Author: timhjrogers

Part 1: The Art of Observation in Meetings
By Tim Rogers | Programme Manager | Leadership & Behavioural Insight Advocate

The ability to observe others deeply and accurately is a leadership superpower. Whether you’re facilitating a meeting, coaching a team, or navigating stakeholder dynamics, your capacity to read subtle cues can shape outcomes, build trust, and elevate performance.

This article explores the theory, process, and practice of observational insight—how to see beyond words, decode behaviour, and use those insights to lead with empathy and impact.

Why Observation Matters

Observation is more than watching—it’s interpreting behaviour, context, and emotion. Leaders who sharpen this skill can:

1. Detect alignment or resistance in teams.
2. Understand power dynamics and psychological safety.
3. Tailor communication and leadership styles to individuals.
4. Identify non-verbal signals that words may conceal.

The Psychology Behind Observation

Spatial Positioning & Power
Where someone sits can reveal their role, intent, or comfort. Central positions often signal influence; peripheral seating may indicate disengagement.

Body Language & Mirroring
Subtle non-verbal mirroring builds rapport and trust. Research shows mirroring increases perceived empathy and connection.

Environmental Influence
Room layout shapes interaction. Circular seating encourages equality, while head-of-table positioning reinforces hierarchy.

The Observational Checklist

Use these eight dimensions as a quick scan during meetings:

Spatial Awareness: seating position, use of space.
Orientation & Engagement: posture, physical alignment with group.
Vocal Cues: tone, pace, consistency.
Response Patterns: deference to authority vs. peers.
Facial & Emotional Signals: congruence or mismatch between words and expression.
Mirroring & Empathy: subtle mimicry, emotional contagion.
Use of Silence: reflective, avoidant, or strategic.
Note-Taking Behaviour: detail, timing, and focus.

Case Study: Observation in Lean Management

Research at the University of Twente found that middle managers who asked for ideas, shared information, and mirrored team behaviours fostered more effective collaboration. Teams unconsciously adopted the positive habits of leaders—demonstrating how observation is both a leadership tool and a cultural amplifier.

Benefits and Limitations

Benefits

Reveals hidden dynamics and emotional states.
Enhances coaching, feedback, and leadership development.
Supports inclusive, adaptive communication.

Limitations

Vulnerable to observer bias and cultural misinterpretation.
Requires practice and consistency to be reliable.
Can be over-analysed without context.

Tools for Implementation

Observational Questionnaire for Meetings – structured assessment.
Behavioural Observation Scales (BOS) – for reviews and appraisals.
Mirroring Practice – deliberate mimicry to build empathy.

Final Thought

Observation is not passive—it’s a strategic, empathetic, and analytical skill. Leaders who learn to read the room with precision unlock the ability to lead with clarity, connect with authenticity, and influence with integrity.

Part 2: Observational Questionnaire (User Guide / Form)

This tool can be used as a self-reflection form, a coaching aid, or a structured way to evaluate meeting dynamics. Tick or circle the most relevant option for each question, then use the appendix to interpret what the behaviour might signal.

Observational Questionnaire

1. Position in the Room

☐ Centre, engaging with multiple people
☐ Edge, observing quietly
☐ Near exits or windows
☐ Dominant/controlling position

2. Orientation Toward Others

☐ Direct and open
☐ Sideways/partially turned
☐ Turned away/disengaged
☐ Frequently shifting position

3. Tone of Voice

☐ Warm and engaging
☐ Flat/monotone
☐ Assertive/commanding
☐ Hesitant/uncertain

4. Speaking Pace

☐ Very fast/anxious
☐ Moderate/clear
☐ Slow/deliberate
☐ Variable

5. Language Style

☐ Positive/constructive
☐ Neutral/factual
☐ Negative/critical
☐ Mixed/inconsistent

6. Response to Others

☐ Respectful/engaged with all
☐ Deferential to authority
☐ Prefers peers over groups
☐ Withdrawn/defensive

7. Facial Expressions

☐ Expressive/congruent
☐ Neutral/unreadable
☐ Inconsistent/mismatched
☐ Frequently changing

8. Mirroring Behaviour

☐ Subtle/natural
☐ Distinct/no mirroring
☐ Occasional/strategic
☐ Overly mimicking

9. Use of Silence

☐ Thoughtful/reflection
☐ Avoidant/disengaged
☐ Strategic/control
☐ Rare, fills all gaps

10. Note-Taking Behaviour

☐ Detailed/consistent
☐ Sporadic/minimal
☐ Focused on key quotes/moments
☐ None observed

Appendix (Quick Reference for Interpretation)

Centre seating → influence, confidence.
Edge/quiet → cautious, reflective.
Warm tone → builds trust; flat tone → disengagement.
Positive language → collaboration; negative → resistance.
Strategic silence → control; avoidant silence → discomfort.
Detailed notes → engagement; no notes → detachment or alternative processing.

Suggested use: After each meeting, quickly review your notes, look for patterns across people and time, and reflect: What does this tell me about group dynamics and my leadership response?

THE MAGNIFICENT 7 WAYS TO INFLUENCE, AVOID OR REACT

These are check-lists that I have developed from various sources, none is entirely original but I have found them useful and happy to share with others.

7 WAYS TO INFLUENCE

Do it…

1. Because you like me, and you’re like me
2. Do it to reciprocate, repay past or future debt or promise
3. Do it because everyone else is doing it
4. This offer is good for a limited time only
5. Do it to be consistent, with past, with values, with type
6. You can believe me, I’m an authority
7. Do it or else

7 WAYS TO AVOID INFLUENCE

No, because…

1. I like you, but I don’t like this proposal
2. Is this a favour? Are you looking for something in return?
3. Just because everyone else is doesn’t mean..
4. If I don’t have time to think, I don’t have time to buy
5. I need to think about what I want, and be consistent with that
6. If I were you I might, but I’m not you
7. Please explain the “or else” slowly so I fully understand

How to react to negative feedback (possibly bullying)

1. Ask for time to think – it should force a pause or moment of silence.
2. Think about what you want to happen – don’t fight back, think forward.
3. Get the bully to stop yelling – “Please speak more slowly, I’d like to understand” or (if on the phone) say nothing until they ask “Are you still there?”
4. Whatever you do don’t explain – think forward, don’t justify, recriminate, excuse or offer explanation. They’re looking to exploit weaknesses (-) not strength (+)
5. Ask “what would you like me to do?”. If so challenged they will ask you for something more acceptable than what they want. This is your exit opportunity.
6. Don’t take criticism personally – attacks on your team, your work, your values, etc are not attacks on you. Although it is hard to resist “fight or flight”
7. Learn from criticism – if you wait 24 hrs before answering criticism it will demonstrate maturity, reasonableness and you may learn something!

CONTACT

If you are interested in any of the above and would like to contribute to the discussion by posting a comment, or meet with me to chat about your experiences and the issues and opportunities in your organization I would be delighted to meet and buy the coffee and croissants for an interesting conversation.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Tim Rogers is an AMPG Qualified Change Practitioner, a PRINCE2 Project Manager, with an MBA in Management Consultancy. Past projects have included the incorporation of Jersey Post Office, Operations Change and Sales Support for RBSI and NatWest and the integration and incorporation of Jersey Harbours and Airport. He is a past tutor/lecturer for the Chartered Management Institute, a curator for TEDxStHelier (2014 & 15) and a volunteer for Jersey’s Cancer Strategy and the Jersey Police Complaints Authority. Current work includes coaching and mentoring.

Building Cohesive Action Groups and Task Forces: The Power of Safe Spaces and Facilitation

Why Introductions Matter

When building a new team, one of the most valuable exercises is to let each member introduce themselves — not just their role, but their story. A simple five-minute share can cover:

Why they’re here
What they bring to the team
What’s important to them
Any hopes, fears, or concerns

This exercise fosters understanding, helps people feel heard, and gives everyone a sense of agency, accountability, ownership, and opportunity. It lays the groundwork for genuine collaboration.

The Role of Environment in Psychological Safety

These sessions work best in a safe, closed environment — somewhere different from the usual workplace.

Neutral ground helps avoid territorial thinking (“someone else’s turf”).
Novelty sparks fresh thinking and creativity.
Separation from daily routines signals that this is a different kind of conversation.

This is what’s known as a liminal space — a threshold between the old and the new, where teams can explore new ideas, relationships, and ways of working without the baggage of everyday office politics.

Boundaries as Catalysts for Creativity

Creativity thrives when there are boundaries. Much like constraints in art (“create something on one side of A4” or “only with a pencil”), clear limits can focus energy and spark innovative thinking.

The boundaries might be:

A clear aim or ambition
A defined mandate or manifesto
A specific problem or burning question to address

These aren’t about micromanagement — they’re about creating the framework within which the team has complete agency over how it works, what it tackles, and the solutions it chooses to pursue.

The Facilitator’s Role

Facilitation is not the same as leadership. A facilitator:

Creates the conditions for success
Encourages participation and equity of voice
Prevents domination by any one person
Guides the group without imposing their own solutions

This is where Nancy Kline’s 10 Components of a Thinking Environment can be so valuable — ensuring everyone is heard, respected, and encouraged to think deeply.

Belonging, Accountability, and the “Tribal” Mindset

Teams work best when there’s a sense of belonging and shared accountability. One coach I know insists that in group programmes, missing even one session means you’re out. It sounds harsh, but it creates:

A strong sense of commitment
A feeling that “I’m here for my colleagues as much as for myself”
Peer accountability that doesn’t require heavy-handed leadership

Contrast this with many workplace meetings where people drift in late, leave early, or skip entirely — without consequence. The difference in commitment and outcomes is striking.

From Forming to Performing

Co-production can be slower at the start. The early “forming, storming, norming” phases take time. But this investment pays off in stronger, more resilient teams. Once foundations are in place, the group can perform at a far higher level — not as a collection of individuals with side agendas, but as a unified, collegiate team.

Top Tips for Facilitating High-Performing Action Groups

1. Start with Stories – Give each person 5 minutes to share who they are, why they’re here, and what matters to them.
2. Choose a Neutral Venue – Avoid the workplace to encourage fresh thinking and psychological safety.
3. Set Clear Boundaries – Define the purpose, scope, and expectations before creative work begins.
4. Ensure Equal Participation – Use facilitation techniques to prevent dominance and encourage quieter voices.
5. Use Chatham House Rules – What’s said in the room stays in the room, fostering openness and trust.
6. Commit to Attendance – Establish attendance as a non-negotiable to create belonging and accountability.
7. Focus on Co-Creation – Let solutions emerge from the group rather than imposing them from the top.
8. Allow for the Storming Phase – Don’t rush early disagreements; they’re part of building a strong foundation.
9. Apply Nancy Kline’s Thinking Environment – Build equity, respect, and genuine listening into every session.
10. End with Next Steps – Finish each meeting with clear actions, owners, and timelines.

Optics vs. Operations: The Politics–Process Divide

Two Levels of Management Behaviour

In many organisations, people seem to operate at two distinct levels:

1. The Political Level – where the focus is on optics, perception, sound bites, and engagement.
2. The Process Level – where the focus is on understanding how things actually work, diagnosing problems, and implementing sustainable solutions.

Increasingly, it feels as if the balance is shifting towards politics over process. We are more concerned with appearances than with operational reality. This is reflected in managers who fight fires but never invest in fire prevention, because prevention is less visible and less glamorous than reacting to emergencies.

The Skills Gap in Management

One cause of this imbalance is that many managers are promoted based on interpersonal skills or tenure, rather than on an understanding of the systems, processes, and disciplines that keep organisations running.

Most managers have never been trained in the fundamentals of:

Policies and compliance
HR processes
Marketing
Operations and manufacturing
Continuous improvement

Instead, they are asked to manage people without a grasp of how to manage process. And without that knowledge, they inevitably become hostage to the politics of the workplace, focusing on relationships, alliances, and self-promotion rather than on long-term efficiency and productivity.

Why Process Matters

When process is neglected, problems are addressed only at the symptom level. Root causes go unresolved, and issues become chronic.

Process understanding is not theoretical — it is lived. You cannot learn to ride a bicycle by reading about it, and you cannot truly understand operational processes without having been involved in them. This is why leaders who live only in the “optics” world often talk theory without practical insight — like discussing how to play the violin without ever having picked one up.

The Resistance to Learning

In theory, this imbalance could be addressed through education, training, humility, and a genuine willingness to learn. But in practice, people often resist change until they are forced to confront failure.

We see this in many domains:

Recovery programmes – Alcoholics Anonymous speaks of hitting rock bottom before change begins.
Military training – Boot camp breaks down old habits before instilling new ones.
Medical diagnoses – Sometimes only a crisis prompts lifestyle changes.

As long as someone feels in control, they will defend the status quo — micromanaging, manipulating, or managing the optics to maintain authority. Only when that control is stripped away do they become open to transformation.

The Empty Cup

Confucius is often credited with the idea that “you must first have an empty cup before you can fill it.” If you are convinced you already know everything, you leave no room for new knowledge. The shift from optics to process often begins with that emptying — replacing ego with curiosity, defensiveness with openness, and political manoeuvring with genuine operational understanding.

Closing Thought

The politics–process divide is not the same as the leaders–managers divide. Both leaders and managers can fall into the optics trap, just as both can excel in operational improvement. The challenge — and the opportunity — lies in recognising the balance, valuing substance over style, and creating a culture where process competence is as celebrated as political skill.

Psychological Safety: The Hidden Power Tool in Project Management

Introduction

Project management is often painted as a science of planning, scheduling, and risk management. But behind the Gantt charts and dashboards lies something that can make or break a project long before the critical path is breached: psychological safety.
In its simplest form, psychological safety is the shared belief that it’s safe to speak up—without fear of blame, humiliation, or career damage. In a project environment, where stakes are high and deadlines are unforgiving, this is not a “nice-to-have.” It’s a strategic asset.

Managing Teams

Psychological safety within teams is about more than being “nice.” It’s about creating an environment where team members can challenge ideas, admit mistakes, and share concerns without repercussions. A safe team culture allows for early identification of issues, constructive conflict, and creative problem-solving.
Without it, silence takes over—and silence in projects is expensive. Small problems stay hidden until they explode into major issues.

Managing Stakeholders

Stakeholder management isn’t just about keeping people informed—it’s about fostering trust. When stakeholders feel psychologically safe, they are more likely to share emerging concerns, shifting priorities, or political risks. When they don’t, they may quietly disengage or conceal bad news until it’s too late.
Creating safety means valuing all perspectives, even when inconvenient, and avoiding “shooting the messenger.”

Managing Risk

Effective risk management depends on honesty. If team members fear being associated with problems, risk registers become optimistic fiction. Psychological safety ensures that risks are raised early, realistically, and without shame. That doesn’t mean tolerating poor performance—it means separating the problem from the person.

Managing Updates and Bad News

Bad news in projects is inevitable. How it’s handled determines whether the team rallies or retreats. Leaders who react with curiosity instead of blame turn bad news into a problem-solving opportunity. Those who react with anger or defensiveness breed avoidance—and avoidance kills projects.
Psychological safety doesn’t eliminate bad news. It ensures you hear it early enough to do something about it.

Top Tips for Building Psychological Safety in Projects

Model vulnerability—admit mistakes and share lessons learned.
Ask open questions and listen without interrupting.
Separate critique of work from critique of people.
Respond to bad news with “thank you for raising this” before taking action.
Make risk logs and lessons learned safe spaces for honesty.
Encourage curiosity over compliance—invite alternative views.
Celebrate early flagging of problems as much as you celebrate delivery wins.

Self-Evaluation Checklist

Do my team members speak up in meetings without hesitation?
Do stakeholders share bad news with me directly, without fear?
Are risks raised promptly, or do they emerge late in the project?
Is my first response to a problem curiosity or blame?
Do I make it clear that honesty is valued more than “looking good”?
Have I publicly admitted mistakes as a leader?
Do I praise people for surfacing issues early?

Closing Thought

The best project plans are worthless if people are afraid to tell you when they’re in trouble. Psychological safety is not a soft skill—it’s a hard requirement for delivery. In an environment where people feel safe to speak up, you’ll find risks earlier, solve problems faster, and build stronger trust with your team and stakeholders.
It’s not just about keeping people comfortable—it’s about keeping projects alive.

Imagine walking into a restaurant and being handed… nothing. No menu, no prices, no descriptions—just a vague promise that food will arrive. You’d be confused, hesitant, and probably walk out.

And yet, this is exactly how many organisations—corporate, public sector, and charities alike—present themselves to the world.

The Power of a Clear Menu

There is real value in creating a clear, manual “menu” of your services and products. This means listing:
– What you offer
– Who it’s for
– What it costs (or what it takes to deliver)
– What outcomes or benefits it delivers

It sounds simple, but it’s rarely done. And when it is, the results can be transformative.

In the Corporate World: Profitability & Prioritisation

For businesses, a product/service menu enables:
– Clarity on what you actually do
– Visibility into which offerings are most profitable or in demand
– Better management accounting—you can track contribution, cost, and margin per product
– Smarter resource allocation based on real data

It turns abstract operations into measurable, manageable units.

In the Public & Charitable Sector: Mission-Driven Impact

In mission-led organisations, the benefits are just as powerful:
– You can rank services by impact, not just income
– Allocate resources to the top 10 most mission-critical offerings
– Communicate clearly with funders and stakeholders about what their support enables

One charity I helped launch saw a dramatic shift in fundraising success when they stopped asking for general donations and instead packaged their work into defined products—each with a target audience, a measurable outcome, and a price tag. Suddenly, donors could see exactly what they were funding. Transparency and accountability skyrocketed.

More Products, More Sponsors

When your services are clearly defined, you open the door to multiple sponsorships. Different funders can align with different offerings based on their brand, values, or interests. It’s far easier to fund a specific, tangible initiative than a vague, catch-all operation.

From Chaos to Clarity

Without a product/service menu, organisations often operate like a bottomless pit—money and effort go in, but it’s hard to say what comes out. With a menu, you gain:
– Boundaries
– Accountability
– Strategic clarity
– A foundation for growth

And the best part? It’s not hard to do. It just takes intention.

If your organisation hasn’t done this yet, start today.

List your offerings. Define your outcomes. Put a value on what you do. Whether you’re selling, serving, or saving—clarity is your most powerful tool.

The Three Modes of Conversation – And Why Great Communicators Move Between Them Seamlessly
We can all improve our communication skills. The shelves of every bookstore are filled with bestsellers on the topic, which tells me two things:

1. Communication is hard.
2. It’s worth continuously learning, refreshing, and rethinking how we do it.

Over the years—whether coaching, managing change, or presenting business cases—I’ve seen communication not just as a process but also as a product. Done well, it builds trust, shifts mindsets, and inspires action.

One idea I find especially powerful is that there are three distinct modes of conversation, each operating differently, and that the most effective communicators can move between them effortlessly.

Practical Conversations – “What Needs To Be Done”

This is the structured, task-focused mode:

Actions, decisions, and clear outcomes
Agendas, priorities, roles, and objectives
Often fact-based and solution-oriented

For project and change managers like me, this is familiar territory—the bread and butter of meetings, minutes, and delivery plans.

Emotional Conversations – “How Do We Feel?”

Here the focus shifts from facts to feelings:

Sharing experiences and perspectives
Listening with empathy
Exploring the human dynamic

Responding to emotional conversation with rigid facts can feel jarring. In this mode, people expect connection, not just direction.

Social Conversations – “Who Are We to Each Other?”

This is about identity and relationships:

Roles, values, and group belonging
How “we” relate to the world and to each other
The underlying social dynamics—parent-to-parent, peer-to-peer, mentor-to-mentee

These conversations shape trust and influence. They’re less about the task and more about the context in which the task lives.

The Skill of the “Super Communicator”

The best communicators recognise the mode they’re in—and can transition between modes when needed. They can:

Respond to facts with facts, feelings with empathy, and identity with respect.
Blend perspectives into a single conversation flow.
Create consensus by integrating practical, emotional, and social threads.

When we get this right, we don’t just exchange information—we build shared vision, values, and actions. That’s where real alignment and engagement happen.

Which of these three modes do you naturally operate in most? And where could you stretch to improve?

When Tensions Flare in Teams, What’s Really Going On?

Most workplace conflict isn’t about bad people.
It’s about conflicting values, unspoken assumptions, and unconscious projections.

Let’s unpack that.

Shadow & Projection (Jungian Psychology)

Carl Jung taught us that everyone has a shadow—aspects of ourselves we hide, deny, or disown. These qualities often get projected onto others.

Someone who values order might see spontaneity as “chaos.”
Someone who values empathy might see directness as “aggression.”

What we react to in others is often a mirror of our own inner tension.

This dynamic explains why even small workplace interactions—an email tone, a comment in a meeting—can spark disproportionate emotional responses. The “problem” isn’t just the behaviour. It’s what it represents.

️ Conflict Styles: TKI and What We Avoid

The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Instrument (TKI) outlines five conflict-handling modes:

Competing – assertive, uncooperative
Collaborating – assertive, cooperative
Compromising – moderate on both
Avoiding – unassertive, uncooperative
Accommodating – unassertive, cooperative

In many organizations, people default to avoiding or accommodating—often to maintain “harmony.” But harmony without honesty breeds resentment, passive aggression, and decision-making paralysis.

Conflict styles aren’t “good” or “bad”—but a mismatch can damage trust.

A collaborator might feel unsupported by an avoider.
A competitor may intimidate a harmoniser.
A compromiser might frustrate everyone by splitting the difference too quickly.

Teams that never surface these styles default into patterns—often unconsciously.

Spiral Dynamics: What Culture Are We In?

Let’s zoom out.

Spiral Dynamics offers a lens on organizational culture by identifying value systems or “memes” that shape behaviour.

Consider these:
Red: Power-driven. Authority rules. “My way or the highway.”
Blue: Rules-driven. Order, loyalty, hierarchy. “Do it the right way.”
Orange: Results-driven. Innovation, performance, KPIs. “What gets measured gets done.”
Green: People-driven. Consensus, inclusion, shared values. “Everyone has a voice.”

Most tension arises when values are misaligned or under strain.

Example:

A Green leader (consensus, care) may see a Red team member as “bullying.”
An Orange culture (targets and outcomes) may see a Blue colleague as “slow” or “bureaucratic.”

If you’ve ever heard phrases like:
> “They’re lovely, but they never deliver.”
> “He gets things done, but no one wants to work with him.”

…you’re seeing culture clash in action.

“Country Club” Cultures vs. Accountability

There’s a risk in both directions.

When friendship and belonging are prioritized over feedback and performance, teams become “country clubs”: pleasant on the surface, but full of unspoken tensions and underperformance.
When output and efficiency trump all else, teams become “machine-like”: fast-moving but soulless, where burnout and high turnover are common.

The healthiest teams integrate both:
High challenge + high support
Outcomes and empathy
Feedback with care

So What Can We Do?

1. Reflect before reacting.
Ask: “What part of this conflict reflects something in me?”

2. Name the style, not the person.
“I wonder if we’re seeing this differently because I tend to collaborate, and you prefer to avoid conflict.”

3. Spot the cultural centre of gravity.
Are we operating in Red, Blue, Orange, or Green? What’s valued here—and what’s shadowed?

4. Hold tensions, don’t dissolve them too fast.
Disagreement isn’t failure—it’s friction that can lead to growth, if we stay with it long enough.

A final thought: Teams thrive not because they avoid conflict, but because they navigate it consciously.

When we understand the shadow, the projections, the values beneath our choices, and the cultures we swim in—we stop fighting each other and start working with each other.

\#TeamDynamics #Leadership #OrganizationalCulture #EmotionalIntelligence #ShadowWork #ConflictManagement #TKI #SpiralDynamics #PsychologicalSafety #ValuesBasedLeadership

The Hidden Costs of Conflict Avoidance: A Radical Candor Perspective

In today’s complex workplaces, honest, compassionate feedback is essential—not only for performance but for trust, growth, and engagement. Yet in many organizations, discomfort with conflict leads to cultures that prioritize harmony over honesty, with serious hidden costs.

What Is Radical Candor?

Kim Scott’s Radical Candor offers a powerful framework for leadership. It sits at the intersection of two core behaviours:

Care Personally – show empathy, build trust, and value people as humans.
Challenge Directly – speak honestly, especially when it’s hard.

When both are present, teams flourish. But when “Care Personally” is present without challenge, leaders slip into Ruinous Empathy—where kindness becomes avoidance, and accountability evaporates.

How Conflict Avoidance Creates Dysfunction

In conflict-averse teams, managers may hesitate to give direct feedback, leaving issues unspoken. Instead, they rely on formal processes and paperwork: goal-setting documents, performance reviews, development plans, and other official artefacts that often say more about control than clarity.

This leads to:
Unclear expectations, masked by excessive documentation.
Decisions delayed for fear of offending or being wrong.
Burnout among strong performers carrying hidden workloads.
Mistrust from those who sense unspoken judgments behind polite words.

The Artefacts of Power

Documents like development plans and feedback logs often become subtle tools of control. They are signed, approved, and stored—ostensibly to support growth—but may reflect a one-sided dynamic where one person sets the terms and the other complies.

Examples of imbalance include:
One person writing goals, the other simply signing them.
Feedback shared through formal reviews rather than in conversation.
Personal development becoming performative rather than meaningful.

These are not neutral acts—they are demonstrations of power, often dressed in the language of support.

The Risk of Ruinous Empathy

Avoiding difficult conversations under the guise of being “supportive” doesn’t protect people—it isolates them. Instead of openness, there’s paperwork. Instead of clarity, there’s a quiet performance of care. This is Ruinous Empathy in action: failure to challenge directly, while pretending to care.

And it has a cost:
People don’t grow.
Problems don’t get solved.
Trust erodes.

Moving from Performative Process to Courageous Conversation

If organizations want real growth and accountability, they must:
1. Use frameworks as springboards, not cages – Let personal goals and reviews be part of an ongoing dialogue, not just a tick-box exercise.
2. Train leaders to speak early and often – Equip managers to give feedback as a conversation, not a document.
3. Invite employee voice – Let people shape their goals, development, and reflections.
4. Model vulnerability from the top – Senior leaders must show that feedback is safe and shared, not selective and strategic.

Final Thought

Kindness without clarity is not care—it’s avoidance. And avoidance, no matter how well-intentioned, breeds dysfunction.

The tools of management—goal plans, development frameworks, review cycles—are only helpful when used in service of dialogue, not in place of it. True Radical Candor means balancing honesty with empathy. It means recognizing where power sits, and how to share it wisely.

When feedback becomes a partnership, not a performance, everyone grows.

Do Performance Improvement Plans (PIPs) Work?

The answer depends significantly on context, intent, and execution. Research suggests that while PIPs can be an effective tool for performance improvement, they are often misused or misunderstood—frequently becoming a mechanism for managing someone out rather than supporting development.

1. When PIPs Are Effective

Development-Focused PIPs Can Improve Performance

When designed and implemented with a developmental intent, PIPs can:

Clarify expectations for performance and behavior.
Provide structured support such as training, mentoring, or coaching.
Enable performance recovery, especially when the issues stem from communication gaps, unclear expectations, or insufficient feedback.

2. When PIPs Are Ineffective (or Harmful)

️ Common Failings of PIPs:

Used as a precursor to dismissal: Many PIPs are initiated not to improve performance but to build a legal paper trail for termination.
Lack of psychological safety: Employees often perceive a PIP as a betrayal or an attack, especially if it’s delivered abruptly or without clear justification.
Poor design: Vague goals, arbitrary timelines, and lack of managerial support can doom a PIP from the outset.

Supporting Research:

In a survey of HR professionals less than 20% believed PIPs improved employee performance, while 77% said they were primarily used to document performance issues for termination.
A Leadership study found that 87% of employees on a PIP ultimately left the organization, either through resignation or termination. The same study also showed that PIPs often lowered engagement and increased mistrust among remaining team members
Gartner reported that traditional performance management systems—especially punitive ones—decrease employee engagement by up to 20%, particularly when they are perceived as top-down or one-sided.

3. Psychological and Cultural Dynamics

Locus of Control and Trust:

Employees’ reactions to PIPs often depend on how much control they feel over the situation. If the plan is collaborative and includes check-ins, feedback loops, and resource support, trust can be maintained or even strengthened. According to Dr. Teresa Amabile (Harvard), “progress is the most powerful motivator.” Small wins and daily feedback fuel engagement far more effectively than threat-based systems

4. Summary Table: Developmental vs Punitive PIPs

Table

Feature	Developmental PIP	Punitive PIP
Intent	Retain & develop employee	Exit employee with legal cover
Tone	Collaborative, supportive	Legalistic, disciplinary
Engagement	Transparent & trust-building	Fear-inducing, disengaging
Outcome	Improvement & growth	Resignation or dismissal
HR View	Performance enhancement	Risk management & documentation

5. Final Considerations

When PIPs should be used:

When expectations were previously unclear or shifting.
When the performance issue is skills-based or circumstantial, not behavioral or cultural.
When the organization is willing to invest in support, feedback, and coaching.

When PIPs shouldn’t be used:

As a fast-track to dismissal or “going through the motions” for HR/legal reasons.
When trust is already broken, and the employee is unlikely to feel safe engaging with the process.
Without a clear pathway to success (i.e., “what good looks like” and how to get there).

Recommendations for Improving PIPs

Rename them: “Performance Development Plans” (PDPs) or “Growth Plans” can reduce fear and stigma.
Focus on mutual expectations, not one-sided critique.
Combine with coaching, peer support, or mentoring.
Include SMART goals, regular reviews, and a success roadmap.
Address not just “what isn’t working,” but “how to get back on track.”