Anxiety is a defining feature of the modern professional experience. It shows up in boardrooms and on building sites, at early morning check-ins and during late-night laptop sessions. It lingers behind confident emails and polished presentations, and increasingly, it determines not just how people feel at work but whether they stay.
In Ireland, anxiety is now the most cited condition affecting employee wellbeing. According to Laya Healthcare’s 2025 Workplace Wellbeing Index, one in two Irish workers report living with a health condition or mental wellbeing issue, with anxiety topping the list. Half of those respondents said they would feel embarrassed to discuss their condition with their employer, and just as many feared being treated differently if they did [1]. Despite this, we continue to operate in many professional environments as if mental wellbeing were separate from performance, as if anxiety were something to be “fixed” outside office hours rather than understood, supported and worked with.
Yet the evidence tells a different story. From absenteeism to presenteeism, from strained team dynamics to rising attrition rates, the impact of anxiety is everywhere. And the challenge for employers and employees alike is to recognise it, demystify it and manage it with intention.
The normalisation of a crisis
A recent study from the UK’s Health and Safety Executive found that between 2021 and 2022, over 1.8 million workers suffered from work-related illnesses, and half of these were linked to stress, depression, or anxiety [2]. In high-pressure sectors such as healthcare, finance, education and technology, the numbers are even higher. Erik Pham, founder of health platform Health Canal, points to research from the American Psychological Association which shows that 76% of employees in toxic workplaces say their environment directly harms their mental health [3].
In Ireland, Laya’s research shows that intense anxiety, while decreasing slightly in 2025 compared to previous years, remains a powerful undercurrent across industries. Financial insecurity remains a core driver, particularly for younger employees, driven by concerns around the housing market, mortgage approval and cost-of-living pressures [4].
But anxiety does not always emerge in a dramatic or visible form. It is just as often found in overachievement, perfectionism and burnout, or in avoidance, low self-esteem and social fears. There is no one form of anxiety, nor is its arrival necessarily trackable to some linear cause and effect. Sometimes it’s just there and you don’t know why.
Many people may be suffering from anxiety without even realising it. As Morra Aarons-Mele writes in The Anxious Achiever, “Do you ever find yourself micromanaging, or redoing others’ work because it’s not up to your standards? Do you feel like you’re in over your head and any day now others will discover you’re faking it?” If so, she suggests, anxiety may be playing a more active role in your professional life than you realise [5].
Psychologist Margaret Forde, who regularly works with executives and early-career professionals, notes that anxiety affects people across the employment spectrum. It doesn’t matter where you sit on the corporate ladder or how many zeros are on your pay packet. The question is less who it impacts, but how it affects them. “People can function with anxiety,” Forde says, “but if it’s the dominant theme in their lives, they will not be at their best. It will affect them in areas such as decision-making and mental focus. You end up staring at a screen or a document, but nothing is going in” [6].
Causes
There is no single cause of workplace anxiety but common threads emerge across studies. According to wellbeing coach Vanessa Green, four triggers show up most frequently: poor work-life balance, poor communication, excessive workload, and toxic interpersonal dynamics such as bullying or exclusion [7]. These triggers often combine to create a feedback loop in which chronic stress becomes internalised as personal failure.
Green describes how many professionals struggle to disconnect from their work even after hours. “They feel guilty for taking time off, or anxious that stepping away will be interpreted as weakness or lack of commitment,” she explains [8]. Poor communication can amplify this, particularly a lack of clarity around expectations. When employees do not know what their manager wants, or do not feel safe enough to ask, anxiety tends to fill the silence. As Chester Elton, co-author of Anxiety at Work, puts it: “In the absence of information, our instinct is to assume the worst — and then work ourselves to the bone to make sure it never happens” [9].
High workloads remain a persistent driver of stress. While some leaders assume that pressure will drive performance, the opposite is often true. “We don’t eat an elephant in one bite,” says Elton. “You have to break work into digestible parts. Managers who support their teams to do that effectively can reduce anxiety more than they realise” [10].
The emotional culture of a workplace matters too. One of the most toxic (and least visible) contributors to workplace anxiety is social exclusion. “Ostracism in the workplace can have long-term psychological implications,” Elton warns. “It is often just as damaging as direct bullying” [11]. Employees who feel excluded, belittled, or overlooked often feel psychologically unsafe, which contributes to higher stress and lower self-esteem. Under such circumstances, working at a high-level becomes extremely difficult.
Why it matters
The costs of anxiety go far beyond the individual. When anxiety becomes entrenched, businesses suffer too. Chronic anxiety impairs cognitive performance, weakens memory, and reduces the ability to regulate emotion, leading to reactive decision-making or analysis paralysis. According to research cited by Laya Healthcare, anxiety increases both absenteeism and presenteeism, damages concentration, and raises the risk of secondary mental health issues such as depression, substance abuse and burnout [12].
Anxiety also erodes retention. A growing number of employees, particularly those in their twenties and thirties, cite mental health as a driving factor in their decision to leave jobs. “Seventy-five per cent of millennials and Gen Z said they left a job recently because of a mental health issue,” says Elton. “You’re losing incredibly talented people because they don’t feel safe talking about their anxiety” [13].
Given this, ignoring anxiety is not just wrongheaded from a moral standpoint but is an outright business risk. And yet, even where support is available, stigma still prevents many employees from reaching out. A 2023 study showed that 90 per cent of workers with anxiety feared disclosing it to their managers [14]. The perception that anxiety and leadership are incompatible is deeply entrenched, and it is holding organisations back.
Managing anxiety
So what can be done? The most effective responses to anxiety are not flashy wellness campaigns or one-off mental health days but long-term cultural shifts that integrate psychological safety into the fabric of an organisation.
At the core of this shift is leadership. As Elton emphasises, “If you can’t talk to your immediate supervisor about a mental health issue, what’s the result? The result is attrition. The result is burnout” [15]. Managers need to recognise that supporting mental wellbeing is a driver of high performance, not a distraction from it. That begins with empathy and emotional literacy. It means actively constructing an environment that makes talking about mental health easy from both an emotional and practical standpoint. Leaders need to communicate to their teams that it’s okay to be going through a hard time and let them know the parameters in place to help them if they are.
Leaders who are willing to be vulnerable and share their own anxieties or challenges help create environments where others feel safe to do the same. As Elton notes, “Trying too hard to appear perfectly in control makes you seem unrelatable. Disclosing that you, too, have struggles can bring all sides together” [16]. Leaders need to be fostering open dialogue, establishing clear expectations, and offering support without judgement.
To help both employees and leaders alike, the available support should be structural, with clear practices available to those who feel they need help. Practical interventions include flexible working hours, workload reviews, mental health training for managers, and accessible resources such as Employee Assistance Programmes (EAPs), therapy, and digital wellbeing platforms. Some Irish employers now offer 24/7 mental wellbeing support, including financial counselling and CBT-based interventions for anxiety management [17]. These practices may not outright curtail anxiety, but they can help make it manageable. As Aarons-Mele writes, “When you understand your anxiety and learn to leverage it, you develop a leadership superpower. Unmanaged anxiety keeps you stuck imagining a scary future. But managed anxiety can give you foresight, drive, and empathy” [18].
These strategies can be helpful, but none of them will work unless the culture supports them. That means tackling the stigma head-on.
Building resilience
While organisations must lead, individuals also need tools to manage their own anxiety. Vanessa Green outlines daily practices that many high-achieving professionals use to stay grounded under pressure. These include physical self-care (exercise, sleep, diet), mindfulness, time management, and clear boundary-setting [19].
Other strategies involve building psychological resilience. Reframing anxious thoughts, focusing on problem-solving and practising self-compassion can all help to break the anxiety loop. To sceptics, these approaches can sound wishy-washy, but there’s a logic behind them that can make all the difference, even and especially for workers who are accustomed to guarding their struggles internally. “Self-compassion is not about letting yourself off the hook,” says Forde. “It’s about treating yourself with the kindness you’d extend to someone else in a difficult situation” [20].
It is also important to acknowledge that not all anxiety is bad. In fact, under the right conditions, anxiety can improve performance. The Yerkes-Dodson Law, a century-old psychological model, shows that moderate levels of arousal can boost motivation and focus. Meanwhile, too little leads to apathy and too much leads to paralysis [21]. One useful practice is to reframe anxiety as excitement. While not a guaranteed solution, this approach can be particularly effective in high-stress situations such as job interviews, performance reviews, or public speaking. Recognising that nerves are a normal response that can be channelled into a more positive, energising mindset can make these moments easier to navigate.
Overcoming anxiety at work
Overcoming workplace anxiety is not about striving for serenity in all situations, nor is it about creating perfectly calm workplaces. It is about creating environments where people feel seen, supported and psychologically safe enough to do their best work. That means recognising that anxiety is not a private flaw. It is a shared human experience that when properly understood can become a source of insight rather than isolation. If leaders commit to empathy, if organisations invest in mental health as they do in strategy, and if individuals are given the tools to manage their inner worlds then we can turn anxiety from something feared and silenced into something acknowledged, supported and ultimately transformed.
Sources
[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
[7] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
[8] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
[9] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2021/06/29/tips-for-dealing-with-anxiety-at-work/
[10] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2021/06/29/tips-for-dealing-with-anxiety-at-work/
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rodgerdeanduncan/2021/06/29/tips-for-dealing-with-anxiety-at-work/
[13] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[14] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[15] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[16] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccazucker/2021/06/29/overcoming-anxiety-at-work/
[19] https://www.forbes.com/sites/byroncole/2023/10/06/how-to-combat-anxiety-at-work/
Artificial intelligence is no longer an emerging curiosity in the world of recruitment. It has become the default. In 2025, nearly every major company uses AI to some degree in hiring, whether for screening CVs, automating interview scheduling, or assessing candidates’ suitability for complex roles. A recent survey found that 99% of hiring managers now rely on AI tools in their recruitment processes, and 95% expect to increase their investment in these technologies in the coming year [1].
This enthusiasm is understandable. AI promises speed and scale, an antidote to the volume of applications that can overwhelm even the most seasoned hiring teams. But behind the scenes, AI is also having an effect more profound. It is reshaping the psychology of candidates, the fairness of assessments, and the very nature of how we define merit.
The impact on behaviour
For employers and candidates alike, the rise of AI in hiring has created a tension between efficiency and authenticity. As companies pursue the allure of automation, they risk sacrificing precisely what they claim to value most. Namely, diversity of thought, genuine human connection and a sense of fairness.
It is a paradox that researchers have begun to explore in detail. Writing in Harvard Business Review, Jonas Goergen and colleagues at the University of St. Gallen, along with Anne-Kathrin Klesse at Erasmus University, have demonstrated that AI assessment tools don’t just change how candidates are evaluated but how the candidates themselves actually behave [2]. Their research, spanning more than 13,000 participants, reveals a powerful shift in self-presentation. Candidates who knew AI was assessing them became more likely to emphasise analytical traits like rule-following or data-centric thinking and to downplay qualities like empathy, creativity, and intuition. In effect, AI nudges people toward a uniform version of competence.
This behavioural distortion is more than an academic curiosity. It has profound implications for the composition of talent pipelines. “When candidates systematically misrepresent themselves, organisations face critical challenges,” the researchers wrote. “Talent pool distortion, validity compromise, and unintended homogenisation” all threaten to undermine the very purpose of assessment [3].
The impact on bias
Companies frequently tout AI as a tool to combat bias. It is true that conventional hiring practices like unstructured interviews and gut-feel assessments are notoriously prone to human prejudice. Yet the idea that AI is inherently objective is wishful thinking. In a study published by Forbes, nearly all hiring managers agreed that AI can and does produce biased recommendations, whether because of skewed training data or opaque algorithms that replicate past discrimination [4].
These biases are not always obvious. Writing in Forbes, Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic describes a troubling dynamic in which AI systems trained on historical promotion and hiring data will often select for traits that have little to do with genuine job performance. Overconfidence, self-promotion, and low agreeableness emerge as reliable predictors of career progression not because these qualities drive better results, but because they are the behaviours that have historically been rewarded in corporate hierarchies [5].
“If we train AI to predict who will get promoted in a company, it will efficiently select politicians,” Chamorro-Premuzic observed. In other words, algorithms may not only fail to fix bias, but they can even automate and entrench it at scale [6].
The impact on process
This is not to say AI has delivered no improvements. It has undoubtedly made it easier for recruiters to process vast quantities of applications and to reach more diverse candidate pools. Unilever, for example, uses HireVue’s AI tools to screen early-career applicants, reporting savings of 50,000 hours and over $1 million in the process [7]. Many hiring managers argue that AI helps free their time for strategic work, cross-training, and genuine human connection [8].
But the candidate experience tells another story. A survey from the American Staffing Association found that nearly half of job seekers believe AI recruiting tools are more biased than human recruiters. Among those actively looking for work, that scepticism runs even deeper [9].
This mistrust is not an abstraction. It has practical consequences. Candidates who perceive AI as opaque and discriminatory are less likely to engage authentically. Instead, they game the system, crafting applications that match algorithmic preferences but reveal little about their real strengths.
The result is a new kind of arms race. Employers deploy AI to filter candidates more efficiently. Candidates, in turn, adopt their own AI tools. They use generative CV builders and ChatGPT-powered cover letters to optimise for keyword matching and pass automated screens. A Software Finder study found that 75% of candidates now use AI to assist with job applications [10].
Yet this widespread adoption brings its own contradictions. The same hiring managers who champion AI’s efficiency are often the quickest to penalise candidates for using it. One in four recruiters admitted they would reject candidates whose CVs were obviously AI-generated, even though 75% could not reliably tell the difference [11].
“It’s less about hypocrisy and more about two sides of the same coin — efficiency for organisations versus genuine skills from candidates,” Adnan Malik, CEO of Software Finder, explained [12].
The paradox is unmistakable. AI can help job seekers improve their materials and reach more opportunities. But the more candidates use it, the more they risk eroding trust and inviting suspicion. The hiring process becomes not a search for mutual fit, but a contest over who can best simulate authenticity.
The reaction
Companies now face an urgent question as to whether they can harness AI’s benefits without hollowing out the very humanity they claim to value.
Some organisations are beginning to grapple with this challenge. New regulations are forcing more transparency. In the European Union, the AI Act requires companies to disclose when AI is used in high-stakes decisions. In New York City, Local Law 144 mandates annual audits of AI hiring systems for bias [13].
Disclosure is an important step, but it is not sufficient. When candidates merely learn that AI is involved, they are even more likely to adjust their behaviour, further compromising the validity of assessments. The solution, researchers argue, is radical transparency. Candidates need clear, specific communication about what AI evaluates and why [14].
Most employers fall short of this standard. Career pages tend to mention AI vaguely, if at all. As a result, candidates fill the information void themselves, sharing blog posts and YouTube tutorials that may bear little resemblance to reality. In effect, companies have ceded control over how their processes are perceived.
Beyond transparency, some organisations are experimenting with hybrid approaches, combining AI assessment with human judgement. Salesforce, Nvidia and Philip Morris International all guarantee that human reviewers make final decisions [15]. Research suggests this does mitigate, but does not eliminate, candidates’ tendency to perform analytically.
Even in hybrid systems, the human element requires deliberate investment. Kathleen Duffy, writing in Forbes, argued that AI alone can never replace the nuanced work of recruiters, who at their best are able to uncover hidden potential, build relationships, and assess qualities like resilience and adaptability [16]. AI can accelerate certain parts of the process like identifying potential matches and collecting structured data, but it lacks the intuition to distinguish between a candidate who ticks the right boxes and one who will truly thrive.
This is why the most effective models integrate AI into a broader framework of human-centred recruitment. At Duffy Group, recruiters use AI for initial research such as sourcing candidates and gathering competitive intelligence, but reserve the core assessment and relationship-building for human professionals [17].
How to react?
For job seekers, this evolving landscape demands new strategies. While it is tempting to rely on AI-generated applications, success ultimately hinges on authenticity. Julia Arpag, CEO of Aligned Recruitment, warned that candidates who lean too heavily on generative tools risk alienating the very decision-makers they hope to impress [18]. “AI can help with structure and phrasing, but hiring managers still want authenticity,” she cautioned.
Arpag recommends a balanced approach of using AI to refine and streamline, but ensuring that applications reflect genuine experience and voice. Networking, she notes, remains as essential as ever, adding: “Word of mouth recommendations still matter.” It’s a refreshing reminder that the human dimension of hiring has not entirely disappeared, even in the era of automation [19].
The question is whether employers will prioritise this human dimension. So far, most companies have focused on efficiency gains, measuring success by cost reduction. Yet negative long-term consequences in the form of talent homogenisation, candidate disengagement and entrenched biases will be harder to quantify but potentially more damaging.
Going forward
As far as Chamorro-Premuzic sees it, while recruitment may look superficially transformed, much of the change has been incremental rather than revolutionary. “So far, it is a case of mostly running faster in the same direction,” he wrote. “But it isn’t clear whether this is the right direction to begin with” [20].
This, perhaps, is the heart of the matter. AI promises to solve the inefficiencies and biases of traditional hiring. But in the rush to embrace automation, organisations risk creating a system that is more efficient, but no more equitable, transparent, or humane.
To avoid this outcome, leaders must resist the temptation to delegate judgment to algorithms. They must insist on clarity about what AI measures, invest in human-centred processes that counteract bias, and remember that technology is a tool, not a philosophy.
As companies grapple with these choices, they would do well to remember that hiring is not merely a transaction. It is an exercise in trust, empathy, and imagination, qualities no machine can fully replicate. In the end, the organisations that thrive will be those that understand AI’s power but also its limits, and that remain committed to seeing people, not just patterns.
Sources
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/07/how-ai-assessment-tools-affect-job-candidates-behavior
It’s often difficult for a leader stepping into a new role. You’re the boss, but you’re also the newbie, simultaneously the authority figure and the one who needs to ask directions for the bathroom. The impulse to prove one’s worth early on often collides with the uncomfortable truth that credibility has yet to be earned. Whether you are a freshly minted manager or a seasoned executive walking into a new organisation, giving feedback too soon (or too tentatively) can damage trust before it takes root. Yet delaying these conversations risks allowing underperformance to calcify into culture. Navigating this tension is one of the most critical challenges that new leaders face.
Marissa Fernandez, a former C-suite executive turned executive coach, has seen this tightrope act up close. As she observes in Harvard Business Review, “Moving too fast can lead to missteps, while waiting too long risks inaction and meaningful opportunities lost” [1]. The art lies in giving feedback that is timely but also informed by real understanding of the people, systems and politics you have inherited.
This is less about technique than mindset. Too many leaders see feedback as a transaction, just one more task on a checklist of performance management. But effective feedback is a relationship. It demands curiosity, humility and the discipline to set aside your ego so you can serve the team’s growth rather than your own need for validation.
The good news is that while every organisation is unique, the principles underpinning effective feedback are remarkably consistent. Drawing on research and the experiences of leaders across industries, four strategies stand out. New learners should assess the landscape, fast-track trust, understand their team’s aspirations, and set aside their ego. Each one helps transform feedback from a threat into a catalyst for growth.
Assess the landscape
Early in a new role, it is tempting to hunt for “quick wins.” For Barry, a divisional CFO Fernandez coached, this impulse had been a career-long pattern. He would act fast in order to establish credibility. But as he later admitted, that same urgency had often bred resistance and strained relationships [2].
The temptation to jump in is understandable. Leaders are hired to deliver results, and results rarely come from standing still. Yet if you begin issuing feedback based solely on your first impressions, you risk acting on incomplete or distorted information. The solution is to slow down just long enough to build context.
Michael Watkins, author of The First 90 Days, suggests that new leaders develop a structured learning plan across four domains: technical, interpersonal, cultural and political [3]. This framework goes beyond the obvious (“What do our KPIs say?”) and forces you to consider subtler dynamics such as who really holds influence? What unspoken norms shape behaviour? Which past experiences have made the team cautious or cynical?
For Barry, this approach proved transformative. When he observed that his head of accounting, Luis, lacked the strategic capabilities the role required, his first instinct was to act immediately. But he resisted. Instead, he spent weeks gathering perspective. He observed meetings, spoke with Luis’s peers, learned about Luis’s 17-year tenure and the trust he commanded [4]. With this deeper understanding, Barry reframed his feedback. Rather than a blunt indictment of Luis’s shortcomings, it became a conversation about transitioning into a role that played to Luis’s strengths while serving the business’s evolving needs.
This measured approach underscores the broader truth that effective feedback depends on situational awareness. When you have triangulated observations and heard the same themes from multiple voices, your insights are more likely to be accurate and your feedback more likely to be accepted.
Model vulnerability
“To ensure your feedback is not just heard but acted upon, you need to build a foundation of trust,” Fernandez writes [5]. Even when your feedback is grounded in data and observation, it will fall flat without trust. Yet trust, by definition, takes time to develop.
Exceptional leaders understand that while time helps, deliberate action accelerates the process. In The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, Patrick Lencioni argues that vulnerability is a core building block of trust [6]. Leaders who model openness create psychological safety, helping develop the sense that it is safe to take risks, admit mistakes and be imperfect.
One powerful way to do this is to share the “dark side” of your strengths. For example, if decisiveness is your hallmark, acknowledge that it can sometimes come across as impatience. If collaboration is your preference, admit that it can slow decision-making. By openly naming these tensions, you invite your team to do the same and signal that candid self-reflection is valued.
In one case Fernandez describes, a newly restructured leadership team held a facilitated session in which every member shared not only their top strengths but also the unintended consequences of overusing them [7]. Because everyone participated, the exercise felt less like a confessional and more like an honest calibration. The result was a foundation of faster trust and an environment primed for constructive feedback.
Understand what drives your people
Feedback is both easier to receive and more likely to inspire change when it connects to what matters most to the recipient. In other words, the best feedback is not just about correcting performance gaps but enabling aspirations.
When Divya, another of Fernandez’s clients, stepped into the role of head of global sales, she scheduled one-on-one meetings with every team member to understand their ambitions and their best working experiences [8]. These conversations built rapport, but more than that they created a roadmap for future coaching.
A few weeks later, Divya noticed that Maria, a high-performing regional sales leader, often dominated discussions, inadvertently stifling other voices. Instead of framing the feedback purely as a problem, Divya anchored it in Maria’s own goals: “Leading on a larger stage will mean fostering collaboration and creating space for others’ ideas to shine. Let’s work on strategies to build that skill now” [9].
Maria took the message to heart. Over time, she shifted her approach in meetings, drawing out quieter team members and asking more questions before offering her perspective. By aligning feedback with Maria’s aspirations, Divya transformed what could have been a defensive exchange into an empowering conversation that ultimately aided both. Finding the motivation of your team can be key to this. Maria wanted to be great at her job and thought showing her strengths was the way to go about that. Divya’s feedback helped her see that the best way to achieve her goal was actually to cede the spotlight from time to time. When feedback is positioned as a pathway to achieve personal ambitions, it feels less like criticism and more like investment. Aligning your wants with the wants of your team goes a long way.
Set aside your ego
Perhaps the most insidious obstacle to effective feedback is ego. New leaders are especially prone to letting it intrude. In the rush to prove they were the right hire, they either swing toward overassertiveness, such as by using blunt feedback to project authority, or swing the other way toward excessive caution, avoiding difficult conversations altogether.
Neither extreme works. “Exceptional leaders understand that you can be clear and direct while showing care and respect — it’s not an either/or choice,” Fernandez writes [10].
Michael, a newly promoted director at a tech startup, faced this very dilemma. When a senior engineer repeatedly missed deadlines, Michael felt he had to intervene. But he also worried about alienating a key contributor. In their one-on-one, he began by acknowledging her expertise and past successes. Then he stated the facts simply: “I’ve noticed the missed deadlines on your recent deliverables. I know you’re committed to this product, and I want to make sure you have what you need to get back on track” [11].
This combination of directness and empathy created space for dialogue rather than defensiveness. The engineer explained that a new process was slowing her down, and together they restructured her responsibilities.
Such conversations require intention. Most leaders lean naturally toward either empathy or assertiveness. The discipline lies in preparing so you can dial up the side that does not come as easily. Over time, this balance creates a culture where feedback is not feared but welcomed as part of continuous improvement.
Useful feedback maxims
Beyond these broad strategies, a series of practical maxims can help ensure your feedback lands effectively. When gathered to give their opinions on what made for effective feedback, the Forbes Coaches Council, a panel of seasoned experts, offered guidance that underscores both the clarity and humanity required in the process [12].
One of the most enduring principles the panel agreed upon was avoiding the “feedback sandwich.” While it may feel gentler to embed criticism between two positive statements, Sheri Nasim of the Center for Executive Excellence argues this practice “lacks clarity, causes confusion and can make your direct reports feel you are disingenuous” [13]. Better to be clear and direct, framed with intention and respect.
David Limiero of Edens View Coaching and Consulting suggests reimagining the very concept of feedback as “feedforward.” Because the past is immutable, focusing on what could be different next time empowers employees rather than demoralising them [14]. This forward-looking mindset shifts the tone from judgment to possibility.
Clarity is also paramount. Lynda Silsbee of the Alliance for Leadership Acceleration observes that “ambiguous feedback leaves employees guessing, while clear, direct and constructive input helps them grow” [15]. When feedback is too vague, it becomes an exercise in frustration. Specific examples, paired with clear expectations, remove this uncertainty.
Finally, adapt your delivery to the individual. Barbara Zuleger of Performance Partners Coaching reminds us that “feedback isn’t one-size-fits-all” [16]. Some people thrive on direct input while others need time to process. Flexing your approach does not mean softening your standards. Rather, it means meeting people where they are so they can engage constructively.
Receiving feedback
Of course, giving feedback is only half the story. Being a leader also means receiving it, sometimes in ways that sting. Writing in Forbes, Dede Henley, CEO of Henley Leadership Group, reflects on handling critical feedback and offers three core pieces of guidance [17].
First, look for the “kernel of truth.” Even poorly delivered criticism usually contains some valuable insight. Even if you disagree with the criticism itself, look for the note behind the note. Your team won’t always know how to perfectly express what it is that’s grinding them. Good leaders can see through the superficial complaint to the underlying issue beneath.
Second, pause. When someone says something provocative, take ten breaths and, if necessary, ask to sleep on it before responding. As Henley puts it, this pause “gets the thinking brain, the neo-cortex, back online” [18]. Receiving criticism can be hard, no matter how constructive its insight or well-intentioned its aims. Don’t allow your pride or sensitivity to respond for you.
Third, mirror back what you have heard. Paraphrase the feedback to demonstrate you have truly understood, then ask if there is more. This practice diffuses tension and shows you are committed to learning rather than defending. It also ensures you’re not adopting the wrong actionables nor internally raging against a self-constructed strawman.
Leaders who embrace this mindset and understand that feedback is not an attack but a gift model the very openness they hope to cultivate in their teams.
Feedback is the bedrock
Feedback given well is neither a performance nor a manipulation. It is a genuine commitment to help others grow. When you are new in a role, this commitment is tested most acutely. You are learning the landscape, building trust, discerning aspirations and managing your own insecurities, all while being watched for signals of who you will be as a leader.
But these early moments, handled thoughtfully, can become your leadership foundation. They set the tone for a culture defined not by blame or fear but by candour, trust and mutual success. And in that culture, everyone, including you, has permission to keep growing.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[4] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[6] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[7] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[10] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[11] https://hbr.org/2025/07/4-strategies-to-help-new-leaders-give-feedback
[17] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/12/24/handling-feedback-with-a-cool-head
[18] https://www.forbes.com/sites/dedehenley/2023/12/24/handling-feedback-with-a-cool-head
In June, the heatwave that swept across Europe claimed an estimated 2,300 lives in 12 major cities. According to a rapid analysis by the World Weather Attribution group, two-thirds of those deaths — about 1,500 — were directly linked to climate breakdown, which pushed temperatures up to 4°C higher than they would have been without human-driven global heating [1]. The fact of the matter is that extreme heat is now a pervasive global issue, and one that must be factored into employers’ considerations regarding employee safety. Even in generally temperate countries like the UK and Ireland, the figures are striking, with temperatures above 40°C recorded in the UK in 2022 and above 33°C in Ireland in the same year. As the climate around us shifts out of recognisability, a fundamental rethink of workplace safety, infrastructure, and policy is vital.
The Threat
Across both the UK and Ireland, policy has been slow to adapt. Unlike cold weather, where a minimum workplace temperature of 16°C is mandated by the Health and Safety Executive, no upper threshold currently exists for when it is too hot to work safely indoors [2]. This is increasingly untenable. Heat stress doesn’t just pose a medical risk to vulnerable workers. It impairs judgment, drains productivity, and raises the likelihood of fatal errors, all while pushing infrastructure, supply chains, and employer liability to their limits.
According to the World Health Organization, extreme heat could cost the global economy over $4 trillion in lost productivity every year by 2030, with two per cent of all working hours projected to vanish due to heat stress alone [3]. In the US, a recent report estimated that heat events already account for 235,000 emergency department visits and more than 56,000 hospital admissions each summer, tacking on an extra $1 billion in healthcare costs annually [4].
As Dr Talia Varley, physician lead for Global Corporate Advisory at the Cleveland Clinic, puts it, “Extreme heat events may be the new norm. And companies have more than one reason to be worried” [5].
The Effects
The physiological dangers of extreme heat are well-documented. At a basic level, the human body relies on evaporative cooling — sweating — and increased blood flow to the skin to manage rising internal temperature. When this natural thermoregulation fails, heat stress sets in. This can manifest in various ways: heat rash, cramping, dehydration, disorientation, heat exhaustion, and in the worst cases, heat stroke, which can lead to brain dysfunction or death [6].
But the threat is not merely biological. In high-heat conditions, workers become more irritable, less focused, and more prone to errors. Fine motor skills — the kind required to type, weld, or operate machinery — degrade. Cognitive performance drops. Studies from Harvard University and the Institution of Mechanical Engineers have found that indoor air quality and ambient temperature are critical factors in focus, reaction speed, and decision-making [7]. At temperatures above 25°C, attention, task accuracy, and risk assessment begin to decline. At 30°C and above, the risk of workplace accidents increases significantly [8].
This means the health and safety implications of rising temperatures are just one side of the ledger. There are business continuity, economic performance, and human resource retention issues too.
So how can employers begin to meet this challenge?
The Role of Employers
The first step is to acknowledge that temperature thresholds alone don’t tell the full story. Heat stress results from a combination of environmental, occupational, and personal factors. It’s not just how hot it is outside, but how humid it is, whether there’s airflow, how physically demanding the job is, and whether the worker is elderly, pregnant, taking medications, or managing chronic conditions like diabetes or hypertension. Even clothing plays a role. Those wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), for instance, experience significantly higher internal temperatures [9].
The most accurate tool to assess risk is a wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) meter, which takes into account not just air temperature, but humidity, radiant heat, and wind speed. Yet very few workplaces in the UK or Ireland currently employ such measures [10].
What’s needed, says Varley, is a systemic approach. “Employers should incorporate heat-related illness prevention into broader health and safety programmes. That means developing a long-term heat-health action plan, tracking temperatures, adapting work schedules, and designing infrastructure for thermal comfort — not just cost efficiency” [11].
This isn’t just a concern for outdoor workers. Office spaces are not immune. Thermal discomfort can have cascading effects on mood, concentration, and morale. Many buildings lack adequate HVAC systems to stay within the temperature range recommended by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) [12]. Moreover, the current standards are typically based on male metabolic rates, which neglect the different thermal preferences and vulnerabilities of women. Women, particularly post-menopause, are more susceptible to sudden temperature changes due to reduced oestrogen production [13].
What’s more, as Arjun Gupta, creator of the indoor air quality device Vyana, notes: “Research shows worker performance declines above 25°C, and high CO2 levels can halve cognitive function. Investing in air filtration, monitoring, and HVAC upgrades isn’t just about comfort. It’s about operational effectiveness” [14].
What’s Being Done?
In the US, some states are taking heat safety seriously. Minnesota, Oregon, and California have implemented laws requiring temperature-specific protections for indoor and outdoor workers, such as mandatory rest breaks, hydration schedules, and shaded recovery zones [15]. Federal rules proposed by OSHA would require employers to provide shaded or air-conditioned breaks once temperatures hit 27°C, with more frequent breaks and monitoring above 32°C [16]. Yet in the UK, practically nothing has changed since the Climate Change Committee reported in March 2023 that the country had made “little progress” on adapting buildings for a warmer climate [17].
It’s not just regulation that’s lagging. According to Brian Castrucci, CEO of the de Beaumont Foundation and a member of the US National Commission on Climate and Workforce Health, only 17% of CEOs surveyed by PwC have implemented strategies to protect their employees from heat-related risk despite more than 65 million American workers already exposed to it [18]. “Extreme heat has come to Main Street, and it’s impacting Wall Street,” Castrucci says. “The question is not whether CEOs are going to feel the heat, but when” [19].
For businesses in the UK and Ireland, this should be a wake-up call. As Jamie Hailstone writes in Forbes, “Companies urgently need to develop strategies to protect workers from excessive heat as average global temperatures continue to rise” [20]. The risks are stark. In October 2024, eleven factory employees were swept away in flooding caused by Hurricane Helene in the US, a tragic reminder that extreme weather is no longer confined to seasonal or outdoor labour [21]. This point is only being further hammered home by the current tragedy unfurling in Texas in the wake of extreme flooding.
As climate hazards intensify, businesses must adopt climate resilience as part of core strategy, not as an ESG side project. That includes upgrading ventilation systems, implementing remote working protocols during red weather alerts, offering heat-related sick leave, and supporting mental health during climate-related disasters. “Effective leadership demands empathy and proactive support,” says Dalya Perez, former senior programme manager at Microsoft. “Publicly acknowledging the challenges faced by impacted employees — for instance, through company-wide messages of support — is a powerful gesture. It lets the team know it’s okay to be human” [22].
The mental health dimension of heat cannot be ignored. According to the American Psychological Association, high temperatures increase irritability and aggression, exacerbate depression, and can trigger psychotic episodes in vulnerable populations [23]. That psychological stress, layered onto physical discomfort, compounds the risk of burnout, mistakes, and absenteeism.
Planning ahead is crucial. Hansi Singh, CEO of Planette.ai, a climate forecasting startup, argues that “the perception of limited warning often stems from a lack of attention to forecasts. With better planning and integration, much of the human toll from extreme weather could be avoided” [24]. Singh is already working with insurers to develop parametric insurance products for workers whose livelihoods are disrupted by extreme weather. She predicts such schemes will become mainstream across the Global North in the coming decade [25].
Action Points
So what can businesses do now? Start by assessing the specific risks to their sector, workforce, and geography. Engage in training programmes that educate both workers and managers on the signs of heat illness, acclimatisation protocols, and emergency response. Invest in building adaptations and real-time monitoring tools. Establish internal communication strategies for red alerts. And design climate contingency policies — including remote work, staggered hours, or even temporary closures — that prioritise health over output.
It’s tempting to think of extreme heat as someone else’s problem, a challenge for vineyards in Spain or solar farms in Arizona. But the climate is shifting everywhere. In the immediate moment, it’s tempting to celebrate the uncharacteristically warmer temperatures that make for a nicer summer. But this is just the tipping point. As the world continues to warm, soon there will be far grander issues facing even countries with traditionally moderate climates. Workers will need to be protected.
As Dr Tim Fox, lead author of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers report on heat stress, warned: “Adapting industries to, and preparing them for, a warmer world will be essential for the future successful functioning of societies of all nations” [26]. In the coming years, success won’t just be measured in profits and productivity, but in how well we protected the people doing the work.
Protecting Workers from Extreme Heat
As temperatures continue to rise and the frequency of extreme heat events escalates, the case for immediate and sustained employer action is overwhelming. Protecting workers from heat stress is no longer a seasonal concern but a year-round responsibility, requiring investment, foresight, and a shift in how we define workplace safety. The economic, ethical, and human costs of inaction are simply too high. Those businesses that lead with empathy, science, and resilience will not only safeguard their workforce but also secure long-term operational stability. The climate has changed. Now, the workplace must too.
Sources
[3] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[5] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[6] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[9] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[10] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[11] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[12] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
[13] https://hbr.org/2023/07/protecting-your-workforce-from-extreme-heat
By the time most of us reach mid-career, we’ve heard it all. “Pick a lane.” “Master your craft.” “Become the go-to expert.” The mantra of specialisation — get deep, stay narrow — has long dominated career advice. It’s a compelling narrative: commit to a niche, invest your 10,000 hours, and one day you’ll be recognised as an authority, handsomely rewarded for your rarefied skill set.
But that story, while not wrong, is no longer the only one. In a world where disruption is the norm and agility is the ultimate asset, a different (once-maligned) archetype is now having its day in the sun, that of the generalist. These are the multi-hyphenate workers who roam freely across disciplines, adapting to change not by digging deeper but by zooming out.
So which is it — should you specialise or generalise? The most honest answer, as research increasingly shows, is: it depends.
When Do Generalists Win?
In a landmark study published in Administrative Science Quarterly, Florenta Teodoridis, Michael Bikard and Keyvan Vakili studied more than 4,000 mathematicians across two decades to test this very question. Their findings were nuanced but powerful. When the pace of change was slow, generalists outperformed. When it was fast, specialists surged ahead [1].
The researchers used the collapse of the Soviet Union as a natural experiment. Theoretical fields like integral equations saw a sudden flood of new ideas as Soviet research became accessible to Western scholars. In these rapidly evolving domains, specialists thrived, publishing 83% more citation-weighted papers than generalists in the following decade. Conversely, in slower-moving fields like algebra and geometry, generalists outshone their specialist peers — demonstrating a 22% productivity advantage over time [2].
The takeaway? Context is king. When knowledge is stable and innovation stems from unexpected combinations — like Ford drawing inspiration from meatpacking plants — generalists connect the dots best. But when fields evolve rapidly, as in artificial intelligence or gene editing, deep technical fluency becomes essential.
This mirrors a broader truth in today’s economy: both paths hold value. The trick lies in knowing when, where, and how to walk each.
The Need for Adaptability
Writing in Forbes, Paul Genberg, a self-described “hub of the wheel” who has done everything from ski professionally to launching cookware lines and now leads Studio X, says generalism has been a career superpower. “All knowledge builds on itself,” he says. “And the generalist takes his suitcase packed full of wide-ranging experience with him wherever he goes” [3].
His point is echoed in the rise of multihyphenates — those whose business cards don’t say one title, but three: “strategist-slash-marketer-slash-poet.” This isn’t a phase. It’s a function of a labour market that rewards adaptability over loyalty and problem-solving over pedigree.
Nicole Smartt Serres captures this shift well. “We’ve given specialising too much credit,” she argues. “In fact, it might not even be the best way.” She references David Epstein’s book Range, which Bill Gates listed among his favourite reads, for its defence of broad experience, interdisciplinary thinking and delayed specialisation [4].
That book’s core message is that generalists are better suited to solve complex, novel problems because they can borrow tools from multiple mental toolkits.
This broader worldview isn’t just theory but policy. Major employers like Google, IBM and Salesforce are de-emphasising traditional degrees in favour of shorter, skills-based certifications. These companies are betting that agility matters more than academic depth in a rapidly evolving world. As Kumar Abhishek, VP of S&P Global, notes, “certification pays off faster in the marketplace and is less time-consuming” but the broader, transferable skills of a generalist create long-term resilience [5].
Hybrid Thinkers
Yet it would be a mistake to declare specialisation obsolete. In fast-moving technical environments, deep expertise is a prerequisite. Rajeev Shroff, an ICF Master Coach and former network engineer turned venture consultant, argues that today’s innovation economy demands a blend: specialists with “fair expertise in two or three disciplines” [6].
In his view, this hybrid profile — neither pure generalist nor single-lane specialist — is the future. These individuals offer enough depth to make decisions and enough breadth to spot connections, a balance that prepares them for senior leadership and cross-functional impact.
This middle ground is increasingly vital in global innovation centres, where agility and domain knowledge must coexist. And it’s not just practical but strategic. In her TED Talk on “multipotentialites” writer and artist Emilie Wapnick puts it best: “Innovation happens at the intersections.” Generalists don’t just adapt; they synthesise. They turn ambiguity into opportunity. And when paired with specialists, they drive real breakthroughs [7].
Still, context matters. In technical fields where precision is paramount nobody wants a jack-of-all-trades. Specialisation remains a cornerstone of excellence. But the golden cage of expertise, as Genberg puts it, can also be limiting. “We tell our kids, ‘Find what you’re good at and stick to it,’” he writes. “But what if that industry goes away? What if you realise 10 years later that you hate what you do?” [8]
The ability to pivot, then, becomes essential. Mid-career switches are no longer taboo. Nearly half of surveyed workers have made dramatic career changes, from marketing to engineering, from teaching to finance. Of those, 88% reported feeling happier after the shift [9].
What makes these transitions possible? Generalist traits: transferable skills, strong communication, a willingness to learn.
Who Leads?
This makes generalists particularly well-suited to leadership roles. An HBR study found that 90% of the 17,000 CEOs they analysed had general management experience [10]. Specialists may rise quickly within functions, but the corner office often goes to those who can zoom out, make lateral moves and unify diverse teams. As one executive put it, “CEOs are required to make lateral, unconventional and even risky career moves.”
And yet, the C-suite still makes room for specialists, just not at the top. Chief legal, technology, or finance officers tend to be domain experts. The difference is one of scope: specialists optimise, generalists orchestrate. It’s not a question of superiority but of complementarity.
In fact, the most resilient teams blend both. Specialists deliver depth, accuracy and continuity. Generalists offer agility, vision and synthesis. As Shroff notes, leaders should aim to build teams that include both kinds of minds, as well as some in between. “To create maximum resilience in their teams,” he writes, “global leaders need to find the right mix of specialists with deep expertise in just one topic, specialists with fair expertise in two or three areas and a few generalists” [11].
Start Narrow, Grow Wide
This shift isn’t just organisational. It matters for individuals too. If you’re early in your career, focus matters. As Dr Eric George puts it in Forbes: “Specialisation gives you a professional foothold.” It provides earnings, opportunities and credibility [12].
His own path — first a hand surgeon, then CEO of a hospital, and eventually a successful entrepreneur — traces an hourglass arc: broad beginnings, a period of deep focus, followed by expansive growth. “Specialisation taught me to run a surgical hospital effectively and efficiently,” he writes. “Which proved vital later.”
This hourglass metaphor offers perhaps the best career guidance of all. Start broad. Focus deeply. Then broaden again. Generalisation without skill is shallow. Specialisation without adaptability is brittle. But together, they form a career that is both rooted and resilient.
For organisations, the implications are clear: hire for potential, not just pedigree. Nurture specialists, but cross-train them. Reward depth, but value range. In a knowledge economy, the strongest teams are not those stacked with polymaths or packed with narrow experts. They are the ones that know when to call on which.
For individuals, the message is subtler but just as urgent: your path doesn’t have to be linear to be valid. You can specialise, generalise, shift, return, hybridise. You can be a surgeon who becomes a CEO. A marketer who becomes an engineer. A generalist who learns to master just enough to be indispensable.
Because in the end, the question isn’t whether you should specialise or generalise. It’s whether you can read the room, read the times and read your own skills and desires.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2018/07/when-generalists-are-better-than-specialists-and-vice-versa
[2] https://hbr.org/2018/07/when-generalists-are-better-than-specialists-and-vice-versa
[3] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/03/the-value-of-being-a-generalist
[8] https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbesbusinesscouncil/2021/06/03/the-value-of-being-a-generalist
By the time you finally sink your feet into the sand, lace up your hiking boots, or simply switch off your morning alarm, the last thing you want to be thinking about is a work email. Yet for many professionals, the pre-holiday period can feel like an overwhelming sprint to the finish line, a time thief that robs the joy from your well-earned rest before it even begins.
Writing in Harvard Business Review, project manager Yasmina Khelifi, author of How To Become a Culturally-Aware Project Manager, recounts a time she found herself entangled in exactly that trap. A long-awaited vacation coincided with the most critical phase of a high-priority project. “In a panic,” she writes, “I quickly began to plan for backup,” launching into a frenzy of emails, attachments, and exhaustive explanations for a colleague stepping in during her absence. What resulted was a blur of over-communication that only heightened the stress for both parties involved [1].
The mistake, as Khelifi saw in herself and sees in so many others, is the attempt to create a carbon copy of yourself at work while you’re away. “That’s not how backup plans should work,” she says. The key isn’t cloning yourself. Rather, it’s crafting a system that enables clarity, simplicity and, most importantly, trust [2].
A Matter of Mindset
The modern workplace is riddled with contradictions. We glorify time off but penalise disconnection. We promote wellbeing but idolise availability. It’s no wonder that, according to Forbes, over 765 million vacation days went unused in the US in 2023 alone — and even among those who did take time off, over half admitted to working while away [3]. The US may be more holiday-shy than most of its counterparts, but this is far from an isolated problem. In Ireland, the UK, you name it, employees are finding time off to be almost as stressful as time on the clock.
This trend isn’t just unfortunate, it’s counterproductive. Breaks are meant to be restorative, yet are often laced with more stress than day-to-day office life. Forbes contributor Shani Harmon warns of “leisure time thieves”, by which she means those lingering obligations and mental loops that sneak their way into our downtime, such as bringing your work laptop on the trip or checking your emails while away [4].
This cultural reluctance to disconnect has bled into the planning process as well. We often treat time off like a rogue wave to brace for rather than an inevitable rhythm of working life to plan around. And that’s where the change must begin.
Four Weeks Out
The most successful handovers aren’t built overnight. Ideally, you should begin your preparation four to six weeks before you set your out-of-office message. This is the moment to get strategic. Block the dates in your calendar, confirm them with your manager, and notify key stakeholders. Khelifi even recommends adding upcoming time off to your email signature. Maximum visibility, she argues, can sometimes nudge project deadlines forward to before your departure, easing the load for your backup [5].
This is also the window to reflect. What’s on your plate? Which deliverables can realistically be wrapped up in advance? “Remember,” Khelifi cautions, “your backup also has their own work to take care of” [6]. The aim isn’t to offload everything, but to ensure that what you do pass on is essential, manageable and clearly defined.
It’s here, too, that you should choose your backup. That’s a decision not to be taken lightly or left too late. The person stepping in for you needs context, time, and agency to do the job well.
Two Weeks Out
With your stand-in secured, the next stage is to define the scope. Aim to close out or renegotiate deadlines for any tasks that fall during your break. Think of your backup not as your replacement but as your representative. They’re entrusted to keep momentum going, not to inherit your entire workload.
The most powerful tool at your disposal is the handover document. This shouldn’t be a digital dumping ground but a curated, living artefact. Khelifi recommends listing every project you’re involved in, their current status, key risks, and any deadlines that fall within your absence. “Even if you’re not assigning your backup those tasks,” she says, “it will help them to know the status of your projects, and it will also help you plan your own work over the next two weeks” [8].
It’s not just a way of providing information. It’s a signal of respect for your work, your colleague’s time, and the standards your team upholds. Remember to be polite in the message and make clear that you’ll be doing everything you can to ensure they’re not overloaded in your absence [7]. They’re doing you a favour after all, it’s not a good look to ask for too much.
One Week Out
A week before your departure, the pressure mounts. But that’s precisely why this stage matters most. Begin by updating your handover document. Projects evolve, tasks shift, and what seemed urgent two weeks ago may no longer be a priority. Cross out what’s no longer relevant, and annotate the rest with clear instructions, including where to find files, who to chase for updates, and how to respond to specific contingencies [9].
Then, turn your attention to embedding your backup into the workflow. Add them to calendar invites, CC them on key email threads, and set up a one-on-one meeting. Perhaps your backup has a scheduling conflict with a meeting they’ve been asked to run. “You may need to take a call to see whether that’s to be cancelled or rescheduled and alert the attendees, Khalifi notes” [10]. The goal is to catch hiccups before they snowball.
The meeting should end with a clear email summary and a planned catch-up on your first day back. As Harmon advises, a “While you were away” update can help you reorient faster so your re-entry is smooth, not chaotic [11].
The Day Before
Out-of-office messages are often an afterthought, hastily written as you dash for the door. But a well-crafted one can make or break your time off. Be direct and specific. Set expectations, share contacts, and define your boundaries.
Khelifi suggests something in the mould of: “I’ll be hiking in the mountains with no/low network connection so I will not be checking emails” [12]. Meanwhile, Harmon goes out of her way to make clear that she will not be checking her email while away but also clarifies that anyone should text her in the event of something truly urgent [13].
Above all, resist the urge to stay connected as a form of virtue-signalling. If you’re a leader, the message you send by logging on during vacation is louder than any Teams message. “It’s become a very unhealthy norm,” Harmon writes, “particularly for senior executives, to forfeit a portion of every vacation day. That defeats the whole purpose of vacation” [14].
Instead, let your preparation do the talking. A calm, competent handoff broadcasts professionalism, emotional intelligence, and trust in your colleagues.
Protecting Your Time
There’s another side to this conversation that’s rarely addressed: how to avoid becoming the person who inherits all the leftover work when someone else goes on holiday. “Finishing up a project often involves dumping it or part of it onto someone else’s work plate,” warns Avery Blank in Forbes [15]. Many times a junior employee or someone in a non-management position ends up overloaded.
Blank offers a parallel set of principles: plan ahead, share the load, and prioritise. If someone asks you to cover, ask early for details. Clarify what’s expected, and negotiate scope if necessary [16]. Leaders, she reminds us, don’t work harder, they just work smarter [17].
It’s advice that applies on both sides of the handover. Whether you’re the one going offline or the one stepping in, the principles remain: prepare thoughtfully, communicate clearly, and honour each other’s time.
How to Hand Off Work Before Your Time Off
The deeper truth behind all of this is that well-executed handovers are more than just a logistical chore. Done right, they are an act of cultural leadership. They signal that rest is not a weakness but a necessity. That preparation is not paranoia but professionalism. That you trust your team, and in doing so, empower them to step up in your absence.
The transition from work to rest should not feel like abandoning ship. It should feel like a baton pass in a well-practiced relay. If executed properly, everyone gets to keep moving forward.
So the next time you plan a break, remember that letting go is not a liability but a skill. One worth learning, one worth sharing, and one that might just make your next holiday feel like a real one.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[2] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[5] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[6] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[7] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[8] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[9] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[10] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
[12] https://hbr.org/2024/11/a-guide-to-handing-off-work-before-a-vacation
In today’s corporate landscape, few ideas have travelled faster — or been more misunderstood — than psychological safety. Once an obscure academic term coined by MIT’s Edgar Schein and Warren Bennis in the 1960s, it has since exploded into boardrooms, workshops, and keynote speeches. But in the rush to embrace it, many leaders have twisted psychological safety into something it was never meant to be: a promise of comfort, consensus, or protection from failure. The result? A well-intentioned but deeply misguided approach that often inhibits the very learning and performance it was meant to support.
Psychological safety is not about being nice. Nor is it about protecting egos, shielding people from accountability, or making workplaces uniformly agreeable. At its core, as writes Amy Edmondson, the Novartis Professor of Leadership and Management at Harvard Business School, psychological safety is about “a shared sense of permission for candour” [1]. It is the belief that one can speak up, ask questions, raise concerns, or admit mistakes without fear of humiliation or reprisal.
Psychological Safety as “nice”
So where have businesses gone wrong? Let’s begin with the most persistent misunderstanding: that psychological safety means being nice. Writing for the Harvard Business Review, Edmondson and Michaela J. Kerrissey, an associate professor of management at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, recall a consultant who boasted of having a “psychologically safe team” because “we never argue” [2]. But conflict avoidance is not a hallmark of safety — it’s a symptom of suppression. “Nice,” in this context, becomes a euphemism for silence. Teams that substitute politeness for candour become echo chambers. Without challenge, they stagnate. Without dissent, they fail.
The infamous Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 offers a cautionary tale. As Edmondson notes, senior advisors to President Kennedy withheld their concerns about the ill-fated plan for fear of appearing unsupportive [3]. The catastrophic result led Kennedy to re-engineer his team’s decision-making process to encourage dissent — an approach that later paid off during the Cuban Missile Crisis. In business, as in politics, silence kills.
This conflation of psychological safety with comfort has been exacerbated by “concept creep.” Shane Snow, CEO of the film tech company Showrunner and founder of the innovation skills center Snow Academy, warns that leaders too often treat discomfort as danger, mistaking emotional unease for a lack of safety. “Safety is not the same as comfort,” Snow writes. “A good fitness trainer will help you to safely exercise and grow your muscles. And you will be uncomfortable. But you will be safe” [4]. Discomfort is the crucible of learning. If your team never feels stretched, it’s probably not growing.
Another damaging myth is that psychological safety means getting your way. One healthcare executive described a staff member accusing leadership of creating an unsafe environment because their idea wasn’t adopted [5]. This misinterpretation weaponises the concept. Psychological safety ensures your voice is heard, not that your opinion carries the day. As Timothy R. Clark writes in Forbes, “To be heard is not to be heeded” [6].
The reality is that disagreement — respectful, rigorous disagreement — is fundamental to safety. It’s not dangerous to challenge ideas; it’s dangerous when people fear doing so. As Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff argue in The Coddling of the American Mind, conflating disagreement with violence or ideas with harm erodes resilience and undermines the very conditions necessary for democratic discourse and innovation [7].
Psychological Safety as Security
Psychological safety is also often mistaken for job security. Google’s 2023 layoff of 12,000 employees prompted outrage from staff who saw the move as a betrayal of the company’s psychological safety ethos. Yet, as Edmondson and Kerrissey clarify, the very fact that an employee felt empowered to stand up at a town hall meeting and critique leadership proved that psychological safety was still alive and well [8]. Being able to speak candidly — especially in moments of tension or disappointment — is the truest measure of a psychologically safe culture.
Psychological Safety as Performance
The most enduring and corrosive misconception, however, may be the idea that psychological safety undermines performance. This false binary — safety or excellence — misleads many leaders into thinking that fostering candour requires sacrificing standards. In reality, high-performing teams thrive on both. “When both psychological safety and accountability are high, teams do their best work,” Edmondson argues [9].
This dynamic interplay is captured well by Sarah Liu, founder and managing director of The Dream Collective, an Asia Pacific (APAC) top 10 diversity and inclusion consultancy. Writing in Forbes Australia, Liu points out that when people feel psychologically safe, they not only take more creative risks but also hold themselves and each other accountable for outcomes [10]. Safety creates the space for constructive failure. But without clear goals and high expectations, that space becomes slack rather than supportive.
Indeed, if psychological safety is used as a shield for low performance, it ceases to be safety at all; it becomes avoidance. As Clark writes, “Non-performing employees tend to invoke it as an excuse for poor performance. They claim that we should give them a pass. But autonomy is earned, not owed”. [11]
Psychological Safety as Policy
Another misconception is that psychological safety can be mandated through policy. Rhode Island’s 2024 Workplace Psychological Safety Act, which allows employees to sue employers for failing to provide a psychologically safe environment, may be well-intentioned but fundamentally misunderstands how safety is created [12]. You can’t legislate trust. You can’t demand vulnerability. You can’t write a law that tells people to be honest. Psychological safety is cultivated, not installed.
That cultivation happens, crucially, through leadership behaviour. But contrary to the top-down dogma many consultants peddle, it’s not solely a leader’s job. As Edmondson reminds us, psychological safety is “local” [13]. Some teams in the same company flourish while others flounder. Not because of executive proclamations but because of micro-behaviours: how people respond to dissent, how feedback is delivered, how mistakes are handled.
Edmondson and Kerrissey put it plainly: “It’s possible to create a motivated, psychologically safe, high-performing team anywhere. Start by focusing on your own team” [14]. Safety is not something senior leaders hand down like holiday leave, it’s something we build interaction by interaction, meeting by meeting, moment by moment.
Psychological Safety as Practice
So what does building psychological safety look like in practice?
First, leaders must put purpose front and centre. As Edmondson observed, teams that focus obsessively on safety tend to become “really nice to one another” — and nothing else. Edmondson and Kerrissey give the example of Anouk, a consultant who realised that the leadership team’s focus on creating psychological safety — the very reason she’d been hired — was actually backfiring. She helped them reframe their focus to concentrate on shared goals and performance rather than the abstract concept of safety. Psychological safety improved as a by-product [15]. The takeaway? Talk less about safety, and more about why your work matters. A shared mission justifies the risks of candour.
Second, teams must learn to have better conversations. Poor-quality dialogue — where updates crowd out inquiry, advocacy trumps curiosity, and silence is mistaken for agreement — breeds mediocrity. High-quality conversations, by contrast, are marked by engaged listening, intellectual friction, and progress. “The best way to strengthen psychological safety is to lead conversations in a way that encourages information to be shared candidly and processed thoughtfully,” write Edmondson and Kerrissey [16].
They give the example of a global retailer for whom one operations leader set up intentionally “slow” meetings — designed to be out of sync with the usual pace of business — where his team practised curiosity, admitted challenges, and collaborated more openly. The result was a microclimate of candour and improved performance [17].
Third, structure matters. Psychological safety is reinforced through rituals and routines — “failure walls,” end-of-week reflections, or drop-in office hours. These small, repeatable practices send a powerful signal: mistakes are learning opportunities, not liabilities. At PepsiCo UK, end-of-week reports on incomplete or imperfect work helped eliminate wasted effort and improve coordination [18]. At Microsoft Western Europe, Cindy Rose instituted regular “failure parties” and after-action reviews, cultivating not just accountability but shared ownership of outcomes [19].
What Businesses Get Wrong About Psychological Safety
Ultimately, the essence of psychological safety is trust — not just between individuals, but across teams. As Snow argues, trust is earned through ability, integrity, and benevolence. Only the last is non-negotiable. “No amount of skill or ability can make you trust someone who you don’t think has your best interests at heart” [20]. In a group where benevolence flows freely, people forgive mistakes, welcome dissent, and interpret each other’s actions charitably.
The challenge, then, is not to impose psychological safety from above, but to model it from within. To hold both high standards and deep empathy. To treat discomfort not as a threat but as a sign of growth. To encourage, not enforce, vulnerability.
Businesses that get this right will not only outperform their peers but outlast them. Because in an era of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, it’s not slick strategy or airtight execution that gives you the edge. It’s the ability to speak up, challenge assumptions, and learn fast. And that only happens in environments where people feel truly safe enough to do so.
Sources
[1] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[2] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[3] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[4] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shanesnow/2020/05/04/how-psychological-safety-actually-works/
[5] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[6] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothyclark/2021/06/21/what-psychological-safety-is-not/
[7] Haidt, J., & Lukianoff, G. (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Press.
[8] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[9] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[10] https://www.forbes.com.au/news/leadership/psychological-safety-debunking-the-myths/
[11] https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothyclark/2021/06/21/what-psychological-safety-is-not/
[12] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[13] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[14] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[15] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[16] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[17] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[18] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[19] https://hbr.org/2025/05/what-people-get-wrong-about-psychological-safety
[20] https://www.forbes.com/sites/shanesnow/2020/05/04/how-psychological-safety-actually-works/
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].