Recognition answers the question: are they willing?
In Third Factor’s 3×4 coaching model, leaders focus on three things: Clarity, Competence, and Recognition. Clarity makes sure people know what to do. Competence confirms they can do it. Recognition, however, responds to a different question: Are they willing to bring their full effort – even when things get hard? Leaders tend to spend a lot of time on clarity and competence. But recognition gets less attention. That’s a mistake. Neither clarity nor competence creates the willingness to keep giving your best, day after day.Motivation fails when effort stops registering
Being seen is not a soft need. Family systems research has long shown that a surprising number of relational breakdowns trace back to people feeling invisible. Relationships at work are no different. Employee recognition is a genuine intrinsic motivator. It’s not just a courtesy. University researchers Mussie Tessema, Kathryn Ready, and Abel Embaye found that recognition is a stronger driver of job satisfaction than pay or benefits alone. A study by Schrita Osborne and Mohamad Hammoud, meanwhile, identified recognition as a critical workplace resource for engagement. Wilmar Schaufeli’s “Job Demands-Resources Model” explains why. Recognition counterbalances the demands that wear people down, protecting the emotional and psychological well-being on which engagement depends. Frederick Herzberg identified recognition as a motivator, distinct from factors like salary. In other words, recognition doesn’t just prevent dissatisfaction. It encourages stronger performance. Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer’s research in The Progress Principle gets at why recognition matters in the day-to-day work of a team. Managers create a sense of progress by acknowledging effort and small wins. That recognition is a clear signal that someone’s work matters. The evidence gets even more specific. Research cited in Harvard Business Review found that employees whose managers excel at recognition are more than 40% more engaged than those whose managers don’t. They’re also more confident, better informed, and far less likely to quit. The lever isn’t a bigger paycheck. It’s whether a manager takes a moment to notice and say something. People are hungry for that acknowledgment. Sometimes it feels as though we can’t fully register the value of our own contribution until someone else says it.Why leaders withhold recognition
Leaders don’t skip employee recognition out of malice. They skip it because of what they believe it will cost: “If I recognize this once, they’ll expect it every time, and then they’ll get needy,” “compliment them and they’ll coast,” or “if I recognize one person, I’ll have to recognize everyone, or it isn’t fair.” Beneath all these blocks sits flawed math: one that fails to recognize the opportunity cost that comes from untapped effort as a result of failing to recognize. Even the most committed performers respond to the environment that a leader creates around them. High performers are not exempt from needing to be seen. If anything, the bar they’ve set for themselves makes the silence louder. In workshops that we run – even those with very seasoned employees and leaders – two-thirds of people tell us that recognition has a positive impact on their performance.Three moves for employee recognition
Third Factor’s 3×4 curriculum breaks effective recognition into three principles. Each has its own logic, its own supporting research, and its own story from practice.01.
Make it Personal. What feels meaningful is as individual as the person receiving it.
02.
Recognize the behaviour that produced the result. Acknowledging effort and incremental progress helps sustain motivation.
03.
Notice what’s right, and say so. Recognition needs to be time-sensitive, specific and personal.
01. Make it personal
Generic recognition barely counts as recognition. Herzberg’s distinction between motivators and other factors, such as salary, matters here: a motivator functions only if it’s meaningful to the individual receiving it. A drawer full of identical gift cards, for example, satisfies a policy, not a person. Real recognition is specific to the human in front of you. I remember a leader who once sent a papaya to a team member because it was a fruit from that person’s home country. The papaya cost almost nothing. But it meant more than any gift card ever could because it showed the leader was paying attention to who this person was, not just what they produced. That’s the standard. What feels meaningful is as individual as the person receiving it. Finding out what that is requires the kind of attention most leaders reserve for performance problems, not for people.02. Recognize the behaviour that produced the result
When leaders only reward outcomes – the sale closed, the deadline was met – people naturally focus on getting the result. The behaviours that produced it can quietly disappear. Amabile and Kramer’s research makes an important point here: acknowledging effort and incremental progress, not just the finish line, helps sustain motivation. Recognize only the win and you teach people to chase wins by any method. Recognize the behaviour and you reinforce the route that actually works. I coached a director of procurement at a global manufacturing company through exactly this gap. His employee (let’s call her Yvonne) had carried the team through a reorganization, a return-to-office mandate, and a short-staffed department without a word of acknowledgment from him. When we worked through the 3×4 model, clarity was there and competence was there. Recognition was the missing play. In our meeting, the director named three specific things he genuinely respected in Yvonne’s work: her attention to detail, her cross-functional relationships, and her compliance with the return-to-office policy when others resisted. The shift was immediate. Yvonne told him that she had assumed he didn’t care. The relationship didn’t fix itself overnight, but forward movement started the day he named the behaviours he’d been watching all along, not just the results they produced.03. Notice what’s right, and say so
Leaders default to gap analysis. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, while the steady, reliable performer who never causes a problem goes unrecognized for months. Gallup and Workhuman tracked more than 3,400 employees over two years and found that those who received high-quality, frequent recognition were 45% less likely to have left their job. The recognition that moved the needle wasn’t an annual review. It was personal, specific, and delivered close to the moment it was earned. The CEO of a construction company that my colleague Peggy Baumgartner worked with took this idea on directly. He called it, only half-joking, his 2×4 method: two people recognized, every day, at 4 p.m. At first, he needed an alarm to remember. Within a week, he wasn’t waiting for the alarm. He was noticing good work before noon and couldn’t wait to say something. He told Peggy afterward that he wasn’t going back to how he had led before. Not just because his team’s energy had risen (though it had), but because of what the practice had done to his own energy. Tessema, Ready, and Embaye’s finding that recognition alleviates dissatisfaction while building satisfaction shows up here. The effect benefits not only the person receiving the recognition but also the person giving it.Make employee recognition part of how you lead
“You get more of what you reward.” That line came from the construction CEO’s story and captures the whole point of this article in seven words. Employee recognition isn’t a nicety layered on top of good leadership. It’s a strategic lever, as concrete as clarity of expectations or investment in skills development. Yet it’s the one most leaders don’t use. The challenge isn’t complicated. Pick one behaviour you want to see more of on your team this week. Notice it. Say something specific, close to the moment it happens. Do it again tomorrow. Recognition works as a habit, not an event. And leaders who build that habit find they get exactly what they were hoping for all along.Key Takeaways:
- Recognition answers a different question than clarity or competence. Clarity tells people what to do. Competence confirms they can do it. Recognition tells them their effort is worth continuing.
- Effort stops registering long before people stop caring. Motivation doesn’t fail from a lack of commitment. It fails when nobody notices the work it took to get there.
- Reward the behaviour. When leaders only acknowledge outcomes, people learn to chase the finish line. Naming the specific effort behind it reinforces the route that actually works.
- Generic recognition barely counts as recognition. A gift card satisfies a policy. Knowing what actually matters to the person in front of you is what makes it land.
- Recognition works better as a habit. Pick one behaviour you want to see more of, name it close to the moment it happens, and do it again tomorrow.
When Reading Nonverbal Cues, the Trigger and the Reason Are Not the Same Thing
Research from Dr. Paul Ekman, the psychologist behind the Facial Action Coding System (FACS), identifies seven universal emotions that we can read on the human face across cultures: anger, disgust, surprise, fear, contempt, sadness, and happiness. Each of these emotions has a universal trigger. Anger is triggered by the obstruction of a goal. Sadness comes from the loss of something we value: a job, our credibility, or an opportunity. Fear comes from a perceived threat. These triggers are reliable enough that behavioural analysts, credibility experts, and coaches use them as a framework for understanding what someone might be experiencing. But here’s what that research doesn’t tell you: why someone is feeling this emotion right now. Why is the person crossing their arms in your meeting? They could be angry because your idea threatens a project they’ve spent months building. They could be sad because you just reminded them of a missed opportunity. Their shoulder could be sore. They could have gotten a text from their vet this morning about their pet and be carrying grief they have nowhere to put. Or they might love what you’re saying and be comforting themselves because they wish they’d known it sooner. They might also just be cold! Physical reactions to emotions do tell you something. They just don’t tell you everything. And when we assume they do, we risk getting it wrong.Single Nonverbal Cues Are Routinely Misread, Even by Experienced Leaders
The crossed arms example isn’t hypothetical. It’s one of the most misread nonverbal cues in professional settings, largely because people feel so certain what it means. We’ve absorbed a cultural shorthand: arms crossed equals closed, resistant, defensive. But a self-hug (which is what crossing your arms actually is) is often a self-soothing response. We do it when we need comfort, when we’re processing something, or when we’re cold. Sometimes it can even signal confidence: I don’t need to open myself up to you. You need what I have. Other times, it may simply mean someone is deep in thought, taking in what you’re saying. Eye contact is another commonly misread nonverbal cue. Conventional wisdom says people avoid eye contact when they’re lying. Research suggests the opposite may be true. Skilled deceivers sometimes use more eye contact, watching your reaction carefully to calibrate their story. Meanwhile, someone avoiding your gaze might be doing so because they feel shame, they’re overstimulated, neurodiverse, or anxious for reasons that have nothing to do with you. A single cue tells you almost nothing. Behavioural analysts look for a cluster: multiple changes that deviate from what’s normal for that person. Not one crossed arm or one averted glance, but a constellation of variations that together suggest something worth paying attention to. That’s not because those cues clearly reveal what someone is experiencing. Instead, they signal that it’s time to ask questions and better understand what the person is experiencing in that moment.Why Baseline Is the Key to Reading Nonverbal Cues Accurately
This is where relationships matter. The better you know someone, the more useful nonverbal cues become. That’s not because you know what they mean, but because you know what’s different from that person’s normal, or baseline, behaviour. One example: an engineering supervisor with a prominent eye twitch. His team learned quickly that the twitch was simply part of who he was. It was his baseline, constant and unremarkable. What they eventually noticed was that when things weren’t going well, the twitch stopped. That departure from his norm became a meaningful signal. Not because they knew what was wrong, but because they knew something was wrong. That’s the distinction worth making. A variation from baseline is an invitation to ask a question, not a conclusion to jump to. It tells you something may be happening, not what that something is. Cultural, demographic, and individual differences matter here, too. Someone who grew up in a culture where sustained eye contact is considered disrespectful or confrontational will behave differently from someone for whom it’s expected. Someone who fidgets constantly isn’t displaying anxiety. That just may be how they regulate. Or it could be something else entirely. Learning someone’s baseline is an ongoing process, and it pays off most when a conversation is at its toughest.How Coaches Can Use Nonverbal Cues to Have Better Conversations
It’s easy during difficult conversations (giving feedback, talking about performance, or managing up) to make assumptions about why the other person is reacting the way they are. Their face flushes and you think: they’re angry at me. They go quiet and you think: I’ve lost them. They cross their arms and you think: they’re shutting down. Knowing that emotional triggers are universal and that a single nonverbal cue can have a dozen different causes gives you somewhere else to put your attention. Instead of monitoring yourself through their reactions, try becoming genuinely curious about them:- What are they experiencing?
- Where is it coming from?
- What does it mean for them?
This article draws on the work of Dr. Paul Ekman, the Emotional Intelligence Academy’s partnership with Manchester Metropolitan University, and former FBI investigator Joe Navarro.
Key Takeaways:
- A single nonverbal cue tells you almost nothing. Crossed arms, avoided eye contact, or a flushed face can mean a dozen different things — look for a cluster of changes, not one isolated signal.
- The trigger and the reason are not the same thing. Emotions like anger or sadness have universal triggers, but the specific reason behind someone’s reaction in the moment is almost never obvious.
- Baseline matters more than the cue itself. Knowing someone’s normal behaviour helps you notice meaningful deviations — it doesn’t tell you what those deviations mean.
- A variation from baseline is an invitation to ask, not a conclusion to jump to. Treat it as an opening for a neutral, curious question rather than a verdict.
- Curiosity is where coaching begins. Shift your attention from monitoring yourself through someone’s reaction to genuinely wondering what they’re experiencing and why.
Meet our expert: Tracy Wilson, Olympic Figure Skater, Broadcaster & Third Factor Sport Advisor
Tracy Wilson is an Olympic bronze medallist and one of Canada’s most respected figure skating coaches and broadcasters. Alongside her late partner Rob McCall, she won seven consecutive national titles and made history as the first Canadian ice dancers to reach the Olympic podium. Following her competitive career, Tracy coached world-class athletes including Olympic champions Yuzuru Hanyu and Javier Fernández, and became a trusted voice for audiences on CBC, NBC, and TSN. As a member of the Third Factor Sport Advisory Board, she brings invaluable perspective on the mindset and methods that help athletes thrive under pressure.
Knowing how to support someone after failure is one of the hardest things a coach, leader, or mentor has to do. There is no rewind button. The moment has passed, the result is set, and the person in front of you is somewhere between devastated and numb. What do you do?“How do you support someone after failure, especially when the stakes are high and the moment has already passed?”
At the recent Third Factor Client Appreciation Dinner in Toronto, Tracy Wilson was asked how she handles an athlete who has just fallen apart in a big moment. Her answer was honest, grounded in decades of experience in high-performance sport, and it applies just as much in the boardroom as it does on the ice.
Here are six principles drawn from that conversation.
01. There is no one right way to respond
The first thing Tracy will tell you is that there is no script for this. Knowing how to support someone after failure starts with understanding who is in front of you and where they are emotionally before doing or saying anything else.She acknowledges the complexity directly: “It does depend on the athlete. And at my age, watching what I’ve watched, sometimes these big failures can turn you around and get you going in a better direction. You learn things about yourself. If you can hang in there, it can shoot you right up.”
But she is equally clear-eyed about how difficult it is to communicate that truth in the moment. The insight that failure can become fuel is real, it just can’t always be delivered right away. The job isn’t to rush in with a lesson. It’s to figure out what this person needs, right now.
02. Be present
In the immediate aftermath of a big failure, Tracy’s instinct is not to talk, it’s to listen. Or simply to be there.“So then it’s really hearing them out. Asking questions, or actually being okay just to sit. And sometimes I have moments where you’re sitting with somebody and it is super uncomfortable, and you’re just focusing on your breath, because you just want to be there. You just want to be a calm presence.”
That phrase, “a calm presence” is worth pausing on. The temptation for coaches, leaders, and mentors is to fill silence with solutions. But in the immediate wake of failure, what most people need is not a fix. They need to feel that someone is with them in it.
03. Help them find what else is true
Once the initial storm has passed, people often start telling themselves a catastrophic story: it’s over, I blew it, I’ll never recover. Tracy’s most consistent move is to gently challenge that narrative. Failure has a way of narrowing our vision, and part of a coach’s or leader’s job is to widen it again.She pointed to a specific example: someone close to her who failed a major school medical exam by a single point and was convinced his path to medicine was over. Tracy’s role was to help him find a more complete picture of reality.
“It was just trying to help somebody find the truth, because oftentimes it’s exaggerated. When they said to themselves, “This is the worst thing. I can never do this now. It’s over.” And all I am really helping them find is what else is true.”
That simple question, “what else is true?” doesn’t dismiss the failure or minimize the pain. It creates a little space around the story, space where possibility can re-enter. It helps them remember what else is true about themselves: “I am knowledgeable. I am tenacious. I really care about this. I work really hard.” It works just as well in a performance review debrief as it does rinkside.
04. Use hindsight and your own failures
One of Tracy’s most effective tools is perspective: using the person’s own past, and her own.“The other thing I try to remind them of is hindsight. Have you seen this completely different in the past? And then I try to use examples of past failures I’ve had.”
There is something disarming about a coach or leader who has failed. It signals that failure is not disqualifying but part of the path. When Tracy draws on her own failings, she is not being humble. She is demonstrating that high performance and setback co-exist in every serious career – in sport and in business alike.
05. Help break the spin
After a setback, people tend to replay it over and over. That loop can be hard to break. For anyone caught in that circular thinking, Tracy often recommends something simple.“Sometimes journalling helps, just to sort of write it down. For me, that would get the spinning out.”
The goal isn’t deep reflection or insight, it’s simply to externalize what’s churning internally so it stops consuming all available bandwidth. For leaders supporting a team member after a setback, even encouraging someone to write down what happened can be enough to shift them out of the spiral.
06. Hold the belief for them
Ultimately, Tracy’s message to anyone supporting someone after failure is one of belief in their resilience, even when they can’t access it themselves.“You’re stronger than you know. Hang in there, and you’re gonna get to the good stuff.”
Alongside that: question the negativity. Ask whether the catastrophic narrative is actually true. Ask what else is true. Hold both. And when the person in front of you can’t find their own footing yet, your job is to stand on solid ground for them.
Key Takeaways:
- There is no script. How to support someone after failure depends on who they are and where they are in the moment. Read the person before reaching for the playbook.
- Presence over prescription. In the immediate aftermath of failure, a calm, quiet presence is often more valuable than advice. Being comfortable sitting in discomfort is a leadership skill.
- Ask “what else is true?” Failure narrows vision. The role of a coach or leader is to gently widen it again – not by dismissing the pain, but by creating space for a more complete picture.
- Draw on your own failures. When leaders and coaches share their own setbacks, they signal that failure is survivable and that the path forward is real.
- Help break the spin. Writing things down can interrupt the circular thinking that often follows a high-stakes failure.
- Hold the belief for them. Sometimes people can’t access their own resilience. That’s when a coach or leader holds it for them, until they can hold it themselves.
Meet our expert: Christopher Farris Zabaneh, Associate Trainer
Christopher Farris Zabaneh is a consultant and coach with deep expertise in leadership and communication. As an Associate Trainer for Third Factor, Chris delivers the 3×4 Coaching and Building Resilience programs for organizations including Acuity, CX Rail, RBC, and IGM Financial. With a background spanning mechanical engineering, improv, and executive coaching, Chris brings a rare combination of precision and presence to how leaders communicate and develop others.
In almost every coaching program I run, someone raises the same issue: they direct their team members to do something – a task, a project, or something else. Everyone listens and nods. Then they go off and do something completely different from what was asked. They said they understood, but clearly they didn’t. Why does this happen? As leaders, we tend to assume the mistake belongs to the team. They didn’t execute correctly. But in many cases, the real problem is how the message was delivered and, therefore, understood. You could say it was lost in translation. Linguists have a term for this: “pragmatic misunderstanding.” It’s what happens when people interpret the same words differently based on context, assumptions, and experience. One reason this often happens is that, early in our careers, we start adopting “corporate speak.” We’re told to “be more strategic,” “show better judgment,” “support the team on this one,” or – one of my favourites – “get buy-in.” These phrases feel meaningful. They seem to carry weight. But they’re also vague, and they certainly don’t tell anyone what to do. So how can we solve pragmatic misunderstandings and offer clear direction that people will understand and follow every time? In the rest of this column, I’ll explain the mistakes leaders often make when conveying a message to the team, and how to avoid them.“Why does my team say they understand, but then do something different?”
The Concept-to-Behaviour Gap
Try this in your next team meeting: Ask everyone to write down their definition of the word “efficient.” Then have them read their answers out loud. If you’re lucky, a few responses will match. Usually, though, you’ll get almost as many different (albeit sometimes related) answers as you have people. That’s not a language problem – it’s a shared-meaning problem. This gap shows up often in office communications: in how leaders give direction, offer feedback, and coach people through performance issues. When we speak in concepts, we’re essentially asking people to match our exact interpretation – or to correctly guess what we mean. Some will guess right. Others won’t. And when they miss, we tend to label it a performance issue (their fault) when it’s really a communications issue (our problem).What Clear Communication Looks Like
How can we start improving communication? Consider these concept-heavy phrases that managers use all the time, alongside what they should say: “I need you to try harder on this project” becomes “I need you to block uninterrupted hours for this work and check in with me by Thursday if you think we’re going to miss the target.” “Be more patient with this person” becomes “When they bring you a problem, ask them two questions to understand where they’re coming from before you talk about solutions.” “I need your support on this one” becomes “I need you to share your position in the leadership meeting on Tuesday and back the recommendation when questions come in.” See how vague statements and corporate-speak can easily be misinterpreted? And how clear direction leaves almost no room for confusion? We know what we mean when we’re giving directions. But others may not. In each of the examples above, the intent is the same, but only the second version of each is clear and observable. You’re no longer asking people to interpret what you said. You’re showing them what to do.Define What You Mean In The Next Sentence
You don’t need to eliminate concepts from your communication entirely. They can be a useful starting point because they signal intent. The issue is stopping there. If you use a concept, follow it with specifics. A simple test can help determine if you’re being precise enough: Imagine three people with notepads listening to what you said. Would they all write down the same thing? If the answer is no, or even maybe, you’re not specific enough yet. Shifting from concept to behaviour takes practice, especially if you’ve been operating in corporate-speak for years. For example, telling an employee to “share your draft with the team for input before you finalize it” rather than asking them to “be more collaborative” can feel uncomfortable. You may feel like you’re over-explaining or being too direct. But you’re not. You’re being clear. The good news: Over time, this approach cuts confusion, reduces the need to redo work, and improves performance. It also sets a standard for your employees to follow. When people hear specific, observable language consistently from you, they will start to use it themselves. That’s when real clarity takes hold – and when what you mean and what you say is what gets done.Key Takeaways:
- Most communication-clarity problems in teams stem from concept-heavy language and assumed behaviours, not team performance issues.
- Concepts like “be more strategic” or “I need your support” require interpretation. Actionable behaviours don’t.
- It’s okay to speak in concepts as long as you follow them with specific, observable behaviour changes.
- The gap between what you think you said and what your team heard is usually invisible. Ask questions to clarify their understanding.
- When you consistently model specific, behavioural language, your team will start using it too.
Build Clarity Through 3×4 Coaching
Our 3×4 Coaching suite of programs help you learn and master the 3 plays and 4 skills that exceptional coaches use to deliver results and build commitment.
Contact us to learn more.
“We can BE the best, even when we’re not AT our best.”At PyeongChang in 2018, on the other hand, “before our music even started, I felt different. I felt like a high performer, and I didn’t feel like I needed the judges’ results to prove that for me.” And contrary to the feeling after the 2010 Games, after 2018, “there was real joy and satisfaction that came from the hard work, from the pressure, from all of the things that I would’ve found totally depleting two, four, eight or 12 years earlier.” So what changed? In our conversation with Tessa, three evolutions stood out: embracing discomfort rather than focusing on the number of hours spent in training; a deliberate shift in mindset from chasing perfection to pursuing excellence; and – above all else – a reclamation of personal power.
01. Creating discomfort vs. over-training
After the over-use injuries and surgeries that characterized 2010, the comeback in 2018 was built on less training time – three hours a day instead of 12 – more recovery time, and using the limited training hours to deliberately create imperfect conditions to sharpen their resilience. Whether it was leaving the ice unflooded and chipped, pumping in crowd noise, or falling on command to practise recovery, each practice built confidence that, as Tessa says, “we can BE the best, even when we’re not AT our best.” Here’s Tessa discussing that process:02. Pursuing excellence vs. chasing perfection
In Tessa’s words, “We needed to stop chasing perfection and instead pursue excellence … and once we took perfect off the table, we thought excellence was possible.” Their daily goal became showing up at an “8 out of 10”; not in effort, but in execution. Reframing their approach unhooked them from the impossible standard of perfection and freed them to connect with the joy and challenge of consistent excellence. Listen to Tessa talk about this shift:03. Becoming drivers vs. passengers
At the heart of Tessa and Scott’s story behind the story is reclaiming a sense of agency and self-efficacy. After years of being “good little soldiers,” for their 2018 comeback, they stepped into the driver’s seat: assembling their own team, setting their own standards, and “operating as if we were the CEOs of our own business,” she says. “We had agency and autonomy, we really were steering the ship.” That changed their experience leading up to the Games and, she believes, made the ultimate win more fulfilling. Listen to Tessa talk about this shift: Of course, the effectiveness of these shifts is not limited to sports. We can all benefit from:- Increasing short-burst intensity and building time for recovery instead of focusing on hours worked or busyness as a proxy for effectiveness.
- ‘Roughing up the ice’ to build resilience into our projections, targets, pilots, and project plans instead of making plans that rely on perfect conditions.
- Embracing ‘8 out of 10’ efforts that will produce more from consistency over the long haul instead of aiming for the impossibility of perfection.
- Seeing ourselves as the author of our stories instead of allowing ourselves to fall into the mindset of being characters.
Build Resilience In Your Organization
Bring the skills that elite athletes use to build resilience and perform under pressure to your organization. Contact us to learn more about our resilience programs.
Meet our expert: Karyn Garossino, Associate Trainer
Karyn Garossino is an expert in performance under pressure and leadership development. A former Olympic figure skater and five-time World Championship competitor, Karyn holds a Master’s Degree in Psychology and Adult Education and has spent 40+ years being coached and coaching others. She works with leaders across business and government, teaches with Queen’s Smith School of Business, and helps individuals and teams transform pressure into growth.
“How do you collaborate with someone who is different from you in personality, style, or approach?”
- Assertiveness: the ability to contribute and communicate your own perspective with conviction.
- Co-operation: an equal willingness to understand and integrate the other person’s view.
Diversity: The Advantage and the Risk
Differences in personality, style, and perspective are not obstacles; they are assets. Research shows that diverse teams often outperform homogeneous ones because they bring varied perspectives, unique knowledge, and deeper problem-solving capacity. However, diversity only leads to better performance when it’s managed properly. Without effective interactions, differences can amplify conflict, miscommunication, and breakdowns in cohesion. That’s the risk McKinsey and others have highlighted: diverse teams can either perform brilliantly or fail spectacularly depending on how they engage with one another. So the first step in collaborating with someone different is not to wish away those differences; it’s to welcome them, and reframe them as advantages. See differences not as barriers, but as opportunities to expand what’s possible. When someone’s style or perspective differs from yours, that’s not a threat; it’s new data. It’s an invitation to learn something new and explore another approach. To do this, you must be intentional about:- Setting aside your default approach long enough to understand how their thinking works.
- Asking questions to truly explore the other person’s priorities, assumptions, and logic.
- Active listening, where your goal is to nurture a trusting environment.
- Holding both stories as true – yours, theirs – and then creating a shared story together.
- Position yourself with the other person, not opposite them.
- Focus together on the problem, not on each other.
- Use a shared surface (whiteboard, document, screen) where both contributions and perspectives are captured and visible.
- “How do you see this unfolding?”
- “What matters most to you here?”
- “What’s your biggest concern?”
- “Where might we be missing something?”
Key Takeaways:
-
Collaboration ≠ Compromise. It’s Expansion. If you’re “meeting in the middle,” you’re probably shrinking the outcome. Real collaboration grows the pie by combining strengths, not trading them off. The goal isn’t to protect your idea, it’s to create a better one together.
-
Differences Are Data, Not Disruptions. When someone’s style or thinking throws you off, that’s not friction, it’s information. High-performing teams treat difference as an input to improve the solution, not a hurdle to overcome.
-
Psychological Safety Is the Multiplier. Diversity only pays off when people feel safe to speak, question, and challenge. If you’re defending or persuading, you’re shutting down performance. If you’re curious and inquiring, you’re unlocking it.
-
Get on the Same Side of the Table, Literally and Mentally. Opposite sides create opposition. Side-by-side creates partnership. Shift your posture, share the surface (whiteboard, doc, screen), and aim your energy at the problem, not the person. It’s a simple move that changes the whole dynamic.
Hybrid work can be a great model for people who are established in their careers, but it presents unique challenges for those just starting out. Early career employees don’t have the same opportunities to observe the workplace culture and leaders often struggle to provide frequent, specific feedback when not working in the same physical space.
So how will we lead this generation just entering the workforce, for whom “hybrid work” is not even a relevant term because it is the only style of work they know? Effective coaching needs to be part of the DNA of how we lead people now. In practical terms, it involves making the culture visible, creating opportunities to observe performance, and establishing systems to bridge the gap between in-person and remote work in a way that builds trusting relationships.
Make the culture visible
George Bernard Shaw famously noted “the single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has occurred.” Early in our careers, workplace culture and the nuances of professional life were communicated to us mostly by simply being in the office. We saw how people interacted outside of meetings and we overheard the words they used with their leaders. Through observation we formed images in our minds that we could then emulate.
It is easy to expect that employees entering the workforce today will similarly absorb these indirect messages. But with fewer opportunities to observe how things work, early career employees are left to make many assumptions about how to successfully navigate a new organization. Compound this with the tremendous ambiguity that remains around so many aspects of hybrid work, and you are likely to run into issues.
One of the greatest coaches we worked with, Jack Donohue, spoke of the need to build sharp clarity before we can offer effective feedback. People cannot do things that they cannot imagine. We need to break down vague concepts such as “flexible work,” “professionalism,” and “remote collaboration” into specific behaviours that people can see in their mind. Perhaps on your team “flexible work” really means that all team members are online and available between the hours of 10am and 3pm, their MS Teams status is always kept up to date, and the entire team is together in the office between 9am and 5pm on Wednesdays. Drilling down to this level of specificity is necessary to build the clarity that will enable early career employees to succeed.
Create opportunities to observe performance
When I was on my first project as a new management consultant, I was tasked with completing the analysis of a large data set. It was a steep learning curve, but I was eager to prove myself. I would continually tell my manager that everything was going well when I was actually working late nights scouring the internet to troubleshoot Excel errors.
My manager eventually called a time-out when she glanced over my shoulder and found me manually moving data around a spreadsheet. While she commended my eagerness to learn, she also pointed out the people sitting beside me who could teach me a much faster approach. “Might it be better to ask one of them for help and then you will know how to do it too?” she asked. A wild idea, I know.
In a hybrid world, we must intentionally create opportunities to observe performance.
It is never easy to teach early career employees everything they need to know in their first job. But it is even more complicated when we do not have opportunities to glance over their shoulder and directly observe their work. In a hybrid world, we must intentionally create these opportunities to observe performance. Working alongside new employees on early projects and joining them in as many meetings as possible is critical to see them in action and identify behaviours to reinforce or adjust.
A leader in one of our coaching workshops liked to regularly use screen sharing capabilities. This allowed her to see the steps that her team member was following and quickly identify process steps that she wanted to either reinforce or adjust. By sharing her own screen, she normalized the practice so that her team was comfortable with the approach. It also made her own work more visible and surfaced process steps that had become so automatic for her that she wouldn’t have otherwise thought to teach them.
When it is not possible to see the person in action, questions are a valuable tool to gain insight into their thinking. One leader we worked with likes to use questions such as “how would you approach this task” or “can you walk me through your thinking” so that he can offer adjustments or additional information before getting started on the task. During regular check-ins, questions such as “what are you most proud of this week” or “what would you like some feedback on” can provide jumping off points to understand how the person is working. The key is to continue asking questions and actively listening until you get below the surface-level responses and uncover specific behaviours to reinforce or adjust through feedback.
Build systems to bridge the gaps
Our Principal Trainer, Garry Watanabe, says issues with early career employees also often arise because they do not yet have mental maps for how things get done in the organization. In the office, getting quick answers is as easy as asking someone who does not look too busy. But when everyone is remote, it is impossible to see who might be warm for an interruption.
Garry suggests pairing early career employees with a peer-level buddy or more experienced mentor who they can go to for help. Providing a dedicated resource empowers them to find the answers they need and removes some of the barriers to seeking help. It also offers a safe way to ask for quick feedback and build confidence, all while freeing up your time together for more meaningful interactions.
Connecting early career employees with other team members in this way provides the added benefit of building relationships across the team, which is the ultimate system for bridging the gaps between in-person and remote work.
Start your people on a path to success
There is no doubt that leading early career employees in a hybrid world introduces new complexities and challenges. But by making the informal aspects of work more explicit, creating opportunities to observe performance, and building systems to bridge the gap, leading in this environment can be just as effective and fulfilling for both leaders and employees.
The relationship is the engine; emotion is the fuel
Every engine needs fuel, and in the coaching relationship there is no stronger fuel than emotion. Much of the time in business we’re taught to keep emotions in check – especially negative emotions like anger, frustration and disappointment. Since it’s rare to see these kinds of emotions expressed, it can be triggering when our people show their dissatisfaction. It can feel like an attack, and the default response can be to mirror the emotion – meet anger with anger – or become defensive.Every engine needs fuel, and in the coaching relationship there is no stronger fuel than emotion.Falling into this trap, however, robs you of the opportunity to direct the energy in that emotion in a productive direction. When a team member expresses negative emotion, it means they care. When leaders make an effort to notice and acknowledge the emotion, they can deepen the relationship and build trust. And by exploring the emotion, they can help their people see what’s possible and use their feelings as motivation to take a step in the right direction. In these situations, the relationship is what allows the coach to lean into the emotion and explore it. In our 3×4 Coaching program, we give participants challenges to apply key learnings back on the job. In one of these challenges, a participant committed to asking their people simple questions like, “What’s new from the weekend?” much more frequently than they had before. Asking more, personal questions helped this leader build rapport with their people. And it provided the leader with new insight into their people’s emotions. In the course of these conversations, this leader noticed that the emotion in the person’s response provided a deeper view to valuable information. By leaning into those emotions and exploring them further, the leader was able to learn more about how they were interpreting their experiences. Noticing what made them frustrated, anxious, fearful, or even happy and excited, improved the leader’s ability to identify and address their team’s issues and challenges. With stronger relationships in place, and positive results beginning to emerge, it wasn’t long before the leader began asking more direct questions to gain a deeper understanding of their people’s feelings. Equipped with better information, the leader was able to give more and more targeted support and feedback to enable their team’s success. As a leader and a coach, the relationship you have with your people is what allows you to help them be at their best. When leaders give their relationships the care they need and lean into emotions, they can drive higher levels of performance, and ultimately results.
Make the most of your investment
Investing time in building relationships pays dividends. And yet, all the other pressures don’t go away just because you’ve decided to put your time into this endeavour. To optimize the benefits of relationship building given the reality of time constraints, smart coaches create a strategy for how they’re going to build and maintain their relationships every day. What this comes down to is showing people that you care. That means making time for them, offering them support when they’re struggling, and doing both with unwavering consistency. But every person is different, and what works for one person might not work for another. When you’re working to build relationships with the people you lead, make a point of understanding:- What are their strengths?
- What motivates them, specifically?
- What is the best way to communicate with them?