Advertise on podcast: Leadership Today - Practical Tips For Leaders

Summary Being forgiving and understanding helps people feel psychologically safe, but can there be too much of a good thing? New research suggests that excessive leniency, particularly when someone has done something seriously wrong, can actually undermine psychological safety. This episode looks at how leaders can balance understanding with accountability.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 246 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why being too forgiving as a leader can make your team feel less safe. Most leaders want to be understanding when people make mistakes. We recognise that people aren't perfect, that circumstances can be difficult, and that responding harshly to every problem isn't going to create a healthy working environment. But imagine someone on your team repeatedly behaves in a way that affects their colleagues. Perhaps they regularly miss important commitments, treat others disrespectfully or ignore agreed ways of working. You speak with them, but you're reluctant to impose consequences because you want to maintain a supportive environment. You might believe you're demonstrating understanding. But what are the other people in the team experiencing? New research published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology examined the relationship between leader leniency, psychological safety and employee performance. The researchers found what psychologists call an inverted U-shaped relationship. Moderate levels of leniency were associated with greater psychological safety, but excessive leniency was associated with a reduction in those benefits. Interestingly, the seriousness of the wrongdoing made a difference. When the behaviour was relatively minor, greater leniency tended to be associated with greater psychological safety. But when the wrongdoing was more serious, too much leniency appeared to undermine psychological safety. That's an important distinction because psychological safety is sometimes misunderstood as simply making people feel comfortable or protecting them from consequences. Psychological safety is about being able to speak up, ask questions, acknowledge mistakes and raise concerns without fear of interpersonal punishment or humiliation - that doesn't mean anything goes. When leaders fail to address serious problems, other employees may feel less safe. They might wonder whether their concerns will be taken seriously or whether the same standards apply to everyone. Consider the difference between someone making an honest mistake while learning a new task and someone repeatedly behaving disrespectfully towards colleagues. In the first situation, a forgiving response can encourage learning. In the second, repeatedly overlooking the behaviour may send the message that the impact on others doesn't really matter. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, distinguish between mistakes and misconduct. When someone makes an honest mistake, particularly while learning or trying something new, respond with curiosity and support. Focus on what happened and what can be learned. But when behaviour involves repeated disregard for expectations or causes harm to others, a more direct accountability response may be needed. Second, consider the impact of your response on the whole team. When you're deciding how to respond to someone's behaviour, it's natural to focus on that individual. But others are also affected by what happened and how you handle it. Ask yourself what your response communicates about the standards and expectations that apply across the team. Third, combine understanding with clear expectations. Holding someone accountable doesn't require being harsh or humiliating them. You can listen to their perspective, recognise difficult circumstances and still be clear about what needs to change. Being compassionate and being consistent aren't mutually exclusive. Bringing all of this together, psychological safety doesn't come from overlooking every mistake or avoiding every difficult conversation. It comes from people knowing they can learn from mistakes while also trusting that serious problems will be addressed. Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week.   Reference Xu, J., & Cao, J. (2026). Is leniency always divine? Nonlinear consequences of leader leniency for follower psychological safety and job performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-10-2025-1068   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary We often assume that once a disagreement has been resolved, a team can simply move on. But new research suggests conflict is one of the most persistent aspects of team dynamics, continuing to influence how people work together over time. This episode looks at why conflict can be so difficult to shift and what leaders can do to help teams move forward.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 245 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why conflict in teams can be so difficult to shift, even after the original disagreement has been resolved. Think about a team where two people have had a significant disagreement. Perhaps they disagreed about how a project should be delivered, how responsibilities should be divided, or how a decision was made. Eventually, the issue is resolved. Everyone agrees on a way forward, and the leader assumes things will return to normal. But a few weeks later, something still isn't quite right. The two people aren't communicating as openly as they used to. They're more likely to question each other's intentions, and small disagreements seem to escalate more quickly. The original issue might have been resolved, but the conflict has left something behind. New research published in the Journal of Applied Psychology helps explain why this happens. The researchers conducted a large meta-analysis of longitudinal studies examining how different aspects of team dynamics change over time. The analysis brought together studies involving thousands of teams. The researchers were particularly interested in what they called the dynamism of team processes and emergent states. In everyday language, that's about how things like team emotions, trust, conflict and ways of working develop and change over time. One of the interesting findings was that different aspects of team dynamics vary considerably in how persistent they are. Team emotions were relatively changeable, while team conflict was among the most persistent. We typically treat conflict as a particular event or disagreement that needs to be resolved. But conflict can also become part of the way people relate to each other. Once we've experienced conflict with someone, we might start interpreting their behaviour differently. A question that previously seemed reasonable might now feel like criticism. A delay in responding to an email might be interpreted as deliberate. We may become more cautious about sharing information or less willing to give the other person the benefit of the doubt. Over time, these reactions can reinforce the conflict, even when the original issue is no longer relevant. Importantly, this doesn't mean that all disagreement is harmful. Differences of opinion about tasks, priorities and ideas can help teams make better decisions, particularly when people feel safe to challenge each other. The problem is when disagreement becomes a persistent pattern that undermines working relationships. The research suggests leaders need to think beyond simply resolving the immediate issue. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, address conflict early. Because conflict can be persistent, it's worth paying attention to the early signs that a disagreement is becoming something more. Look for changes in how people communicate, whether they're avoiding each other, or whether disagreements are becoming personal. A conversation early on is often easier than trying to repair a relationship after months of frustration. Second, focus on rebuilding the working relationship, not just resolving the disagreement. It's possible for two people to agree on a decision while still having little confidence in each other. Once the immediate issue has been addressed, ask what they need from each other to work effectively going forward. This might include agreeing on how they'll communicate, how they'll raise concerns, or how they'll handle future disagreements. The aim isn't necessarily for everyone to become friends. It's to rebuild a productive working relationship. Third, follow up after the conflict appears to be resolved. We often have one difficult conversation, reach an agreement and move on. But if conflict is particularly persistent, it's worth checking back in. A week or two later, ask how things are going and whether the agreed changes are actually happening. Look for evidence that people are interacting differently, rather than simply assuming the absence of another argument means everything is fine. Bringing all of this together, resolving a disagreement and resolving conflict aren't necessarily the same thing. The disagreement might be over, but the patterns of interaction it created can continue. So when you're dealing with conflict in your team, don't just ask, "Have we resolved the issue?" Also ask, "Have we changed how we're working together?"   Reference Loignon, A. C., Reed, B. N., Knoblich, A. J., Summerville, K. M., Clayton, E., et al. (2026). A meta-analysis of the dynamism of emergent states and team processes. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001407   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary We tend to assume leadership experience naturally makes us better leaders, but experience by itself isn't enough. New research suggests how we process and remember leadership experiences helps to shape our confidence and identity as leaders. This episode looks at how to get more development from the experiences we're already having.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 244 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why having more leadership experience doesn't automatically make you a better leader. We often think about experience as if it automatically produces development. Someone has been leading for ten years, so we assume they have ten years of leadership development behind them. But that's not necessarily true. It's possible to have ten years of experience, or essentially the same year of experience repeated ten times. New research published in the Journal of Business and Psychology looked at how people process leadership experiences and how that relates to the way they see themselves as leaders. The researchers were particularly interested in something called event binding capacity. That's our ability to take the different parts of an experience and connect them into a coherent memory that we can draw on later. Imagine you've just led a difficult meeting. Several people disagreed, you tried a different approach, the conversation shifted and eventually the group reached a decision. You could simply move on to the next meeting, or you could think about what happened. What changed the discussion? What did you do that helped? What made things worse? What would you do differently next time? This additional reflection time is what leads to growth, not just the experience. In one of the studies, people with more leadership experience and greater capacity to process events in this way reported a stronger identity as a leader. The experimental findings also suggested that experiences that were personally relevant and involved other people were particularly important in shaping leadership identity and confidence. The research highlights an important principle: experience gives us a foundation for development, but we still need to do something with it. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, pause after important leadership moments. You don't need to reflect on every meeting or interaction. Focus on events that surprised you, challenged you or mattered to you. Those are often the experiences with the most potential for learning. Second, make the reflection specific. Instead of asking, "How did that go?", ask, "What did I do that influenced what happened?" and "What would I repeat or change next time?" That helps turn an experience into something you can actually use. Third, talk important experiences through with someone else. The research highlights the relational nature of leadership development. A coach, colleague or trusted peer can often help you notice something about an experience that you missed while you were in it. Bringing all of this together, experience doesn't automatically produce development. The more useful question is: "What am I learning from the leadership experiences I'm already having?"   Reference Fu, Y., Lord, R. G., & Braun, S. (2026). Predicting leadership self-concepts: The role of memory in processing self-relevant and relational events. Journal of Business and Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-026-10149-5   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription.  Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks  - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars  - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges  That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Sometimes it's difficult to enjoy our time away from work even when we've finished for the day. New research shows that unfinished tasks and anticipating a busy day tomorrow can keep work active in our thinking while also reducing our motivation to engage with our leisure time. This episode looks at some practical ways to finish the working day well.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 243 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at why unfinished work can follow us home and what we can do about it. Most of us know what it's like to finish work without really finishing work. We've physically finished up for the day, but part of our attention is still back there. Perhaps there's something we didn't quite get done, a problem we haven't solved, or we're already thinking about everything waiting for us tomorrow. A new study followed 179 employees over 14 working days to explore how unfinished tasks and anticipated workload affect our leisure time. The researchers found two different processes at work. The first process is probably quite familiar. When we have unfinished tasks or expect a heavy workload the following day, we're more likely to continue thinking negatively about work. The working day might have finished, but mentally we're still there. The second process is called "motivation erosion". This is when unfinished tasks and anticipated workload are also associated with people feeling less capable of fully engaging with and enjoying their leisure time. So work doesn't just follow us home through our thoughts. It can also reduce our motivation to make good use of the time we have away from work. Imagine finishing at 5.30pm with three things you didn't get done. You head home intending to go for a run, cook dinner or spend time with family. But you keep thinking about what you didn't finish and what's waiting for you tomorrow. By the time you get home, sitting on the couch and scrolling through your phone feels like the easiest option. You haven't necessarily run out of time for leisure; you've lost some of your motivation to use that time well. Here are three ways to avoid work following you home. First, create a clearer ending to unfinished work. Before you finish for the day, write down exactly what still needs to be done and the next action you will take. Writing something like "finish report" leaves the task open in your mind. "Review the final two sections at 9am tomorrow" gives your brain a clearer plan for what happens next. Second, be realistic about tomorrow. For participants in the research, anticipating a heavy workload was also associated with poorer leisure experiences. If tomorrow looks overwhelming, take a few minutes to identify what genuinely needs to happen and what can wait. Schedule the required time for each element into your calendar. Sometimes it's the undefined sense of having too much to do that overwhelms us and follows us home. Third, make some deliberate plans for your leisure time. If work can reduce our motivation to engage with life outside work, don't rely entirely on how you feel at the end of the day. Arrange the walk, book the exercise class, plan dinner with someone or decide what you're going to do before you finish work. Bringing all of this together, finishing work well is partly about creating a clear psychological ending to the working day and also about planning our leisure well. So before you finish today, ask yourself: "What do I need to write down or decide now so I don't have to keep carrying this tonight?"  Then take some time to plan your downtime.   Reference Rutten, R. L. J., & Wehrt, W. (2026). Leisure under lock: cognitive activation and motivation erosion as mechanisms undermining experiential quality of leisure time. Work & Stress. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2026.2722069   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Autonomy matters for motivation, but what happens when people work in a highly structured environment with lots of rules? New research involving nearly 3,900 NSW Police Force personnel shows that autonomy can still be supported within clear boundaries. This episode looks at how leaders can provide more ownership without removing necessary structure.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 242 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we're looking at autonomy and a question that often comes up in highly structured workplaces: what do you do when there really isn't much choice? Self-Determination Theory identifies autonomy as one of three basic psychological needs, alongside competence and relatedness. When we experience some ownership and choice over our actions, our motivation and wellbeing tend to be stronger. But what happens when you work somewhere with lots of rules? Think about healthcare, emergency services, government, aviation or policing. There are policies, procedures, legal requirements and standards that simply have to be followed. A leader can't just say, "Do whatever feels right to you." So does autonomy still matter in those environments? A new study involving nearly 3,900 people in the NSW Police Force suggests it does. The researchers found that organisational support was associated with greater satisfaction of people's needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, along with better outcomes such as commitment and wellbeing. Workplace conflict, on the other hand, was associated with greater frustration of those needs and poorer outcomes. But perhaps the most useful finding for leaders was that people could still experience autonomy in a highly structured command-and-control environment. The catch is that autonomy doesn't mean independence or complete freedom. It's more about having some sense of ownership over what you're doing. You might have no choice about whether a safety procedure needs to be followed. But there may still be flexibility in how work is organised around that requirement. People might be able to contribute ideas about implementation. They may have discretion within clear boundaries. Here are three ideas to try. First, explain the rationale. Sometimes leaders say, "That's just the policy", and technically that might be correct. But where you can, explain why the requirement exists. It's easier to accept a constraint when you understand the reason behind it. Second, be clear about where choice exists and where it doesn't. You might say, "We have to achieve this outcome and these two requirements aren't negotiable, but you have quite a bit of flexibility around the rest." That's much more helpful than either pretending people have complete freedom or controlling everything unnecessarily. Third, involve people in the things they can genuinely influence. A team may not be able to remove a mandatory process, but they might be able to improve how it's scheduled, how information is shared or how work is handed over. Those smaller areas of influence still matter. There's one other useful aspect of the research. The researchers distinguished between a need not being fully satisfied and a need being actively frustrated. Those aren't quite the same thing. You might have a job where there isn't much autonomy, but you don't necessarily feel controlled. That's different from an environment where you're constantly being pressured, micromanaged or prevented from exercising reasonable judgement. In leadership, sometimes you can't increase choice very much. But you can still avoid making things more controlling than they need to be. Bringing all of this together, the key question isn't, "Can I let people do whatever they want?" It's, "Where can I provide ownership, rationale and discretion within the boundaries we genuinely need?"   Reference Marsh, H. W., Ryan, R. M., Craven, R. G., Dicke, T., Guo, J., & Parker, P. D. (2026). Workplace demands/resources, basic psychological needs, and police well-being: an extended integration of self-determination theory and job demands–resources models. Current Psychology, 45, Article 1464. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-026-10005-y.   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary We often treat efficiency as an unquestioned good, but curiosity works differently. A major new research review describes curiosity as "productive inefficiency", slowing us down in the short term while helping us find better ideas and solutions. This episode looks at where leaders should deliberately make room for curiosity.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 241 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at curiosity and why being less efficient can sometimes help us produce better work. Most organisations are trying to become more efficient. We want shorter meetings, faster decisions, streamlined processes and fewer wasted hours. As leaders, we're often trying to help people get to the answer more quickly. But we're also wanting people to demonstrate greater curiosity, which works in almost the opposite direction. A major new review of research into curiosity at work describes curiosity as a form of "productive inefficiency". When we're curious, we tend to slow things down. We ask another question, we look at an issue from another perspective, and we might even explore an option that ultimately leads nowhere. Instead of accepting the first reasonable answer, we spend a little longer wondering whether there might be a better one. In the short term, that's inefficient. But the researchers argue that this apparent inefficiency can contribute to things like creativity, adaptability and better solutions over time. The catch is we're often trying to encourage curiosity while simultaneously removing the space it requires. Imagine someone brings you a problem. You know what they should do, so you give them the answer. That's efficient. The problem disappears and both of you can move on. Compare that with asking, "What do you think is causing the problem?" or "What options have you considered?" That takes longer. They may suggest ideas that aren't particularly good. You might end up at exactly the same solution you would have given them five minutes earlier. But something different has happened. They've had to think about the problem rather than simply receive your answer. And perhaps they've noticed something you hadn't considered. The same thing happens in meetings. We can become so focused on getting through the agenda that questions start to feel like interruptions. Someone says, "I wonder why we still do it this way?" and the response is, "That's a bigger conversation. Let's take that offline." Now sometimes that's exactly the right response. We can't explore every interesting question that comes up. That's another important part of this research. The authors aren't suggesting that curiosity is always good or that we should maximise it. Curiosity consumes time and attention. Instead, it's more useful to think about where curiosity is worth the cost. Here are three things I'd suggest. First, identify the work where you don't want the quickest answer. If you're dealing with a complex problem, making an important decision or trying to improve something that hasn't been working, deliberately allow more time for questions and alternatives. That's where a little inefficiency may pay off. Second, notice how you respond when people are curious. Leaders can say they want people to challenge the status quo while unintentionally shutting down questions through impatience. If every curious question receives a quick explanation of why things can't change, people eventually stop asking. Third, put some boundaries around curiosity. You might spend the first 15 minutes of a discussion exploring the problem without trying to solve it. Or ask everyone to come up with three different explanations before deciding what is going on. The aim isn't endless exploration. It's making sure efficiency doesn't close down thinking too early. Bringing all of this together, the key question isn't, "How can we make everything more efficient?" A better question might be, "Where would a little inefficiency help us think better?" Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week.   Reference Kashdan, T. B., McKnight, P. E., & Harrison, S. H. (2026). Curiosity at Work: A Productive Inefficiency Model. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 14. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012825-104832.   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Negative feedback can sometimes improve performance and sometimes leave people distracted, discouraged or withdrawing from their work. New research shows that how surprising, disruptive and consequential the feedback feels helps explain those different reactions. This episode looks at how leaders can make difficult feedback clearer and easier to act on.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 240 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at negative feedback and why the way someone experiences the feedback can matter just as much as what you actually say. Most leaders know that feedback needs to be clear and specific. If something isn't working, we need to talk about it rather than hoping the problem fixes itself. But we've probably also experienced situations where feedback seems to have a much bigger impact than we expected. We raise what feels like a fairly straightforward issue and the person becomes defensive, discouraged or distracted by it for days afterwards. New research published in Human Resource Management helps explain why. Rather than treating every piece of negative feedback as the same, the researchers looked at specific feedback events over a 10-week period. They were particularly interested in how novel, disruptive and critical the feedback felt to the employee. By way of example, imagine telling someone they need to tighten up the formatting in a report. That's negative feedback, but it probably isn't particularly surprising or consequential. Now imagine telling someone who believes they are performing well that there are serious concerns about their overall performance. That's a very different event, even if both conversations could technically be described as negative feedback. The research suggests these characteristics matter because feedback can affect our sense of competence and use up mental resources. If the feedback is significant enough, part of the person's attention shifts away from the work itself and towards trying to understand what has happened, what it means and what they need to do next. For leaders, one implication is to think beyond the message you are delivering and consider how surprising it will be. If someone has been hearing nothing but positive comments for six months and then receives a major performance concern at their annual review, the novelty of that information becomes part of the problem. Regular, proportionate feedback reduces the likelihood that one conversation has to carry everything. It's also worth thinking about how disruptive the feedback is. Are you asking the person to make one specific adjustment, or are you effectively telling them that their whole approach needs to change? When substantial change is required, people may need help breaking that into manageable steps rather than leaving the meeting with a broad sense that everything is wrong. And then there's the issue of competence. Corrective feedback should focus on the approach someone is taking rather than who they are as a person. Something like, "This part isn't yet at the standard we need, so let's work through what needs to change", gives you room to be clear about the problem while still conveying confidence that improvement is possible. This doesn't mean cushioning every difficult message or turning negative feedback into praise. Sometimes the feedback genuinely is serious and needs to sound serious. But it does mean recognising that the same words can land very differently depending on what the employee already believes, how consequential the issue is and how much change you're asking them to make. One question worth asking before your next difficult feedback conversation is: How big an event is this likely to be for the other person? If the answer is "quite a big one", then allow enough time not just to deliver the feedback, but also to help them make sense of it and work out what happens next. Clear feedback matters. But effective feedback conversations also take into account the impact of the message on the person.   Reference Corwin, E. S., Rosen, C. C., Lee, H. W., Simon, L. S., & Johnson, R. E. (2026). Negative Feedback as Performance Conversations: An Event Systems Perspective. Human Resource Management. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.70094.   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Leaders can easily assume they have stronger relationships with employees than employees themselves experience. New research shows that this mismatch can reduce psychological safety and make people less likely to speak up. This episode looks at how leaders can test their assumptions and make it easier for people to raise concerns.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 239 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at how leaders and their teams rate the quality of their relationships, and the impact on whether people feel confident to speak up. Most leaders think they have a pretty clear view about the relationships they have with people in their team.  The problem is that relationships involve two people, and the other person may not see things in quite the same way. A recent study looked at leader-member relationships from both sides. The researchers collected data from 496 employees and 139 leaders and examined how closely leaders and employees agreed about the quality of their relationship. They then looked at psychological safety and whether employees were willing to speak up with ideas, concerns and suggestions. As you might expect, relationships were strongest when both the leader and employee saw them positively. But the more interesting finding was what happened when the leader rated the relationship more positively than the employee did. In those situations, psychological safety was particularly low. Leaders can easily overestimate how safe they are to talk to. We know our own intentions. We know that we want people to raise concerns and challenge our thinking. But employees are making a different judgement. They're trying to work out what is likely to happen if they disagree, raise a problem or tell us something we don't really want to hear. A leader might think, "My door is always open", while an employee is thinking, "Yes, but I'm not sure how they'll respond if I tell them the project isn't working". Those two people are describing the same relationship very differently. The challenge is that leaders who think the relationship is already strong may not do much to improve it. If someone rarely disagrees with us, we can interpret that as evidence that everything is going well, when it may simply mean they're being cautious. One useful thing to do is look for behavioural evidence rather than relying on your own sense of the relationship. Does the person ever disagree with you? Do they bring you bad news early? Do they raise concerns before they become problems? Do they offer a different view when you've already expressed a preference? You can also make it easier for people to tell you how the relationship is working for them. Rather than asking, "Is everything okay?", which will usually produce "yes", try something more specific. You might ask, "What could I do that would make it easier for you to raise concerns with me?" or "Is there anything I do that makes it harder for you to disagree?" Of course, asking the question is only useful if you respond well to the answer. If someone takes a risk and gives you feedback, becoming defensive teaches them something very quickly about how safe the relationship really is. Leaders don't get to decide on their own whether a relationship is strong. What matters is how both people experience it. So this week, think about someone in your team you believe you have a very good relationship with. Then ask yourself a slightly uncomfortable question: what evidence do I have that they would describe it the same way? Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week.   Research: Pahng, P. H., Fuller, R., Kwak, J. S., & Kang, S. M. (2026). Same Playbook, Safer Plays: Leader-Member Alignment and Employee Voice. International Journal of Business Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884261476053   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

AI adoption isn't just a technology challenge - it's a leadership and psychology challenge. In this episode of Leadership Today, Andrew Beveridge speaks with behavioural scientist, author and CEO of Disaster Avoidance Experts, Dr Gleb Tsipursky. Drawing on his new book, The Psychology of AI Adoption at Work: From Resistance to Results, Gleb explains why many AI initiatives fail to deliver a return and what leaders can do differently. They explore the three emotional barriers that often hold employees back: fear of job loss, threats to professional identity, and the social stigma associated with using AI. Gleb shares practical ways to respond, from giving people greater clarity about job security and beginning with tasks they dislike, to role-modelling responsible AI use, providing tailored training, and creating safe spaces for employees to share what is working. The conversation also looks ahead to a workplace where people increasingly manage teams of AI agents. Andrew and Gleb discuss how this shift could reshape roles, career pathways and leadership - and why skills such as critical evaluation, editing, agent management and sound judgement will become even more valuable. In this episode: - Why focusing on technology alone leads many AI initiatives off track - The three psychological barriers to AI adoption - How leaders can reduce fear and resistance while building trust - Why starting with frustrating, repetitive tasks can create momentum - How role-modelling, training and shared learning can reduce "shadow AI" - The role of governance and clear guardrails in enabling faster adoption - Why employees may become managers of AI agents - How AI could reshape organisational structures and future career paths - Practical examples of using AI to improve both efficiency and effectiveness If you're leading AI adoption - or trying to help your team engage with it more confidently - this episode offers an evidence-informed and practical place to start. You can find out more about Dr Gleb Tsipursky's new book here: https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/aibook/  You can purchase the book via Amazon here: https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-AI-Adoption-Work-Resistance  Learn more about Dr Gleb Tsipursky here: https://disasteravoidanceexperts.com/ 00:00 — Introduction 02:34 — Gleb's background and interest in decision-making 04:43 — Why organisational AI initiatives go wrong 08:10 — The three emotional barriers to AI adoption 14:33 — Reducing employees' fear of job loss 18:22 — Responding to professional identity threats 24:25 — Tackling shame and "shadow AI" 27:50 — Training and shared learning 30:36 — Governance and clear guardrails 32:01 — How AI may reshape organisational structures 34:30 — Employees as managers of AI agents 38:23 — AI, robotics, and physical work 42:06 — Building workflows with multiple AI agents 47:39 — Measuring efficiency and effectiveness 51:17 — Further resources and the book 53:17 — Final leadership takeaways

Summary The better we become at something, the harder it can be to remember what it was like not to know. New research shows that experts give more useful and actionable advice when they reconnect with their own experience as beginners. This episode explores a simple way leaders can become better coaches and teachers.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 238 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at a challenge that comes with becoming more experienced: the better we become at something, the harder it can be to explain it to someone who's just starting out. Think about something you've done hundreds or perhaps thousands of times. It might be running a meeting, preparing a report, handling a difficult customer, using a particular system or having a performance conversation. After enough practice, many of the steps become almost automatic. You don't consciously think about everything you're doing because you've built up knowledge and patterns that allow you to work quickly. That's usually a good thing, but it creates a challenge when someone less experienced asks us for advice. We can forget what it was like not to know what we now know. A new study published in the Academy of Management Journal explores this problem. The research looked at what happens when experts reconnect with what they call a beginner's mind. Rather than simply remembering an event from the past, people were encouraged to mentally revisit what it actually felt like to be a novice in that particular area. Across studies involving managers and musicians, taking on a beginner's mind made a difference to the advice experts provided. When experienced people reconnected with their former beginner state, their advice became more concrete. And importantly, the novices receiving that advice rated it as more useful and were more willing to act on it. It helps explain something we see constantly at work. An experienced leader might tell a new supervisor, "You just need to have a clear conversation and hold them accountable." That sounds perfectly sensible to someone who has handled dozens of performance conversations. But the new leader may still be wondering: How do I actually start the conversation? What words do I use? What happens if they become defensive? What should I prepare beforehand? Expertise compresses all of those little steps. Once something feels obvious to us, we stop mentioning the things that no longer require conscious thought. That's why telling someone to "communicate more effectively", "delegate properly" or "think strategically" often isn't particularly helpful. The advice describes the destination without helping the person with the journey. There are three practical ways leaders can use this research. First, before giving advice, briefly remember your own first attempt. Think back to when you genuinely didn't know what to do. What were you worried about? What confused you? What did you misunderstand? What would you have wanted someone to tell you at that point? That mental exercise may help you notice assumptions that your expertise now hides from you. Second, make your advice behavioural. Instead of saying, "You need to delegate more", describe what the person could actually do. You might say, "Choose one task this week, explain the outcome you're looking for, ask the person how they would approach it, agree when you'll check in, and resist taking the task back unless there's a genuine risk." Concrete advice is easier to act on. Third, check what the other person already knows. Before launching into an explanation, ask, "What have you tried so far?" or "Talk me through how you'd approach it." That helps you pitch your advice at the right level and also encourages the other person to think rather than simply waiting for your answer. Expertise doesn't automatically make us good teachers or coaches. In fact, expertise can sometimes get in the way because it makes the difficult look obvious. Great leaders benefit from traveling back to their own beginning so they can help someone else move forward.   Reference Zhang, T. (2026). Back to the beginning: Rediscovering a beginner's mind enhances advice provision to novices. Academy of Management Journal. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.0816.   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Some employees are especially good at adapting their behaviour and creating positive impressions, but does that mean they actually perform better? A new meta-analysis suggests self-monitoring predicts supervisor performance ratings more than objective performance outcomes. This episode explores how leaders can distinguish genuine contribution from the appearance of performance.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 237 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at a subtle bias that can influence performance reviews: confusing someone's ability to manage impressions with their actual performance. Some people are naturally very good at reading a room. They notice what other people expect, adapt how they present themselves and adjust their behaviour to fit different situations. Psychologists call this self-monitoring. High self-monitors are socially skilled. They recognise when to speak up, when to hold back and how to present their contribution in a way that resonates with different people. Those can all be useful capabilities at work. For years, research has suggested that self-monitoring is also associated with job performance. But a new meta-analysis asks an interesting question: are high self-monitors actually performing better, or are they simply better at being seen as high performers? The researchers analysed 35 samples and found a modest overall relationship between self-monitoring and job performance. But when they examined how performance was measured, they found that the relationship appeared when supervisors rated performance, but not when performance was assessed using more objective outcome measures. This indicates that at least part of the apparent performance advantage comes from influencing the person doing the rating rather than actual performance. Most workplaces don't measure performance perfectly. Leaders form impressions based on conversations, meetings, presentations, emails and the things they happen to observe. Employees who are skilled at recognising what the manager values may naturally become more visible in those settings. Meanwhile, another employee may quietly produce excellent work without drawing much attention to it. The danger is that we start treating visibility as performance. Someone who speaks confidently in meetings can appear more capable than someone whose contribution is less visible. Someone who regularly updates the boss can appear more productive than someone who simply gets the work done. There are three practical ways leaders can reduce this bias. First, define performance before evaluating the person. Be clear about the results, behaviours and standards that matter for the role. It's much easier for impressions to take over when performance expectations are vague. Second, use multiple sources of evidence. Look at outcomes, feedback from others, customer impact and observable contribution rather than relying solely on your overall impression. Ask yourself, "What evidence would I use to explain this rating to someone who has never met this employee?" Third, look for invisible contribution. Who solves problems quietly? Who helps colleagues without drawing attention to it? Who consistently produces reliable work but rarely talks about it? Strong performance isn't always highly visible. This doesn't mean socially skilled employees are intentionally manipulating leaders to receive a more favourable performance evaluation. However, we need to be careful not to allow presentation skills to substitute for evidence when evaluating performance. Performance and the appearance of performance are not the same thing. Great leaders don't ignore impressions, but they make sure those impressions are tested against evidence.   Reference Moser, K., Ebner, K., Iliescu, D., & Sîrbu, A.-A. (2026). Self-monitoring and job performance: Substance or style? A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Every team seems to have someone everybody goes to for help. New research shows that leaders may unintentionally create these go-to employees through the people they visibly rely on, increasing burnout without necessarily improving performance ratings. Discover how to spread expertise without exhausting your most dependable people.   Transcript Hello and welcome to the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at how the person everyone relies on can gradually become overloaded, and what to do about it. Most teams have a go-to person. They're the colleague people approach when they are unsure what to do, when something needs fixing, or when a deadline is approaching. They know how things work, they are reliable, and they are usually generous with their time. Having someone like that in a team can seem like an enormous advantage, but new research suggests there may be a hidden cost. The researchers began with an interesting question. When someone needs help at work, how do they decide who to approach? We might assume that people carefully consider who has the right expertise for the particular problem. Sometimes they probably do. But that requires knowledge and effort, and often we use shortcuts instead. One shortcut appears to be looking at who the leader relies on. If the manager regularly goes to one particular person for advice, information or assistance, other team members notice. They infer that this person must be knowledgeable, capable and safe to approach. The researchers describe this as an "imitate-the-successful" shortcut. Rather than asking, "Who is best qualified to help me with this particular problem?", people effectively ask, "Who does the boss go to?" Over time, those individual decisions accumulate. The same employee receives more questions, more requests for advice and more interruptions. Eventually, they become the unofficial go-to person for an increasingly broad range of issues. There is obviously an upside. Being trusted and relied upon can be rewarding. It can indicate expertise and provide opportunities to contribute beyond the formal boundaries of a role. But the research also identified an important downside. Go-to employees experienced greater burnout without necessarily receiving higher performance ratings as a result. That creates a real leadership risk. Some of our most capable people may be doing a large amount of invisible work that never appears in their position description or performance measures. Each individual request may only take five or ten minutes, but collectively those interruptions can consume a significant part of the working week. The irony is that leaders may contribute to the pattern because they trust the person. We rely on them because they are capable, and our visible reliance signals to everyone else that they should do the same. The reward for being reliable becomes even more work. There are three practical things leaders can do. First, notice where the requests are going. Ask yourself who people approach when they are stuck. You can also ask your team where they go for different kinds of help. If one name appears repeatedly across unrelated areas, you may have developed a dependency rather than simply recognising expertise. Second, distribute expertise deliberately. Instead of always approaching the same trusted employee, involve other people and make their expertise visible. You might say, "Sarah knows this process really well, so speak with her about that," or ask different team members to lead particular areas. The goal is to create several places people can go rather than one human help desk. Third, recognise helping as real work. If someone is regularly supporting colleagues, factor that into their workload and performance conversations. Do not give them a full individual workload and then treat all of the helping as something they should somehow squeeze in around the edges. There is also a useful question you can ask your go-to person: "How much of your week is spent helping other people get their work done?" The answer may surprise you. The key takeaway is that becoming the person everyone trusts can look like success while quietly becoming a source of overload. Great leaders build capability across the team rather than allowing dependence to accumulate around one highly capable person. So take a look at your team this week. Who has become the person everyone goes to? And perhaps more importantly, what are you doing as the leader that might be reinforcing that pattern? Thanks for listening, and I look forward to speaking with you again next week.   Reference Frank, E. L., Matta, F. K., Nakos, O. M., & Rodell, J. B. (2026). How the boss's "right hand" becomes the group's "go-to": Leader–member exchange as a heuristic cue for everyday asks. Journal of Applied Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001401   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Episode 235 - How To Help Your Team Feel Heard   Summary Most leaders understand the importance of listening, but far fewer understand what great listening actually looks like. Discover the research behind high-quality listening and why helping people feel genuinely heard can improve trust, engagement, wellbeing, and retention.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 235 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we explore the research behind high-quality listening and why helping people feel genuinely heard can improve trust, engagement, wellbeing, and retention. Most leaders would agree that listening is important. In fact, if you ask people to describe the best leaders they've worked with, listening often appears near the top of the list. And yet, listening is one of those skills that can be easy to talk about and surprisingly difficult to do well. Part of the challenge is that we often think of listening as a communication technique. We focus on maintaining eye contact, nodding, paraphrasing, and asking questions. While those behaviours can be helpful, research suggests that what matters most is whether the other person genuinely feels heard and understood. What we're after instead is high-quality listening. Researchers who reviewed more than two decades of listening research identified three key elements of high-quality listening. First, giving someone your full attention. Second, genuinely seeking to understand what they mean, not just the words they're saying. And third, approaching the conversation with openness and curiosity rather than judgement. When people experience this type of listening they become less defensive, more reflective, and more willing to share information and ideas. In other words, good listening doesn't just help people feel better - it changes the quality of the conversation itself. Other recent research has also found that improving listening skills as a leader can reduce burnout and decrease people's intentions to leave an organisation. That's a useful reminder that listening can have a meaningful impact on wellbeing, engagement, and retention. So what can leaders do? First, focus on understanding before solving. Many leaders hear a problem and immediately jump to advice or solutions. Instead, try asking a question that checks your understanding. Something like, "So if I've understood correctly, the real challenge is…" This not only helps clarify the issue, it also demonstrates that you've genuinely been listening. Second, remove distractions whenever possible. If you're having an important conversation, put your phone away, close unnecessary applications, and give the other person your full attention. People notice very quickly when you're only partially present, and it often changes what they're willing to share. Third, become more comfortable with silence. Most of us feel pressure to respond immediately. Yet some of the most valuable insights emerge after a pause. When someone finishes speaking, resist the urge to jump in straight away. Give them a little space. You may find there's more they want to say. Remember that listening isn't just about gathering information - it's about helping people feel understood. And when people feel understood, they're more likely to trust, engage, contribute, and collaborate. As leaders, one of the most valuable things we can offer isn't a solution or an answer. Sometimes it's simply our full attention.   Research references: Kluger, A. N., & Itzchakov, G. (2022). The Power of Listening at Work. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 121 to 146. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091013   Itzchakov, G., et al. (2023). Learning to listen: Downstream effects of listening training on employees' relatedness, burnout, and turnover intentions. Human Resource Management, 62(5), 731 to 752. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/hrm.22103   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Hybrid work isn't simply about where people are most productive. New research shows that working remotely tends to satisfy our need for autonomy, while office days strengthen our sense of connection, with both playing a vital role in sustaining motivation. Rather than debating attendance, effective leaders intentionally design office days for collaboration and relationship building, and remote days for focused, independent work.   Transcript Hello and welcome to episode 234 of the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. This week we look at the hidden motivation trade-off in hybrid work. The debate about hybrid work often comes down to a single question: where are people most productive? Are they better off working from home or in the office? While that's an understandable question, new research suggests it may not be the most helpful one. Instead of asking where people work best, perhaps we should be asking which psychological needs are being met in each environment. A recent diary study published in the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology followed 187 employees over ten working days, collecting almost 3,000 daily observations. Rather than simply measuring productivity or job satisfaction, the researchers looked at three fundamental psychological needs identified in Self-Determination Theory: autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy is our need to feel we have choice and control over our work. Competence is our need to feel capable and effective. Relatedness is our need to feel connected to other people. These three needs are important because they underpin high-quality motivation. When they're met, people are more likely to feel engaged, energised and willing to contribute. When they're frustrated, motivation tends to become more controlled, draining and less sustainable. The findings paint a much more nuanced picture of hybrid work than many headlines suggest. On remote workdays, employees experienced greater autonomy. They felt they had more control over how they structured their work and, importantly, they maintained their energy better throughout the day. The researchers found that this greater sense of autonomy was associated with lower declines in energy during the afternoon and evening. However, there was a trade-off. On office days, employees experienced greater relatedness. They felt more connected to the people around them. While office work didn't provide the same autonomy benefits, it did satisfy an equally important psychological need to belong. This suggests that the question isn't whether remote work is better than office work, or vice versa. Each environment appears to support different aspects of motivation. For leaders, this changes the conversation. Rather than arguing about how many days people should be in the office, we should be asking what each day is designed to achieve. If someone comes into the office simply to spend eight hours attending virtual meetings with headphones on, they've probably lost much of the autonomy of working from home without gaining the connection that office work can provide. Likewise, if someone works remotely every day without meaningful interaction, they may enjoy greater independence but gradually lose the sense of belonging that helps teams perform well over time. The best hybrid leaders think less about attendance and more about purpose. Office days should be designed around the activities that benefit most from human connection. Coaching conversations, creative problem-solving, mentoring, relationship building, onboarding new team members and tackling complex issues together are all likely to benefit from being face-to-face. Remote days, on the other hand, can be protected for focused work, thoughtful analysis, writing, planning and tasks that benefit from uninterrupted concentration and greater flexibility. This research also reminds us that motivation isn't like one bucket that we are either filling or depleting. Motivation is shaped by the environment leaders create. We influence motivation every time we decide how work is organised, how meetings are scheduled and how much choice people have over the way they complete their work. There are three practical areas you can consider this week. First, look at your team's calendar. Are office days genuinely designed around collaboration and connection, or are people simply working alone in a different location? Second, think about remote work. Are people given enough autonomy to benefit from working remotely, or have online meetings gradually filled every available hour? Finally, ask your team a simple question: "When do you feel most energised during your working week?" Their answers may tell you far more than another debate about office attendance. The key takeaway is that hybrid work isn't primarily a location challenge. It's a motivation design challenge. Remote work tends to support autonomy. Office work tends to support connection. Great leaders understand that both needs matter, and they intentionally design work so their people experience the benefits of each. As always the reference we used is in the show notes. If you did enjoy this episode, please take a few moments to rate and review it on your preferred podcast player - that helps others to find it. Have a great week.   Reference Olafsen, A. H., Kujanpää, M., Stenling, A., Tafvelin, S., & Bentzen, M. (2026). Daily need experiences across office and remote workdays. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology.     Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription. Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect

Summary Being busy does not protect people from boredom, and boredom does not mean someone has spare capacity. New research shows employees can be bored and burned out at the same time. This episode explores how role conflict, limited autonomy and poorly designed work create this combination, and what leaders can do about it.   Transcript Hello and welcome to the Leadership Today podcast, where each week we share practical tips to improve your leadership. In this episode we explore whether it's possible to be both bored and burned out, and what that means for us at work. We often think of boredom and burnout as opposites. A bored employee does not have enough to do, while a burned-out employee has far too much. One needs more work and the other needs less. But new research suggests that this neat distinction does not reflect how people actually experience work. Research shows it is possible to be extremely busy and still be bored. It is also possible to be both bored and burned out at the same time. A recent longitudinal study examined different profiles of boredom, burnout and work engagement. Rather than assuming every employee fell somewhere on a simple line from disengaged to engaged, the researchers found several distinct combinations. Some people experienced the familiar pattern of high burnout and low engagement. Others experienced boredom and burnout together. At first, that may sound contradictory. But think about a person whose day is packed with repetitive tasks, constant interruptions, unclear priorities and unnecessary administration. They may be exhausted by the volume and fragmentation of the work while also feeling under-stimulated by its content. They have too much to do, but it still doesn't feel challenging, meaningful or worthwhile. That is one reason simply reducing workload may not solve every wellbeing problem. Managing workload matters enormously, but the design and quality of the work matter too. The research found that role conflict predicted less favourable wellbeing profiles. When people face incompatible expectations or competing priorities, they expend significant energy without necessarily experiencing progress or purpose. By contrast, autonomy, learning opportunities and cognitive demands were associated with healthier wellbeing patterns. Cognitive demands do not mean overwhelming people with complexity. They involve providing enough challenge to keep work interesting and engaging. There are three practical implications for leaders from this research: First, don't just look at workload alone. Someone can have a full calendar and an overflowing task list while still feeling deeply under-challenged. Ask not only, "How much work do you have?" but also, "Which parts of your work are energising or stretching you?" Second, reduce role conflict. Clarify priorities when expectations compete. If everything is urgent, people can spend enormous amounts of energy shifting between demands without feeling they have accomplished anything meaningful. Leaders add value by deciding what matters most. Third, increase healthy challenge and autonomy. Look for opportunities to give people ownership, involve them in problem-solving, rotate responsibilities or build new skills. The goal is not to add more tasks - it is to create better work. It is also worth paying attention to mixed signals. A person who appears disengaged may not lack motivation. They may be depleted by the wrong kind of demands. Someone who asks for more challenging work may not have spare capacity. They may be looking for work that feels more worthwhile than the tasks currently exhausting them. The takeaway is that wellbeing is not simply about how hard people work. It is also about what they are working on, how much control they have and whether the work provides clarity, learning and meaning. Great leaders do not just manage the quantity of work. They improve its quality. As always the reference used in this podcast is in the show notes. Have a great week.   Reference Toscanelli, C., Parmentier, M., Urbanavičiūtė, I., & Hirschi, A. (2026). The dynamics of well-being at work: Longitudinal profiles of boredom, burnout, and work engagement. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2026.2699462   Leadership Today On-Demand Special Offer We have a great deal for podcast listeners on our Leadership Today On-Demand subscription. Just go to www.leadershiptoday.com and checkout using the promo code PODCAST for 25% off an annual subscription.  Leadership Today On-Demand is a video subscription service that allows you to work on your leadership in your own time and at your own pace. It is available online and through our Apple iOS and Android apps for phones and tablets. Our mission is to help you to become an even better leader. Your subscription brings together all of our video content in one place including: - Five online courses with workbooks  - Five five day challenges with workbooks - Nineteen recorded webinars  - A searchable library of 170+ "how to" quick videos on a range of leadership challenges  That's over $4,500 of content for less than the price of a single online course. And there are more videos added each week.   Get Connected Find out ways to get connected here: https://leadership.today/connect