. Presenteeism is not just a health issue. It’s a management issue. A design issue. A cultural issue. And the cost is paid in productivity, morale, and ultimately, talent.
In the midst of hybrid upheaval, staffing strain, and mounting mental health pressures, Irish employers would do well to recognise that confronting presenteeism isn’t a matter of kindness, it’s a matter of long-term viability. The myth that working while sick is a mark of commitment must be retired. Instead, leaders must reframe rest as resilience, and recovery as productivity.
We all get sick. The question is no longer whether sick employees will try to work. The question is: will your organisation allow them not to?
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/raquelbaldelomar/2016/08/31/three-reasons-to-stop-coming-to-work-sick/
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/raquelbaldelomar/2016/08/31/three-reasons-to-stop-coming-to-work-sick/
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/06/research-why-employees-work-while-sick-and-how-leaders-can-stop-it
Team building has become a staple of corporate life. From rope courses in the woods to virtual happy hours, organisations across the globe spend billions annually trying to forge closer bonds among employees. But is it truly effective, or just an elaborate distraction from deeper organisational problems? The answer, it turns out, depends on how you define “team building” and what outcomes you expect from it.
The Case Against Team Building
Carlos Valdes-Dapena, a veteran in organisational development with over 25 years of experience — including 17 years at Mars Inc. — is unequivocal in his criticism. “Most corporate team building is a waste of time and money,” he writes, based on extensive research into team effectiveness [1].
The problem, he argues, lies not with the concept of team cohesion but with how it is typically pursued. Elaborate offsite events — like a London retreat where executives were trained in the Maori haka — do little more than foster “embarrassment and cynicism” [2]. Even well-meaning exercises, such as musical collaborations with orchestras or high-ropes courses, may create temporary emotional bonds, but these rarely translate into sustained workplace collaboration.
“Quality collaboration does not begin with relationships and trust; it starts with a focus on individual motivation,” he says [3]. His research at Mars revealed that employees were most productive when working autonomously on clearly defined tasks. In fact, the high performance of individuals often discouraged collaboration. “Collaboration was perceived as messy,” he explains. “It diluted accountability and offered few tangible rewards” [4].
His solution? A framework that connects collaboration directly to business outcomes. Teams were encouraged to ask two questions: Why is collaboration essential to achieving results? And which specific tasks require collaboration to succeed? When applied to the Mars Petcare China team, this framework helped boost growth by 33%, with one brand alone growing by 60% [5].
This structured, result-driven approach is a far cry from trust falls and karaoke nights. And therein lies the argument: team building, as it’s typically understood, doesn’t work. Not because teams don’t need to build relationships, but because they’re being led through superficial and ineffective rituals.
Team Building as Distraction
Liz Ryan, a former Fortune 500 HR executive and leadership coach, takes this criticism further. In her article The Ugly Truth About Team Building, she writes: “Team-building exercises are pointless and even insulting. They suggest that if only your team members spent more time doing silly things…they would work more effectively together the rest of the time” [6].
For Ryan, ineffective teams don’t need icebreaker games, they need honest conversations about strategy, conflict, and culture. Team dysfunction is not a people problem, she insists; it’s a leadership problem. “No one ever hired a consultant to put on a team-building workshop when there were no problems!” [7]
She lists common “energy blockers” that inhibit team performance: unclear strategy, unaddressed conflict, bureaucracy, role confusion, and lack of praise or experimentation [8]. Until these structural and cultural issues are addressed, no amount of mini-golf will create genuine cohesion.
Team-building exercises, she argues, become a way for weak leaders to avoid difficult conversations. “If you have to take your team off-site to play games because you can’t stand to talk about what’s really happening in your office, what does that say about you as a leader?” [9]
The Defence
Despite these criticisms, it would be premature to write off team building altogether. When done thoughtfully and with purpose, team building can have profound and measurable effects.
According to Teamland, 79% of employees believe that team-building activities strengthen workplace relationships, leading to happier and more productive teams [10]. A sense of belonging is also a major factor in retention — 54% of workers say they stayed in a job longer because they felt emotionally connected to the team [11].
Engagement isn’t just a soft metric. Gallup data shows that engaged employees boost productivity by 14%, increase sales by 18%, and can raise profits by as much as 23% [12]. These figures suggest that fostering strong team connections is more than just a superficial exercise; it’s a strategic imperative.
Moreover, team building doesn’t always have to be forced fun. Harvard Business Review highlights that social time — outside structured work — accounts for over 50% of positive changes in communication patterns within teams [13]. Whether it’s a shared lunch or a Slack channel dedicated to non-work chat, these moments build rapport that facilitates smoother collaboration.
Remote work has only made this more crucial. With employees increasingly distributed, the risk of isolation grows. Gallup notes that isolation can cut productivity by over 20% [14], while research shows that remote teams who engage in structured team-building can outperform their in-office counterparts [15].
The Trust Debate
At the heart of the team-building debate lies a crucial question: does trust lead to effective teamwork, or does teamwork build trust?
Valdes-Dapena suggests the latter. In his experience, trust is a “byproduct of dedicated people striving together” [16]. His framework doesn’t begin with trust-building exercises but with alignment on goals and clear role expectations. Once people are working effectively together, trust follows.
Leadership coach Lance Salyers, however, disagrees. In an article in Forbes, he argues that dismissing trust as secondary is “misguided.” He believes that effective teamwork depends on “a shared sense of mission and a feeling of camaraderie,” which are impossible without trust [17].
True teamwork, he writes, “unites more than their collective efforts: it unites them” [18]. Without trust, people withhold information, protect turf, and undermine others — behaviours that stifle innovation and collaboration.
Salyers points to military units and sports teams, where bonds of trust are forged through shared adversity and open vulnerability. He cites Patrick Lencioni’s The Advantage, which emphasises vulnerability as the foundation of trust: “When everyone on a team knows no one is going to hide their weaknesses, they develop a deep and uncommon sense of trust” [19].
Rather than dismissing traditional team-building efforts outright, Salyers calls for deeper, more intentional forms of team development. “Yes, it’s true: the expensive offsites and goofy games fail. But proving the former are largely useless isn’t the same as proving the latter to be unnecessary” [20].
The Middle Ground
Perhaps the real takeaway is not whether team building is worthwhile in theory, but whether it is being done meaningfully in practice.
Team building that feels artificial, forced, or disconnected from the daily work of the team often backfires. But when embedded in real organisational challenges — with clear objectives, open communication, and honest reflection — it becomes a powerful tool for cohesion.
Managers, then, should stop thinking of team building as an event and start viewing it as an ongoing process. It’s not about zip lines or trust falls. It’s about aligning people around shared goals, encouraging open dialogue, and creating psychological safety — where people feel comfortable expressing ideas, taking risks, and admitting mistakes.
There’s evidence this works. One study found that companies investing in management training, rather than gimmicky retreats, exceed their goals by 15% [21]. Strong organisational culture, rooted in meaningful connection and open communication, correlates with lower turnover, higher engagement, and better performance [22].
How to Embed Team Building
To embed team building into the fabric of everyday work culture, organisations must foster environments where psychological safety, shared accountability, and interpersonal learning are ongoing priorities. Statistics show only 33% of remote companies implement even basic team-building measures such as virtual coffee breaks or spontaneous check-ins [23].
This is a missed opportunity.
With 41% of remote workers struggling to feel connected to company culture, consistent and low-effort rituals of connection can yield outsized benefits [24]. Likewise, initiatives that support inclusion, feedback, and transparency, like regular one-to-ones or team retrospectives, can be just as effective, if not more so, than extravagant away days. These methods allow team building to evolve into a culture of trust and collaboration, rather than remain a calendar event.
The Verdict
So, is team building worthwhile? The answer is a cautious yes, but only if we redefine what it means.
Superficial bonding activities may offer momentary levity, but they rarely create the trust or cohesion that teams need. Instead, organisations should focus on purposeful, goal-oriented team development that’s grounded in psychological safety, aligned incentives, and open communication.
As Carlos Valdes-Dapena demonstrated at Mars, when people understand why collaboration matters and what requires it, they buy in. And as Lance Salyers warns, if that collaboration isn’t built on trust, it will quickly crumble under pressure.
Effective team building isn’t about entertainment; it’s about enabling people to do their best work — together.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-wasting-money-on-team-building
[2] https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-wasting-money-on-team-building
[3] https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-wasting-money-on-team-building
[4] https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-wasting-money-on-team-building
[5] https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-wasting-money-on-team-building
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/09/22/the-ugly-truth-about-team-building
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/09/22/the-ugly-truth-about-team-building
[8] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/09/22/the-ugly-truth-about-team-building
[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/lizryan/2016/09/22/the-ugly-truth-about-team-building
[10] https://www.teamland.com/post/team-building-statistics
[11] https://www.teamland.com/post/team-building-statistics
[12] https://www.teamland.com/post/team-building-statistics
[13] https://www.teamland.com/post/team-building-statistics
[14] https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-2017.aspx
[15] https://www.teamland.com/post/team-building-statistics
[16] https://hbr.org/2018/09/stop-wasting-money-on-team-building
Few professional relationships are more influential — or more fraught — than that between a CEO and their board of directors. The stakes are enormous: a supportive, aligned board can be a CEO’s greatest strategic ally. But a strained or mistrustful board can just as easily become a drag on performance, vision, and morale.
Despite its critical importance, the CEO-board relationship remains misunderstood. Many CEOs, especially first-timers, view the board primarily as a compliance function — a group of powerful overseers to whom they must justify every decision. But this outdated paradigm is no longer fit for purpose. “Founders and CEOs who don’t bring the same level of intentionality to how they manage their board as they do with their leadership team are making a great mistake,” warns Michael Seckler, CEO of Justworks [1].
Recent research underscores this point. A study by Christopher Bingham and Sam Garg, based on over 90 interviews with first-time CEOs and their board members, reveals that dysfunction typically arises not from insufficient communication, but from poor timing, ill-defined boundaries, and a reactive approach to governance. “It’s not how much, but when and how a CEO interacts with the board that determines the success of the relationship,” they conclude [2].
In short, good CEOs manage their boards. Great CEOs leverage them. The transition from tension to trust begins not with transparency alone, but with strategic choreography of communication, culture, and collaboration.
Before the meeting
One of the most common missteps occurs before the boardroom doors even open. In an effort to be transparent and avoid surprises, many CEOs schedule individual, live previews with board members ahead of formal meetings. But this well-meaning habit can backfire.
Emma, a fintech CEO interviewed by Bingham and Garg, offered detailed one-on-one walkthroughs to her directors before each meeting. The gesture, though appreciated, created chaos. Directors made last-minute demands that her team couldn’t fulfil on short notice, and her effort to maintain control ended up breeding suspicion. Some directors felt other members had been given preferential access to decision-making, while others demanded similar treatment. The result was a fraying of trust and erosion of Emma’s authority [3].
Contrast that with Mark, a software CEO who sends a succinct one-page briefing to his board ahead of meetings. The document outlines key issues and strategic trade-offs but reserves detailed discussion for the boardroom itself. The clarity and discipline of this approach ensures board alignment without overexposure. As Bingham and Garg observe, “Light previews, inclusive meetings, and direct debriefs” create a virtuous cycle of trust and autonomy [4].
In the Room
The boardroom is often seen as the CEO’s proving ground — an arena to showcase leadership and strategic acumen. But overperformance in this space can be just as damaging as underperformance.
Take David, CEO of a logistics firm, who insisted on presenting every board slide himself and excluding his executive team from meaningful participation. His intent was to project control and competence, but the result was the opposite: directors perceived him as defensive and insecure. By monopolising the spotlight, David inadvertently diminished both trust and transparency [5].
Successful CEOs understand that board meetings are not solo performances. Rachel, who leads a consumer goods company, took a different approach. She coached her top team in advance and allowed them to lead discussions relevant to their functions. This not only showcased the strength of her leadership bench but allowed directors to engage with the people closest to the operations. Her strategic move to “curate the right voices” built confidence in the team and, crucially, earned her more autonomy as CEO [6].
“Control isn’t about talking the most,” note Bingham and Garg. “It’s about creating space for productive engagement” [7].
After the Meeting
The real power move, however, comes after the boardroom lights dim. Many CEOs underestimate the importance of post-meeting follow-ups. Some delegate the task entirely — an error that can weaken their credibility.
James, a renewable energy CEO, learned this the hard way. He allowed his staff to handle board follow-ups, which blurred lines of authority and gave directors an unfiltered view into company operations. Before long, they bypassed him altogether, undermining his leadership and compromising strategic clarity [8].
Others fall into the opposite trap. Noah, for instance, relied on his lead director to manage feedback loops with board members. This created a bottleneck of concerns and diminished trust, fuelling a cycle of defensiveness and detachment [9].
Then there’s Sarah. After each board meeting, she initiated short, direct follow-ups with individual directors. In private, she clarified decisions, uncovered hidden support, and addressed concerns before they could fester. “Board members were more supportive in private than in the group setting,” Sarah discovered — a finding that helped her reassert her narrative and deepen trust over time [10].
Shaping the Board
Beyond structured interactions, the most effective CEOs see the board not as a check, but as a partner. According to Alexander Puutio, a columnist for Forbes, “Although technically correct, the view that a board exists solely to oversee the CEO is limiting, if not outright misleading” [11].
Art Zeile, CEO of Dice, puts it bluntly: “The board serves the company and the CEO much more than the other way around” [12]. For Zeile and others, the board is not a static body to be appeased, but a dynamic group that the CEO can — and should — shape.
This requires courage. Hitesh Sheth, CEO of Vectra AI, believes CEOs must make “smart choices” about board composition early in their tenure, even if it means forgoing higher valuations. “Alignment between the board and the CEO is absolutely critical,” he insists. “It trumps just making choices based on valuation metrics” [13].
Smart CEOs, then, choose board members for their utility, not their pedigree. They seek individuals who complement the company’s strategic trajectory, fill gaps in executive knowledge, and share long-term vision over short-term performance.
Culture First
Of course, no board can function well if it’s misaligned with the company’s values or culture. That’s why Matt Kunkel, CEO of LogicGate, argues that the tone must be set from the top. “It’s a cultural thing,” he says. “The board should support and guide the CEO in assessing risks as the company scales. If they’re only about compliance, something’s gone wrong” [14].
This sentiment is echoed by Jonah Midanik, COO of Forum Ventures. He encourages CEOs to engage the board early, before strategy hardens into decisions. “CEOs who treat their board like a sounding board, not a report card, get much more value from those interactions,” Midanik notes [15].
Transparency is key, but it must be accompanied by consistency and courage. “A CEO who feels they need to be afraid of their board’s decisions is missing the point,” says Rocky Cole, COO of iVerify. “The board isn’t there to run the company on the CEO’s behalf” [16].
Strategic Trust
The prize for CEOs who get this right isn’t just harmony, it’s strategic leverage. McKinsey research shows that excellent CEOs devote particular attention to board engagement, treating directors as collaborators in vision-setting, capital allocation, and long-term planning. “Excellent CEOs help directors help the business,” the report concludes [17].
That means shaping forward-looking board agendas, maintaining close relationships with individual directors, and ensuring board capabilities match business needs. As the McKinsey authors note, the best CEOs don’t see board input as interference. They treat it as a resource to be cultivated — early, often, and with precision [18].
Ultimately, the most successful CEOs understand what many overlook: the boardroom isn’t a battleground or a theatre, it’s a crucible. Trust, once forged, creates the conditions for risk-taking, resilience, and reinvention.
Or, as Michael Seckler puts it, “Getting things right at the board level isn’t rocket science. But it is strategy” [19].
Sources
In 2025, generative AI has evolved from a nascent technology into an indispensable tool woven into the fabric of daily life and business. In Harvard Business Review, Marc Zao-Sanders, co-founder of filtered.com and the author of Timeboxing: The Power of Doing One Thing at a Time, recently conducted research into generative AI use trends over the past 12 months. He found that generative AI’s applications have expanded far beyond technical tasks, now addressing deeply human needs such as therapy, personal development, and creative expression. Based on his findings, this article explores the most impactful ways people are leveraging generative AI in 2025, the emerging trends, and the societal implications of this technological revolution.
The shift from technical to emotional applications
One of the most striking trends in 2025, according to Zao-Sanders’ research, is the shift from technical uses of generative AI to more emotive and personal applications. Therapy and companionship have surged to the top of the list, becoming the #1 use case for generative AI. This trend reflects a fundamental human need for connection, particularly in regions where mental healthcare is scarce. For instance, one Reddit user from South Africa (Zao-Sanders used online forums such as Reddit and Quora as part of his research) shared, “Large language models are accessible to everyone, and they can help. Unfortunately, data safety is not a concern when your health is deteriorating, and survival is the morning agenda” [1].
The rise of AI-driven therapy is bolstered by research suggesting that AI-delivered therapeutic interventions are now “indistinguishable from human-written therapeutic responses” [2]. This has profound implications for mental health accessibility, offering 24/7 support at a fraction of the cost of traditional therapy. However, it also raises ethical questions about the depth of AI’s empathy and the potential for over-reliance on machines for emotional support.
Personal and professional productivity
Generative AI has also become a cornerstone of personal and professional productivity. The second most popular use case is “Organizing my life,” where individuals rely on AI to manage schedules, set goals, and even plan household tasks. One user recounted, “I just asked it to create a timeline for me to clean and organize my house before we have guests staying” [3].
In the workplace, AI acts as a “thought partner,” as described by Jared Spataro of Microsoft: “When connected to all your work data — emails, chats, files, and meetings — AI can free you from the drudgery of work and serve as an invaluable thought partner” [4]. This augmentation of human capabilities is transforming industries, enabling employees to focus on strategic and creative tasks while AI handles routine work.
The quest for purpose and self-improvement
Another notable trend is the use of generative AI to explore purpose and self-development. “Finding purpose” ranks as the third top use case, with people turning to AI for guidance on values, goal-setting, and overcoming personal roadblocks. This reflects a broader societal shift toward self-actualisation, facilitated by AI’s ability to provide personalised advice and reframe challenges.
Allie Miller, a Fortune 500 AI advisor, highlights the psychological safety AI offers: “The lack of judgement and unrestricted exploration makes it an ideal playground for big dreams, potentially embarrassing questions, or hazy, half-formed goals” [5]. This underscores AI’s role not just as a tool, but as a catalyst for personal growth.
A deeper trend emerging from HBR’s analysis is the increasing sophistication of users and their evolving relationship with generative AI. In 2025, users are not just passive consumers of AI-generated output; they are co-creators, crafting better prompts and expecting more nuanced responses. As Zao-Sanders notes, “users seemed to have a better understanding of how LLMs work this year… the prompts cited were much better (often with explicit support from the LLMs to create them)” [6]. This shift underscores a maturing user base that recognises AI as a powerful extension of their cognitive and creative capabilities — provided they approach it with intentionality and clarity. It also reflects a growing demand for personalised, context-aware AI that adapts to individual needs rather than offering one-size-fits-all responses.
However, this increasing dependence also raises questions about over-reliance and cognitive outsourcing. Some users express concern that they’re becoming “too dependent” on AI, preferring to offload complex thinking rather than grapple with challenges themselves [7]. The debate is especially charged in educational contexts, where fears about students using AI to shortcut learning are widespread. At the same time, others argue that AI can actually enhance thinking — provided it’s used as a collaborative tool.As one Reddit user in Zao-Sanders’ study put it, “If you do not use it as a learning tool then you will destroy your career progression and become stagnant and limited in your knowledge” [8]. These tensions highlight the double-edged nature of generative AI: a technology that can elevate human potential, but only if used with awareness and discipline.
Creativity and content creation
The creative industries are undergoing a renaissance thanks to generative AI. Content creators, marketers, and artists are using tools like ChatGPT, Opus Clip, and Descript AI to streamline workflows and enhance creativity. For example, Austen Tosone, a YouTuber and podcaster, uses Opus Clip to break down long-form videos into shorter, engaging clips for social media. “With Opus Clip, I upload a link to the video episode on YouTube, and it creates tons of clips for me to choose from,” she explains [9].
Similarly, Kayla Watkins, a Pinterest strategist, leverages ChatGPT to repurpose blog posts into Instagram content. “Two weeks of Instagram content would have taken me 2-3 days to accomplish, but now it takes me under 3 hours,” she says [10]. These examples illustrate how AI is democratising creativity, allowing individuals and small businesses to compete with larger players.
Ethical and societal challenges
Despite its benefits, generative AI is not without controversy. Concerns about data privacy, misinformation, and the erosion of human skills are prevalent. One Reddit user quoted in Zao-Sanders’ research lamented, “I cancelled my subscription for this reason. I do not want to support a tool that tries to turn the world more timid and prim” [11]. Others worry about the impact on education, with AI capable of producing high-quality essays in seconds, potentially undermining critical thinking skills among students.
The rise of deepfakes and AI-generated content has also led to a “post-truth” era, where distinguishing reality from fabrication becomes increasingly difficult. Governments are responding with stricter regulations, such as the EU’s AI Act, which criminalises certain uses of AI, including deepfakes [12]. These measures aim to balance innovation with accountability, ensuring AI is used responsibly.
The future of generative AI
Looking ahead, generative AI is poised to become even more integrated into our lives. Autonomous AI agents, capable of performing complex tasks without explicit instructions, are on the horizon. These agents could revolutionise industries by automating end-to-end processes, from logistics to customer service [13].
Another development is generative video, where AI can create moving images from text prompts. While still in its infancy, this technology has the potential to transform filmmaking, advertising, and education. OpenAI’s Sora model offers a glimpse of this future, demonstrating how AI could soon generate entire scenes from simple descriptions [14].
Quantum AI, though still emerging, promises to unlock unprecedented computational power, enabling breakthroughs in fields like medicine and materials science. As Bernard Marr notes in Forbes, “Enabling algorithms to work at speeds hundreds of millions of times faster than is possible using standard computers won’t just make AI faster. It could also become capable of tackling entirely new tasks” [15].
How people are really using generative AI in 2025
Generative AI is no longer a novelty but a transformative force reshaping how we live, work, and connect. From therapy and productivity to creativity and self-discovery, its applications are as diverse as they are profound. Yet, as the technology advances, society must grapple with ethical dilemmas and ensure that AI serves humanity’s best interests. As Zao-Sanders puts it, “AI will continue to develop, as will our applications of it” [16]. The journey has only just begun.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmalynnellendt/2025/02/27/how-content-creators-are-using-ai-in-2025/
[10] https://www.forbes.com/sites/emmalynnellendt/2025/02/27/how-content-creators-are-using-ai-in-2025/
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
[13] https://hbr.org/2024/12/what-is-agentic-ai-and-how-will-it-change-work
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-people-are-really-using-gen-ai-in-2025?ab=HP-hero-for-you-1
Introduction
Generative AI (GenAI) is redefining modern work. From automating performance reviews to brainstorming marketing ideas, these tools promise a faster, sleeker, more efficient workplace. Workers who use GenAI often produce higher-quality outputs in less time. But beneath this productivity boost lies a growing concern: as GenAI becomes more embedded in our workflows, it may also be eroding intrinsic motivation and deep engagement.
A growing body of research now reveals the cost of these gains –– not in pounds or profits, but in the psychological wellbeing of employees. As companies rush to adopt AI technologies, they risk ignoring a crucial human truth: work that feels less meaningful eventually leads to lower engagement, higher boredom, and diminished learning. The future of work may well be AI-powered, but if motivation wanes, so too will the human spark that drives creativity and innovation.
The research
In a landmark series of studies conducted by Yukun Liu, Suqing Wu, Mengqi Ruan, Siyu Chen and Xiao-Yun Xie published in Harvard Business Review, more than 3,500 participants completed real-world professional tasks with or without the aid of GenAI. The results were unambiguous. Tasks completed with GenAI — such as writing emails, Facebook posts, and performance reviews — were more polished, empathetic, and analytical than those done alone. Participants reported higher quality and efficiency when using GenAI, with language that was more engaging and personable [1].
However, once participants switched to a new task without AI support, a pattern emerged. Their intrinsic motivation dropped by an average of 11%, and boredom spiked by 20% [2]. This wasn’t just a fluke. Across multiple studies, the psychological dip was consistent: GenAI made tasks easier, but that very ease came at the expense of engagement when the technology was removed.
Why does this happen? According to the researchers, it’s about control. Tasks involving GenAI reduce the cognitive challenge that often makes work fulfilling — things like critical thinking, problem solving, and creative synthesis. When these are outsourced to an algorithm, humans can begin to feel disconnected from the output. They’re no longer the primary agents of their own work, and that loss of autonomy chips away at intrinsic motivation.
Boredom as a warning sign
This pattern is not just a curiosity — it’s a red flag for the future of work. Boredom isn’t benign. It’s often a precursor to disengagement, dissatisfaction, and burnout. A marketing professional, for example, who regularly uses GenAI to generate campaign ideas may find those ideas faster and more refined. But over time, they may also find themselves disengaged from the creative process itself, missing out on the personal satisfaction of seeing an idea through from conception to completion [3].
As GenAI becomes a fixture of knowledge work, this trend may become more widespread. If AI takes on the “best bits” of cognitively demanding tasks, what is left for humans? For some workers, this may mean less growth and fewer opportunities for meaningful development. The work becomes quicker, but also flatter — functionally efficient, but emotionally hollow.
The illusion of mastery
A less obvious, but equally significant risk lies in the illusion of competence that GenAI can create. Because these tools generate smooth, confident outputs, users may mistake fluency for genuine mastery. The long-term result? A workforce that appears productive but lacks the resilience, adaptability, and critical faculties needed to thrive in more complex, high-stakes situations.
These challenges are especially pronounced among younger employees. Gen Z, now entering the workforce, has grown up with AI technologies. While this digital fluency gives them a head start in using GenAI tools, it may also be undermining foundational skills like critical thinking, deep focus, and independent problem-solving.
A study by Microsoft and Carnegie Mellon found that the more Gen Z workers relied on AI for support, the less critical thinking they demonstrated [4]. Maria Gafforio of Canvas8 noted that AI is “weakening the attention spans of Gen Z workers even more [and their] ability to do ‘deep work’” [5]. Because many of them haven’t yet learned how to perform certain tasks independently, they may be ill-equipped to evaluate or improve upon AI-generated work.
This creates a dangerous loop. As AI fills in cognitive gaps, younger workers may miss the opportunity to master core competencies. Over time, this could result in a generation of employees who can use AI effectively, but struggle to build deep expertise, troubleshoot problems, or understand systems holistically.
Productivity platitudes fall short
Many business leaders respond to the rise of GenAI with a familiar refrain: “Now we can all focus on higher value-added tasks.” But as Chris Koch of SAP points out, this is often an empty platitude. Most companies don’t have a stockpile of “higher value” tasks sitting on a shelf, waiting to be done. If they did, someone would already be doing them [6].
What’s more, the time saved by GenAI is often minimal on an individual level. A Microsoft study found that GenAI tools save users an average of 14 minutes per day. That’s helpful — but not transformative. Turning those incremental savings into meaningful work requires conscious effort. Otherwise, the time simply vanishes into unproductive pockets of the workday [7].
Koch argues that leaders must rethink how they structure work around AI. They should ask where GenAI can offer the biggest time savings — not just faster email writing, but tasks like processing complex spreadsheets or reconciling invoices. These savings, if pooled effectively, can contribute to broader organisational goals, like reducing external contractor costs or accelerating project timelines [8].
Reclaiming motivation
To preserve both performance and engagement, organisations need to design AI integration thoughtfully. GenAI shouldn’t be treated as a shortcut that replaces human input wholesale. Rather, it should be a tool that supports and amplifies it.
One approach is to blend AI and human contributions more deliberately. For example, GenAI might draft the skeleton of a performance review, but it is up to the manager to refine the language with personalised insights. Similarly, while AI can be useful for generating ideas or structure, human teams should be encouraged to challenge, reshape and deepen the output — thereby reclaiming their agency in the creative process.
Another helpful strategy is to deliberately structure workflows that alternate between AI-assisted and autonomous tasks. Starting the day with solo, cognitively rich activities and moving to AI-enabled tasks later can help balance stimulation and efficiency. Moreover, making AI’s role in the work process transparent — explaining clearly how it complements human input — can preserve employees’ sense of ownership and contribution.
Finally, organisations must invest in AI literacy. This means more than knowing how to prompt a chatbot. It involves developing the judgement to critique, improve, and selectively override AI output. Workshops, coaching, and scenario-based training can equip employees to use GenAI not as a crutch, but as a creative partner.
The human advantage
AI-enabled employees are not just more efficient, they can also be more engaged, innovative, and fulfilled, provided the right conditions are met. William Arruda, writing in Forbes, notes that “AI doesn’t replace human employees; it enhances their capabilities” [9]. With AI handling routine processes, employees can focus on strategic initiatives and creative problem-solving, areas where human judgement and insight remain indispensable.
Companies that recognise this opportunity will gain a strategic advantage. According to McKinsey, organisations using AI have seen productivity boosts of up to 40% in certain functions [10]. But the gains aren’t only in output. AI can improve work-life balance, job satisfaction, and even employees’ sense of belonging [11].
As PwC’s Chief People Officer Ewan Clarkson put it: “Companies that successfully integrate AI into their workforce will unlock unprecedented levels of productivity, innovation, and employee satisfaction…The secret to success requires looking at the interconnection of three areas: business, technology, and people. To innovate and thrive in a rapidly evolving environment, organizations can drive productivity, growth, and transformation by harnessing the power of disruptive technologies, while ensuring that the human element remains at the forefront.” [12].
Generative AI: Productivity at the cost of motivation?
AI is not just a tool — it’s a force reshaping the meaning of work. It promises speed, scale, and precision. But it also threatens to deskill, demotivate, and disengage, especially if used without thought for the human experience. To build a sustainable future of work, companies must adopt a human-led, technology-powered model. That means preserving opportunities for deep thinking, rewarding originality over replication, and ensuring workers feel a sense of ownership over their tasks. GenAI can elevate human performance. But only if we remember what it means to be human in the first place.
More on AI
The Ethical Minefield of Artificial Intelligence
The EU AI Act: What you Need to Know
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/05/research-gen-ai-makes-people-more-productive-and-less-motivated
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/05/research-gen-ai-makes-people-more-productive-and-less-motivated
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/05/research-gen-ai-makes-people-more-productive-and-less-motivated
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2025/04/24/productivity-savings-from-gen-ai-dont-always-add-up/
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2025/04/24/productivity-savings-from-gen-ai-dont-always-add-up/
[8] https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2025/04/24/productivity-savings-from-gen-ai-dont-always-add-up/
Introduction
Artificial intelligence is transforming our societies at breakneck speed. From healthcare to finance, recruitment to energy, it promises revolutionary change. But behind the glossy headlines lies a harsher truth: AI is not an equalising force. Rather, it often amplifies the very inequalities it could be used to fix. What emerges is a dynamic Bhaskar Chakravorti, the Dean of Global Business at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and founding Executive Director of Fletcher’s Institute for Business in the Global Context, terms “artificial inequality,” where AI “concentrates socioeconomic opportunities and outcomes within narrow societal segments while depriving others” [1].
Through six intersecting divides –– data, income, usage, geography, industry, and energy –– this article explores AI’s impact on inequality, examining how each divide manifests and what, if anything, companies can do to stop AI from becoming a 21st-century tool of exclusion.
The data divide
Data is the lifeblood of AI, but it’s also where inequality begins. While the algorithms themselves may be neutral, the datasets they are trained on often reflect deep societal biases. Swati Tyagi, a seasoned AI/ML professional who has made significant contributions to gender equity in AI and explainable credit scoring, notes that “many AI systems demonstrate significant gender bias, particularly disadvantaging women and women of color,” a result of overrepresenting white male experiences in data and design [2].
Chakravorti reinforces this, citing examples like mortgage algorithms rejecting Black applicants at rates 150% higher than white counterparts in Chicago, and 200% higher for Latino applicants in Waco, Texas [3]. In healthcare, biased training data has led to AI diagnostic tools systematically underdiagnosing women and patients of colour.
This data divide creates a feedback loop: biased algorithms make discriminatory decisions, which produce further biased data, worsening outcomes over time. Companies have a responsibility to address this, not only through de-biasing datasets but also by collaborating with external institutions like the Algorithmic Justice League, which provides training tools and advocacy for awareness-building, and IBM’s AI Fairness 360 Toolkit [4].
The income divide
One of the most visible ways AI drives inequality is by increasing income gaps. High-skilled workers in AI-complementary roles see productivity and wage boosts, while others — especially in routinised jobs — face obsolescence. The IMF estimates nearly 40% of jobs worldwide will be affected by AI, with even conservative projections from the likes of Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu predicting 5% of tasks will be replaced within a decade [5].
Joseph Stiglitz, a renowned economist and recipient of the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001, is blunt about the consequences: “the net effect will be to reduce the demand for labour, increase inequality, [and] increase unemployment” [6]. This is especially worrying in low-skilled sectors and emerging economies. Even more troubling, few governments have plans to cushion the blow. The World Economic Forum found only 22% of countries have policies to address AI’s labour disruptions [7].
Yet businesses do have tools to help. Investing in reskilling programmes, partnering with initiatives that offer hands-on experience in AI tools to a wide cross-section of users like AI4ALL or Charity Excellence, or developing inclusive hiring AI are practical steps. As Chakravorti points out, many smaller firms can use AI analytics to reduce costs and compete with larger rivals, which could help level the income field if rolled out inclusively [8].
The usage divide
Even as AI spreads, its usage remains uneven — both across regions and among different socioeconomic groups. In the US, for example, those with higher education and income are far more likely to use AI tools and trust their results [9]. The roots of this usage divide are technological, but also psychological: mistrust in AI systems — especially those seen as opaque or unreliable — keeps many away.
The implications are clear. “People who use [AI] will be better positioned to navigate the coming change,” Chakravorti writes [10]. Tools exist to build trust — diagnostic systems with expert validation, interpretability features, and feedback loops — but companies must prioritise them. Without trustworthy AI, usage gaps will grow, worsening digital exclusion.
The market incentives are real. Research shows that customers are twice as likely to use AI tools they trust, and workers are 2.5 times more likely to use employer AI systems if they believe in their reliability [11]. Those who invest in trustworthy design,like Salesforce with its “humans at the helm” pledge, are already reaping reputational benefits.
The global divide
Just as AI polarises within countries, it also exacerbates gaps between them. High-income countries stand to benefit the most, with 60% of jobs exposed to AI (and potentially productivity-enhancing) compared to just 26% in low-income nations [12].
Clinton Vince, head of Dentons’ US Energy Practice, warns that “the digital divide between developed and developing nations is very, very real,” pointing to Sub-Saharan Africa’s electrification struggles and AI’s potential to help — if access can be improved [13]. Yet current US policies restricting access to advanced chips could widen these divides further.
One solution lies in open-source AI. Companies like DeepSeek in China have shown that open-weight models can rival proprietary ones at a fraction of the cost and resource demand [14]. When AI is democratised, local innovations can thrive — like Plantix, an app helping smallholder farmers identify pests. Global AI doesn’t have to mean global monopoly.
Ireland presents a compelling case study in navigating the global AI divide. Despite its small size, the country has emerged as a hub for European AI development, bolstered by a highly educated workforce and favourable tax environment. Yet questions remain about whether this growth is broad-based or disproportionately benefits multinational tech firms clustered around Dublin. Without investment in regional infrastructure and digital upskilling beyond the capital, Ireland risks creating a two-tier tech economy — one concentrated in elite urban sectors, and another left behind in rural areas. The challenge for policymakers is to ensure AI supports inclusive innovation rather than deepening existing regional disparities.
The industry divide
Perhaps nowhere is inequality more stark than in the concentration of AI power. Tech giants dominate the value chain, reinforced by exclusive deals and hardware monopolies. Meta relies on Amazon’s cloud, and most AI firms depend on Nvidia’s chips. Chakravorti notes this “locks out new entrants” and skews investments to commercially safe bets, ignoring social impact [15].
Stiglitz warns this dynamic leads to “unchecked market power” and “entrenched monopoly,” where economic concentration begets political influence [16]. Nvidia’s $2.7 trillion valuation and 88% GPU market share aren’t signs of healthy competition — they’re signals of consolidation.
To mitigate this, companies can adopt “edge AI” or small models tailored to specific use cases. Open-source alternatives, including from European firms like Mistral, also show promise. Tools like the Digital Public Goods Alliance,a multi-stakeholder initiative, promote open-source software, open data, open AI models, and open content collections that adhere to privacy standards. If more firms embrace diverse sourcing and modular openness, the industry could begin to rebalance.
The energy divide
AI’s energy appetite is another major contributor to inequality. Data centre energy use is set to rise by 35% by 2026, with water and electricity demands soaring [17]. While large firms can absorb these costs, others — particularly in the Global South — cannot. And many firms risk missing their net-zero targets due to AI’s emissions.
Yet innovation offers hope. Google’s DeepMind has cut cooling energy by 40%, and Nvidia’s newer chips use 25 times less energy than prior models. DeepSeek has shown how smart model design, like using fewer decimal places or “mixture of experts” techniques, can dramatically reduce energy needs [18].
Companies can also build greener AI by locating data centres in energy-efficient regions and using tools like photonic accelerators or 3D chips. Meanwhile, initiatives like the Cornell AI for Sustainability programme are pushing best practice on how to manage AI’s energy use, as well as how AI can help us use energy more efficiently. As Chakravorti argues, “efficiencies contribute to overall cost and resource efficiencies and enhance competitiveness” [19].
The gender divide
While often overlapping with the data divide, gender bias deserves distinct attention. AI tools reflect the unequal world they are trained on. As Swati Tyagi explains, algorithms increasingly drive healthcare, employment, and finance — but too often, they do so in ways that “systematically exclude women” [20].
In hiring, AI tools penalise women for career breaks (the “mom penalty”). In finance, credit algorithms reject women at higher rates than equally qualified men. In healthcare, diagnostic tools underperform on women, especially women of colour [21]. These aren’t isolated glitches — they’re systemic outcomes baked into the data and design.
Fixing this requires more than technical audits. Diverse development teams, sector-specific fairness rules, and mandatory transparency in AI decision-making must become the norm. If left unaddressed, AI risks rolling back decades of gender equality gains.
Monopoly, market power, and the 1%
Ultimately, the question is not just what AI can do, but who it serves. Joseph Stiglitz sees in AI an accelerant of monopoly capitalism, one that feeds a feedback loop of wealth and influence: “When market power becomes highly concentrated… that economic influence translates into political power” [22].
Already, the top 10% of US households control 67% of wealth; the top 0.1%, which includes major AI stakeholders, have seen their share of wealth grow from 8.6% in 1990 to 13.8% today [23]. The richest five tech billionaires alone have added $1 trillion to their fortunes in the last nine months.
This concentration undermines Adam Smith’s ideal of self-interest leading to collective good. Stiglitz argues we are instead witnessing a system where the gains of AI accrue to the few, while the costs — lost jobs, degraded trust, ecological strain — are socialised. Only with regulation, competition policy, and aligned incentives can this tide be turned.
AI’s impact on inequality
AI’s future is not set in stone. As Chakravorti writes, “AI acceleration does not have to translate into a more fragile, divided world” [24]. But it will, unless proactive measures are taken. Companies can act: by investing in fair data, trustworthy design, inclusive access, open ecosystems, and sustainable operations. Governments must also play their part, through regulation, reskilling programmes, and digital infrastructure.
Left to its own devices, AI will reflect and reinforce our worst inequalities. But guided wisely, it still holds the potential to help us build a fairer world.
More on AI
The Ethical Minefield of Artificial Intelligence
The EU AI Act: What you Need to Know
AI – A doomsday scenario with Roman Yampolskiy – Podcast
Sources
Introduction
Navigating a personal crisis while maintaining professional responsibilities is a challenge that transcends industries, job titles, and career stages. Whether it’s coping with illness, grieving a loss, managing family upheaval, or facing financial difficulties, these situations can profoundly impact one’s ability to function effectively at work. The modern workplace often demands our full attention, yet life’s inevitable crises don’t pause for business hours. Working through such periods is difficult, but it can be done. This article hopes to explain how.
Work/life crossover
Personal crises are universal experiences that don’t discriminate based on career success or position. As Amy Gallo, cohost of the Women at Work podcast and author of Getting Along: How to Work with Anyone (Even Difficult People), writes in Harvard Business Review, stressful life events — whether tending to a sick family member, coping with divorce, or managing one’s own health issues — create profound distractions that even the most dedicated professionals struggle to overcome [1]. The emotional toll manifests in various ways: decreased productivity, difficulty concentrating, emotional volatility, or simply the mental exhaustion of maintaining appearances while suffering privately.
Anne Kreamer, author of It’s Always Personal, emphasises that while such challenges are universal experiences, this knowledge offers little practical comfort when you’re struggling to meet basic work demands [2]. Research by Ashley Hardin at Washington University reveals these personal struggles inevitably affect workplace dynamics, often in ways we don’t anticipate [3]. Colleagues unaware of the situation may misinterpret changes in behaviour as disengagement or lack of commitment, while those who do notice something amiss may feel uncomfortable addressing it without invitation.
Marjie Terry of Great on the Job underscores this delicate balance: “You should try to keep your personal crisis out of the workplace as much as possible because it can become a burden and unnecessary distraction for others. That being said, when you’re dealing with a longer-term crisis, you’ll likely need to rearrange your workload and/or schedule” [4]. This tension between personal needs and professional expectations forms the core challenge of navigating crises while employed.
Assessing your needs
The first critical step in managing a crisis professionally involves conducting an honest assessment of what you truly need. Jane Dutton from the University of Michigan advises taking comprehensive stock of available resources both within and outside your organisation [5]. This inventory might include your personal support systems (family, friends, community groups), any workplace flexibility options (remote work, adjusted hours), potential professional support (HR policies, employee assistance programs), or simply colleagues who might be willing to temporarily shoulder some responsibilities.
Nancy Collamer, a career coach at MyLifestyleCareer.com, suggests this assessment should include realistic evaluation of how the crisis affects your work capacity: “Remember that any crisis could affect your attitude toward work, your performance, your availability, your level of energy or all of the above” [6]. She emphasises that if work will be impacted, it’s better to inform your manager proactively rather than have them assume you’re simply “slacking off.”
Interestingly, the solution doesn’t always require dramatic measures. As Dutton notes, “It might be as simple as leaving work early on Fridays for a month” [7]. Forbes contributor Chrissy Scivicque’s personal account reinforces this, describing how during her own crisis, she learned to “be gentle with yourself… If you’re not as chipper as usual, it’s perfectly fine. If you’re a little slower getting things done, don’t worry” [8]. This self-compassion forms the foundation for making practical adjustments.
The privacy paradox
One of the most agonising decisions during a personal crisis involves determining how much to disclose at work. Kreamer stresses that “this has to be an individual choice,” particularly with stigmatised issues like mental health struggles or financial troubles [9]. Dutton cautions that in some organisational cultures, disclosure can carry professional risk, suggesting we assess our environment carefully before sharing [10].
Speaking on a Forbes roundtable, a number of experts presented varied perspectives on this dilemma. Deborah Shane, a career author, featured writer, speaker, and media and marketing consultant, warns against oversharing: “Don’t be a drama queen or a toxic person. The more crisis and disruption surrounds you, the more people will think of you that way” [11]. Yet Ann Kaiser Stearns, Ph.D., author of Living Through Personal Crisis, offers more nuanced advice: “The information shared is best limited to the basic details. Why? The more you disclose the more easily your vulnerabilities and reactions can be scrutinised and misconstrued” [12].
Hardin’s research presents a compelling case for measured sharing, showing that when colleagues understand personal circumstances, they become more motivated to provide meaningful support [13]. Scivicque’s personal experience echoes this: “It may be helpful to share your situation with a trusted colleague and/or supervisor. This will give them some context around why you’re not acting like yourself” [14]. She wisely adds that you can be vague about details, especially with sensitive medical issues.
A middle path emerges from these perspectives: strategic, limited disclosure tailored to different workplace relationships. You might share more with a trusted manager who needs to understand your need for flexibility, while giving only basic information to colleagues who simply need to know you’re dealing with a private matter.
Establishing boundaries
Once the decision to share has been made, establishing clear boundaries becomes essential. Kreamer notes that “most people don’t want to know every detail of your parent’s chemotherapy. They want to know the pertinent information and how it’s going to affect them” [15]. This pragmatic approach respects both your privacy and colleagues’ need for work-relevant information.
The Forbes experts provide concrete strategies for these difficult conversations. Melissa Hopp, vice president of administrative services at the Community College of Baltimore County, advises walking the line between openness and professionalism: “You don’t want to be a soap opera but you don’t want to be so private that people don’t have the opportunity to support you” [16]. Terry recommends practical measures like having sensitive conversations behind closed doors and scheduling personal appointments outside work hours when possible [17].
Scivicque offers particularly insightful advice about managing well-meaning but potentially disruptive check-ins: “Ask people to refrain from contacting you at work to discuss the personal situation unless it’s an emergency, and assure them that you will still be available outside of working hours” [18]. This protects your work focus while maintaining important support channels.
Asking for help
Many struggle with requesting accommodations during crises, fearing they’ll be seen as weak or unreliable. Yet as Kreamer observes, “Ideally, when you share the news, your colleagues will say: ‘I’m going to do such-and-such for you. Are you cool with that?’ But if your coworkers aren’t forthcoming about offering help, ask for it explicitly” [19].
Wayne Baker’s research reveals that how we frame requests dramatically affects their success [20]. Effective requests tend to be those that are specific about what’s needed, clear about why it matters, and bounded by time parameters. For example: “I’d appreciate if you could handle the client meeting next Tuesday. This would let me attend my father’s doctor appointment without worrying about work. Could you take this one meeting so I can focus on family that day?”
Scivicque adds an important caveat: “Please recognise that people aren’t always great at knowing how to help… Help them out by telling them exactly what you need” [21]. This might mean requesting reduced responsibilities or, conversely, asking for more work as distraction — the key is clear communication.
Engaging management
Involving your manager requires particular care. Kreamer advises developing “some notion of how you intend to handle the problem” before the conversation [22]. Presenting solutions alongside challenges demonstrates professionalism and makes it easier for managers to support you.
Collamer suggests timing the conversation carefully: “If possible, wait to speak with your employer until you’ve had a chance to settle your nerves and reflect on the situation. The last thing you want to do is dissolve into a puddle of tears in your boss’s office” [23]. Preparation is key — consider rehearsing with a trusted friend.
Maggie Mistal, a career consultant, radio host and speaker, emphasises transparency about impacts: “Don’t sugarcoat or downplay the situation if you’re really in a crisis. It will only mismanage expectations and you could end up disappointing others” [24]. This honest approach prevents compounding problems down the line.
To work or step away?
Perhaps the most profound decision involves whether to continue working or take leave. Kreamer’s personal experience reveals work’s potential therapeutic value: after losing three family members, she found the routine provided essential stability [25]. Conversely, she acknowledges that when someone “won’t be able to function at the caliber that your job requires,” leave may be the healthiest option [26].
Scivicque describes work as a potential “sanctuary — a port away from the storm” during her crisis [27]. Yet she acknowledges that when personal matters require all your attention, “you’re best to take time off” [28]. Stearns offers a practical middle ground: exploring options like temporary remote work or adjusted schedules [29].
Financial realities complicate this decision, as not all companies offer paid leave. However, even short breaks can provide crucial breathing room. The key lies in honest self-assessment: can you maintain acceptable performance while managing the crisis? If not, temporary withdrawal may preserve both your health and professional reputation long-term.
Emotional management
Maintaining professionalism during emotional turmoil presents perhaps the greatest challenge. Author and thought leader Erika Andersen’s analysis of emotional self-control provides valuable perspective, drawing parallels between childhood emotional regulation and professional conduct during crises [30]. Her examination of Abraham Lincoln’s leadership during the Civil War — managing profound personal depression while guiding a nation — offers powerful lessons [31].
Lincoln’s practice of writing angry letters he never sent demonstrates the value of processing emotion privately before professional interactions [32]. Andersen suggests modern professionals adopt similar strategies: “When you feel panicked or overwhelmed, and the urge to run away, or lash out, or deny reality gets strong…you need to just stop. Take a breath. Remind yourself of your ultimate goal” [33].
This emotional discipline doesn’t mean suppressing genuine feelings, but rather channelling them appropriately. As Deborah Shane advises, “Keep your poise and positive attitude and act as best you can daily” [34]. Collamer adds the importance of maintaining perspective: “Don’t forget that no matter how tough your situation is, everyone has ongoing personal challenges, so don’t forget to occasionally ask about them and their lives as well” [35].
Thinking long-term
The aftermath of a crisis often brings unexpected professional developments. Several case studies demonstrate how compassionate workplaces breed fierce loyalty. Amy Morin’s psychological perspective reminds us that personal and professional lives inevitably intertwine: “You can’t completely separate your work life from your home life, no matter what you do. You’re a human being, not a robot” [36]. Her research shows how emotions from one sphere affect the other — excitement may increase risk-taking at work, while sadness might make us settle for less [37]. Recognising these spillover effects allows for more mindful professional conduct during personal difficulties.
Working through a personal crisis
Working through personal crises requires a multifaceted approach combining self-awareness, strategic communication, and emotional intelligence. By assessing your needs honestly, setting clear boundaries, and making thoughtful requests for support, you can manage the situation without sacrificing your wellbeing or career. Remember that crises are temporary — with the right approach, you can emerge stronger, preserving both your professional standing and personal resilience.
As Scivicque puts it: “If you’re going through difficult times, I want you to know you’re not alone. We’ve all been through it and we’ll all go through it again… Take care of yourself and remember — this too shall pass” [38]. The workplace can indeed become a source of stability and even healing during life’s most challenging chapters. With compassion for yourself and clarity in your actions, you’ll find a way through.
More on Managing Emotions
Mastering your emotions for a better life with Lisa Feldman Barrett – Podcast
Unlocking the secrets of facial expression with Dan Hill – Podcast
Emotional Intelligence and Engaging Others
How Adopting a More Positive Mindset Can Transform Your Work
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[2] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[3] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[5] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[7] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[9] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[10] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[12] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[13] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[15] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[16] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[17] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[19] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[20] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[22] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[23] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[24] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[25] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[26] https://hbr.org/2017/11/what-to-do-when-a-personal-crisis-is-hurting-your-professional-life
[29] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[34] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
[35] https://www.forbes.com/sites/jacquelynsmith/2012/08/08/how-to-handle-a-personal-crisis-at-work/
Introduction
There’s a particular moment of workplace dread that many employees know all too well. It’s that unsettling instant when your boss outlines a plan, makes a decision, or champions an idea that you firmly believe is going to backfire. You know it’s flawed — but how do you say so? Telling your boss they’re wrong is one of the most delicate balancing acts in professional life. Get it right, and you might be seen as a trusted adviser. Get it wrong, and you could damage your relationship or your career.
But saying nothing comes with its own risks: poor performance, organisational inefficiencies, and — ironically — damaged relationships. So how can you push back without burning bridges?
Why it’s hard
Disagreeing with authority goes against our social conditioning. “Most of us are brought up to respect and defer to authority,” says Melody Wilding, executive coach and author of Managing Up: How to Get What You Need from the People in Charge. “Feedback, tough conversations, and disagreements usually roll downhill; they’re not something we’re taught to give upwardly” [1].
From a neuroscience perspective, the very thought of contradicting your boss can trigger a stress response. “Our brains associate these interactions with potential threats,” says neurologist Joel Salinas. The result? A racing heart, clenched muscles, and a narrowed focus that makes strategic thinking difficult [2].
But understanding this psychological wiring is the first step to overcoming it. If you can label the fear, you can start to loosen its grip.
The need for challenge
You might worry that disagreeing with your boss will label you as a troublemaker. But in reality, thoughtful pushback can mark you out as someone who cares deeply about the success of your team and organisation.
“When employees don’t challenge timelines, priorities, or direction, companies waste money chasing the wrong goals,” says Wilding. She points out that the higher up leaders rise, the fewer people challenge them. “You earn trust by speaking up, even when it’s tough” [3].
And the stakes for staying silent are real. As Harvard Law School’s Robert Bordone explains, “You’re going to feel frustrated, you won’t sleep well, and your performance could suffer. There’s a real ripple effect” [4].
Pushback power
Before diving into a disagreement, reflect on your position. Wilding suggests gauging your “pushback power” — your ability to safely challenge decisions — based on your tenure, your relationship with your boss, and the context of the organisation.
Is the company in crisis, requiring quick decisions and total alignment? Or is it a stable environment that welcomes discussion? “It doesn’t mean you can’t speak up if those factors aren’t in your favour,” Wilding says, “but you may need to be more incremental in your approach” [5].
It’s about shifting from a subordinate mindset to a partnership one — seeing yourself as a trusted collaborator, not just a follower.
Timing
Even the best points fall flat if delivered at the wrong moment. According to Wilding, it’s often wiser to wait until your next one-on-one or a quieter moment: “Timing is everything” [6]. Bordone adds, “Trying to have a potentially contentious conversation in the hallway on a Friday afternoon, just as they’re leaving for the weekend, isn’t ideal” [7].
Preparation also matters. Caroline Castrillon of Forbes advises that “If your boss is having a bad day, that’s not the right moment to explain why you disapprove of their recent marketing idea” [8]. Instead, set up a time in a private setting where you can both speak freely.
Every boss is different
Different bosses react to pushback in different ways. Some appreciate directness — “I don’t agree” — while others might take it personally. Wilding notes, “Saying, ‘I worry this plan will burn people out,’ lands differently than, ‘I worry this plan will waste money,’” depending on your manager’s values [9].
Observe how they react when others speak up. Do they value facts, efficiency, consensus, or loyalty? Matching your language to their priorities can help your feedback land more constructively.
And if in doubt? Ask questions.
No accusations
Leading with curiosity is one of the most effective ways to challenge without conflict. Instead of saying, “That’s wrong,” try: “Help me understand what factors are influencing this decision?” This signals that you want to collaborate, not contradict.
Wilding also suggests using a “micro yes” before sharing your view: “Are you open to another perspective?” or “Could I share what I’m seeing?” These small agreements make the conversation feel less adversarial and more consensual [10].
Mark Murphy, CEO of Leadership IQ, offers similar advice. Instead of saying, “This calculation is wrong,” say: “When I ran the numbers, I got a different result — did you notice anything in the third column?” [11]. The tone invites reflection rather than resistance.
Use the data
Data gives your argument structure and credibility. “Don’t just make a pitch because your position ‘feels’ right,” advises Patrick Mullane. “Find all the data you can to support your position. But don’t just find it — make it tell a story” [12].
That said, there’s a fine line between passion and emotion. “Managers love passionate employees,” says Castrillon. “Just don’t get overly emotional to the point that you become frazzled and lose focus” [13]. Passion can energise your argument. Raw emotion can undercut it.
Frame your disagreement around collective success. “I want to make sure this project succeeds and that you have all the information to make the best call,” is a much stronger opening than, “I don’t like this idea.”
If you’re a product manager, for example, Wilding recommends saying: “I see it as my job to steward our road map and ensure we’re prioritising the right features. To do that, here’s what I think” [14].
This frames your concern as part of your role — not as a personal objection.
Prepare for pushback
Even with the best intentions, your boss might get defensive. Stay calm. Salinas recommends taking a moment to breathe before responding [15]. If accused of undermining, flip it: “I am a team player, that’s why I’m bringing this up.”
And if your boss says, “I thought you were behind me,” respond with: “I am — that’s why I want you to have all the information to make the strongest decision” [16].
Remember: you’re advocating for success, not staging a rebellion.
Compromise
Sometimes you won’t win outright — but that doesn’t mean all is lost. Wilding suggests proposing a small test or pilot scheme: “Maybe we don’t go fully in the direction I’m proposing, but how about we try a pilot?” [17].
This signals that you’re collaborative, not combative. And it leaves the door open for future influence. “If you back off entirely and never bring it up again,” warns Wilding, “your manager might think, ‘I don’t have to listen next time’” [18].
Of course, you won’t always persuade your boss — and that’s okay. “In most cases, you should probably back off,” Wilding concedes. “Realise that there’s still a hierarchy. Your influence is substantial but limited” [19].
Pick your battles. As Mullane puts it, “Pick battles big enough to matter but small enough to win” [20]. And if it’s not unethical or illegal, sometimes you just have to let go.
If things don’t go your way, take time to reflect. What worked? What didn’t? “Sometimes, you need to let bad decisions play out, so people listen to you in the future,” says Wilding. And if you turn out to be right? Don’t rub it in. “We have to let people face the consequences so they can come to that realisation on their own” [21].
How to tell your boss they’re wrong
Disagreeing with your boss isn’t just about courage — it’s about strategy, timing, empathy, and mutual respect. When done right, it can strengthen your professional relationship, improve decision-making, and enhance team performance.
Bosses are human. They make mistakes. And most of them, if approached the right way, will thank you for helping them avoid one.
More on Conflict
Diversity and Conflict for a Plural Workforce
How to Argue and Why we Should
Emotional Intelligence and Engaging Others
How “Nice” Should You be at Work?
Six Negotiation Myths That Might Be Costing You
A Master Class in Negotiation with Simon Horton – Podcast
Sources
[1]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[2]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[3]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[4]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[5]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[6]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[7]https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[12] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmullane/2023/07/26/how-to-disagree-with-your-boss/
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[18] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[19] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
[20] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmullane/2023/07/26/how-to-disagree-with-your-boss/
[21] https://hbr.org/2025/04/how-to-tell-your-boss-theyre-wrong-tactfully
Introduction
In recent years, corporate sustainability has faced unprecedented challenges. What was once a burgeoning movement, celebrated for its potential to align business with planetary health, is now under siege. Political polarisation, populist backlash, and shifting regulatory landscapes have left many companies questioning their sustainability commitments. But this moment is not the end of sustainability but a critical juncture — one that demands resilience, pragmatism, and strategic foresight.
The crisis
The sustainability movement, after decades of progress, finds itself at a crossroads. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Georg Kell, Martin Reeves, and Helena Fox note that “a shifting political landscape — intensifying rivalry between nations, increasing social polarisation, and a populist backlash against sustainability efforts — is radically redefining the conditions under which corporations must survive and thrive” [1]. In the US, sustainability commitments are being unwound, while Europe faces pushback against stringent reporting requirements like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) [2]. Even the term “ESG” has become politically charged, with companies quietly removing it from their communications [3].
This retreat is not merely rhetorical. Dr Ioannis Ioannou, a leading expert in sustainability leadership and corporate responsibility, observes that “many companies are quietly backing away” from sustainability, exposing the fragility of commitments made during more favourable times [4]. Yet, this backlash does not negate the underlying imperatives. Climate disasters are intensifying, with the number of weather-related disasters increasing fivefold in the last 50 years [5]. Six of the nine planetary boundaries — critical thresholds for Earth’s stability — have already been breached, raising the risk of irreversible damage [6]. The question, then, is not whether sustainability matters, but how companies should navigate this turbulent period.
The rebound
Despite the current retreat, there are compelling reasons to believe that sustainability will regain momentum. Renewable energy, for instance, has reached a tipping point. China accounted for 40% of global renewable capacity expansion between 2019 and 2024, and renewables now represent nearly a quarter of the EU’s energy use [7]. These advancements are not easily reversed, as they are underpinned by massive infrastructure investments — $300-400 billion annually in global power grids over the past decade [8].
Moreover, planetary realities will eventually reshape politics. As climate impacts become more severe — evidenced by events like the Los Angeles fires — public opinion will likely demand stronger action [9]. Kell, Reeves, and Fox argue that “a deterioration of climatic conditions may even enhance the probability and intensity of a bounce back” [10]. Businesses that recognise this inevitability can position themselves ahead of the curve.
Another driving force is the economic viability of sustainable business models. Companies like Maersk, which invested in low-carbon fuels and electrified port operations, have turned sustainability into a competitive advantage [11]. Similarly, car-sharing platforms, home solar systems, and circular economy models are proving that sustainability can be profitable. As David Carlin notes in Forbes, “sustainability is no longer seen as an additional cost” but as a driver of economic opportunity [12].
Navigating the backlash
In this liminal period, companies must avoid two extremes: blind idealism and outright abandonment of sustainability. Instead, they should adopt a pragmatic, long-term approach.
Leaders must prepare for a future where sustainability rebounds. This means reducing exposure to environmental risks and pre-empting future regulations. Kell, Reeves, and Fox advise companies to “be guided by the long-term scenario of a sustainability rebound,” as this mindset builds resilience and trust with stakeholders [13]. For example, Interface, a global flooring company, pioneered a closed-loop recycling model in the 1990s, which now supplies over half of its materials from recycled or bio-based sources [14]. By embedding sustainability into their business model, they turned it into a source of efficiency and customer engagement.
Sustainability has become politicised, but shared values like environmental stewardship and intergenerational responsibility can still bridge divides [15]. Companies should anchor their strategies in these principles while remaining attuned to political realities. As Kell, Reeves, and Fox suggest, “operating from your own company’s values and principles creates a pragmatic basis to plot a steady course” [16]. This approach fosters consistency amid external volatility.
With international collaboration faltering, local initiatives offer a path forward. Elinor Ostrom’s research shows that polycentric approaches — multiple independent initiatives — can foster widespread agreement on norms [17]. Companies like Nike and New Belgium Brewing have successfully localised sustainability efforts, building trust and resilience from the ground up [18].
Sustainable integration
Sustainability must be woven into core business functions, not treated as a standalone project. Carlin highlights that sustainability teams are increasingly seen as “internal experts” rather than just reporting specialists, with their input sought in strategic decisions [19]. This integration mirrors the rise of data protection as a cross-cutting priority. When sustainability is embedded into operations — such as supply chain optimisation or energy efficiency — it becomes harder to reverse and more likely to deliver tangible benefits [20].
Navigating the sustainability backlash requires a new leadership mindset — one that embraces contradictions between short-term pressures and long-term goals.
Rebuilding trust
One of the most critical lessons from the current backlash is the need for greater transparency and accountability in sustainability efforts. Many companies initially embraced ESG as a branding exercise, leading to accusations of greenwashing when commitments were not met. As Loannou notes, “not every company was ever serious about this work,” with some adopting sustainability language merely because it was fashionable or financially advantageous [21]. This has eroded public trust and fuelled scepticism. To regain credibility, businesses must move beyond performative pledges and demonstrate measurable progress. This means setting clear, science-based targets, regularly reporting on outcomes — even when they fall short — and engaging stakeholders in honest conversations about challenges and trade-offs.
For example, firms like Unilever and Patagonia have maintained stakeholder trust by openly sharing their sustainability data, including setbacks, while outlining concrete steps for improvement. Similarly, Carlin’s observation that “credibility will come from delivering measurable results” underscores the shift from rhetoric to action [22].
Transparency also requires democratising the sustainability conversation, which has often been dominated by technical jargon and elite circles. As Loannou points out, terms like “net-zero by 2050” or “Scope 3 emissions” may be essential but fail to resonate with workers, consumers, or small businesses [23]. Companies must communicate their efforts in accessible ways, tying sustainability to tangible benefits like cost savings, job creation, or community resilience. This approach not only counters disinformation but also rebuilds the broad-based support needed to withstand political headwinds. In a period of backlash, trust is the currency that will determine which companies emerge stronger — and which are left behind when the pendulum swings back toward sustainability.
Staying the course
Leaders must internalise that setbacks are inevitable but temporary. Kell, Reeves, and Fox urge companies to “guide your organisation based on your core values,” avoiding the cost of frequent strategy shifts [24]. This clarity helps teams navigate uncertainty without losing sight of critical objectives.
While idealism can inspire, pragmatism ensures survival. Companies should focus on specific, defensible priorities — like materials efficiency or climate risk mitigation — that align with both short-term gains and long-term sustainability [25]. As Carlin notes, “the time for pledges and announcements has passed”; credibility now comes from delivering measurable results [26].
Periods of uncertainty present opportunities. Companies that act decisively — whether through localisation, innovation, or resilience-building — can outpace competitors distracted by the backlash [27]. For instance, firms investing in renewable energy or circular economies are not just future-proofing their operations but also unlocking new markets [28].
Moving forward
The sustainability backlash is real, but it is also temporary. Companies must look beyond short-term politics and focus on the inevitable rebound. As Loannou puts it, “The firms that endure will not be those that retreat the fastest. They will be the ones that used this moment to clarify their strategy, recommit to their purpose, and lead with resilience” [29].
The question is no longer whether sustainability will matter again, but whether companies are prepared for its resurgence. Those that integrate sustainability into their core operations, champion localised solutions, and align it with economic value will not only survive the backlash but emerge stronger. As Carlin concludes, sustainability is evolving — not retreating — and businesses must evolve with it [30].
More on Sustainability
The Role of Financial Services in Combating the Climate Crisis
The Need for Biophilic Design in the Modern Workplace
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[18] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[24] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[25] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
[27] https://hbr.org/2025/04/corporate-sustainability-is-in-crisis-what-should-companies-do-now
Introduction
In an increasingly globalised economy, the ability to effectively lead international teams is no longer a specialist skill — it’s a core competency. Whether managing a cross-continental project team, coordinating global customer service, or integrating multinational departments post-acquisition, today’s leaders must navigate cultural differences, time zone clashes, and communication styles that vary dramatically. The best global leaders are not just multi-lingual in speech, but in behaviour, expectations, and understanding. They lead with what David Livermore, founder of the Cultural Intelligence Center, calls “cultural intelligence” — a learned, flexible capacity to adapt to and draw strength from diversity [1].
Managing autonomy
One of the most common pitfalls for Western managers leading international teams is the overreliance on autonomy as a universal motivator. In Western, individualist cultures, autonomy is often viewed as essential for creativity, engagement, and job satisfaction. Employees are expected to speak up, take initiative, and define their own success paths. However, 70% of the world’s workforce is collectivist and hierarchical, according to GLOBE Leadership Studies, meaning they are more comfortable when leaders provide guidance, define processes, and make group-oriented decisions [2].
This contrast was starkly evident in McDonald’s operations in India. The company’s Employee of the Month programme failed spectacularly when recipients, rather than being celebrated, were teased and resented. “They were accused of betraying their team and undermining camaraderie,” Livermore recalls. McDonald’s had to pivot to a Team of the Month model, better aligned with local values [3].
Likewise, the multinational firm Everfresh (a pseudonym) encountered resistance to a well-intentioned “Speak Up” initiative. Many employees in Asian countries associated the phrase with publicly challenging authority — a cultural taboo. So the company reframed the campaign to encourage alternative forms of feedback, such as anonymous group submissions or one-on-one discussions, which “led to a significant increase in constructive input” [4].
Sam Silverman, managing partner of EB5 Affiliate Network, recommends leaders of international teams design systems that respect these cultural nuances from the outset. “Provide new employees with a corporate structure chart… explain your management style and preferred communication channels,” he advises, noting that clear onboarding helps avoid clashes between cultural assumptions and company norms [5].
The obvious lesson is that successful global leadership requires flexibility. Leaders need to carefully evaluate each context and tailor their approach — offering the right balance of direction, independence, and oversight — to align with the specific cultural values and needs of their team members.
Psychological safety
The idea of psychological safety — where team members feel safe to speak freely and take risks — has become a staple of Western management theory. Amy Edmondson’s research at Harvard Business School and Google’s Project Aristotle are frequently cited as proof of its value [6]. Yet, the assumption that psychological safety looks the same in every context can backfire.
In more hierarchical or face-saving cultures, “open disagreement and debate can feel deeply unsafe,” Livermore warns. Teams may default to safe, unchallenging ideas in order to avoid conflict, leading to the “common knowledge effect” — where only familiar perspectives are shared [7]. Leaders like Isabella, a global marketing executive, discovered this firsthand. Despite investing in bonding activities, her team still struggled to navigate conflicting cultural priorities. Eventually, she implemented culturally inclusive norms such as: ‘Any product launch campaign must be tested in at least three markets within six weeks.’ The specificity of the norm provided clarity while respecting different styles of input and buy-in [8].
Even the phrasing of questions can shape participation. Instead of asking, ‘Do you have any questions?’, for example, say, ‘What questions do you have?’. This subtle shift signals that questions are expected, not disruptive. It is the minute changes like this that can open up a whole world of possibilities to those of a different cultural mindset.
Don’t overemphasise differences
Diversity is a strength — but focusing too much on difference can become counterproductive. According to a Deakin University study, over-indexing on diversity can lead to anxiety and reduced knowledge-sharing [9]. Another meta-analysis by Rockstuhl and Van Dyne found that knowing a lot about cultural differences can be more harmful than being culturally ignorant if it fosters rigid thinking or reinforces stereotypes [10].
To harness diversity without fragmenting teams, Livermore recommends leaders ensure they are regularly shifting their perspectives to put themselves in the shoes of their team. A simple shift in perspective may sound basic, but it’s effective. In a study led by Columbia’s Adam Galinsky, students were asked to write a first-person essay from the perspective of an elderly man. The exercise resulted in more empathetic, positive narratives than those written from a detached or stereotype-avoiding stance [11]. In practice, leaders can apply this by asking team members to describe a colleague’s opposing viewpoint in the first person during disagreements. This simple exercise humanises teammates and uncovers shared understanding — a powerful antidote to division.
Moreover, shared purpose remains a powerful unifier. As demonstrated by Muzafer Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiments –– in which researchers divided boys into two teams at summer camp, leading to conflict that only subsided when they faced shared challenges, like fixing the camp’s water supply and a broken truck carrying food –– common goals can overcome entrenched differences. As Livermore writes, “Labeling differences… inevitably creates divisions. The most effective way to counter this tendency is to reframe the group’s identity around a common goal” [12].
Transparency
In the West, transparency is often seen as the core currency of leadership. Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz once said that, “Owning your mistakes is key to building trust.” But for leaders working with collectivist or face-saving cultures, this kind of radical candour can backfire. In many cultures, particularly those where saving face is highly valued, team members often prefer that leaders respond to mistakes through quiet, corrective action rather than public acknowledgment. Rather than reinforcing trust, openly admitting fault — a hallmark of Western leadership — can sometimes erode it. In such contexts, trust is often rebuilt through consistent behaviour and measured responses, not confessions or vulnerability
The GLOBE Leadership Studies found that trust is primarily built on “clarity” [13] — but not necessarily full disclosure. In some settings, too much transparency induces anxiety, especially when there’s no resolution in sight. Instead, culturally intelligent leaders “modulate the level of disclosure,” sometimes delivering bad news through deputies or in more indirect ways [14].
This principle also applies to feedback. Kim Scott’s “radical candour” philosophy — while valuable — assumes that bluntness is always best. In many global contexts, indirectness is not evasiveness but an expectation of nuanced communication. “There’s an art to being crystal clear without a blunt edge,” Livermore observes. The goal is clarity, not shock value.
Systems and processes
While cultural fluency is crucial, effective international leadership also relies on robust systems and processes. Silverman stresses the importance of a seamless onboarding process. “Ensure that joining the company is as easy as possible in terms of both corporate and local red tape,” he advises. Clarity around reporting structures, communication channels, and business goals helps international hires hit the ground running [15].
Silverman also highlights communication as a double challenge — not just across language, but across expectations. Jargon-free language, inclusive facilitation, and active encouragement of quieter voices are essential. “Speak slowly, ask clarifying questions, and explicitly invite input from those who may be reluctant to speak due to cultural norms,” he recommends [16].
On the technological side, Robert Giovannini, CEO of IronPlane, recommends tools like Jira and Confluence to ensure “a robust and flexible set of structures to work with,” enabling clear communication and centralised knowledge-sharing [17]. For Giovannini, the balance is between clarity and flexibility — allowing for standardisation where needed but accommodating different time zones, languages, and tools of preference.
Giovannini also underscores the importance of regular check-ins and informal connection-building. “We hold regular video calls for informal discussions and all-hands meetings to celebrate personal achievements,” he explains. These not only help reduce isolation but build team cohesion and morale across distances [18].
Mindset
At the heart of it all is mindset. Forbes’ Young Entrepreneur Council emphasises the importance of curiosity over assumption. “Ask questions and listen,” encourages Nathalie Lussier of AccessAlly. “You don’t have to have all the answers. Your team members will help guide you — you just need to give them the space to do so” [19]. Similarly, Brent Liang of Fractal reminds us that effective leadership “means becoming an excellent communicator who’s able to identify not only what’s said, but also what’s left unsaid” — an especially critical skill in multicultural contexts where much is communicated through subtext [20].
From flexibility around religious holidays to openness about pay structures and clear guidelines for conflict resolution, leading an international team well means balancing empathy with structure and adaptation with clarity.
How to effectively lead an international team
Autonomy, psychological safety, diversity, and transparency remain pillars of good leadership — but in the global arena, their implementation must be shaped by cultural intelligence. Leaders must shift from a one-size-fits-all approach to one that is deeply adaptive, listening-first, and context-sensitive.
The result is not just better communication and fewer misunderstandings. It’s a team that functions as more than the sum of its parts — a globally-minded, resilient unit capable of meeting the complex challenges of the modern workplace.
More on Feedback
Banduras Social Cognitive Theory
Refining Performance Assessments: Reducing Recency Bias for Superior Evaluations
Source
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[2] https://www.globeproject.com/study_2014.html
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[10] https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2018-46260-009
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1
[13] https://globeproject.com/
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/05/leading-global-teams-effectively?ab=HP-hero-featured-1