LET'S STOP CALLING IT CHANGE RESISTANCE: Mistaking Confusion for Resistance is Solving the Wrong Problem

by Leslie Rohonczy, IMC, PCC, Executive Coach & Author

(LISTEN TO NARRATED AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

"People just don't like change." I've heard that sentence hundreds of times over the years, usually from a frustrated leader trying to explain why an important initiative isn't gaining traction.

I don't buy it. People change all the time. We change jobs, get married, become parents, move across the country, learn new technologies, adapt to reorganizations, new bosses, new colleagues, and entirely new careers. If humans were naturally resistant to change, civilization would have ground to a halt somewhere around the invention of indoor plumbing.

So perhaps we've been diagnosing the wrong problem all along. In my experience, people aren't nearly as resistant to change as leaders imagine. But they ARE resistant to confusion, and that's a big difference.

Imagine you're standing in an airport waiting to board a flight. The departure board suddenly flashes "Gate Changed." No problem. You gather your things and head to the new gate. Now imagine the board starts changing every few minutes. Gate 18. Gate 26. Back to Gate 18. Flight delayed. Actually... on time. Please wait for further announcements. No explanation. No updates. No one seems to know what's happening.

You haven't become resistant to flying; you've become exhausted by trying to make sense of conflicting information. And that's what organizational change often feels like.

One executive I coached was convinced her leadership team was pushing back on a major transformation. "They just won't get on board," she told me. As we unpacked what was happening, a different picture emerged. Different executives were communicating different priorities. Success hadn't been clearly defined. As a result, some teams had already started changing their processes, while others had been told to wait. Timelines shifted weekly. Nobody knew which decisions had actually been made and which were still under discussion. Her team wasn't resisting the future, as she'd thought; they were just trying to survive the present. That distinction completely changes the leadership response.

If we assume people hate change, we tend to push harder. We communicate more frequently; another town hall with another corporate slide deck. We repeat the vision one more time, hoping it'll resonate, and that enthusiasm will eventually take over.

Sometimes the problem isn't a lack of communication. It's a lack of clarity.

Cognitive psychology and neuroscience researchers have long recognized that uncertainty increases cognitive load. When we can't confidently predict what's happening around us, our brains naturally direct more energy to monitoring for risk and filling in the gaps. That leaves us with less mental capacity for creativity, problem-solving, collaboration and learning.

When information is missing, we rarely leave the blanks empty. Our brains naturally want to connect all the bits and pieces of data we do have, by filling in the story with imagined information. It's a normal human response. And we rarely get it right. "I guess my role isn't important anymore." "They've probably already made the decision." "I'd better wait before I commit." "They're changing direction again."

As an executive coach, I spend a surprising amount of time helping leaders separate facts from the stories they've unconsciously constructed. Organizations do exactly the same thing. Confusion is a story factory. The irony is that leaders often perceive these behaviours as evidence that people are resistant or hesitant. People are asking lots of questions, waiting, and not taking initiative. From the leader's perspective, it looks like reluctance. But from the employee's perspective, it feels more like self-protection.

If we're striving to eliminate uncertainty, we're on a fool's errand. It just isn't possible. Markets shift, customers evolve, governments turn over, technology advances, and tactical plans evolve.

What if instead, we focused on eliminating unnecessary confusion. How? By making decisions visible, clearly explaining what is known, what remains uncertain, and when more information will be available, while carefully distinguishing between firm decisions and emerging possibilities. And by transparently acknowledging the ambiguity, rather than masking it with false certainty. And by recognizing that clarity is not achieved through a single announcement, but cultivated through an ongoing, intentional leadership practice.

In coaching conversations, when I hear a leader say, "My team is resisting change," I almost always become curious about something else. I wonder what the team might be confused about. And when I ask that question, it usually leads us somewhere much more useful. Because once confusion is reduced, something remarkable often happens: the resistance starts dissipating on its own.

Perhaps people were never resisting the change. Perhaps they were just trying to find stability as the ground moved under them, before taking the next step. And that is a very human thing to do.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Choose a current change your team is navigating and set aside 20 minutes to work through this exercise.

1. Write down the change in one clear sentence.

2. List the key areas where confusion might exist. For example: priorities, roles, timelines, decision-making, success measures.

3. For each area, ask yourself: What have I explicitly communicated? What might still be unclear or inconsistent? Where could people be filling in the gaps with their own assumptions?

4. Identify one or two specific actions you can take this week to reduce that confusion, such as clarifying a decision, aligning messaging with your leadership team peers, or naming what is still unknown.

5. Check in with your team and ask them directly: “What feels unclear right now?” Listen without correcting or defending.

6. Reflect on what shifted when you focused on increasing clarity.

If you're curious about creating greater clarity, alignment, and confidence in your leadership team, I'd love to explore it with you. Reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com

HAS YOUR TEAM BECOME BEIGE? How Humour, Playfulness, and Humanity Make Your Team Stronger

By Leslie Rohonczy, IMC™, PCC

(LISTEN TO NARRATED AUDIOARTICLE VERSION) 

There’s a guy at the front of the room, droning over his Powerpoints with the emotional range of a beige filing cabinet. Someone mumbles, “Great point, Ken,” without looking up from his phone. Someone else suggests they “circle back for confirmation and feedback” after the meeting. The rest of the team is not-so-subtly filling out their Meeting Buzzword Bingo cards: “Low-hanging fruit.” “Move the needle.” “Bandwidth.” “Synergy.” “Let’s socialize this.” And the senior leader stares into the abyss of his endless, joyless, budget meeting.

There is no joy here. Nobody laughs. Nobody relaxes. Not a single smirk was had.

And we still wonder why creativity, innovation, and engagement are disappearing faster than the free donuts in the lunchroom.

I spend a lot of time coaching senior leaders, and I’ve noticed something, well, funny. The leaders with the healthiest, highest-functioning teams are usually the most human. Not sloppy or inappropriate. And not trying too hard, like trying to amp up the latest TikTok slang.” Trust me, nobody wants to hear the VP say “it’s giving disruption.”

The best leaders often know how to create emotional oxygen - and they do it with humour and forms of play. Their teams laugh. There’s looseness. People interrupt each other with excitement. Someone occasionally says something weird, and they all laugh together; not 'at', but 'with' each other. The atmosphere feels alive.

And before somebody rushes into the comments to say, “Well, business is serious,” yes, of course it is. So is heart surgery. Research on surgical teams has shown that appropriate humour can reduce tension, strengthen team cohesion, and help clinicians cope in high-stress environments. Serious work has never required emotional sterility. Human beings are not machines.

Research has also consistently linked humour and positive emotional states with lower stress, stronger social bonding, better creativity, and improved cognitive flexibility under pressure; all aspects that contribute to high-performance teams.

A study published in the journal Emotion found that positive moods broaden attention and improve creative problem solving ("The Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions," Fredrickson, 2001). Research from Stanford Graduate School of Business has also explored how humour increases status and interpersonal connection in leaders ("Humour, Power, and Status," Cooper, Kong & Crossley, 2018). Even the Mayo Clinic has written extensively about humour’s physiological impact on stress reduction and resilience ("Stress Relief from Laughter? It’s No Joke," Mayo Clinic, updated 2023).

It makes sense. Nobody does their sharpest thinking while simultaneously trying not to sound foolish. You can feel people editing themselves before they speak. Every sentence arrives pre-approved by Legal, rinsed and fluffed by Corporate Communications, and carefully scrubbed of anything that might accidentally sound human.

Meanwhile, belly laughs are coming from down the hall. "Why can't I be part of THOSE meetings?", we grumble. Teams doing extraordinary work often sound like they're having fun. It's a little chaotic, there’s energy, and teasing. There's room for personality and authenticity, and enough psychological safety that people stop rehearsing every sentence before speaking.

I once worked with an executive who was widely respected for her brilliant strategic mind. She was equally well known (one might say notorious) for her relentless intensity and razor-sharp scrutiny. When she entered meetings, it was a sphincter-shifting moment for her team. People physically changed posture! Backs straightened. Shoulders tightened. Voices flattened. And any remnants of humour disappeared instantly. Think the Devil Wears Prada's Miranda Priestly without the zinger punchlines. When she arrived on the floor, instant messages pinged across the team, as staff alerted each other to her presence. You could almost hear everybody’s internal monologue as she arrived: “Okay, everyone, gird your loins.”

In one of our coaching sessions, she said she wanted to find a way to get her team of Vice Presidents to lead more strategically. She thought they typically spent too much time in the weeds, and she'd noticed that they answered carefully, second-guessed themselves, and spoke as if they were students trying not to disappoint a terrifying university professor. She didn't realize that every interaction with her felt high stakes. Again, a wonderful human being and a smart leader with good intentions. But somewhere along the line, she had unconsciously equated seriousness and a critical edge with good leadership. 

Lots of leaders do this. Everything becomes heavy, measured, controlled, earnest, and they become emotionally exhausting in the name of professionalism. Meanwhile, their employees are sitting there thinking: “At what point does a meeting legally qualify as a hostage situation?"

Humour matters because tension matters. Every workplace has tension: deadlines, politics, conflict, pressure, uncertainty, competing priorities. And leaders have enormous influence over whether that tension becomes corrosive or connective.

Connective tension is when the right kind of humour releases pressure without dismissing reality. It tells people: “We can survive hard things without becoming emotionally constipated.” That’s leadership.

And no, this is not permission to become the office comedian. Some leaders hear “bring more humour” and think they suddenly need to transform their PowerPoint presentation into a 12-minute stand-up routine. Please... just don’t. There’s a difference between performative humour and relational humour. One desperately needs attention. The other creates connection.

The most effective humour in leadership is usually self-aware, gentle, and human. It often comes from leaders who are comfortable enough with themselves to stop 'performing perfection'. That kind of humour builds trust because it lowers perceived hierarchy. People exhale around leaders who feel emotionally real and who can laugh at themselves.

I remember one CEO telling me about a disastrous presentation where his technology failed. His speaking notes disappeared, and he accidentally advanced to a slide containing a private reminder that simply said:

“SLOW DOWN. YOU LOOK LIKE A MAN BEING CHASED THROUGH THE WOODS BY A WOLVERINE.”

The entire audience burst out laughing. According to him, it became the strongest presentation connection point he'd had all year. Why? Because everybody suddenly relaxed. The mask cracked. Collective humanity appeared.

Nobody trusts perfection anymore, anyway. We’ve all met those leaders who speak in flawless corporate language while looking like they haven’t experienced a genuine emotion since 2014. That’s not executive presence; that's a corporate chatbot with a pension plan.

Playfulness also matters far more than most organizations realize. I'm not talking about childishness, but rather playfulness. Curiosity, experimentation, lightness, and the willingness to think sideways. Some of the strongest leadership teams I’ve ever encountered, or been lucky enough to be part of, spent some of their meeting time laughing, because they trusted each other enough to think and speak freely.

Research into “Happiness and Productivity” (University of Warwick, 2014) found that happiness can increase productivity by about 12 percent. Other studies have also connected positive emotional states with better problem-solving and broader cognitive flexibility.

This matters because some organizations slowly drain the spontaneity out of communication. People stop speaking casually. Comments get 'optimized', and every email starts sounding like it was reviewed by three lawyers and a hostage negotiator. Listen, nobody wants to say the wrong thing or look foolish. And when nobody is willing to loosen their grip for even ten seconds, eventually, people stop bringing bold ideas altogether. Boldness requires psychological safety, but we humans get cautious when our environment feels emotionally risky.

One of the most useful questions a leader can ask is this: “When was the last time this team laughed together naturally?” I'm not talking about forced fun, like mandatory bowling or trust falls. (Hey, nothing says “this workplace understands human dignity” quite like falling backward into the arms of Steve from Procurement.) I mean real laughter; the kind that happens when people feel safe enough to stop managing themselves so tightly.

Laughter can be diagnostic. Humour is often evidence of the presence of trust, of belonging, and nervous system regulation.  Healthy teams laugh. Not all day, and not constantly, but regularly. And leaders who understand that have an enormous advantage, especially now. Our modern workplaces are tired. People are carrying stress levels that would have sounded medically concerning ten years ago. Many employees feel emotionally overextended, socially cautious, and mentally saturated.

Leaders who can create moments of fun, relief, humanity, and emotional brightness without becoming performative become magnetic. People are drawn toward leaders who can help them feel human.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

For the next two weeks, treat this like a social experiment. Your mission is to see whether small moments of humour and humanity change the emotional climate around you.

Try a few of these:

• Show up to one meeting and announce a ban on corporate jargon entirely. Tell them that every time somebody says, “circle back,” “bandwidth,” or “move the needle,” you will all dramatically sigh like a Victorian widow.

• Tell one story where you were genuinely ridiculous, awkward, or silly. Not polished vulnerability, but the kind where people laugh because they recognize themselves in it.

• Notice how often people shrink their own ideas before speaking. You can usually tell what's coming because they offer qualifiers like “Maybe this is stupid…” “I haven’t thought this through…” "I might be wrong but..." When it happens, interrupt the self-editing with warmth: “Say the thing.” “No disclaimers.” “Now I really want to hear it.”

• Monitor for Beige. Give everyone permission to call out moments when the team starts sounding emotionally over-polished. Encourage callouts like “That sounds a bit beige.” “Your answer sounds suspiciously lawyer-approved,” or “Try that again, but as a human.”

Then reflect on these questions:

1. Which experiment created the biggest shift in energy, and what changed specifically?

2. What surprised you most about your team’s response to a little more humanity?

3. How often did you notice people softening, shrinking, or beige-ifying their contributions before speaking?

4. What happened when you interrupted that pattern and invited the real thought instead?

5. If your team had permission to be a little less polished and a little more human going forward, what might become possible?

Somewhere along the way, many organizations trained personality out of professionalism. I think it’s time to bring a little of it back.

If your team has become emotionally cautious, overly polished, or painfully beige, and you want to build a leadership culture where people think more freely, collaborate more honestly, and actually enjoy working together again, reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com.

WE HIRED ROCK STARS. WHY ARE WE STILL STUCK? How Strong Talent Reveals Weak Systems

By Leslie Rohonczy, IMC™, PCC

Executive Coach | Leadership Development Expert | Author | Speaker | ©2026 | www.leslierohonczy.com

 (LISTEN TO NARRATED AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

On paper, it should be working. You raised the bar on hiring and brought in stronger talent; people who’ve operated at a high level, who aren’t easily rattled, and who get results. You expected lift, and fast!

I've heard versions of the following from leaders through my career: “We upgraded the team… and everything got slower. We need to do a better job recruiting the right people.” That 'diagnosis' sounds reasonable in the moment, especially when results don’t match expectations. But often, it isn’t the recruitment process that’s dropped the ball.

See if any of this sounds familiar: after an infusion of top talent, decisions take longer, time or resources get wasted as work circles back around, and conversations multiply. It can feel like the team got smarter and the work got stuck. This is often the point where the story starts to drift in the wrong direction, as leaders revisit hiring choices or question whether the new talent is as strong as it looked in the interviews. 

How is it possible to have less momentum when there’s more intelligence and experience in the room? Well, intelligence and experience aren’t usually the issue, even though this is the first place most leaders tend to look. In fact, hiring rock star talent doesn’t automatically improve performance; it reveals the limits of the systems that they are stepping into.

When capable people enter an environment where priorities aren’t consistently clear, where decision paths shift depending on who’s involved, and where expectations move midstream, the cracks become visible. They’re strong enough to feel the friction and unwilling to pretend it isn’t there.

Less experienced teams often push through messy systems without questioning them, assuming it’s 'just how things are done around here'. Strong talent does something different; they notice what’s off, they test assumptions, and they slow down when something doesn’t add up. Their hesitation is worth paying attention to, because what you may experience as a slowdown is often a system being exposed, which can feel frustrating until you see what it’s pointing to.

A team isn’t just a group of skilled individuals operating independently; it’s more like a busy airspace. You can have the best pilots in the world flying planes in and out, but without clear signals, defined flight paths, fueling and food service systems that keeps everything moving safely and efficiently, things start to circle, delay, and back up (or worse).

I've observed leadership teams full of smart, seasoned people spend an hour circling a decision that should have taken ten minutes, simply because ownership wasn’t clear and no one was quite sure who had the call. Even with highly capable people in place, an unclear structure will create bottlenecks.

This is where leadership habits begin to show up, especially when things feel messy. The instinct for many leaders is to tighten control by adding another checkpoint, getting more involved in decisions, and increasing oversight. It just feels responsible and accountable in the moment.

But what it often does is force high-performing people to adapt to outdated systems that were never designed for how they think or the high level they're used to operating at. You can almost feel their energy drop when that happens, which is where performance stalls and engagement begins to erode well before it becomes obvious. People still contribute, but with less conviction. They start conserving their energy instead of investing their discretionary effort, and they hold back valuable input and ideas when what's really needed is their best thinking and fresh perspectives.

The better leadership move is to examine the systems and processes those people are working within, rather than managing them more closely. Get curious about:

• Where work slows down for reasons that no longer make sense

• Where decisions are delayed because ownership is unclear

• Where approvals add time without adding value

• Where caution is rewarded more than thoughtful contribution

• Where leadership steps in, when stepping back would actually move things forward

High-performing leaders encourage strong talent to question the systems they inherited, even the ones that once worked well, then simplify decision flow so ideas can flow and influence. They remove unnecessary steps instead of layering unnecessary oversight, and they create space for testing and refinement, knowing that good ideas rarely arrive fully formed.

They also invite challenge and stay in those conversations long enough for something better to emerge. This is where alignment actually develops, through people engaging with each other’s thinking and circling back to a shared understanding of what matters. The role of the leader starts to shift as they spend less time evaluating individuals and more time seeing their team as part of a system that is producing the results they’re getting. When different results are needed, the system itself must evolve.

If the environment isn’t set up to leverage the thinking, experience, and judgment of the new people you’ve hired, you aren’t fully leveraging the investment you’ve made in that talent, and you end up carrying the cost of capability without getting the benefit of it, which is a frustrating place to sit when you know how much potential is there.

So if you’ve raised the bar on talent and you're not seeing the lift you expected, look at the system, because that’s where the real leverage sits. If the airspace feels crowded and slow, don’t coach the pilots to fly harder; upgrade the system of signals, communications, and flight paths so air traffic can move efficiently.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Set aside 30 minutes this week and take a close look at how work actually moves through your team. Think of your team like a busy airspace. Your goal isn’t to fly every plane. It’s to make the routes, signals, and handoffs clear so everything moves without circling.

Choose one recent decision or project that felt slower or heavier than it should have, then write out how it unfolded step by step, noticing where it paused, where it looped, and where it required rework.

Then reflect on the following questions in a single sitting so you can see the full pattern rather than isolated moments.

1. Where did the system make this harder than it needed to be?

2. Where did I step in, and what impact did that have?

3. Where did someone hold back when they could have pushed forward?

4. What would’ve needed to be different for this to move with more clarity and pace?

You aren’t trying to fix everything in one sitting. You’re experimenting with looking for what’s slowing things down, and once you see it, you can clear the path. That’s how you keep the airspace moving the way it should, to create real lift for your rock stars.

If you notice this pattern in your own team, reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com.

LACK OF PRODUCTIVE CONFLICT IS A WARNING SIGNAL: How Politeness Culture Filters Out the Truth

By Leslie Rohonczy, IMC™, PCC

Executive Coach | Leadership Development Expert | Author | Speaker | ©2026 | www.leslierohonczy.com

(LISTEN TO THE AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

You’ve likely been in this meeting (and if you’re honest, you may have even been running it). You lay out a direction, walk the group through your thinking, and open the floor. A few people nod as you speak. Someone says 'It makes sense'. Another adds that they are on board and ready to move forward. The tone is smooth, the discussion feels easy, and nothing in the room signals friction. You leave that conversation reassured that you have alignment.

A few weeks later, the energy is different. The work is moving, but not with any real momentum. You find yourself stepping in more than expected, answering questions that shouldn't need your input, and wondering why something that seemed so clear is not gaining traction.

This is usually the point where leaders turn their attention to execution. They start tightening timelines, increasing check-ins, and stepping in more frequently to keep things moving. It feels like a delivery problem that needs more oversight or clearer direction.

But the breakdown did not start in the execution phase. It started earlier, in the meeting itself, when alignment appeared to be present but was never fully established. What looked like agreement, wasn't; it was a group of people making a rapid, often unconscious decision about how to respond in that moment. For some, it may have been about protecting the relationship. For others, it was about not slowing things down, not wanting to challenge too early, or not being certain their perspective would add value. And for some, it was simply easier to agree in the moment and revisit it later, even if that conversation never actually happened.

If this sounds familiar, you're in good company. In Canadian workplaces, politeness shapes how people respond in real time, especially when they are unsure how their input will land. It influences what gets said, how it is said, and in many cases, whether it even gets said at all.

Over time, that creates a gap between what is expressed in the room and what people are actually thinking. Leaders hear support. Teams experience something more complicated.

I recently coached a senior leader who couldn't understand why his teams weren't giving him honest feedback, or bringing forward stronger ideas to challenge the status quo. He had been very clear that he wanted input. He said it often, and he meant it. From his perspective, the invitation was wide open.

From his team’s perspective, they saw it differently. He moved quickly in meetings and responded to ideas as they were raised. He tended to build on what he liked and move past what he did not, often without much pause. He also closed discussions as soon as he felt he had enough to make a decision (which happened faster than he realized). None of his behaviour was aggressive or dismissive; it was just how he liked to operate.

In these conditions he'd created, his team had stopped testing ideas that were not fully formed. They held back perspectives that might have slowed the conversation down. They paid attention to where he seemed to be leaning and aligned themselves accordingly. The meetings stayed smooth, the tone stayed positive, and the appearance of agreement remained intact.

From the outside, the issue is easy to spot. From the inside, it is almost invisible. They were operating within it, shaped by it, adapting to it in real time, like fish that have no awareness of the water they're swimming in. People were no longer bringing their full thinking into the room. They were participating, but in a narrower way; contributing, but without the same level of ownership. They were staying engaged enough to keep things moving while gradually pulling back from conversations that held greater risk.

That shift is easy to miss because it does not create obvious disruption. There are no raised voices, no visible conflict, and no obvious signs that something is wrong. Everything continues to look professional and well-managed.

The cost shows up later, when decisions move forward without the benefit of a broader perspective. Execution starts to stall. Leaders find themselves carrying more of the load than they expected, stepping in to clarify, reinforce, and push things along.

At that point, it is tempting to question commitment, engagement, or capability. More often, the issue is access. Access to what people are actually seeing, thinking, and questioning. Access to the ideas that stayed in someone’s head because the moment did not feel right to share it. Access to the concerns that were softened beyond being recognizable, or left unsaid altogether. When that access narrows, the quality of thinking narrows with it.

This matters even more in the current environment. Canadian organizations are operating with tighter margins, higher expectations, and less room for missteps. Leaders need people who are willing to engage fully, especially when the path forward is not obvious. Politeness, when it goes unchecked, can work against that.

So the question shifts. Instead of wondering why people are not speaking up, it would be more useful to ask what they are responding to in how you lead. Your behaviour sets the conditions for how far others are willing to go. When you jump in within seconds of someone speaking, wrap a discussion before others have weighed in, or signal a preferred direction through your tone or follow-up questions, people notice. They constantly read your pace, your reactions, and your follow-through.

They notice how quickly you respond to ideas and which ones you stay with. They notice whether a differing perspective changes anything or simply gets set aside. They notice how much space there is to think before the conversation moves on.

These signals shape participation far more than any verbal invitation. When people see that their input can influence direction, they lean in. When they don't see that connection, they conserve their effort and contribute in more predictable ways that feel safer. And those conversations, while they may be easier to manage, are ultimately less useful.

Leaders who want stronger engagement often focus on saying the right things: asking for feedback, inviting challenge, and reinforcing candour and openness. Those behaviours matter, of course, but they're not the deciding factor. People are looking for evidence: for moments where input changes the course of a discussion; for signs that it'll be worth the effort to bring forward something that may not land perfectly; for a reason to believe that speaking up will make a difference. That evidence is created in how you handle the conversation, not in how you frame the invitation.

When that evidence is present, you experience a shift. Conversations deepen, and people stay in the discussion longer. When it is not present, politeness fills that space and limits what is shared. Over time, that creates distance between what leaders hear and what their teams are actually thinking. And that distance is where disengagement grows.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Think about a recent meeting where agreement came quickly; the kind of moment where everyone nodded, and you moved on without resistance.

In your next meeting, when that moment happens again, do something different: Pause the conversation and say, “Before we move on, I want to test something with you. What are we not saying right now?” Then stop talking. Hold the silence. Let the squirmy discomfort show up. Do not rescue the moment, and do not soften the question. This can be harder than it sounds, especially if we're used to a faster pace to a solution.

When someone offers a partial answer, stay with it longer than you normally would. Ask them what else they were considering but chose not to say. Let the room see that 'first layer thinking' isn't enough.

If nothing comes, name that too. Say what you are observing about the speed of agreement, and your curiosity about what might be underneath it.

After the meeting, reflect on what shifted; not just in what was said, but in how the room responded when you disrupted the well-worn pattern. That is where you start to regain access to what is actually in the room.

If you're starting to wonder what's going unsaid in your leadership meetings, that's a conversation worth having. Reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com.

SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS: Avoiding The Trap of Similarity Bias

(LISTEN TO THE NARRATED AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

Be honest. Who’s the person at work who makes you think, “How did you get this far without adult supervision?” You have one. I have one. We all have that one colleague. The one who overthinks everything and wants a subcommittee to review the subcommittee’s findings. Or the one who makes a snap decision and moves on without any real data to go on. The one who needs all the data before they can get into motion. The one who says, “I just have a gut feeling” without anything to base it on. The person who wants harmony over addressing the real challenges. Or the one who walks into the meeting and detonates it, just to see what happens.

At some point, if we are courageous enough to admit it, we have all muttered a private version of the phrase popularized by Thomas Erikson in his bestselling book, Surrounded by Idiots. It is a funny title that also reveals something uncomfortable. Most of us have silently nominated someone for that award.

BUT WHAT IF THEY’RE NOT IDIOTS?

Before you write them off as annoying, flawed, or completely out to lunch, consider this: what if they are simply wired differently than you? One of the most important leadership lessons I have learned, and relearned, is this: difference is not deficiency.

In Chapter 4 of Coaching Life, I explore personality types and wiring. Not as labels, and not as excuses, but as lenses. Our wiring shapes how we process information, communicate, make decisions, and interpret behaviour. It influences how quickly we speak, how much detail we need, how much risk we tolerate, and how we respond to tension.

Carl Jung’s early work on psychological types laid the foundation for many modern personality tools. Later models, such as DISC, Insights Discovery, and others, translated those preferences into practical language that leaders could actually use. Daniel Goleman’s work on emotional intelligence expanded the conversation by showing that success in leadership depends less on technical ability and more on self-awareness and relational skill.

And even with all this research available, we still fall into a very human trap. We assume that our way is the right and reasonable way. The grown-up way. The way that should probably be laminated and handed out during onboarding training.

HOW SIMILARITY BIAS BITES US IN THE BUTT

There is strong evidence that we are naturally drawn to people who think and behave like us. Social psychologists call this similarity bias. We trust people who feel familiar, interpret their behaviour more generously, and see their strengths more clearly.

When someone mirrors our pace, tone, or priorities, we experience it as competence. When someone does the opposite, we experience it as friction, or incompetence, or a threat to everything we hold dear.

Think about the people in your life and see if some of these contrasts feel familiar. These are not personality types, just examples of how different wiring can show up at work:

• The analytical leader experiences the fast decision maker as reckless.

• The fast decision maker experiences the analytical leader as paralysing.

• The relationship-focused leader experiences the direct one as abrasive.

• The direct leader experiences the relational one as overly sensitive.

Notice what just happened. In less time than it takes to refill your coffee, we turned a style preference into a personality defect. We moved from wiring difference to moral judgment in seconds. But your irritation is just information. It’s not proof of a character flaw in someone else. It’s just a signal that something about this interaction is rubbing against your own wiring and preferences. It’s your nervous system flashing a small yellow light that says, “This is not how I think, or would do this.”

In Chapter 13 of Coaching Life, I write about relational awareness and the ability to notice not only what is happening between us, but what is happening inside of us, too. When we feel a surge of frustration in a meeting, that reaction is data that tells us something about our preferences. It doesn’t necessarily tell us that there is something wrong with the other person.

DECISION MAKING: WHERE WIRING COLLIDES

It is in the arena of decision-making that we can really see wiring differences in action. Some people process externally by thinking out loud, and we can hear their brain working in real time. They explore possibilities verbally, and silence typically makes them uncomfortable.

Others process internally. They need time to reflect before speaking. Rapid-fire questions or fast-paced discussion feel chaotic and risky. They look calm, which makes the external processors slightly more uncomfortable.

Some of us decide quickly once we recognize a pattern, and we’re comfortable acting with only partial information. Others want to thoroughly examine risk, implications, and downstream impact before committing to action.

There is no inherently superior approach, although each camp is usually convinced that theirs is. Research on cognitive diversity suggests that teams with varied thinking styles can outperform more homogeneous teams, particularly when tackling complex problems. The challenge is not the diversity itself. It is our inability to interpret it without judgment.

Instead of saying, “You move too fast,” we think, “You are careless.” Instead of saying, “You need more time,” we think, “You lack backbone.” When leaders collapse wiring differences into character flaws, it can have a devastating effect on team culture.

EQ IS NOT ABOUT BEING NICE

Emotional intelligence is often misunderstood as simply empathy, warmth, or emotional expression. Those are elements of it, certainly, but they are not the whole picture. At its core, emotional intelligence is a behavioural range. It is the capacity to notice your default wiring and stretch beyond it when the situation requires something else.

If you are naturally direct, can you soften your delivery so that a more relational colleague can hear you? If you are highly relational, can you tolerate a sharper exchange without personalizing it? If you decide quickly, can you slow down long enough to invite dissent or diverse inputs? If you prefer deep analysis, can you act before you feel completely ready?

We can learn to adjust our communication based on who is in the room, without abandoning our authenticity. By expanding our repertoire, we can connect and communicate effectively with everyone on our team, not just the ones who are wired like us. That expansion requires effort that can be uncomfortable, and sometimes even feel threatening.

WHY CHANGE FEELS SO HARD

In Chapter 11, I explore the psychology of change. Our wiring becomes familiar territory because it has served us well. It helped us succeed, after all. So when someone suggests we adjust it, even slightly, it can feel like an attack on our competence. This is where leadership maturity shows up. Can you hold two truths at once? Your wiring is valid, and it is not universal.

You are not wrong for preferring speed, detail, harmony, candour, reflection, action, structure, or improvisation. But when you lead others, your preferences can’t be the only operating system in the room. The leader who refuses to stretch into different communication styles and preferences creates an invisible hierarchy that says: my way equals professional; your way equals problematic. And that can seem quite ego-driven to the people we lead.

The next time someone triggers you, pause. Instead of asking, “What’s wrong with them?” try asking, “What is different about them? What pace do they prefer? How do they process information? What makes them feel secure? What makes them feel pressured?”

You may discover that the person you labelled as difficult is actually providing something your team needs. The cautious analyst may be preventing a costly mistake. The bold decision maker may be preventing stagnation. The relational leader may be building trust in ways you cannot see. Difference is not deficiency; it’s often the thing that brings the most value.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE

Think of one person at work who typically activates you.

Step 1: Name the irritation clearly.
What exactly do they do that gets under your skin? Is it their pace? Their tone? Their need for detail? Their bluntness? Their hesitancy? Vague irritation is not useful data. Be specific.

Step 2: Decode the wiring beneath the behaviour.
Translate each irritation into a neutral description of their preference. Fast might mean decisive. Slow might mean reflective. Direct might mean candid. Diplomatic might mean attuned to impact. Ask yourself:

• What decision-making style is this?

• How do they appear to process information, externally or internally?

• What might make them feel competent or secure in a discussion?

Step 3: Examine your own bias.
Which of their behaviours clashes most strongly with your default wiring? What does that reveal about your preferences? Where might you be interpreting difference as deficiency?

Step 4: Look for the value.
Where could this style strengthen the team? What risk does it mitigate? What blind spot of yours might it be balancing? In what way are you grateful for this?

Step 5: Choose a deliberate stretch.
Select one small behavioural adjustment for your next interaction. If you move quickly, slow your pace and invite input. If you analyse deeply, commit sooner. If you soften everything, be clearer. If you are blunt, add context. Do not reinvent your personality – expand your range.

Step 6: After the interaction, reflect.

• What shifted in the dynamic?

• How did it shape their reaction?

• What did you learn about them?

• What did you learn about yourself?

RESOURCES FOR EXPLORING PERSONALITY AND WIRING

If this topic intrigues you and you would like to go deeper, there are several credible starting points. These tools are most powerful when used not as labels, but as mirrors, to help us see our patterns, widen our behavioural range, and interpret others with more generosity.

• Thomas Erikson’s Surrounded by Idiots. A popular business book that interprets behavioural differences through a simplified DISC-based lens.

• William Moulton Marston’s DISC theory. The behavioural model that later informed many workplace assessments.

• Insights Discovery. A Jungian-based colour model widely used in organisations to build self-awareness and relational skill.

• The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. A structured application of Jung’s work that explores preferences in perception and decision-making.

• Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence. The research that expanded leadership conversations beyond technical competence.

• The Wisdom of the Enneagram, by Don Richard Riso and Russ Hudson. A deeper exploration of motivation, fear, and developmental growth patterns.

• Carl Jung’s Psychological Types. The original foundation for much of modern personality theory.

• Coaching Life: Navigating Life’s Most Common Coaching Topics, by Leslie Rohonczy, available in paperback and audiobook

If you are ready to grow your behavioural range and lead across personality differences with more skill, reach out for a free exploratory Executive Coaching conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com.

'ME-FIRST' CULTURE AT WORK: The Demise of ‘WE’ in the Age of ‘ME’

(LISTEN TO THE NARRATED AUDIOARTICLE VERSION)

Last year, I sat in on a senior leadership meeting that felt less like a strategy session and more like an orchestra rehearsal gone wrong. It felt chaotic! Everyone was playing their hearts out, and no one was listening. Each leader came armed with their slides, metrics, updates, entrenched points of view, and well-rehearsed arguments. Every function was defending its priorities. Everyone was articulate, intelligent, passionate, and striving to be 'seen'. There was no shared tempo; no collective score, and no one stepping back to ask, “What is best for the collective? What does the whole need?”

I have been noticing this pattern for years, in coaching sessions, in corporate events, and across media feeds: a steady tilt toward self-protection and self-promotion over shared purpose. Call it ambition if you like, but it feels like something deeper to me. The rise of a “me-first” workplace has been building for a long time.

HOW DID WE GET HERE?

Over the past three decades, Western societies have undergone a measurable shift toward hyper-individualism. Sociologist Robert Putnam wrote about the decline in civic participation and social capital in his book, Bowling Alone, showing how community involvement, from clubs to volunteerism, steadily decreased across North America. The patterns he identified in the 1990s have only intensified.

Journalist Sebastian Junger explored a related theme in his book Tribe: On Homecoming and Belonging, which is one of my favourite books about how we are stronger together. Drawing on history, anthropology, and his reporting on war veterans, Junger points out that humans are wired for tight-knit interdependence, and that modern Western society has weakened many of the shared hardships and collective bonds that once gave people a sense of meaning. When belonging erodes, people don't simply become more independent; they often become more anxious, more isolated, and more likely to build their identity around status rather than contribution. That observation has profound implications for workplace culture.

Technology is also reshaping how we construct identity. Sherry Turkle’s work at MIT points to how digital platforms nudge us to 'perform ourselves' rather than fully engage with others authentically. Algorithms reward visibility and amplification. Attention, likes and follows become currency, and we learn to chase it.

Add to this the rise of monetized identity, influencer culture, and personal brand as career insurance in unstable labour markets. LinkedIn profiles become highlight reels, Instagram turns daily life into curated narratives, and the gig economy encourages workers to market themselves continuously. In many Western democracies, competitive market thinking has gradually pushed the language of individual rights to the forefront, with no room for conversations about shared responsibility.

Layer in performance-at-all-costs organizational environments, where individual metrics, dashboards, and promotion systems reward personal achievement far more visibly than collective contribution.

None of these forces are malicious. They evolved gradually, and responded to real economic and technological shifts. But together, they've shifted our centre of gravity. As a culture, we've elevated individual identity above shared responsibility and obligation. We've optimized for recognition over reciprocity, and it's showing up at work.

WHERE THE DRIFT BECOMES VISIBLE

We see this slide into soloist mode appears inside organizations, in leaders who protect their function instead of tending to the enterprise as a whole. Or when personal brand building starts to consume more energy than team building. “Not my job” thinking creeps into conversations. We celebrate the hero who stayed late to save the day, but overlook the disciplined and collective coordination that would have prevented the crisis in the first place. Performance conversations begin to feel like personal threats rather than shared calibration. Visibility edges out contribution, and underneath much of it sits our old pal, anxiety.

Research on social comparison theory by psychologist Leon Festinger, and later extended in contemporary social media studies, shows that constant exposure to curated success increases comparison behaviour. And comparison fuels insecurity, which narrows the focus toward self-protection. When leaders feel perpetually evaluated, they protect reputation. When employees feel constantly compared, they guard status. When attention narrows to self-preservation, collective awareness declines.

Belonging research consistently shows that strong social connection predicts wellbeing and performance. When connection weakens, anxiety increases. And when anxiety increases, collaboration suffers. It becomes a reinforcing loop. More comparison, more self-focus, less collective trust, and more anxiety.

We are social pack animals, and evolutionary psychology is clear on this point. Human survival historically depended on cooperation, shared labour, and mutual protection. “Every person for themselves” has never been a sustainable survival strategy. And yet culturally, here we are.

WHY THIS MATTERS FOR ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE

If you look at Edelman’s annual Trust Barometer, you’ll see just how shaky institutional trust has become across Western democracies, including here in Canada. Trust is not abstract; it's a performance variable. When trust declines, decision-making slows, innovation drops, and defensive behaviours increase.

McKinsey has done some interesting research using their Organizational Health Index which shows that companies scoring highest on shared direction and collective accountability are significantly more likely to outperform their peers financially.

When leaders optimize for personal recognition over shared outcomes, there are always telltale signs. See if any of these sound familiar: silo protection increases, succession planning weakens, cross-functional friction grows, innovation slows as risk becomes reputational, and burnout rises as individuals feel they must constantly prove their value.

Think back to that leadership meeting that felt like a rehearsal gone wrong. A real orchestra is disciplined, coordinated in their desire to create something collectively, and anchored in a shared purpose. Musicians spend years learning not just how to play, but how to listen. They watch the conductor. They track subtle shifts in dynamics, and soften when another section carries the melody. They know when their role is to lead and when their role is to support. And everyone is playing from the same score.

When that discipline disappears, and each musician pushes for the spotlight, the result is chaotic noise. Volume replaces harmony, timing fractures, and the piece loses its shape. In organizations, the same thing happens in the absence of shared intent and collective restraint. Having a team of strong soloists doesn't create better performance; it creates distortion.

THE CULTURAL WAKE-UP CALL

This 'me-first' culture we're witnessing reflects a broader cultural current that's been building for years. As leaders, we decide which behaviours get reinforced, so if we reward individual heroics over collective stewardship, we accelerate the drift. Corporate incentives tied to individual performance often create counterproductive behaviours, damage relationships and create burnout in their wake. Why would we want to reward the amplification of personal brand more than enterprise contribution?

When we prioritize what is individually visible over what advances a shared objective, we make our values unmistakable: in effect, our metrics and incentives teach people that personal exposure matters more than collective impact. Left unchecked, that lesson becomes the culture.

This reaches far beyond workplace harmony. Organizations that can't coordinate beyond individual ambition struggle and even collapse when conditions tighten. And most leaders I work with can feel that tightening in their bones. The margin for error is thinner, decisions travel faster, and reputational consequences land harder. You can feel it in your calendar, in your inbox, in the pace of change your teams are absorbing. This moment in time demands that we think beyond ourselves and act for the good of the whole.

Prioritizing the collective good is key to institutional resilience, and yet, much of our development energy still tilts toward individual visibility and positioning. Far less attention goes to teaching leaders how to share power, hold tension, or step back so the whole can move forward.

A corporate culture that prizes the soloist over the symphony eventually forgets how to play together. And as complexity accelerates around us, losing that collective capacity carries real consequences for trust and performance. A room full of screeching soloists creates one hell of a cacophonous noise. But beautiful music happens when every player focuses on contributing to the collective whole.

YOUR COACHING CHALLENGE: 30-MINUTE LEADERSHIP DISCUSSION GUIDE

Share this article with your peers and leader, and put it on the agenda for your next weekly meeting. Use the handy discussion guide below to have a conversation about how this shows up in your organization, and how you might address some of the challenges that come along with it.

Facilitation Guidance
• Allocate 30 minutes for the discussion, and frame it as a curious, blame-free exploration of the topic
• Encourage candour without defensiveness
• Capture patterns and themes, not names

PART 1: OBSERVATION

1. Where do we see “me-first” behaviour inside our own organization?

2. What behaviours are we currently rewarding that may unintentionally reinforce individual over collective thinking?

3. Where do we see personal brand overtaking enterprise stewardship?

PART 2: IMPACT
4. How is this affecting cross-functional trust?
5. Where has anxiety or reputational fear limited collaboration?
6. What is the cost to performance when we protect our own metrics rather than the shared outcome?

PART 3: SELF-EXAMINATION
7. In what ways might I personally be reinforcing individual recognition over shared responsibility?
8. What would it look like for our team to operate more like an orchestra and less like competing soloists?

If you see any of the following behaviours, gently guide participants back to the discussion objectives:

• Leaders defending territory more than strategy

• Reluctance to share credit

• Hesitation to challenge peers for fear of optics

• Metrics optimized locally but not globally

• High visibility, low cohesion

Close the discussion by asking: What is one behaviour we will experiment with and consciously shift over the next quarter, to strengthen the “we”?

If you or your leadership team want help in facilitating these important cultural conversations in your organization, reach out for a free exploratory conversation at www.leslierohonczy.com.

TAMING THE LONE WOLVES: Transforming Cutthroat Competition into High-Performing Collaboration

Leslie Rohonczy, IMC™, PCC, Executive Coach, Leadership Expert, Speaker, Author

A Team That Should Be Winning (but isn’t)

You’ve worked your butt off to build your team. You interviewed multiple high-flyers, chose a select few who rose above the rest, and hired yourself a highly driven, results-oriented team of rock stars. They’re confident, competitive, and relentless in their pursuit of bold goals. Congratulations! On paper, it’s a recipe for record-breaking success.

And yet…

Month after month, instead of celebrating big wins, they miss their targets, and you’re spending your already-squeezed time playing referee in a never-ending cycle of infighting, back-channeling, posturing, and finger-pointing. You’re frustrated. Opportunities are slipping through the cracks. Turnover is up, which means you’ll have to go back out there again, in search of your next unicorn.

Sound familiar? You’re not alone.

Many teams suffer from a ‘lone wolf’ culture, where individuals operate as fiercely independent agents, more focused on personal wins than collective success. While competition can be a powerful motivator, unchecked rivalry can be fatal. When team members view each other as threats rather than allies, trust erodes, collaboration disappears, and opportunities are lost.

The good news? It doesn’t have to be this way. You can harness that competitive energy and channel it toward team-wide success.

Why Lone Wolf Cultures Persist

Before we dive into solutions, let’s look at why this problem exists in the first place. Lone wolf cultures often emerge because:

1. Incentive Structures That Reward Individual Wins: When promotions, bonuses, and recognition are tied exclusively to individual performance, team members naturally strive for personal success over team outcomes, and efforts to work together may be seen as a distraction or nuisance, rather than a strategic advantage. If leaders don’t actively reward collective achievements over personal achievements, the message you’re sending is clear: winning alone matters more than winning together. Over time, this breeds a cutthroat environment where employees guard their insights, resist collaborating and knowledge-sharing, and view colleagues as competitors rather than allies.

2. Lack of Shared Goals: When success is measured solely by individual KPIs, team members naturally prioritize their own objectives over the broader mission. Without well-defined team goals that require collaboration, individual priorities often clash, inefficiencies rise, and friction becomes inevitable. And don’t kid yourself into thinking that having a few collective goals is enough. If most of the leader’s is focus is on individual targets, employees chase personal wins, often at the expense of the organization’s success. It’s not intentional; it’s human nature. High-performing teams don’t just coexist; they work toward a shared vision that unites individual efforts into a cohesive, results-driven force.

3. Lack of Accountability: And, while we’re on the topic of KPIs and metrics, let’s also look at KBIs: key behavioural indicators. When accountability rests solely on the leader’s shoulders to hold employees accountable, team dynamics suffer. Without clear expectations for team members to hold each other accountable in a constructive way, small frustrations fester into major conflicts. Instead of open, solution-focused conversations, tensions simmer beneath the surface, fueling competition, blame, and disengagement.

4. Scarcity Mindset: When employees believe opportunities, recognition, or resources are in short supply, they default to a survival mode of competition. In environments where promotions are rare, leadership roles are limited, or high-value projects are assigned to a select few, employees can feel pressured to outshine rather than collaborate. This scarcity-driven competition often leads to posturing, hoarding information, withholding support, and prioritizing personal advantage over team cohesion. Without a culture that reinforces abundance (where success is not a zero-sum game), trust erodes and true collaboration becomes nearly impossible.

5. Poor Leadership Reinforcement: Even well-intentioned leaders can inadvertently fuel a lone-wolf culture by rewarding individual achievement over collective success. If company leaders consistently celebrate top performers without acknowledging the team effort behind them, they reinforce a mindset of ‘everyone for themselves.’ And leaders who fail to model collaboration (eg: making unilateral decisions, keeping information siloed, or playing favorites) send a message that teamwork is secondary to individual success. To foster a culture of cooperation, be intentional about how you recognize and reinforce behaviors that strengthen, rather than divide, the team.

6. Fear of Losing Control: Some employees see their expertise, knowledge, or unique skills as their competitive advantage – and resist helping each other succeed because sharing assets feels like a direct threat to their success. Whether it’s withholding key insights, avoiding feedback or mentorship, or resisting teamwork, individuals who fear losing their edge often isolate themselves, unintentionally weakening the team’s overall effectiveness. This fear-driven behavior not only stifles innovation; it also creates an unhealthy dynamic where personal protectionism overrides collective problem-solving. To break this cycle, organizations must emphasize psychological safety – where sharing expertise is seen as a strength, not a risk.

The Cost of a Lone Wolf Culture

A hyper-competitive, cutthroat environment might sound like a high-performance culture to some, but in reality, it can have severe consequences to your bottom line and corporate reputation. Teams that operate in silos often miss out on significant opportunities that are only possible through cross-functional collaboration. Without a cohesive approach, projects stagnate, innovation suffers, and major deals or game-changing breakthroughs slip through the cracks.

Beyond lost opportunities, think about what a slog it is to come to work every day in a culture of lone wolves. Individuals prioritize their own success over the team's; distrust grows along with a toxic work environment; constant infighting, backstabbing, showboating; lack of transparency; and an atmosphere of stress and resentment. No wonder burnout and turnover rates are higher in lone wolf teams. Leaders can find themselves caught in a never-ending cycle of conflict resolution and recruiting, rather than focusing their valuable time on strategic initiatives and growth.

A fragmented team also confuses your clients and stakeholders. When different team members present conflicting strategies or undermine each other, it affects the credibility of the whole team – and its leader. This inconsistency damages trust and can result in lost business and diminished reputation.

Ultimately, a lone wolf culture doesn’t just hinder individual performance, it can cripple an entire organization.

Breaking the Lone Wolf Mentality: Leadership Strategies for Change

Surprise! There’s no quick fix! If your team is stuck in a lone wolf mentality, changing it will require deliberate, overt, and consistent shifts over time: in mindset, structure, and leadership approach.

The first step is redefining success. Instead of measuring performance purely through individual KPIs (key performance indicators), establish shared team goals that reward collective achievements. Celebrating wins as a team fosters a sense of unity and reinforces the idea that success is not a zero-sum game. Leaders should publicly recognize collaborative efforts, highlighting how teamwork contributes to overall success.

BCE Inc., Canada's largest communications company, introduced a comprehensive recognition program in 2021 that celebrated achievements within departments and teams to acknowledge collaborative efforts and foster a culture where teamwork is integral to success. And Canadian athletic apparel and accessories giant Lululemon Athletica implemented a team-based cash bonus program to reward groups for reaching store-specific goals, incentivizing collective performance while strengthening team cohesion and aligning individual efforts with broader organizational objectives.

Beyond KPIs, include a set of KBIs in your performance dashboard: Key Behavioural Indicators. What behaviours will you watch for to let you know your team culture is healthy, employees are engaged, motivated, focused on the right things, and interpreting your strategy and objectives the way you intended? (Check out my ‘Coaching Minute’ video on Key Behavioural Indicators.)

Adjusting incentives and recognition structures is a crucial step in the strategy. Implementing team-based bonuses, peer-nominated awards for collaboration, and recognizing those who contribute to a project rather than just those who close the deal can reshape workplace dynamics. When employees see tangible rewards for working together, mentoring each other, and receiving straightforward feedback that helps them succeed, they become more inclined to share knowledge and resources.

Leadership also plays a pivotal role in shifting the team's mindset. The narrative must change from celebrating individual top performers to spotlighting collaborative successes. Be relentless in looking for ways to reinforce this message. Talk about it at cross-functional meetings, open forums for sharing strategies, and 1:1 coaching sessions focused on EQ growth and career development. As a leader, modeling this behavior by demonstrating your openness, cooperation, and a commitment to collective growth at every opportunity, helps your team adapt to the ‘new way we do things around here now'.

Cultivating a culture of trust is another essential element. Transparency is key – giving employees visibility into projects, expectations, decision-making processes – and even the performance ratings process – helps eliminate secrecy and encourages open dialogue. Group Coaching, Peer Coaching, and Mentorship programs can also bridge gaps between team members, fostering knowledge-sharing and reducing territorial behavior. Addressing conflicts quickly and constructively reinforces the expectation that undermining others will not be tolerated. Equip your employees with training, coaching, and frequent opportunities to practice the ideal team behaviours.

Healthy competition doesn’t have to be eliminated – it just needs to be reframed. Gamifying collaboration through contests that reward joint efforts, rotating leadership roles to prevent hoarding of responsibilities, and creating team challenges can maintain motivation while promoting unity. Providing training on the value of collective intelligence can further reinforce why working together is more powerful than operating alone.

What the Research Says About Collaborative Teams

A recent Harvard Business Review study found that companies with strong collaboration cultures outperform their competitors by 27% in revenue growth. Another study by the Corporate Leadership Council revealed that top-performing teams spend 50% more time sharing best practices than their lower-performing counterparts. And a 2022 study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that teams engaging in collaborative problem-solving exhibited a 20% increase in performance metrics compared to those working individually. A 2023 report by Deloitte highlighted that organizations fostering a culture of collaboration were five times more likely to experience high performance.

The message is clear: Teams that work together, win together.

Turning Lone Wolves into a Winning Pack

A fiercely competitive team may look strong on the surface, but if they’re constantly undermining each other, they’re losing more than they’re winning. The highest-performing teams aren’t just a collection of individual stars – they’re a well-oiled machine that balances competition with collaboration.

As a leader, your role isn’t just to drive numbers – it’s to build a sustainable, high-performing culture. That means shifting the narrative from ‘me vs. them’ to ‘us vs. the challenge.’ It means rewarding teamwork as much as individual success. And it means leading by example.

The lone wolf era is over. It’s time to build a pack that wins together.

Need Help Shifting Your Team Culture?

If your team is struggling with internal competition and missed targets, let’s talk. As an executive coach specializing in leadership development and team dynamics, I help leaders build high-performing team cultures that drive results. Schedule a consultation today at www.leslierohonczy.com.

SUCCESSFUL MERGERS: How Coaching Transforms Change from the Inside Out

Corporate mergers are high-stakes, high-pressure events that can determine the trajectory of an organization for years to come. Yet, despite the billions spent on due diligence, integration planning, and cultural assessments, one critical factor remains underutilized: executive coaching. Research consistently shows that leadership development and coaching during mergers lead to better financial outcomes, smoother transitions, and stronger organizational alignment. So why do so many companies ignore this powerful tool when they need it most?

The High Cost of Overlooking Leadership Development in Mergers

Organizations often delay investing in leadership development and coaching during a merger due to the belief that there is "no time for coaching now." However, prioritizing executive coaching during a merger can actually save time and money, mitigate integration challenges, and enhance long-term success. Consider these research-backed insights:

Cost Reduction

• Reduced Integration Costs: Poorly managed mergers can increase costs by 15-30% due to inefficiencies (EY, 2022). Leadership coaching helps teams anticipate challenges, resolve conflicts efficiently, and minimize redundancies (McKinsey, 2021).

• Return on Investment (ROI): The ICF Global Coaching Study reports an average coaching ROI of 5.7 times the initial investment. PwC’s analysis indicates an ROI of seven times the cost of employing a coach.

• Turnover Reduction: Misaligned cultures and uncertainty during mergers lead to higher turnover. Leadership coaching improves engagement, reducing turnover by up to 40% and saving replacement costs, which can be 1.5 to 2 times an employee’s annual salary (Harvard Business Review).

Efficiency Gains

• Improved Productivity: According to the International Coach Federation (ICF), 70% of coaching clients report improved work performance, and 51% note enhanced team effectiveness.

• Accelerated Decision-Making: Leaders receiving coaching are 86% more likely to make effective, timely decisions (Leadership Quarterly), preventing costly delays.

• Faster Integration Timelines: Companies with strong leadership during mergers report up to 22% faster integration timelines (McKinsey, 2021).

• Reduced Inefficiencies: Leadership alignment initiatives can reduce post-merger inefficiencies by 30% (Deloitte, 2022).

Change Management & Culture Integration

• Increased Likelihood of Success: Research by Boston Consulting Group shows that coaching senior leaders boosts the probability of successful transformations by over 70%.

• Stronger Stakeholder Confidence: Organizations demonstrating proactive leadership during mergers experience 20% higher stakeholder confidence (Boston Consulting Group, 2022).

• Cultural Alignment: Up to 70% of mergers fail due to cultural incompatibility (Deloitte, 2020). Leadership coaching helps integrate differing corporate cultures, unifying teams toward a shared vision.

• Higher Employee Retention: Companies prioritizing leadership coaching during mergers experience 40% higher employee retention rates (Boston Consulting Group, 2023).

Leadership Development: The Key to a Unified Strategy

• Stronger Leadership Strategies: Mergers with aligned leadership are 33% more likely to achieve their objectives (PwC, 2022).

• Better Team Performance: Executive coaching has been shown to increase team performance by 50%, fostering better communication and collaboration.

• Collaboration Gains: Harvard Business Review (2021) found that executive coaching programs led to a 70% improvement in cross-functional team collaboration during mergers.

• Increased Leadership Confidence: 95% of leaders report better utilization of new leadership behaviors after coaching, and 94% report increased confidence (International Coaching Federation).

• Improved Integration Outcomes: Companies investing in leadership development during mergers see a 25% improvement in integration outcomes (McKinsey, 2023).

Research on Executive Coaching in Mergers

If you’re still skeptical about the power of coaching in mergers, consider these groundbreaking studies:

• "Coming Together: A Grounded Theory Study of the Role of Coaching in the Mergers & Acquisitions Process" (2021) – Heiki Thomas & Jonathan Passmore found that coaching mitigates pressures and tensions, improving leadership, culture, and communication (CoachHub).

• "Guiding Through Turbulent Times: Coaching During Merger and Acquisition" (2024) – This qualitative study highlights how coaching supports employees in coping with merger transitions (Taylor & Francis Online).

• "Leadership Strategies for Improving Mergers and Acquisitions Performance" (2020) – Walden University research underscores the necessity of leadership development for post-merger integration success (Walden ScholarWorks).

• "Why a Winning Leadership Team Matters for M&A Strategy" (2022) – Korn Ferry identifies leadership development as a key predictor of M&A success, reinforcing the need for executive coaching (Korn Ferry).

Make Coaching Your Competitive Advantage

Organizations that invest in executive coaching during mergers are better positioned to reduce costs, improve efficiency, and accelerate integration timelines. Coaching equips leaders with the skills to navigate complexity, drive performance, and inspire their teams through uncertainty.

The question isn't whether you can afford to invest in leadership coaching—it’s whether you can afford not to.

If your organization is navigating a merger or acquisition, and you’re looking to align, integrate, and thrive in this high-stakes transition, let’s connect. Book a discovery call today to explore how executive coaching can be your secret weapon for merger success.

LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES FOR MULTI-GENERATIONS

by Leslie Rohonczy, Executive Coach, IMC, PCC | ©2024 | www.leslierohonczy.com

In this article, we’ll explore leading and managing individuals from various generations, each with unique strengths, weaknesses, motivations, and preferences. Great leadership recognizes and leverages the uniqueness that each generation brings to the workplace, and also acknowledges that each employee has a unique personality that is also a factor in how to lead them most effectively.

UNDERSTANDING EMPLOYEES BY GENERATION

BABY BOOMERS (1946-1964)

Baby Boomers are valuable assets to their organizations, characterized by unparalleled loyalty and dedication. Their extensive tenure in the workforce equips them with a wealth of institutional knowledge, making them indispensable contributors. Boomers thrive when they have a clear understanding of their roles and feel their opinions are valued by both managers and peers, resulting in heightened engagement.

 Despite their significant institutional knowledge, tenure alone does not guarantee peak performance. Constructive feedback becomes pivotal in refining their contributions. When providing feedback to Baby Boomers, consider their preference for control. Offering transparent feedback and practical tools for improvement empowers them to feel more able to address the identified areas. Boomers exhibit a goal-oriented mindset, making coaching conversations more effective when centered around specific goals or objectives. Although they may avoid conflict, positioning feedback as an avenue for personal growth ensures a positive reception.

 Occasionally, feedback may address a Baby Boomer's critical attitude towards younger colleagues, as some may perceive Millennials or Gen Zs as entitled and unwilling to put in hard work. Managers, particularly Millennials in leadership roles, should acknowledge Boomers' experience at the outset of coaching conversations, to help build trust.

 Boomers prefer regular and conventional feedback methods, such as routine performance reviews. In the absence of feedback, they will rely on their interpretation of behavioral cues, so ensure your communications are timely.

 Positive feedback resonates profoundly with this generation, and whenever possible, public acknowledgment of achievements enhances their sense of value and contribution.

 Leaders managing Baby Boomers can tap into their strong work ethic and value for loyalty. Recognizing their experience and contributions over the years is crucial. Acknowledging their desire for job security, leaders can offer stability and emphasize the long-term impact of their work. Tools like in-person training sessions and face-to-face communication can be effective, as Baby Boomers often prefer direct interaction.

 SUMMARY: BABY BOOMERS

• STRENGTHS: Team-oriented, service-driven, goal-focused.

• WEAKNESSES: Resistance to feedback, potential challenge adapting to rapid change.

• MOTIVATION CHARACTERISTICS: Desire for personal fulfillment, value collaboration.

• FEEDBACK PREFERENCES: Regular and constructive feedback, recognition of achievements.

GENERATION X (1965 -1980)

An informal managerial style resonates well with Gen Xers. This generation values learning and skill development, expecting employers to provide resources and hands-on learning experiences with immediate feedback and coaching. When you’re coaching Gen Xers, leverage their desire for skill enhancement as a motivating factor.

 Feedback is most effective when delivered in a casual work environment, emphasizing teamwork and solidarity, and recognizing their commitment to their profession and the pursuit of opportunities that enhance essential skills for career advancement.

 Leaders of Generation X employees should appreciate their independence and resourcefulness. Managers should break down long-term goals into manageable targets, ensuring progress towards objectives and a sense of accomplishment. Using technology (eg: online collaboration tools) aligns with their tech-savvy nature. Encourage a collaborative and inclusive work culture and demonstrate how you value their input and expertise.

 Recognizing the equality of all team members is crucial when providing feedback, considering their upbringing in self-reliant environments where they learned to be active participants in discussions from an early age.

 Gen Xers often bring awareness of unique skills to the team and may need coaching to appreciate the expertise of their colleagues fully. Acknowledging these skills fosters receptivity to further learning and collaboration.

 You can help them define a clear career path and offer insights about available support offered by your organization to help them meet their career goals. Regular teaching and coaching sessions are essential, aligning with Gen Xers' commitment to their professions and their pursuit of continuous skill development.

SUMMARY: GENERATION X

• STRENGTHS: Adaptability, independence, entrepreneurial mindset.

• WEAKNESSES: Skepticism, potential for work-life balance struggles.

• MOTIVATION CHARACTERISTICS: Appreciation for autonomy, results driven.

• FEEDBACK PREFERENCES: Clear and concise feedback, opportunities for skill development.

MILLENNIALS (1981-1996)

Leadership for Millennials involves fostering a sense of purpose and social responsibility. Leaders can inspire Millennials by aligning organizational goals with a broader societal impact, emphasizing the value their work brings to the world.

 Millennials place a high value on continuous feedback in the workplace, seeking assurance that their contributions are appreciated. Providing regular feedback and recognition aligns with their desire for instant gratification and personal development.

 Unlike previous generations, Millennials often find it challenging to handle negative criticism due to their upbringing in positive and supportive environments. While others may have grown up in a culture of negative reinforcement, Millennials expect a more positive and respectful approach to feedback.

 Adopting a coaching approach is effective when providing corrective feedback to Millennials. This approach aligns with thier desire for respectful language while offering a constructive path for performance improvement. Millennials appreciate leadership who play the role of a coach, mentor, and teacher, fostering a positive and developmental mindset.

 Respect Millennials' preference for constructive language and try to avoid unnecessary confrontation and harsh criticism. Respectfully address and issues, provide guidance on the correct approach, and motivate them toward continual improvement.

 Effectively managing Millennials involves connecting to their purpose and positioning corrective feedback as an investment in their personal and career development goals, resulting in positive reactions and improved performance.

  SUMMARY: MILLENIALS

• STRENGTHS: Tech-savvy, optimistic, collaborative.

• WEAKNESSES: Impatience, potential for job-hopping if unfulfilled.

• MOTIVATION CHARACTERISTICS: Thrive on innovation, value work with a purpose.

• FEEDBACK PREFERENCES: Regular feedback, mentorship, and opportunities for continuous learning.

GENERATION Z (1997 and later)

As the newest demographic entering the workforce, Generation Z brings unique qualities that demand a fresh perspective from their older counterparts. Known for their assertiveness and confidence, their inclination to be blunt can be misinterpreted. Gen Z individuals are hard workers who may challenge their supervisors without intending disrespect.

 Managing Generation Z employees requires adaptability and a focus on innovation. Leaders should leverage technology in communication and task management. Encouraging creativity and providing opportunities for skill development are vital for this generation. Recognizing their entrepreneurial spirit and desire for autonomy, offering project-based assignments and opportunities to take the lead can inspire and drive employee engagement.

 Despite their strong connection to mobile devices, Gen Z thrives on communication, making feedback crucial. Studies indicate that 60% of Gen Z workers desire multiple check-ins from their managers weekly, with 40% preferring daily interactions. While they appreciate digital communication, the frequency of check-ins poses a challenge for some managers. Responding promptly is essential, as Gen Z seeks instantaneous feedback, both positive and constructive. Regular check-ins and feedback sessions using digital platforms can ensure effective communication.

 Creating a diverse and inclusive workplace resonates well with Generation Z, and they appreciate a workplace that values social and environmental responsibility.

 To effectively provide feedback to Gen Z employees, a coaching management style proves most beneficial. This approach encourages self-reflection and improvement, posing questions like, "What challenges are you facing?" and "How can I help you?" Managers can enhance communication by practicing active listening, ensuring that their feedback is well-understood. Even when delivering disciplinary feedback, highlighting the employee's positive contributions is essential.

SUMMARY: GENERATION Z

• STRENGTHS: Tech-native, entrepreneurial, socially conscious.

• WEAKNESSES: Potential for shorter attention spans, reliance on digital communication.

• MOTIVATION CHARACTERISTICS: Desire for meaningful work, value diversity and inclusion.

• FEEDBACK PREFERENCES: Instant and digital feedback, mentorship, and collaborative platforms.

LEADERSHIP STRATEGIES

• Adaptive Leadership: Tailor your leadership style to meet the needs of each generation. Recognize and appreciate diverse working styles, fostering an inclusive and adaptable environment. Be careful of any generational biases that may be influencing your perception of performance (negatively AND positively).

• Effective Communication: Recognize the importance of communication and tailor your approach accordingly. Acknowledge that Boomers may prefer a more formal style, while Millennials and Generation Z thrive in casual, collaborative settings. Utilize diverse communication channels to accommodate generational preferences and ensure team-wide communications include information that will resonate with each generation.

• Recognition and Feedback: Acknowledge and celebrate achievements across generations. Provide constructive feedback in a manner that aligns with individual preferences. Timely, clear, and supportive feedback ensures a positive and growth-oriented atmosphere.

• Mentorship Programs: Implement ‘mutual mentorship’ initiatives that encourage cross-generational collaboration. Pairing experienced Baby Boomers and Gen Xers with tech-savvy Millennials and Generation Z individuals can create a mutually beneficial learning environment that benefits the individuals, the team performance, and the organization as a whole.

• Flexible Work Policies: Recognize the diverse work-life balance needs among different generations. Offer flexible work arrangements and benefits to accommodate varying lifestyles and preferences, ensuring a more inclusive and supportive workplace.

• Invest in Professional Development: Invest in continuous learning opportunities. Recognize that Generation X may value skill-building courses, Millennials may be seeking opportunities for career advancement, and Generation Z may prioritize avenues for social impact. Tailor professional development initiatives to meet the diverse needs of each generation.

Regardless of generational differences, every employee desires and deserves feedback to facilitate learning, growth, and a sense of value. Successfully leading and managing a multi-generational workforce requires a nuanced understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, motivations, and preferences of each generation. By embracing adaptability, effective communication, and tailored leadership strategies, leaders can foster a collaborative and inclusive environment that leverages every individual’s potential, regardless of their generation.

FIVE 'C'S OF TRUST

by Leslie Rohonczy, Executive Coach, IMC, PCC | ©2023 | www.leslierohonczy.com

Vulnerability-based trust is the most powerful kind of trust we can cultivate; it means that we feel safe enough to reveal our vulnerability to someone else and know that they won’t use it against us.  Each of us pays attention to distinct aspects of trust, depending on our own unique wiring. As you read the following ‘Five C’ descriptions, see if you can sense your own primary trust attribute, and which one might be your lowest.

FIVE ‘C’S OF TRUST

Excerpt from ‘COACHING LIFE: Navigating Life’s Most Common Coaching Topics’, by Leslie Rohonczy

Amazon, 2023

CONSISTENCY: This aspect is all about reliability: doing what we say we will, and being intentional about our yeses and our nos. This consistency is observed in our actions, in how we hold ourselves accountable for our commitments and follow through by doing what we say we’ll do, when we say we’ll do it. When people learn that they can’t depend on us to keep our promises – no matter what great excuses we may have – it’s a trust-killer. We tend to judge others’ reliability in terms of time and quality. Slow to return emails? Cancel plans often? Break promises? Show up late to events? What message does our behavior send? We should never make promises we can’t keep, even if we’re just trying to calm a tricky situation.  We’ll build stronger trust with others if they know that we consistently follow through and do what we say we will.

COMPETENCE:  Others will be more concerned with our abilities, standards, and skills: when we know what we’re talking about, people believe that we are a credible source of information and insight. Our competence and credibility are a combination of how we present facts and theory, our skills and knowledge, and our ‘presence’ (the way we look, act, talk, and communicate). Humility is also a key aspect: when we pretend to know something that we actually don’t, and others see through our smoke and mirrors (as they often do), we become untrustworthy to them.

COMMITMENT: Some people will be more focused on the passion in our eyes as we deliver our message, so that they can connect to the deeper purpose that inspires us. Making our commitments visible helps us inspire the trust of others. It’s reassuring to see someone fully committed, because it lets us know that we can depend on them, especially when facing challenges. When our commitment is solid, we can engage in productive conflict that moves everyone forward. Some believe that trust creates harmony, when in fact, trust allows us to have productive conflict that won’t damage our relationship, and often strengthens our connections as a result.

CONNECTION: Speaking of connection, when we focus on creating close, open, and accepting connections, others feel comfortable talking to us about difficult things. People who are good at this aspect of trust walk their talk and are willing to get emotionally close to others. Building this connection requires us to be transparent about our thoughts and emotions. When we’re accepting and non-judgmental, people open up to us more easily because they trust that we won’t judge or criticize them. They feel seen and heard and can be themselves when they most need to.

CARE: Finally, to build vulnerability-based trust, we show that we’re concerned with the welfare of the other person, rather than pushing our own agenda solely for our benefit. Others may perceive us as self-interested if we care more about appearances, about getting our own way, about being liked or creating a favorable impression. Caring people are typically good listeners and genuinely want to understand others’ experiences and emotions. They have a desire to help and consistently show they care through their words and actions.

We each have a preferred aspect that we habitually start with, and so it’s important to understand that what engenders trust for one person might not resonate with another. For example, I look through the lens of consistency first: if you show up on time, keep your promises, and do what you say you’ll do, I trust you. It’s really that simple. But not everyone prioritizes consistency the same way. For example, consistency is the lowest one for my husband (a.k.a. ‘The Big Handsome’), who favors the Care aspect. He monitors for high self-orientation behaviors like someone putting their own needs or interests above the greater good and sees these as signals that they may not be trustworthy. If we can’t connect with someone enough to build trust, it may just be that they’re looking through a different lens than we are.

PRACTICE: PERSONAL TRUST MEASURES

Think about the last time you required someone to trust you. Perhaps it was related to the family budget, a new project at work, or a travel adventure. Find an example that you can evaluate in hindsight, and reflect of these questions:

1.       How did you demonstrate that you care?

2.       How did you attend to consistency?

3.       How did you establish your competence?

4.       How did you demonstrate your commitment?

5.       How did you build your connection?

Now, think about how the other person reacted. What trust aspect(s) do they seem to value most? What indicators do you observe that inform that opinion? How might you adjust your approach next time?