Category: Journal

  • What One Hundred Leadership Videos Taught Me

    What One Hundred Leadership Videos Taught Me

    When I started making leadership videos, I did not have a detailed business plan, a carefully mapped out content strategy or any particular expectation that the project would become something significant. I was approaching another period of career transition, looking for a new position and preparing to leave my current role, and I needed something constructive to occupy my attention. I had tried developing a consultancy project around ten years earlier during another period between roles, so perhaps there was something familiar about turning towards a new project when other parts of my professional life were uncertain.

    There were practical motivations as well. After nearly thirty years in education and around eighteen years in middle and senior leadership, I felt that I had accumulated experiences, observations and ideas that might be worth sharing. Building a visible body of leadership work might strengthen my professional profile and perhaps enhance my CV, and I see no reason to pretend that possibility was irrelevant. At the same time, I needed a productive use of my spare time and something that would provide a degree of sanity while I navigated the uncertainty of leaving one position and trying to find another.

    The Quiet Leader HQ began somewhere in the middle of those motivations. It was not intended to prove that I had leadership figured out, nor was it created because I believed the world needed another person telling everyone else how to lead. I simply thought I had something to offer and that producing short reflections on leadership, communication and workplace culture might be worth trying.

    One hundred videos later, the project has taught me something I did not entirely expect. Sharing ideas about leadership has required me to examine my own thinking far more carefully than simply having those ideas ever did, and the process of creating something for other people has become a form of professional reflection for me as well.

    Making Ideas Clearer

    I have never been particularly concerned that I will run out of things to discuss. Leadership provides an almost endless supply of material because organisations are made up of people, and people continue to surprise, frustrate, encourage and challenge each other in ways that rarely fit neatly into leadership models. I bounce ideas off other people, read widely and use different sources to prompt my thinking, but the final test is whether I can take an idea and say something about it that I genuinely believe is worth sharing.

    Once I commit seriously to a project, I tend to see it through, and I always believed I could sustain the videos if I decided the project was worthwhile. What I did not anticipate was how useful the process of creating them would become for organising my own thinking.

    The project has not caused me to abandon previous beliefs about leadership or suddenly discover that everything I thought before was wrong. If anything, it has brought greater clarity to ideas that developed gradually across years of experience. Leadership involves accumulating thousands of conversations, decisions, mistakes, successes and observations, but experience does not automatically organise itself into a coherent philosophy. It is possible to know instinctively what you believe without having taken the time to explain why you believe it.

    Creating videos requires that explanation because a subject has to be isolated from the noise around it, examined and reduced to its essential argument. I have to decide what I actually think, whether the idea is sufficiently useful to share, and how it connects with other aspects of leadership. That process has helped me recognise patterns in my own thinking that were previously less explicit.

    Image Article 015 02

    The work I have done around autonomy, belonging and competence is one example. Considering each of those needs, and then thinking deliberately about how they affect students, parents and staff, has helped me connect ideas that previously existed more independently in my mind. The underlying beliefs were already there, but creating content required me to organise them, test the connections between them and communicate them with greater precision.

    In that sense, making leadership videos has become a form of professional reflection. I began the project believing I would spend most of my time sharing what I had learned, but the process has repeatedly required me to clarify what I think I have learned in the first place.

    Paying More Attention

    The project has also made me more observant. I would not claim that producing videos has fundamentally changed the way I lead or transformed how I behave in organisations, because that would give the project far too much credit and ignore the years of experience that came before it. However, I do pay more attention to the ordinary moments from which leadership lessons emerge.

    An email arrives and I notice not only what it says but how it makes people feel. A meeting becomes difficult and I think about why the conversation changed direction. Someone handles a situation particularly well and I consider what made their approach effective. A small frustration, disagreement or misunderstanding becomes something worth examining rather than simply another moment in a busy working day. Part of that attention comes from knowing that these situations might become material for future videos, but the process has also reminded me that leadership is usually found in ordinary behaviour rather than dramatic moments.

    The most recognisable ideas are often not the grand strategic decisions that occupy leadership books and conference presentations. They are the experiences that people encounter repeatedly: being left waiting for an answer, receiving an email that feels colder than the sender intended, watching recognition go to the most visible person rather than the person who did the work, or experiencing a change that nobody has properly explained.

    What has surprised me most is how widely those experiences are shared. The project has only been running for around six or seven weeks, yet people from different parts of the world have watched, followed, liked and responded to the videos. They work in countries I have never worked in, organisations I know nothing about and roles very different from my own, yet many of the same themes continue to resonate.

    Image Article 015 03

    Trust, clarity, communication, change, recognition and belonging are not particularly original subjects, and perhaps that is precisely the point. They continue to matter because people repeatedly experience organisations where these things are handled well, handled badly or simply not discussed at all.

    Ironically, making videos through an artificial face has made me think more carefully about very human behaviour. Martin Mercer may be fictional, but the experiences behind the ideas are not. They come from years of working with people, from mistakes I have made, situations I have observed, conversations with colleagues and, increasingly, from the responses of people who recognise something of their own experience in what they watch.

    Learning How To Build Something

    The first hundred videos have also taught me a great deal that has little to do directly with leadership. When I started, I was not an experienced video creator, and I have learned how to produce the videos by producing them. Inevitably, that has meant making organisational mistakes, changing processes, improving the way I work and occasionally discovering problems far later than I would have liked.

    At one point, I noticed a branding error that had appeared across roughly thirty videos. There was no sophisticated leadership lesson hidden in the experience. It was simply an irritating mistake that meant going back, correcting previous work and improving the system so that the same problem was less likely to happen again. There have been other changes as well, as I have worked out ways to improve the videos, organise the growing collection of content more effectively and make better use of the time I invest in the project.

    Image Article 015 04

    Over the summer, I have been able to give the work more attention, including developing the website, building the Journal and thinking more carefully about how the different parts of The Quiet Leader HQ fit together. The process has been a useful reminder that projects rarely begin in their finished form. It is easy to look at something established and assume that the people behind it knew exactly what they were doing from the beginning, whereas my experience has been considerably less tidy. I started, made things, noticed problems, changed them, learned new skills and gradually developed a clearer idea of what the project could become.

    That has made the work more enjoyable rather than less. There is satisfaction in improving something that did not exist a few weeks earlier and knowing that there are still hundreds of ideas that could be explored. If the project grows substantially, I can imagine investing far more time in it, but growth is not the only reason to continue because the process of building the project, learning new skills and developing my own thinking has already made the time worthwhile.

    If One Person Finds It Useful

    There is always a danger that creating leadership content becomes an exercise in building an audience rather than helping one. Views, followers and engagement are visible, measurable and difficult to ignore, particularly when platforms constantly encourage creators to pay attention to them. I would be dishonest if I claimed that I did not want the project to grow. If The Quiet Leader HQ develops into something substantial and creates professional opportunities, income or the possibility of concentrating on it more seriously, I would welcome that.

    However, those outcomes are not the only measure of whether the project has been worth doing. After eighteen years in middle and senior leadership, I have had enough opportunities to practise leadership, get things wrong, try again, learn from other people and gradually develop ideas that might help someone facing a situation they have not encountered before. If one piece of advice, one observation or one question helps someone approach that situation more thoughtfully, then creating and sharing it has achieved something useful.

    I may never know when that happens because most people who watch a video will never comment, send a message or explain whether an idea affected what they did next. That is the nature of publishing something publicly: you send an idea into the world and lose control over where it travels, who encounters it and whether it matters. Occasionally, however, you see a glimpse of that journey, and one of the most encouraging examples so far has come from a primary school in Africa that began following the project.

    Image Article 015 05

    Leadership is an important focus for the school and, from what I can see, the videos appear to be supporting some of the work they are doing. I have no formal connection with the school, have never worked there and did not know when I began this project that anything I created would reach them. I now look forward to watching their progress over time, and that feels more meaningful than simply adding another follower to a platform total. Something created during a difficult period of professional transition has travelled to an organisation I have never visited and may be contributing, even in a small way, to conversations about leadership taking place there.

    When I started The Quiet Leader HQ, I needed something productive for myself. I needed a project, a constructive use of time and somewhere to put some of the experience I had accumulated over nearly thirty years. I hoped it might strengthen my professional profile, and I thought there was a possibility that other people might find the ideas interesting.

    One hundred videos later, I still do not know where the project will lead, and I am comfortable with that. I have learned new skills, corrected mistakes, organised my thinking more clearly and become more attentive to the ordinary workplace experiences that people across different countries and organisations seem to recognise. Perhaps the biggest lesson has been that leadership reflection does not need to produce perfect answers to be useful. Sometimes its value comes from noticing an experience, putting language around it and allowing someone else to recognise something they have experienced themselves.

    I also do not want the next hundred videos to come only from my own experiences. If there is a leadership situation, workplace frustration, difficult question or small organisational behaviour that you think deserves more attention, I would be interested to hear it. Some of the most useful leadership conversations begin when someone puts words around an experience that others recognise but rarely discuss, and ideas or experiences shared with The Quiet Leader HQ may help shape future videos and Journal entries. Where they do, identifying details will be removed unless explicit permission has been given to include them.

    If the next nine hundred videos continue to help me think more carefully, encourage useful conversations and occasionally provide an idea that helps someone facing a situation they have not encountered before, they will be worth making.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Why Good Leaders Miscommunicate More Than They Realise

    Why Good Leaders Miscommunicate More Than They Realise

    I used to think good communication was about telling everybody everything as soon as possible. The logic seemed reasonable enough: people cannot complain that they were not informed if you have given them all the information, problems are less likely to develop when people know what is happening, and decisions should be communicated quickly so that everyone understands what is expected of them. For a long time, I associated good communication with speed, completeness and transparency, which meant that when I had something important to share, my instinct was to communicate as much as possible.

    That instinct has not entirely disappeared, and one of my weaknesses as a leader has always been writing long emails. I do not particularly like sending four or five messages about the same subject, so I tend to put everything into one place: the background, the context, the decision, the reasoning behind it, the actions required and, quite often, the answers to questions that I anticipate people might ask. From my perspective, this is efficient because everything is available in one place and there should be little opportunity for misunderstanding.

    The problem, of course, is that I am not the person receiving the email. Some people appreciate having all the information together, while others see a wall of text, struggle to identify what matters most, read part of the message and miss an important detail, or intend to return to it later and never do. Over time, I have had to accept one of the more uncomfortable realities of leadership communication: providing information and creating understanding are not the same thing.

    When Communication Does Not Land

    Recently, I communicated information about an annual event that we had also discussed the previous year. It was not a new initiative, there was already organisational knowledge and experience behind it, and I believed the information I had provided was sufficiently clear. Nevertheless, several members of my immediate team were confused about what was happening and what was expected of them.

    My initial internal reaction was probably the same one many leaders experience when this happens. I wondered why they did not understand something that seemed obvious to me, particularly when the event had happened before and the relevant information had already been provided. Experience, however, has taught me to recognise that reaction without allowing it to determine what happens next. Whatever I thought about the clarity of the original communication, the reality was that several people had not understood it, and defending the email was not going to resolve their confusion.

    I could have sent another message, highlighted the relevant paragraphs or reminded everyone that we had discussed the same event the previous year. Instead, I spoke face to face with the two or three people who were unclear, and the misunderstanding was resolved relatively quickly. Earlier in my career, I suspect I would have spent longer demonstrating that the information had already been communicated; now, I am more interested in changing the method when the original method has not worked.

    Part of the difficulty is that leaders often know far more about an issue than they realise. They have attended meetings, read documents, participated in discussions, seen earlier versions of plans and had informal conversations with colleagues, which means that by the time a decision is communicated they may have been thinking about the issue for weeks or months. The person receiving the communication, however, may be encountering it for the first time, without any of the background knowledge that has made the decision appear increasingly obvious to those involved in making it.

    Familiarity creates assumptions about what other people know, remember and understand. We assume that previous conversations are still fresh in people’s minds, that organisational language has a commonly understood meaning, and that words such as accountability, flexibility, quality, improvement or success mean roughly the same thing to everyone. In reality, many workplace disagreements continue for far longer than necessary because people are using the same words to mean different things, or different words to describe essentially the same idea, without ever checking whether they are actually discussing the same issue.

    Tone creates a similar problem because the warmth, expression and context that exist in a face to face conversation largely disappear when communication moves to email or messaging. A sentence that sounds efficient to the person writing it may appear dismissive to the person receiving it, while directness can be interpreted as anger and brevity as impatience. Even apparently neutral phrases can carry meanings that were never explicitly written. Few people, for example, read “per my last email” as nothing more than a helpful reference to previous correspondence, because the frustration behind the phrase is often inferred whether the sender intended it or not.

    The longer I have led people, the less convinced I have become that intention is a useful final measure of communication. I may know exactly what I meant, but the person receiving the message can only respond to what they experienced, and when those two things are different, insisting on the purity of my intentions does little to repair the misunderstanding.

    Who Needs To Hear It, And How?

    Communication becomes more complicated as organisations grow because information rarely travels directly from one person to everyone who needs to receive it. A leader communicates something to a senior team, members of that team communicate it to their teams, and those people explain it to others until the original message has travelled through several layers of the organisation. Along the way, details disappear, different elements are emphasised, individual interpretations are added and, occasionally, the message that eventually reaches people bears surprisingly little resemblance to the one that began the journey.

    Image Article 014 02

    Written communication can reduce some of this distortion because everyone receives the same information, but it creates different problems. Emails become longer because leaders try to remove every possible ambiguity, people skim because they receive too much information, important actions become buried among explanations, and questions that might have been resolved in a short conversation develop into lengthy email exchanges. There is no perfect communication method, which is why leadership requires judgement about whether something should be communicated through an email, a meeting, a private conversation or, as is often necessary, through several methods over a period of time.

    The same judgement is needed when deciding who should receive a message. Few workplace communications frustrate me more than the blanket email sent to an entire group because one or two people have failed to meet an expectation. One person misses a deadline and everybody receives a reminder; two people ignore an agreed process and the entire organisation receives another explanation of something that most people were already doing correctly.

    If two identifiable people are the problem, my preference is to speak directly to those people rather than making everyone else wonder whether they have done something wrong. Leadership involves having conversations that are sometimes uncomfortable, and communicating with fifty people because we would rather avoid speaking directly to two of them is rarely a good substitute for addressing the actual issue.

    There are occasions, however, when an individual incident exposes a wider organisational misunderstanding. What initially appears to be a problem with one or two people may reveal that an expectation was never as clear as leaders believed, in which case broader communication becomes necessary. Even then, I think it helps to acknowledge that many people already understand or are already meeting the expectation, rather than communicating in a way that makes an entire group feel collectively reprimanded.

    The important question is whether we are dealing with a people problem or whether the incident has revealed a communication problem. The answer should influence not only who receives the message but also the method used to communicate it.

    Trust is also affected by decisions about who can see a communication. BCC has legitimate uses, particularly when privacy needs to be protected or large groups of people are being contacted, but hidden audiences can change the nature of workplace conversations. When people discover that an exchange included recipients they did not know were present, they may become more cautious about what they say, less willing to communicate openly and increasingly concerned about how their words might be interpreted by people who are observing the conversation from the background.

    For that reason, I have increasingly valued working relationships in which communication is direct enough for people to challenge me openly. I have been fortunate to work with personal assistants who had no difficulty telling me when something did not make sense, needed changing or should not be sent. Those relationships did not happen accidentally because we discussed the expectation before we began working together. I wanted them to challenge me, and they knew that telling me I was wrong was part of doing their job well.

    There is a significant difference between telling people that they are allowed to disagree with a leader and creating a working relationship in which they genuinely believe they can do so. Experience has not stopped me from miscommunicating, but it has taught me the value of surrounding myself with people who are willing to notice it before the communication travels any further.

    Silence, Speed And The Weight Of Words

    I have sometimes taken too long to respond to people, not because I was ignoring them but because I needed more information, had not made a decision or simply wanted time to think. The mistake was not necessarily taking time because some decisions deserve careful consideration; the mistake was failing to communicate how long I expected that process to take.

    A colleague once pointed this out to me directly by asking that, if I was going to take my time, I at least give some indication of when an answer could be expected. It was useful feedback because people can cope with waiting far better when they understand how long the wait is likely to be. When no timeframe is provided, silence creates a space that people inevitably fill with their own explanations: perhaps the answer is no, something has gone wrong, the leader has forgotten, or a decision has already been made and nobody has bothered to tell them.

    Image Article 014 03

    I have experienced this from the other side recently while going through recruitment processes, and it has reinforced how uncomfortable silence becomes when the outcome matters to you. Waiting is one thing; waiting without knowing whether an answer is coming tomorrow, next week or at all is something quite different. Leaders and organisations do not need to have every answer immediately, but if an answer is going to take time, acknowledging the delay and providing some indication of what happens next is part of communicating responsibly.

    At the opposite end of the spectrum, I have also responded too quickly on more occasions than I would like to remember. Earlier in my career, an email would arrive that frustrated me, a decision would annoy me, or someone would communicate something I believed was unfair or inaccurate, and I would feel compelled to respond while the issue was still fresh. The response might have been professional, the language carefully chosen and the argument entirely reasonable, but communication sent while emotions are still shaping our judgement can create problems even when the content is technically correct.

    Over time, I have become better at recognising when not to communicate immediately. Sometimes that means walking away, allowing the initial emotion to settle, speaking to someone whose judgement I trust and returning to the message when I am clearer about what I actually want the communication to achieve. My wife has often been that person for me, not because she automatically agrees with my perspective but because she is calm, rational and willing to challenge it. We do not always see matters in the same way, which is precisely why discussing them with her can prevent me from becoming too convinced by my own interpretation of events.

    The value of having people who will challenge us applies equally to professional relationships. Leaders benefit enormously from having someone who will tell them not to send an email yet, question whether a message will be received in the way it was intended, or point out that winning an argument is unlikely to improve the situation. Responsiveness still matters, but I no longer believe that the quickest response is necessarily the most professional one, particularly when a short delay can produce a better judgement and a more useful conversation.

    Image Article 014 04

    The emotional weight of communication is also evident when leaders give corrective feedback. Nobody particularly enjoys criticism, regardless of whether it is described as feedback, professional dialogue or development, and even carefully delivered conversations can be experienced personally by the recipient. That does not mean leaders should avoid difficult conversations because honest feedback remains essential for improvement, but the way those conversations are framed can influence whether people leave feeling defensive or capable of reflecting on what they might do differently.

    I prefer to focus conversations on improvement by asking what could be different, what could be better, what has been learned and what support might be needed. The underlying issue may be exactly the same, but framing the conversation around future improvement creates more opportunity for productive reflection than simply listing what someone has done wrong.

    Leaders also need to remember that corrective feedback often carries considerably more emotional weight than praise. Someone may have received regular encouragement, recognition and thanks over a long period of time, yet one difficult conversation can become the interaction they remember most clearly. We cannot control every reaction to our words, but we should not underestimate their impact simply because giving feedback has become a routine part of our role.

    Choosing The Moment

    There used to be a phrase in one organisation where I worked: Bad News Thursday. Difficult messages had a habit of arriving just before the weekend, leaving people with several days to think about what they had been told without being able to ask questions, seek clarification or do anything practical in response. Organisations sometimes create the same problem by sending significant messages during holidays, technically fulfilling their responsibility to communicate while leaving recipients to carry the uncertainty until normal working arrangements resume.

    Image Article 014 05

    I have also deliberately told people before a weekend that we needed to discuss something significant when they returned. My reasoning was different because I did not want to ambush someone on Monday morning with a conversation they had no opportunity to anticipate, particularly when the matter was serious enough that some reflection might be useful beforehand. Nevertheless, I have never been entirely comfortable doing it because giving someone advance notice of a difficult conversation also means asking them to carry that knowledge through their weekend.

    There is no perfect rule about timing because the same decision can be considerate in one situation and unnecessarily harmful in another. What matters is why the leader has chosen that moment and whose interests the timing is serving. Sometimes waiting protects the person receiving the message, while at other times advance notice gives them the dignity of preparation; equally, both delay and speed can become convenient ways for leaders to avoid dealing properly with difficult communication.

    That uncertainty is probably one of the biggest changes in how I think about communication after nearly thirty years in education. I used to believe good communication was about telling everybody everything as soon as possible, whereas now I think it is about choosing your moments without using timing as an excuse to procrastinate, choosing the right method, deciding who genuinely needs the information and recognising when an email should become a conversation.

    It also means accepting that leaders need safeguards around their own communication. I have benefited from personal assistants who were prepared to tell me that something was wrong, colleagues who pointed out when my silence was creating uncertainty, team members whose confusion showed me that an email had failed, and a wife who has often encouraged me to wait, reconsider or look at an issue from another perspective. None of those people removed my responsibility for communicating well, but they helped me recognise occasions when my own judgement needed challenging.

    Perhaps the most important lesson has been accepting that intention is not the final measure of whether communication has worked. I can believe that I explained something clearly, point to the email where the information was provided, remind people that we discussed the same issue the previous year and defend every word I used, but none of that changes the fact that something needs to be done differently if people have not understood.

    Good leaders will miscommunicate because leadership involves communicating frequently, across different relationships, under pressure and in circumstances where people do not always share the same information, expectations or interpretations. Experience does not remove that problem, although it can make us quicker to recognise when communication has failed and more willing to change our approach.

    Earlier in my career, I was more likely to defend the message I had sent. These days, I would rather change the method and create understanding.

    I am still learning when to do which.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Trust Is Built Long Before It Is Needed

    Trust Is Built Long Before It Is Needed

    One of the first mistakes new leaders can make is assuming that appointment creates trust. You are given the role, introduced to the team, invited to meetings you did not previously attend and granted authority to make decisions that affect other people. The organisation chart changes, your email signature changes and, almost overnight, people are expected to listen when you speak. None of that means they trust you.

    A position gives you authority and may give you compliance. People will attend meetings because you have asked them to, complete tasks because you are entitled to allocate them and follow decisions because your role gives you the authority to make them. Trust is different. It develops through hundreds of experiences that gradually answer questions people may never ask aloud. What happens if I disagree? Will you do what you said you would do? Will you support me when supporting me is inconvenient? Can I admit that I made a mistake? Will you listen before reaching a conclusion? Are you the same person when something goes wrong as you are when everything is going well?

    I learned some of my most important lessons about trust during my first international posting. I worked for a leader who gave people opportunities to prove themselves. If you made a mistake, you learned from it and tried to do better. If something went seriously wrong, you talked about it, accepted responsibility and worked out how to improve. Accountability existed, but so did the belief that people should be given the opportunity to grow beyond their mistakes. He also wrote handwritten notes whenever somebody had contributed to something significant, supported an event or done something worthy of recognition. It was a small gesture, but small gestures repeated consistently rarely remain small. They tell people that their work has been noticed, that their contribution mattered and that somebody took enough time to acknowledge it personally.

    I admired him enormously and, for a time, probably wanted to copy him. With experience, I realised that copying another leader rarely works because leadership has to be authentic to the person practising it. What I could take from him were the principles underneath his behaviour: courtesy, consistency, accountability, belief in people and a willingness to give them genuine opportunities to develop. Those principles have remained with me.

    Trust Is Not a Benefit of Position

    John C. Maxwell describes Position as the first of his five levels of leadership. It is the starting point, not the destination. People follow because they have to, and one of the dangers for new leaders is mistaking that compliance for something more meaningful. Trust cannot be written into a job description. It has to be experienced.

    People learn whether they can trust leaders by watching what happens in ordinary situations. A promise is made and they notice whether it is kept. Somebody raises a concern and watches whether it is taken seriously. A mistake creates additional work and people notice whether the leader responds with curiosity or blame. Someone disagrees with a decision and waits to see whether the relationship changes afterwards. An inconvenience disrupts the day and people discover whether the leader remains respectful or whether frustration reveals something different.

    None of these moments is likely to appear in a strategic plan, and most will never be discussed at a leadership meeting. Yet together they shape how people experience the person leading them. This is why trust is built long before it is needed. By the time a leader faces a significant challenge, asks people to support an unpopular decision or needs a team to continue moving through uncertainty, the foundations of trust have usually already been established. Leaders cannot suddenly demand trust because circumstances have become difficult. People will draw upon everything they have experienced before that moment.

    People Need to Know What Happens When They Disagree

    Psychological safety is sometimes discussed as though it can be created through statements, policies or leaders repeatedly telling people that their door is always open. Those things may help, but people rarely decide that an environment is safe because somebody told them it was. They decide by watching what happens when somebody actually takes the leader at their word.

    In one leadership role, I made a decision that a member of staff believed was wrong. She challenged it and eventually took the matter to HR and my own line manager. The decision was overturned. Later, she came to see me to apologise. She was relatively young, still new to the organisation and uncertain about how I would react. It would have been easy for the situation to become uncomfortable. My decision had been challenged, she had gone above me and other people had concluded that I was wrong.

    However, I had told staff from the beginning that I did not want people who simply nodded and agreed with everything I said. If they genuinely believed something was wrong, I expected them to challenge it appropriately and use the structures available to them. That was exactly what she had done, so there was nothing to apologise for.

    My response in that moment mattered more than the original message I had given staff. It is easy for leaders to say they welcome challenge when nobody is challenging them, and it is easy to claim that people can disagree when every important decision remains intact. The credibility of those statements is tested when someone actually does it. Psychological safety becomes real when disagreement has consequences for the decision but not for the relationship.

    If leaders become colder, less trusting or less supportive towards people who challenge them, everyone notices. They may not discuss it openly, but they learn the lesson, and the next time somebody disagrees, they may decide to remain silent. People test safety before they trust it, and the leader’s reaction provides the answer.

    Image Article 013 02

    Trust Is Also Damaged by What We Fail to Do

    There is another leadership moment I remember for very different reasons. A member of staff told me that a parent had been verbally abusive towards her. I knew the parent, I was aware of what had happened, and I did nothing.

    Even now, I cannot give a satisfactory explanation for why I failed to act. I should have supported the member of staff, addressed the behaviour and made it clear that being part of a service organisation does not mean accepting unacceptable treatment. I did not, and I regret it because it contradicted one of the principles I have tried to follow throughout my leadership: staff should feel safe, and they should know that when they are treated unacceptably, their leader will support them.

    Trust is often discussed in terms of promises that are broken, inconsistent decisions or things leaders actively do wrong, but trust can also be weakened by absence. The conversation we avoid, the behaviour we tolerate and the moment when somebody reasonably expects us to act and we remain silent can stay with people for far longer than leaders realise.

    One failure to act does not necessarily destroy years of trust, but it can create a crack that remains long after the leader has moved on. This is one of the uncomfortable realities of leadership. Our intentions do not determine how people experience us. People judge whether they can trust us through what we repeatedly do and, occasionally, through what we fail to do when it matters most.

    “They Already Know”

    One of the most dangerous assumptions leaders make is that communication has happened simply because information has been sent. I have made this mistake repeatedly.

    Leadership involves dozens of conversations. You speak to individuals, teams, senior colleagues and stakeholders. You attend meetings, send messages, answer questions and make decisions. After a while, it becomes surprisingly difficult to remember exactly who knows what, and somewhere along the way leaders begin saying, “They already know.”

    A message may have been sent but not read. A meeting may have taken place but not everyone attended. An explanation may have seemed clear to the person giving it while being interpreted very differently by the people receiving it. Leaders can become so familiar with a subject that they forget other people have not been involved in the same conversations or spent the same amount of time thinking about it. Communication is not measured by what was said. It is measured by what was understood.

    The difficulty is that the solution cannot simply be more meetings. I have never believed in meetings for the sake of meetings, and with teams I have led, I have actively tried to move straightforward administrative information into written communication. If something can be explained clearly in a short email, there is little justification for taking thirty minutes of several people’s time to say the same thing aloud.

    The problem is that communication is rarely quite that simple. Some information contains nuance. People may need to ask questions, challenge assumptions or understand the reasoning behind a decision. A written message has to be detailed enough to provide clarity, but the longer it becomes, the less likely people are to read it carefully. Leaders then become frustrated that people have not read their emails and begin wondering whether another meeting is needed after all.

    There is no perfect answer. The leadership judgement lies in choosing the method that matches what people need to do with the information. Straightforward administration can usually be written, while complex decisions, significant change and issues likely to generate uncertainty often benefit from conversation. Even then, a face-to-face meeting only creates clarity if people feel safe enough to admit that they do not understand, ask the question they think everyone else already knows the answer to or say that they disagree. Communication and trust are not separate leadership issues. Each depends upon the other.

    Image Article 013 03

    Successful Change Starts With Trust

    Earlier in my career, I sometimes believed that a good idea should be enough to create change. Explain the problem, present the solution, announce what happens next and begin implementation. When resistance appeared, it was tempting to see the resistance as the problem.

    Experience has made me considerably more cautious about that conclusion. People may resist change because they do not understand it, lack the skills or resources required to implement it, or have experienced previous initiatives that disappeared after six months and see little reason to invest emotionally in another one. They may understand the organisational argument but remain uncertain about what the change means for them personally. Sometimes what leaders call resistance is simply insufficient preparation.

    This is where trust becomes critical. Leaders who have listened consistently, communicated clearly and demonstrated that disagreement is safe are in a much stronger position when change becomes necessary. People may still disagree with the decision and remain worried about the consequences. Trust does not guarantee enthusiasm or remove legitimate concerns, but it changes the starting point.

    If people believe the leader will listen, explain the reasoning, acknowledge difficulties and respond honestly when something goes wrong, uncertainty is easier to manage. The work of building that trust cannot begin on the morning the change is announced. By then, leaders are drawing upon the relationships they have already created.

    Leaders Should Speak Later More Often

    Earlier in my career, I was more likely to believe that leadership meant having answers. A problem would be raised and I would offer a solution. A question would be asked and I would respond. A discussion would begin and I would share my view. It felt useful and decisive, but what I understood less clearly was what happened to the conversation after I spoke.

    Once the leader gives an opinion, the room changes. Some people become less willing to offer an alternative, others adjust their contribution towards what they believe the leader wants to hear, and people who are less confident may decide there is little point speaking because the direction of travel appears to have been established.

    Over time, coaching has become central to how I think about leadership. I once came across a phrase that captured the aspiration particularly well: I want to be the architect of my own irrelevance, empowering others to the extent that I am no longer needed. The point is not that leadership becomes unnecessary. It is that leaders should resist creating organisations in which every decision, answer and solution depends upon them.

    That means speaking later sometimes, asking questions, allowing silence and giving people time to think aloud without immediately correcting, advising or directing them. It also means recognising the difference between coaching and mentoring. Advice can be valuable when someone genuinely lacks experience or knowledge, and there are moments when people need to hear what we know. However, advice given too quickly can take ownership away from the person we are trying to help.

    Some People Need Belief More Than Advice

    Shortly before I left my most recent leadership position, a colleague came to see me on my final day. We had worked together for some time, and I had watched her develop as a leader. There were tears on both sides. We hugged, and I quietly told her that she needed to believe in herself, that she was going to become a very good leader and that she needed to trust her judgement because her instincts had repeatedly been right.

    She did not need advice, another leadership model, a list of strategies or someone explaining what she should do next. She already had the competence. What she needed was greater confidence in the competence she already possessed.

    Knowing the difference matters because people at different stages of development need different things from leaders. Someone who lacks knowledge may need instruction. Someone developing a new skill may need guidance, feedback and opportunities to practise. Someone who has become capable but remains uncertain may need encouragement and reassurance. Someone who is already highly competent may simply need space, trust and the knowledge that support is available if required.

    Leaders who give everyone advice eventually create people who keep returning for answers. Leaders who know their people can respond to what each person actually needs. Sometimes the most valuable thing a leader can say is not, “Here is what I think you should do.” It is, “I think you are ready.”

    Image Article 013 04

    Trust Is Built in the Ordinary Moments

    Leadership positions matter. Authority matters. Organisations need people who are willing to make decisions, accept responsibility and provide direction. But position does not create trust.

    Trust grows through repeated experiences of consistency. It develops when leaders listen before speaking, communicate until people understand rather than simply until information has been sent, respond constructively when challenged and remain respectful when circumstances become inconvenient. It grows when people discover that admitting a mistake does not permanently define them, that disagreement does not damage the relationship and that their leader will support them when support is genuinely needed.

    Trust also weakens in the same way. A promise is forgotten, a concern is ignored, a difficult conversation is avoided, standards change depending on the person involved, a leader reacts badly when something goes wrong or a member of staff expects support and discovers that nobody is coming. Rarely does one of these moments define an entire relationship, but together they create a pattern.

    That is why trust is built long before it is needed. When uncertainty arrives, when difficult change becomes necessary, when leaders make mistakes, when organisations experience pressure and when people are asked to follow without knowing exactly where the journey will end, leaders discover how much trust they have accumulated. They cannot create it overnight, demand it because of the position they hold or borrow it from the person who held the role before them.

    A position may require people to follow you, but only your behaviour can give them reasons to trust you.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Clarity, Dependence and the Hidden Leadership Traps

    Clarity, Dependence and the Hidden Leadership Traps

    One of the advantages of getting older is that you eventually accumulate enough mistakes to recognise some of them before you make them again, although leadership has a habit of presenting familiar lessons in slightly different circumstances just when you have convinced yourself that you finally understand them. I have moved into significant leadership roles on three occasions, and each experience taught me something different about joining an established organisation.

    The first time, I tried to change too much before I had properly understood the place. I had spent a long time in one organisation and, without fully realising it, had begun to believe that the way things were done there was simply the way good organisations worked. I brought that experience with me and tried to apply too much of it elsewhere. The second time was different because I joined partway through an organisational year. People told me they were ready for change, and I believed them, but I discovered that wanting things to be better and being ready for the disruption involved in making them better are not always the same thing. The third time was different again. I already knew the organisation and moved internally into a more senior position, following a highly credible leader. I was determined not to arrive with a collection of solutions from somewhere else and wanted instead to understand what was already working and build from there. Yet that approach created criticism of its own, because some people believed I should have introduced more ideas from outside and challenged existing practice more aggressively.

    Three experiences, three different contexts and three different lessons. If there is a fourth time, I hope I will be better because of all three.

    Clarity Comes After Understanding

    A follower of The Quiet Leader HQ recently shared a phrase about agile leadership that stayed with me: “Clear vision, free method.” I like it because it captures one of the most difficult balances in leadership. People need to understand where they are going, why it matters and what success looks like, but they also need enough freedom to use their own experience, judgement and creativity to decide how they will get there.

    Some leaders provide freedom without enough clarity. People are encouraged to take initiative and make decisions, but nobody is entirely certain what the priorities are or how success will be judged. Other leaders provide clarity by controlling almost everything. The destination may be clear, but so is every step along the route, and eventually people learn that following instructions is safer than thinking for themselves. Neither approach creates genuinely capable teams, because independence without direction creates confusion, while direction without independence creates dependence.

    The difficulty is that leaders cannot provide meaningful clarity about an organisation they have not taken enough time to understand. If I moved into another major leadership role tomorrow, one of the biggest changes I would make would be how I spent my first few months. I would spend considerably more time where the actual work happens. In my own context, that would mean classrooms, but elsewhere it might mean offices, warehouses, hospitals, shops, customer service desks or production floors. The principle is the same: get out of the office, meet people, watch, listen and ask questions. Understand what frustrates people, what they value, what they are proud of and what they stopped complaining about years ago because they no longer believe anything will change.

    The administrative work still needs to be done, and perhaps some of it has to happen later in the day. However, particularly at the beginning of a leadership role, there is a danger that the demands of the office create distance from the organisation you are supposed to be leading. Clarity should not begin with telling people where to go. It should begin with understanding where they are.

    You Inherit More Than an Organisation

    Every leader inherits an emotional climate. I have experienced this in very different ways: joining an organisation where relationships within the previous leadership had visibly deteriorated, joining another where people said they wanted change but had become more cautious about what change would actually involve, and following a highly respected leader whose credibility inevitably shaped expectations about what came next. None of those environments was neutral.

    Every team has a history made up of previous decisions, conflicts, successes, disappointments, promises that were kept and promises that were forgotten. Leaders arrive on their first day, but the organisation has been living its story for years. Earlier in my career, I sometimes interpreted people’s reactions too personally. If somebody challenged a decision, I could become defensive. If people appeared resistant, I wondered whether I had failed to convince them. If trust did not develop quickly, I looked too closely at what I was doing wrong.

    Experience has taught me that people are not always reacting to the leader standing in front of them. A team that has experienced repeated change may be cautious about another initiative. People who have repeatedly been asked for their opinions and then ignored may be sceptical when another leader promises to listen. An organisation that has experienced conflict may take longer to trust, while a team that has worked with an exceptional leader may naturally compare the person who follows with the person who came before.

    Understanding this matters because it changes the questions leaders ask. Instead of wondering why people are resisting them, they begin asking what has happened in the organisation that makes the response understandable. That shift from judgement to curiosity does not solve every problem, but it provides a far better place from which to lead.

    Image Article 012 02

    Understanding the Past Without Blaming It

    There is an important danger in all of this. Once leaders begin to understand the history of an organisation, it becomes remarkably easy to use that history as an explanation for everything that is wrong. The previous leadership did not deal with this. The old structure created that problem. People were allowed to behave this way before I arrived. The organisation has always done things badly. Some of those statements may even be true, but they become increasingly irrelevant once you are the person responsible for what happens next.

    One of the strongest lessons I have learned is that leaders should resist the temptation to blame the people who came before them. Understand the history, certainly. Learn from it and recognise the effect it has had on the people you now lead. However, previous leadership cannot become a permanent excuse for failing to move forwards.

    This becomes particularly important when dealing with customers, clients, parents or other stakeholders. They may bring you a problem that began long before you arrived, and you may have had absolutely nothing to do with the decision that created it. However, you are there now. Telling someone that a problem is not your responsibility because it happened before your arrival may be factually accurate, but it is of very little use to the person standing in front of you.

    Leadership means accepting responsibility for situations you did not create. You do not have to accept blame for everything that happened in the past, but once you hold responsibility, you do have to decide what happens next.

    The People Who Are Easiest to Miss

    Understanding an organisation also requires learning to notice people who do not naturally attract attention. I am an outgoing person, and perhaps because of that, I have become increasingly conscious of how easily organisations can confuse confidence with competence. Confident people are visible. They speak, volunteer, make their ambitions known and are often comfortable ensuring that other people know what they have contributed. None of those things is inherently negative, and confidence itself is valuable, but confidence and competence are not the same thing.

    Some of the most valuable people in an organisation are remarkably easy to overlook. They solve problems before those problems reach senior leaders, support colleagues without needing recognition, maintain standards when nobody is watching and consistently deliver without feeling the need to announce that they have done so. Because they rarely attract attention, their contribution can gradually become invisible.

    The longer I have worked in leadership, the more interested I have become in these people. Who do colleagues quietly go to when they need help? Who understands how things really work? Who notices problems before everyone else? Who can be relied upon when something difficult needs doing? Who would leave a gap far larger than their position in the organisational chart might suggest? Leadership requires learning to see beyond visibility because sometimes the people creating the greatest value are the people making the least noise about it.

    Helping Is Not the Same as Leading

    One leadership trap I have been fortunate enough to be conscious of is the danger of creating dependence. My natural approach to leadership has always been strongly influenced by coaching, and I do not believe the leader should become the answer to every problem. One of the responsibilities of leadership is to help people develop the confidence and judgement to solve more problems without you.

    That is not always the fastest approach. Sometimes giving someone the answer would take thirty seconds, while asking questions, allowing them to think and giving them space to reach their own conclusion takes considerably longer. However, leadership sometimes involves accepting slower progress today if it creates greater independence tomorrow.

    Teams rarely become dependent overnight. Dependence develops through repeated interactions in which questions are answered, problems are solved and uncomfortable decisions are taken upwards. Eventually, people learn that passing responsibility to the leader is easier and safer than exercising judgement themselves. The leader then becomes frustrated because nobody takes initiative, without recognising that people may simply have adapted to the environment around them.

    If every decision is questioned, people become cautious. If mistakes are punished harshly, people become hesitant. If leaders repeatedly take back control when situations become difficult, people learn that ownership is temporary. When capable people begin asking permission to do things they already know how to do, the better question may not be why they lack confidence, but what has happened in the organisation that taught them to stop using their judgement.

    Time Has Its Benefits

    I am calmer under pressure than I used to be, not because difficult situations have become easier, but because time gives you the opportunity to discover that reacting quickly and reacting well are not the same thing. The younger version of me was considerably more defensive and more likely to interpret challenge as personal criticism. When that happens, clear thinking becomes difficult because part of your attention is focused on protecting yourself. You listen for accusations rather than information, prepare your response instead of understanding the problem and become more interested in proving that you were right than discovering what might need to change.

    Experience has helped me recognise that most difficult situations are not actually about me. Even when somebody is angry, critical or challenging, there is usually something underneath the behaviour worth understanding. Defensiveness narrows judgement in much the same way that panic does, while calmness creates enough space to ask questions, gather information and separate what is known from what has been assumed.

    Calm leadership does not mean avoiding difficult decisions or pretending that problems are less serious than they are. It means refusing to allow the emotional intensity of a situation to determine the quality of the response. Time does have its benefits, and one of them is eventually learning that you do not have to win every conversation. You just need to understand enough to make the next decision well.

    Success Can Teach the Wrong Lessons

    One of my earliest leadership mistakes came from spending a long time in one organisation. I learned a great deal there, saw practices that worked and developed beliefs about leadership that were repeatedly reinforced by experience. The problem was that I began to assume the way things were done there was the way things should be done everywhere.

    When I moved elsewhere, I tried to transfer too much. It took time to understand that successful practice is shaped by context because people, cultures, histories, expectations and challenges are different. Since then, I have deliberately tried to learn from a wider range of organisations, but even that creates another leadership tension.

    In a later role, I tried much harder to work with what already existed. I wanted to understand the organisation, recognise its strengths and build upon them rather than immediately importing solutions from elsewhere. Some people believed that was the wrong approach too. They felt existing practice should have been challenged more strongly and that better ideas from outside should have been introduced.

    Perhaps that is the real difficulty. Importing everything is not leadership, but preserving everything is not leadership either. The judgement lies in deciding what should be protected, what should be improved and what should be replaced. Previous success should give leaders experience, but it should not give them certainty.

    Image Article 012 03

    Culture Is Often Hidden in Small Frustrations

    When leaders join organisations, they are naturally drawn towards the big things: strategy, structure, performance, finance, staffing and vision. These things matter, but if I entered another organisation tomorrow, I would pay much more attention than I once did to the small frustrations.

    The meeting that always starts late, the process everyone complains about, the decision that has been postponed repeatedly, the email nobody expects to receive an answer to, the piece of equipment that has been broken for months and the problem people have stopped reporting because they have concluded nothing will happen may appear insignificant individually. Collectively, they tell you a great deal about culture.

    People form their understanding of an organisation through repeated experiences. They notice whether their time is respected, whether problems are addressed, whether commitments mean anything and whether speaking up changes something. The values written on the wall tell you what an organisation wants to believe about itself, while the frustrations people have learned to tolerate tell you what the organisation actually experiences.

    Leaders should pay attention to both.

    Image Article 012 04

    If There Is a Fourth Time

    Three significant leadership transitions have taught me three different lessons. The first taught me not to arrive with answers before I understood the organisation. The second taught me that people saying they want change does not necessarily mean they are ready for what change requires. The third taught me that working with what already exists can be criticised just as easily as changing too much.

    If there is a fourth time, I hope I will arrive differently. I will spend more time where the real work happens, listen longer and pay attention to the history behind people’s reactions without allowing that history to become an excuse. I will look for the quiet people whose contribution is easy to miss, continue trying to develop independence rather than becoming the answer to every problem, remember that previous success is evidence rather than certainty, and pay attention to the small frustrations that reveal what an organisation really feels like to the people experiencing it every day.

    Perhaps the most important lesson, however, is the simplest. Do not blame the previous leadership.

    Understand what you inherited, learn how it happened and recognise the effect it has had. Then get on with leading, because whatever happened before you arrived, you are there now. You may not have created the situation, but you have accepted responsibility for what happens next.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Ten Leadership Regrets I Wish I’d Learnt Earlier

    Ten Leadership Regrets I Wish I’d Learnt Earlier

    After nearly thirty years in the same career, it becomes difficult to identify exactly when you learnt something. Leadership development is often presented as though people move neatly from one lesson to the next, gradually collecting wisdom until they become the finished article. My experience has been considerably less organised. I have learnt things, forgotten them, repeated mistakes, changed my mind, overcorrected, and occasionally discovered that something I believed for years was not entirely wrong, but simply incomplete. Some of the things I regret most about my earlier leadership were not caused by bad intentions or a lack of commitment. Quite the opposite. They often began with instincts that seemed perfectly reasonable at the time. I wanted to support people, so I checked in too often. I wanted to trust people, so sometimes I did not check in enough. I wanted to help, so I solved problems that other people needed the opportunity to solve themselves. I wanted to be prepared, so I spent too much time imagining everything that could go wrong. Experience has not taught me that these instincts were wrong. It has taught me that almost every useful leadership instinct becomes unhelpful when taken too far.

    Trust is probably the clearest example. Earlier in my career, there were times when I checked delegated work far too frequently. Responsibility made me nervous, and checking provided reassurance that things were moving in the right direction. I do not think I consciously distrusted the people involved, but I can understand now that my behaviour may have communicated something different. If someone has been given responsibility for a piece of work and the leader repeatedly asks for updates, checks progress and remains closely involved in every detail, eventually the person begins to wonder whether they were ever genuinely trusted with the responsibility in the first place. Ownership is difficult to develop when somebody is constantly standing over your shoulder. Over time, I learnt to step back, give people more space and resist the temptation to involve myself simply because I remained accountable for the outcome. Like many leadership lessons, however, I managed to learn this one well enough to create a different problem.

    There have also been times when I checked in far too little. I have a naturally trusting approach to people, and I have occasionally assumed that if someone has accepted responsibility for something, they will either complete it or tell me if they are struggling. That has not always happened. Work has remained unfinished, deadlines have passed and other people have experienced the consequences. On at least one occasion, my own line manager was understandably unhappy with me because something under my responsibility had not been completed. I took responsibility for it because I have always believed that complaints go up, not down. If I am accountable for a team, I do not protect myself by blaming the people I lead when speaking to those above me. Problems with my own leadership should be discussed upwards, and concerns about performance should be addressed directly with the person involved. But taking responsibility does not remove the lesson. I had trusted someone, failed to follow up appropriately and allowed a preventable problem to affect others. The answer was not to stop trusting people or to begin monitoring everything they did. One incident should not completely change how we see someone. Patterns matter. If something happens again, we reassess. What I gradually learnt was that trust and follow-up are not opposites. People can be trusted and still need support, encouragement, challenge and appropriate accountability.

    Image Article 011 02

    That tension appears in many of the things I wish I had understood earlier. I expected people to be more consistent than human beings can reasonably be. If someone was usually productive, positive and reliable but suddenly seemed distracted, impatient or less effective, I could be too quick to wonder whether their commitment had changed. Experience taught me that performance and commitment are not the same thing. Becoming a parent helped me understand this differently too. People arrive at work carrying lives that leaders often know very little about. Children have been awake during the night. Relationships are difficult. Parents are ill. Money is worrying them. Confidence has disappeared. Someone may be exhausted, anxious or simply having a bad day. None of this means that standards disappear or that accountability no longer matters, but it should affect how quickly we decide what someone’s behaviour means. One of the most useful phrases I have learnt to use is simply, “Help me understand.” I use it constantly because it creates space between noticing something and deciding what it means. It can be supportive, curious or quite challenging depending on how it is used, but it begins with inquiry rather than accusation. I wish I had learnt earlier that understanding a situation before judging it does not make a leader weak. It usually makes the eventual response more accurate.

    Image Article 011 03

    I also misunderstood recognition for a long time. I thought encouraging people meant praising them, and that if people heard enough positive feedback they would know that their contribution was valued. Encouragement still matters to me, but I have learnt that praise and recognition are not the same thing. Generic praise is pleasant and quickly forgotten. Specific recognition tells someone that their effort was actually noticed. There is a difference between telling someone they have done a great job and acknowledging the patience they showed with a difficult colleague, the consistency they maintained during a demanding period or the work they completed when nobody was watching. People do not necessarily need louder applause. Often, they need someone to pay attention. Looking back, I suspect there were people whose work I appreciated but did not recognise specifically enough because I assumed they already knew. Leadership contains many assumptions like this. We assume people know they are valued. We assume they understand what we meant. We assume agreement means commitment. We assume silence means clarity. Then we are surprised when reality turns out to be more complicated.

    Perhaps one of my most persistent habits has been assuming the worst too quickly. If an unexpected meeting appears in my calendar, particularly one that sounds serious, my mind is remarkably capable of constructing possibilities before I have any useful information. On balance, I have probably spent far too much time and energy preparing emotionally for situations that never happened. There is a strange comfort in imagining the worst. If you have considered the most difficult outcome, you feel less likely to be surprised by it, and anything better can feel like a relief. The problem is that the body and mind can begin responding to possibilities as though they are already real. Hours or days are spent carrying anxiety about conversations that turn out to be routine. Eventually, I started asking people what they wanted to discuss when meetings appeared unexpectedly, partly because clarity is healthier than speculation.

    And yet I cannot dismiss worst-case thinking completely, because it has sometimes served me well. I have been involved in difficult conversations that deteriorated quickly, where the person opposite appeared to expect that I would be unprepared, unfamiliar with the detail or unable to defend a position under pressure. On those occasions, considering what might go wrong beforehand meant that I had already thought through the arguments, anticipated the questions and understood the position I needed to explain. Preparation gave me confidence when the conversation became difficult. The regret, therefore, is not that I prepare for the worst. It is that I have sometimes given every uncertain situation the emotional weight of a genuine crisis. Leadership requires judgement not only about what might happen, but about which possibilities deserve our attention. There is little value in being exceptionally prepared for every disaster if the process of preparation exhausts us before ordinary life has even happened.

    Image Article 011 04

    I have also regretted how easily agreement can be mistaken for progress. Earlier in my leadership journey, I sometimes left meetings feeling enormously positive because everyone appeared to support a proposal. People nodded, contributed ideas and agreed that something needed to change. I assumed momentum would follow. Often it did not. People returned to busy roles, priorities competed for attention, interpretations differed and good intentions gradually disappeared into daily pressure. I learnt that people can genuinely agree with something and still not implement it. Agreement is emotional and intellectual; implementation is practical. It requires clarity about who is doing what, by when, with what support and how anyone will know whether it has happened. I wish I had understood earlier that gaining agreement is often the easier part of leadership. The less exciting work comes afterwards: following up, repeating expectations, checking understanding and maintaining attention when the initial enthusiasm has disappeared.

    Communication created a similar regret. I used to believe that if I had explained something clearly, answered questions and watched people leave a meeting apparently satisfied, the communication had been successful. Experience repeatedly proved otherwise. People hear the same message differently. They connect it to different priorities, remember different parts and fill gaps with their own assumptions. Some people will nod because they understand. Others will nod because everyone else is nodding. Some will remain silent because they do not want to admit confusion in front of colleagues. I have left meetings convinced that everyone was aligned, only to discover later that several versions of the same decision were now circulating. Eventually, I learnt that communication cannot be measured by how clearly I believe I have spoken. It has to be measured by what other people understood and what happens afterwards. Important messages usually need repeating, reinforcing and checking over time. I wish leadership communication were as simple as saying the right thing once. It rarely is.

    Another regret is that I sometimes solved problems too quickly. Earlier in my career, if someone brought me an issue, I often moved rapidly towards a solution. Helping felt useful, and solving something efficiently appeared to be good leadership. Over time, I realised that repeatedly providing answers can quietly teach people to stop searching for their own. Some people began bringing problems before they had fully thought them through because they knew I would help resolve them. That was not necessarily their failure. I had helped create the pattern. My approach now is different. I ask questions. I want to know what they think, what they have considered, what they would do if I were not available and what support they actually need from me. More often than not, people already have an answer. Sometimes they need challenge. Sometimes they need reassurance. Sometimes they simply need someone to listen while they organise their own thinking. Helping people develop judgement takes longer than giving them instructions, but it is far less likely to create dependency. Leadership is not demonstrated by becoming indispensable. In many ways, the opposite is true.

    I also underestimated the effect of my own mood. I am generally a happy person, and throughout my career I have tried to be approachable and available to people. But when I have been in a mood, particularly earlier in my career, it could be quite a big mood. Leaders sometimes believe their emotions are private because they have not explicitly discussed them. They are not. People notice changes in tone, patience, body language and energy. They become more cautious, wonder whether they have done something wrong or simply find the atmosphere more difficult than it needed to be. I have become better at recognising this over time. If I know I am not in the best frame of mind, I will tell the people closest to me rather than expecting them to interpret my behaviour. If I respond in a way that is unprofessional, I apologise. I do not believe leadership requires pretending to be cheerful every day. Leaders are human beings, and people usually recognise artificial positivity anyway. But there is a difference between having emotions and making everyone else responsible for experiencing them. Part of professional maturity is recognising when our internal state is beginning to become somebody else’s working environment.

    The final regret may be the least dramatic and perhaps the most important. I underestimated exhaustion. Tiredness does not simply reduce energy. It changes judgement. Patience becomes shorter, perspective narrows and the easiest option begins to look like the best one. I have sent emails because having a proper conversation felt like too much effort. I have responded more quickly than I should have because I wanted something finished rather than resolved properly. Small issues have felt disproportionately important because I did not have enough emotional capacity to see them clearly. Exhaustion does not excuse poor leadership, but ignoring its effect is equally irresponsible. Sometimes the most professional decision is to wait. Do not send the email. Do not have the conversation when you know you are too tired to listen properly. Do not make an important judgement simply because postponing it feels inconvenient. Rest does not guarantee wisdom, but exhaustion has contributed to enough poor decisions for me to know that leaders should take it seriously.

    Image Article 011 05

    Looking back across these regrets, I do not think experience has given me a set of perfect answers. It has given me better questions. Am I checking in because someone needs support, or because I need reassurance? Am I stepping back because I trust someone, or because I am avoiding a difficult conversation about progress? Am I recognising a pattern in someone’s performance, or reacting to one difficult day? Have I genuinely recognised someone’s contribution, or simply offered praise because praise is easy? Am I preparing for a realistic possibility, or spending emotional energy on an imagined disaster? Do people agree with the direction, or do they actually know what happens next? Have I communicated clearly, or have I simply spoken clearly? Am I helping someone think, or making myself responsible for solving another problem? Is my mood mine to manage, or have I quietly made it everyone else’s problem? Am I making this decision because it is right, or because I am too tired to do something more difficult?

    Nearly thirty years in a career teaches you a great deal, but not in the orderly way leadership books sometimes suggest. You pick things up gradually. You notice that a conversation went better when you asked one more question. You realise that somebody needed support when you thought they needed space. You discover that the thing you were worrying about never happened, while the problem you did not anticipate was developing quietly somewhere else. You become more comfortable admitting that an approach which worked brilliantly with one person may fail completely with another. Perhaps experience is less about accumulating certainty and more about becoming slower to assume that your first instinct is automatically the right one.

    I still check in too much sometimes, and occasionally not enough. I still prepare for conversations that never become difficult. I still have moments when solving a problem myself would feel considerably easier than helping someone work through it. I still become tired, frustrated and impatient. The difference is that I recognise more of these patterns now. Recognition creates the possibility of choice. Not always, and certainly not perfectly, but more often than before. That may be one of the quieter benefits of experience. We do not necessarily stop making mistakes. We become better at noticing the moment when an old mistake is about to happen again.

    If I could speak to the leader I was earlier in my career, I would not give him ten instructions. I am not sure he would listen anyway. I would probably tell him that many of the things he believes about leadership are not wrong, but they are incomplete. Trust people, but remain present. Support people, but do not take away their ownership. Maintain standards, but remember that people have lives you cannot always see. Prepare carefully, but do not live through every disaster before it happens. Communicate clearly, then check what people actually understood. Take responsibility when things go wrong, because complaints go up, not down. Ask “Help me understand” before deciding that you already do. Pay attention to your mood. Take exhaustion seriously. And perhaps most importantly, accept that becoming a better leader is not a destination you eventually reach. It is the continuing, sometimes uncomfortable process of noticing where your instincts, habits and assumptions still need work.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Psychological Safety Begins With Small Moments

    Psychological Safety Begins With Small Moments

    Psychological safety has become one of those leadership phrases that appears almost everywhere. Organisations measure it, leaders talk about it, consultants design programmes around it and staff surveys ask people whether they feel able to speak openly, admit mistakes and challenge decisions. None of that is necessarily wrong, but I sometimes wonder whether we have made something fundamentally human far more complicated than it needs to be. People rarely decide that they trust a leader because of a programme, a presentation or a statement about organisational values. They decide gradually, usually through interactions that the leader may barely remember. A different opinion offered during a meeting. A small mistake admitted before it becomes a bigger one. A concern raised tentatively at the end of a conversation. A moment of vulnerability disguised as humour. People watch what happens next, and they adjust their behaviour accordingly. If the response is curious, respectful and proportionate, they may risk a little more honesty next time. If the response is defensive, dismissive or quietly punitive, they may decide not to try again. Psychological safety is rarely established in the moments when leaders announce that people can speak openly. It is established in the much smaller moments when somebody actually does.

    I remember experiencing a particularly unusual version of this during an interview process for a senior leadership position in Kazakhstan many years ago. It was a substantial process lasting two days, and at one point I was interviewed by a panel of senior leaders. During the conversation, they told me that they had received consistent feedback from colleagues I had met over the previous couple of days. Apparently, the common theme was that I did not listen, talked too much and dominated conversations. I was shocked. My immediate response was to say that I was sorry to hear that because it was certainly not how I wanted to come across, and I began reflecting on what I might have done to create that impression. There was then a long pause before they told me that none of it was true. They had invented the feedback because they wanted to see how I would react. I was considerably younger then, and I remember dropping my head onto the table in relief. I did not get the job in the end, but I have never forgotten the interview. Presumably, the panel wanted to know whether I would become defensive when challenged, reject uncomfortable feedback or demonstrate enough self awareness to consider that other people might see me differently from how I saw myself. I understand what they were trying to discover. I still think it was underhand and inappropriate. There is an irony in using deception to test whether someone can be trusted with difficult conversations, and perhaps an important reminder that psychological safety should not be confused with deliberately creating emotional discomfort to see how people respond.

    Image Article 010 02

    In ordinary workplaces, the tests are usually far less dramatic. People rarely arrive in a leader’s office and immediately reveal their deepest concern, admit a serious mistake or openly challenge something they believe is fundamentally wrong. They start smaller. They disagree with one part of a proposal. They mention that something does not seem to be working. They admit uncertainty about a decision. They ask a question that carries more meaning than the words themselves suggest. I am certain that people have tested me in this way throughout my leadership career, although I could not identify every occasion when it happened. That is partly the point. Leaders are being evaluated far more frequently than they realise. Someone may remember a two minute conversation for years because it determined whether they trusted us with something more important later, while we may have forgotten the interaction before the end of the day. Trust develops through accumulated evidence, and so does distrust. One dismissive response does not necessarily destroy a relationship, just as one good conversation does not automatically create psychological safety. People watch for patterns. They notice whether curiosity is genuine, whether disagreement has consequences afterwards and whether the leader who claims to welcome honesty behaves differently when honesty becomes inconvenient.

    Perhaps this is why I have always believed that small acts of recognition matter. When I moved into a role where I had responsibility for leading the whole team, I started manually putting every colleague’s birthday into my own calendar. I had considered doing something similar earlier in my career, but deliberately chose not to. I was conscious that introducing a highly visible personal practice when I was not leading the organisation could inadvertently reflect negatively on the person who was. Once I had responsibility for the whole team, I made it part of how I wanted to lead. Every colleague received a handwritten birthday card with a personalised message. I did not ask someone else to manage the calendar, automate the process or produce a stack of cards for me to sign. If someone’s birthday fell during a holiday, I still wrote the card and delivered it personally when I could. Every message was different, and wherever possible I referred to a conversation we had shared, something I knew about the person or something that made the card feel as though it could only have been written for them. Depending on the person and the circumstances, there might even be an audience while I sang happy birthday in Arabic. It was never particularly sophisticated leadership, but sophistication was not the point.

    Image Article 010 03

    I knew that small personal gestures could matter because I had experienced them myself. Earlier in my career, a leader once wrote me a handwritten note that included a personal reference to me and my family. I kept it for many years. I doubt it took particularly long to write, and I suspect the person who wrote it may not even remember doing so, but I remembered receiving it. That is the imbalance leaders often fail to appreciate. A conversation, a card, a note or a few minutes of genuine attention may be one of hundreds of interactions in a leader’s week, but it can carry far greater significance for the person receiving it. Over the years, colleagues have written to thank me for birthday cards, sometimes because they were surprised that I remembered and sometimes because the personal message mattered to them. I do not think a birthday card transforms someone’s experience of work, and I would be deeply suspicious of any leadership theory suggesting that it does. But people notice effort. They notice when somebody remembers them without being reminded, when a conversation from months earlier has not been forgotten and when the person leading the organisation has taken a few minutes to recognise that they have a life and identity beyond their job title.

    Some leaders may consider practices like these a poor use of senior leadership time. Perhaps, in purely operational terms, they are. There is always another report to read, another meeting to attend, another strategy to develop and another problem requiring attention. Leadership encourages efficiency because there is never enough time to do everything, but efficiency is not always the goal. Some things matter precisely because they take time. A personalised handwritten message means something different from an automatically generated email because someone had to stop, think and write it. Remembering a previous conversation matters because it shows that the conversation registered. Asking after a family member and remembering the answer later communicates something that an employee engagement initiative never can. If leaders choose to do these things in their own time because they genuinely want to, I struggle to see why anyone would criticise them. The greater danger is turning every human interaction into a leadership technique and then evaluating whether it produced sufficient organisational return.

    This is where I think some discussions about psychological safety become uncomfortable. If I write birthday cards because I have read that employee recognition increases engagement, I am not sure the gesture means the same thing. If I ask someone about their family because I have been taught that personal connection improves retention, the conversation risks becoming transactional. If I listen carefully to a concern because I want the person to rate leadership more positively in the next staff survey, I may be performing the behaviour without understanding the principle underneath it. People are remarkably good at detecting when care is conditional, strategic or designed to produce something in return. Psychological safety cannot be manufactured by leaders who have decided that they need people to feel psychologically safe. It develops when people repeatedly experience leaders behaving with decency, curiosity and consistency, particularly when there is no obvious benefit to the leader for doing so. I never wrote birthday cards because I expected people to trust me more, work harder or become more loyal afterwards. I wrote them because I wanted to acknowledge people properly, and because I believed it was a decent thing to do.

    That does not mean small gestures compensate for poor leadership elsewhere. A handwritten birthday card is meaningless if the same leader humiliates people in meetings, ignores concerns, behaves unpredictably or punishes disagreement. Remembering someone’s family does not create psychological safety if they are frightened to tell you that a decision is wrong. Leaders sometimes make the mistake of collecting visible examples of kindness while avoiding the much harder work of examining how they behave when challenged, frustrated or under pressure. Culture is not created by isolated gestures. It is created by the consistency between them. The leader who remembers birthdays must also be able to receive difficult feedback. The leader who asks after someone’s family must still listen when that person disagrees. The leader who tells people that their door is always open must pay attention to what happens to those who actually walk through it. People are not looking for perfection, but they are constantly looking for evidence that the person they see in the pleasant moments is the same person they will encounter when something becomes difficult.

    Image Article 010 04

    Perhaps the greatest mistake leaders make is assuming that psychological safety begins with people speaking openly. It begins much earlier than that. Before someone raises a serious concern, they have probably watched what happened when another colleague questioned a minor decision. Before someone admits a significant mistake, they have probably noticed how the leader responded when somebody else made a smaller one. Before someone shares something personally difficult, they have probably accumulated months or years of evidence about whether the people around them can be trusted with vulnerability. Leaders may never know which interactions mattered most. I certainly do not know how many conversations I handled well enough for someone to return later, or how many I handled poorly enough for someone to decide that they would not. That uncertainty should create humility. We are influencing people’s willingness to speak long before they tell us that they are deciding whether it is safe.

    The paradox is that the harder leaders deliberately try to create psychological safety, the more artificial their behaviour can become. I am not suggesting that organisations should stop measuring culture, developing leaders or creating proper systems for raising concerns. Those things matter. But there is a limit to what can be engineered. Trust is built through accumulated experiences that are difficult to place on a dashboard. Being remembered. Being listened to without interruption. Watching someone admit a mistake without being humiliated. Disagreeing and discovering that the relationship remains intact afterwards. Receiving a handwritten card that contains something only you and the person who wrote it would understand. None of these moments proves that a workplace is psychologically safe, but together they create evidence about the kind of place it is becoming.

    I still remember the interview in Kazakhstan because a panel deliberately tested how I would react to criticism. I still remember the handwritten note I received because somebody took the time to make it personal. Colleagues remember birthday cards that probably took me only a few minutes to write. None of these moments would appear in a strategic plan, and perhaps that is what makes them important. Leadership happens in the spaces between the things we formally measure. People decide whether they trust us through interactions we may barely notice, and the culture we eventually create is often the accumulated result of moments that seemed insignificant at the time. Psychological safety does not begin when someone finally tells us the truth. It begins much earlier, when they are quietly deciding whether we are the kind of person they might one day trust enough to tell.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and Facebook. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Why Embarrassment Lasts Longer Than Failure

    Why Embarrassment Lasts Longer Than Failure

    There are some professional failures that I can barely remember. Projects that did not work, decisions I would make differently now, presentations that could have been better and initiatives that quietly disappeared because they never achieved what we hoped they would. At the time, some of them felt enormously important, but experience has a way of putting failure into perspective. You learn, recover and move forward. Embarrassment seems to work differently. There are moments from twenty years ago that I can still remember with uncomfortable clarity, not necessarily because the consequences were particularly serious, but because embarrassment attaches itself to something more personal. It affects how we see ourselves and how we believe other people see us, especially when it happens publicly. Perhaps that is why a sarcastic comment, a public correction or being made to feel small in front of colleagues can stay with someone long after the person responsible has forgotten it happened. The moment may last seconds, but the emotional consequences can remain for years.

    I remember being involved in rehearsals for a very large event where I had somehow found myself responsible for managing the lights and sound, despite having no particular expertise in either. I was trying to help, learning as I went and doing a job that, if I am honest, I was not especially qualified to do. The person leading the event repeatedly belittled me in front of colleagues and other people involved in the production. This was not an isolated incident, because by then I had experienced similar behaviour from the same leader for several years. I said nothing. I carried on with the rehearsal and tried to do the job. What I remember most clearly is that other colleagues noticed. They came to check whether I was all right because they could see something that, at the time, I had almost stopped seeing myself. I had become used to being treated that way. When the leader eventually left the organisation, I was one of the first people to stand up and give them a generous round of applause. Only afterwards, with distance from the relationship, did I begin to understand how much my confidence had been affected. There is something deeply uncomfortable about recognising that behaviour can become so normal that we stop questioning it, and that sometimes the people around us recognise what is happening before we are prepared to acknowledge it ourselves.

    It would be easy to write about embarrassment entirely from the position of the person who has experienced it, but leadership rarely allows us the comfort of staying on one side of an argument. Nearly twenty years ago, I was delivering a presentation to a large group of people and wanted to demonstrate the power of conformity. I arranged beforehand for several people involved in the presentation to deliberately choose an incorrect answer, while leaving one person unaware of what I had planned. The idea was to see whether that person would follow the crowd despite believing the answer was wrong. As a social experiment, it probably demonstrated exactly what I wanted it to demonstrate. As a way of treating another person, it was wrong. When the individual realised that they had unknowingly been used as part of a public demonstration, they were understandably upset. I had placed someone in a vulnerable position without their consent because I was more interested in making an effective point than considering how the experience might feel from their perspective. I apologised because there was nothing else to do. They were right and I was wrong. The person has not forgotten what happened, and neither have I. Almost two decades later, I still think about that incident whenever I involve other people in public demonstrations or activities, because it taught me to put myself in the position of the person being involved rather than simply considering whether the activity will work.

    Image Article 009 02

    That experience also taught me something about the limitations of good intentions. Most workplace embarrassment is probably not caused by people deliberately setting out to humiliate someone. It happens because people speak too quickly, use sarcasm without considering how it will land, correct someone publicly when the conversation could have happened privately, make a joke that feels very different to the person receiving it or simply fail to recognise that other people experience social situations differently. Culture adds another layer of complexity. Years ago, when I was living in Germany, I discovered that wishing someone a happy birthday before the actual day could be considered uncomfortable or inappropriate by some people because of cultural beliefs and traditions that I had not previously encountered. Something I considered friendly could be received very differently by someone else. Working internationally has repeatedly reminded me that humour, embarrassment, respect and acceptable social behaviour are not universal. People bring different histories, personalities, expectations and cultural norms into the workplace, and leadership requires enough curiosity to recognise that our interpretation of a situation is not automatically the correct one. We cannot remove every awkward moment from working life, but we can become far more thoughtful about how easily they happen.

    Seniority complicates this further because the longer I have worked in leadership, the less frequently I have found myself in situations where I am likely to be publicly embarrassed. That is not necessarily because I have become more emotionally resilient or socially skilled. It is partly because senior leaders are protected by their position. People are less likely to interrupt them, publicly correct them, laugh at their mistakes or place them in situations where they feel exposed. Other people sometimes notice inappropriate comments made towards me before I have even registered them myself, but generally I am not placed in vulnerable professional situations as often as I might have been earlier in my career. That should make senior leaders more conscious of embarrassment, not less. The danger is that we gradually forget what vulnerability feels like while retaining considerable power to create it for other people. A senior leader may think they are making a quick joke, offering robust feedback or correcting an obvious mistake, while the person receiving it is standing in front of colleagues wondering whether their credibility has just been damaged. Power does not simply change who is allowed to make decisions. It changes how words are experienced.

    Perhaps the clearest indication of emotional health is what happens afterwards. People will make mistakes. I have embarrassed others, been embarrassed myself, misjudged situations and spoken without thinking carefully enough about the consequences. A psychologically safe workplace cannot be one where nobody ever gets anything wrong because such a place does not exist. What matters is whether people are able to recognise the impact of their behaviour without immediately defending themselves. One of the most damaging things a leader can do after embarrassing someone is spend considerable time explaining why their behaviour was understandable before eventually offering an apology. I have seen leaders privately justify what they have done, blame the other person, minimise the impact and explain why anyone in their position would have reacted similarly, only to apologise later when they realise that an apology is expected. The words may be correct, but the people who heard the earlier conversation already know what the leader really thinks. An apology loses much of its value when it is preceded by a defence of the behaviour that caused the harm.

    There are times when leadership requires far fewer words. If I have embarrassed someone, I do not need to explain my intentions until they understand that I am fundamentally a good person who made a reasonable mistake. I need to recognise what happened, accept responsibility and apologise. Sometimes that means saying, quite simply, that I noticed my behaviour embarrassed someone, that I should not have handled the situation that way and that I am sorry. The harder part comes afterwards because an apology does not erase the original moment. The person I embarrassed nearly twenty years ago still remembers what happened, just as I remember being belittled during that rehearsal. Repair is possible, trust can be rebuilt and people can move forward, but we should not confuse forgiveness with forgetting. The responsibility of the person who caused the embarrassment is not to demand that everyone moves on quickly. It is to learn enough from the experience that their future behaviour provides evidence that the apology meant something.

    Image Article 009 03

    There is also a point where repeated embarrassment stops being a collection of unfortunate mistakes. Workplace bullying exists, and repeated belittling, humiliation and the erosion of someone’s confidence should not be explained away as personality differences, strong leadership or a demanding organisational culture. Looking back, I have wondered whether some of the behaviour I experienced during my own career crossed that line. I also have to remain sufficiently self aware to ensure that my own authority never creates similar experiences for someone else. Good intentions are not enough, which is why organisations need clear anti bullying procedures, whistleblowing arrangements and complaints policies that people genuinely trust. Policies alone will never create a healthy culture, but they matter because people cannot always resolve repeated harmful behaviour through an informal conversation, particularly when there is a significant imbalance of power. A workplace that encourages people to speak up but provides no credible way of challenging those with authority is not psychologically safe. It is simply optimistic.

    Image Article 009 04

    Perhaps the most important lesson I have learned is that emotionally healthy workplaces allow people to recover. They recognise that awkward moments, misunderstandings and mistakes are inevitable, but they do not require people to pretend that nothing happened. They allow someone who has been embarrassed to retain their dignity, and they allow someone who has caused embarrassment to take responsibility, change their behaviour and rebuild trust. That requires maturity on both sides, because there is a difference between accountability and permanent condemnation. I would not want the worst leadership mistake I made twenty years ago to define everything I have done since, but neither would I want to pretend that it did not matter simply because I apologised. Growth depends on our ability to hold both ideas at the same time: people can cause harm and still learn, and people can forgive without forgetting what the experience taught them.

    Failure often comes with a natural ending. The project finishes, the decision is reversed, the target is missed and eventually attention moves somewhere else. Embarrassment has no such timetable. It can quietly change how people participate, how confidently they speak and whether they are willing to place themselves in vulnerable situations again. I know this because I have experienced it from both sides. I have stayed silent while being belittled because I had become accustomed to it, and I have been responsible for creating a public situation that someone else still remembers almost twenty years later. Neither experience is particularly comfortable to write about, but perhaps that is the point. Leadership reflection is of limited value if we only examine the moments that make us look good. The quieter responsibility is to notice the moments when someone has been made to feel smaller, especially when we are the person responsible, and to have enough emotional maturity to stop defending, start listening and do what we can to repair the damage. Because the moment may be brief for us, but we do not get to decide how long someone else carries it.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across YouTube, TikTok, Instagram and Facebook. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Invisible Forces That Shape Workplace Culture

    Invisible Forces That Shape Workplace Culture

    When people think about workplace culture, they often picture the obvious things. The values displayed on reception walls. The mission statement on the website. The vision presented during induction. These all have their place, but after more than thirty years working in schools and leading teams across different countries, I have become convinced that culture is shaped far less by the things we deliberately publish than by the countless experiences people quietly collect every day. Every meeting, every decision, every conversation and every reaction teaches people something about what it really feels like to work within an organisation. Long before culture appears in a staff survey, it has already been forming in hundreds of small moments that most people barely notice.

    One of the first invisible forces is the difference between confidence and accountability. We often admire people who speak confidently. They answer quickly, express strong opinions and appear certain about the direction an organisation should take. There is nothing wrong with confidence, but leadership eventually teaches you that confidence and accountability are not the same thing. It is relatively easy to sound decisive when somebody else carries the responsibility if things go wrong. Real leadership begins when your own judgement, reputation and integrity are attached to the outcome. Some of the calmest and most dependable leaders I have worked alongside were never the loudest voices in the room. Equally, some of the most confident voices became remarkably quiet when responsibility became personal. The older I become, the less interested I am in certainty and the more interested I am in judgement.

    Closely linked to this is another trap that quietly shapes many organisations. We often reward visibility more than value. The people who are always speaking, always updating others, always appearing busy and always present naturally attract attention. Meanwhile, some of the most valuable colleagues simply get on with the work. They solve problems without announcing them. They support others without seeking recognition. They consistently deliver high quality work without feeling the need to remind everyone that they are doing it. Unfortunately, organisations sometimes mistake visibility for contribution, and once people notice that, behaviour begins to change. Looking busy becomes more important than thinking deeply. Being seen becomes more important than making a genuine difference. Healthy cultures learn to recognise impact rather than performance. They notice the people who quietly make everyone else’s job easier, even when those individuals rarely seek the spotlight.

    Image Article 008 02

    Leadership also teaches uncomfortable lessons about support. Earlier in my career, I believed that being a good leader meant always being available. If somebody needed help, I wanted to be there. If a problem emerged, I wanted to solve it. If someone was worried, I wanted to listen. There is still truth in all of those things, but experience has taught me that support without boundaries eventually becomes unsustainable. Modern technology has only made this more difficult. Messages arrive late in the evening. Emails appear over weekends. Because we can contact one another at almost any moment, there is sometimes an unspoken expectation that we should. The problem is that leaders are human beings before they are leaders. They also need time to recover, to think, to be with their families and simply to stop carrying everyone else’s concerns for a while. Boundaries are not a sign that we care less. They are often what allows us to keep caring well over the long term.

    I was reminded of this during the COVID pandemic. Like leaders everywhere, I spent months trying to provide reassurance when none of us really knew what was going to happen next. Every decision affected people. Every announcement brought new questions. At one point, a member of staff sent me an angry email and copied every member of staff into it. It would have been easy to assume that this one very visible act reflected the views of the whole organisation. It would have been easy to become defensive or allow one voice to dominate my thinking. Instead, I chose to say nothing publicly. The following morning, I arrived at my office to find a four pack of beer sitting outside the door with a handwritten note that simply read, “Lots of us recognise what you’re doing for us. Thank you. Enjoy the beer.” I have never forgotten that moment. Not because of the beer, but because it reminded me that the loudest voices are not always the most representative. Appreciation is often much quieter than criticism, yet no less real.

    Image Article 008 03

    That experience reinforced another lesson I have seen repeatedly throughout my career. We are often far too quick to judge behaviour without considering what may be sitting underneath it. Somebody who appears impatient may not be rude. They may simply be exhausted. A colleague who seems distant may not have stopped caring. They may have reached the limits of their emotional capacity. We sometimes forget that people carry invisible burdens into work every day. Pressure affects patience. Fatigue changes communication. Emotional exhaustion narrows perspective. This does not excuse poor behaviour, but it should encourage curiosity before judgement. Strong leaders try to understand what may be happening beneath the surface before deciding they know why somebody is behaving differently.

    The same principle applies after difficult situations have ended. Organisations are remarkably good at moving on operationally. A conflict is resolved. A difficult meeting finishes. A restructuring is announced. A complaint is closed. From an organisational perspective, the matter is complete. Emotionally, however, people often continue carrying those experiences for much longer. Confidence can take time to rebuild. Trust sometimes returns slowly. People may continue functioning professionally while privately processing disappointment, uncertainty or criticism. One of the biggest mistakes leaders make is confusing silence with recovery. Just because people have stopped talking about something does not necessarily mean they have stopped thinking about it.

    Perhaps no invisible force shapes culture more quickly than fairness. In my experience, people are remarkably resilient when they understand why a difficult decision has been made. They may not agree with it. They may be disappointed by it. They may even be personally affected by it. However, most people can accept difficult decisions when they believe the process has been fair and the standards have been applied consistently. What damages trust is inconsistency. Different rules for different people. Behaviour challenged in one colleague but ignored in another. Opportunities that appear to depend more on relationships than principles. Once people begin questioning fairness, trust starts eroding far more quickly than many leaders realise. Fairness creates predictability, and predictability creates psychological safety.

    One of the biggest changes in my own leadership has been learning not to rescue people too quickly. Earlier in my career, I often stepped in because I knew I could solve a problem more quickly myself. It felt supportive, efficient and helpful. Looking back, I realise I was sometimes denying people the opportunity to develop their own confidence. Today I am far more comfortable allowing people to wrestle with challenges, provided they are supported and safe. Growth rarely comes from somebody else always providing the answer. It comes from discovering that you were capable of finding the answer yourself. Many years ago, a leader shared a sentence that has remained with me ever since: “I want to become the architect of my own irrelevance by empowering other people so well that eventually they no longer need me.” At first, that sounded almost contradictory. Now I think it captures the very essence of good leadership. Our job is not to make ourselves indispensable. Our job is to help others become increasingly capable without us.

    Looking back across my career, I have become convinced that culture is rarely shaped by dramatic moments. It is shaped by quieter forces that accumulate over months and years. The confidence leaders place in others. The people they notice. The behaviour they reward. The fairness they demonstrate. The boundaries they protect. The way they respond under pressure. The opportunities they create for others to grow. None of these things usually attract attention on their own, yet together they become the experience people carry with them every day. Eventually those experiences become reputation, and reputation becomes culture.

    Perhaps that is why the best leaders spend less time asking whether people understand the organisation’s values and more time wondering what people are quietly experiencing every day. Because in the end, culture is not built by what leaders intend. It is built by what people consistently feel.

    If culture is shaped by the things people quietly notice, what are your people noticing about you today?

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Quiet Signals That Reveal the Health of Your Team

    Quiet Signals That Reveal the Health of Your Team

    Every organisation has visible measures of success.

    Performance data, financial results, attendance figures, inspection outcomes and customer satisfaction all tell part of the story. They help leaders understand what is happening across a school, business or organisation. Yet the healthiest teams are often recognised long before any of those measures are analysed. Their real health is revealed through quieter signals that rarely appear on a dashboard.

    How people speak to one another.

    How comfortable they are asking difficult questions.

    Whether they admit mistakes.

    Whether people feel able to disagree respectfully.

    Whether success is celebrated and whether struggle is noticed.

    These are the behaviours that quietly shape culture every day.

    One of the biggest mistakes leaders can make is believing that people suddenly stop contributing. In reality, very few people wake up one morning and decide they no longer care. More often, silence develops gradually. An idea is dismissed. A concern receives little acknowledgement. Someone speaks openly but never hears what happened next. Eventually they begin asking themselves whether contributing is making any difference at all.

    I have experienced this myself.

    There have been occasions where I genuinely could not tell whether my opinion was being sought because a decision had already been made, whether I was being consulted before a decision, or whether my thoughts were expected to influence the outcome. Those are very different conversations, yet leaders do not always make that distinction clear. Over time, if people repeatedly invest their thoughts without knowing whether they have been heard or why they were asked in the first place, they naturally begin contributing less. It is rarely an act of defiance. More often, it is a quiet calculation that their energy is better spent elsewhere.

    Leaders sometimes conclude that quieter people have become disengaged. The reality is often more uncomfortable.

    People usually stop speaking long before they stop caring.

    Psychological safety is built in these ordinary moments. It is not created by telling people they have an open door or encouraging them to be honest. It grows through repeated experiences that demonstrate honesty is genuinely welcomed. Every respectful response strengthens trust. Every dismissive reaction weakens it.

    The same principle applies to leadership presence.

    Some leaders unintentionally make people nervous without ever raising their voice. They become serious while thinking, remain quiet while processing information or appear distant because they are concentrating. Their intention is to listen carefully, yet others experience uncertainty instead. Leadership is full of these moments where intention and perception quietly drift apart.

    I have reflected on this myself. There have been times when I believed I was listening carefully, only to discover that others interpreted my silence as disengagement or disapproval. It was a useful reminder that leadership is not judged by what we intend to communicate. It is judged by what other people experience.

    That awareness changes how we lead.

    It encourages us to explain our thinking, acknowledge contributions and ensure people understand they have been heard, even when we need time to consider what they have said.

    Trust is built in much the same way.

    Popular leadership culture often celebrates charisma. Charismatic people naturally attract attention. They inspire rooms, energise conversations and communicate with confidence. Those qualities certainly have value, but experience has taught me that organisations place their deepest trust elsewhere.

    Reliability quietly outlasts charisma.

    The people who consistently do what they say they will do, remain calm under pressure, meet commitments and support others over time become the colleagues everyone depends upon. They may never be the loudest voices in the room, but when uncertainty arrives, they are often the people everyone instinctively turns towards.

    Leadership is built far more through consistency than personality.

    Image Article 007 02

    The same quiet consistency matters when people are struggling.

    One of the easiest assumptions to make is believing someone is coping simply because they say they are. Many people continue performing well while privately carrying significant pressure. Others become exceptionally good at hiding stress because they do not wish to burden colleagues, appear incapable or attract unwanted attention.

    Throughout my career I have learnt never to assume that “I’m fine” tells the whole story.

    Some people ask for help naturally.

    Others hope somebody notices without them having to ask.

    That is why good leaders pay attention to changes rather than simply listening to words. A normally enthusiastic colleague who becomes withdrawn, somebody who contributes less than usual or someone who quietly loses their spark may be communicating something far more important than they realise.

    The same thoughtfulness should shape the way we give feedback.

    Feedback is not defined by whether it is positive or negative. The best feedback I ever received was surprisingly simple.

    “Shut up and listen more.”

    Earlier in my career I was too focused on proving I was ready for the next leadership role. I wanted to demonstrate knowledge instead of concentrating on learning. Looking back, that advice changed far more than my communication style. It changed my approach to leadership. Once I stopped trying to prove myself and focused instead on doing the job in front of me, I became a better listener, a better colleague and ultimately a better leader.

    By contrast, I have also received criticism that offered little opportunity for growth. The difference was never that it was difficult to hear. It was whether the person giving it genuinely wanted me to improve. People usually recognise the difference immediately. Effective feedback stretches people without diminishing them. It leaves them believing they are capable of becoming better.

    Leaders also influence organisations emotionally in ways they rarely notice.

    Emotions spread remarkably quickly through teams. Anxiety spreads. Frustration spreads. Impatience spreads.

    Fortunately, calmness spreads too.

    Over the years I have become increasingly conscious of the atmosphere I create simply by walking into a room. My aspiration has never been to appear emotionless or detached. Quite the opposite. I want people to experience calmness personified. Not because difficult situations should be ignored, but because calm leadership helps others think clearly when pressure begins rising.

    When leaders remain measured, they quietly give everybody else permission to do the same.

    Image Article 007 03

    This emotional steadiness becomes especially important when honesty is required.

    People begin filtering the truth when they no longer feel trusted or believe they genuinely have a voice. Rarely does honesty disappear overnight. Instead, people slowly begin softening difficult messages, choosing safer words or deciding some conversations simply are not worth having.

    Leaders often mistake this for agreement.

    It is not.

    Sometimes it is simply self protection.

    That is why trust depends as much on how leaders respond as on what people choose to say. Every conversation quietly teaches employees whether honesty is welcomed, tolerated or quietly discouraged.

    Over time, those lessons become culture.

    Conflict follows a remarkably similar pattern.

    Arguments rarely begin where they appear to begin. By the time frustration becomes visible, weeks or even months of small disappointments, assumptions and unresolved conversations have often accumulated beneath the surface. Great leaders therefore learn to notice tension while it is still quiet rather than waiting until it becomes impossible to ignore.

    Perhaps that is one of the most important responsibilities of leadership.

    To notice what others overlook.

    We naturally become very good at identifying problems because solving problems is a central part of leadership. Yet organisations can become so focused on improvement that they quietly stop recognising success. Outstanding work becomes expected rather than celebrated. Reliable people become invisible because they never create difficulties. Consistent professionalism simply becomes normal.

    At the same time, people who are struggling quietly continue to disappear into the background because they are not asking for help.

    Healthy cultures learn to notice both.

    They recognise quiet success before it becomes taken for granted.

    They notice quiet struggle before it becomes a crisis.

    Ultimately, the health of a team is revealed less by its formal structures than by its everyday habits. Whether people feel heard. Whether they trust one another. Whether they believe feedback is intended to help them grow. Whether calmness outweighs anxiety. Whether honesty feels safer than silence.

    These are the quiet signals that reveal the true health of any organisation.

    They rarely attract headlines.

    Yet they shape almost everything that follows.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.

  • Questioning Leadership Assumptions

    Questioning Leadership Assumptions

    Leadership has never been short of advice. Every few years, a new book, framework or workplace trend promises to transform organisations. Open plan offices encourage collaboration. Meetings improve communication. Promotion motivates people. Leaders should always be available. Emails should never be sent outside working hours. The advice is often well intentioned and, in many cases, supported by good evidence. Yet one lesson has stayed with me throughout my career: very few leadership ideas are universally true.

    This article brings together six reflections from my Quietly Controversial video series (Videos 0035–0040). The title was chosen carefully. The intention was never to be controversial for the sake of it, nor to persuade anyone that there is only one correct way to lead. Instead, these reflections explore ideas that occasionally challenge accepted leadership wisdom and invite us to pause before assuming that popular opinion is always the best guide. Leadership deserves curiosity far more than certainty.

    Perhaps that explains why I have become increasingly comfortable questioning accepted wisdom. Not because I believe I have better answers than everyone else, but because leadership is rarely improved by accepting fashionable ideas without first asking whether they genuinely fit the people, culture and organisation in front of us. Experience has taught me that successful leadership is usually less about finding the latest solution and more about exercising thoughtful judgement.

    One conversation has stayed with me for some time because it perfectly illustrated this point. It centred on whether colleagues should send emails outside working hours. Opinions were almost perfectly divided. Some believed it was completely inappropriate. Others saw no issue whatsoever. What interested me most, however, was how quickly the discussion moved towards creating a policy. To me, that felt like addressing the symptom rather than the cause. If people genuinely feel anxious about receiving emails during the evening, the problem is not necessarily the time the message was sent. The real question is whether the organisation has unintentionally created an expectation that every message demands an immediate response. Changing the culture would achieve far more than simply changing the rule.

    That experience reminded me how often organisations reach for policies before fully understanding the behaviour they are trying to influence. Leadership can easily become a process of collecting rules, procedures and initiatives, each introduced with good intentions but without always asking how they fit together. Individually, many of those ideas have merit. Collectively, however, they do not automatically create a healthy organisation.

    Image Article 006 02

    The same principle extends well beyond email. Throughout my career I have found myself questioning a number of assumptions that have gradually become accepted as leadership truths. Not every excellent employee wants promotion. Some derive enormous satisfaction from becoming exceptional practitioners rather than managers. Open plan offices undoubtedly encourage collaboration, but they can also quietly undermine concentration and thoughtful work. Meetings are valuable when they create clarity and progress, yet too many exist simply because they always have. Being approachable is essential, but being endlessly available often creates dependency rather than empowerment. Even confidence deserves careful examination because the loudest contribution in a meeting is not always the wisest.

    None of those opinions are intended to be universally correct. In different organisations, the opposite may prove true. That is precisely the point. Leadership is contextual. The best leaders I have worked alongside never applied ideas simply because they had become fashionable. They remained curious enough to ask whether those ideas genuinely served the people they were leading, rather than simply following what everyone else appeared to be doing.

    I have also noticed that organisations can become surprisingly attracted to visible initiatives. New systems, new structures, new office layouts and new ways of working often create the impression of progress because they are easy to see. Real organisational improvement is usually much quieter than that. It happens when those individual pieces begin working together to create a coherent culture. Leadership is rather like conducting an orchestra. Every instrument may be outstanding on its own, but success depends entirely on how well they work together. Introducing another initiative without considering its wider impact rarely strengthens an organisation. Sometimes it simply adds another layer of complexity.

    Image Article 006 03

    If I am honest, I have probably changed as much as the organisations I have worked in. Earlier in my career I often felt a greater need to defend my opinions. Experience has gradually taught me that leadership conversations are rarely about winning arguments. They are about improving understanding. Some of the most valuable professional discussions I have experienced have been with colleagues who challenged my thinking respectfully. None of us was trying to win. We were simply trying to understand the problem more clearly. Looking back, I suspect that has become one of the greatest shifts in my own leadership. I no longer see disagreement as something to overcome. More often, I see it as an opportunity to think more carefully.

    Perhaps that is the real purpose of the Quietly Controversial series. Not to convince people that conventional wisdom is wrong, but to remind us that leadership is far too complex to be reduced to slogans or absolute rules. The older I become, the less interested I am in proving that my opinion is correct and the more interested I become in asking whether we are asking the right questions in the first place.

    If someone finishes this article disagreeing with one or more of these reflections, that is perfectly acceptable. In many ways, I would consider that a success if it encouraged them to reflect more deeply on their own leadership. My hope has never been to create agreement. It has always been to encourage thoughtful reflection. Leadership is not strengthened by collecting more opinions. It is strengthened by developing better judgement.

    If you enjoyed this article, you can continue exploring these ideas through the growing collection of short leadership videos published across TikTok, Instagram, YouTube, Facebook and LinkedIn. Wherever you choose to follow, I hope the reflections encourage you to think a little differently about the quieter moments that shape leadership every day.