Communications – thoughtLEADERS, LLC: Leadership Training for the Real World

3 Counterintuitive Tips For More Effective Brainstorming

November 2, 2026/0 Comments/in Books, Communications, Guest Blogger, Leadership, Strategy /by Trevor Jones

Avoid these three behaviors to improve your next brainstorming session.

Today’s post is by Samuel Sanders, author of Your Next Big Idea.

We’ve all heard of brainstorming, but what exactly is it? In a business sense, brainstorming is the process of coming up with creative ideas and solutions to problems using rapid freethinking. Brainstorming is critical in problem solving, creativity, ideation, and innovation. While in business, many imagine brainstorming as a group activity; it can be done alone or in a group. There are many tips and tricks that can help you have more effective brainstorms. However, there are three unique counterintuitive tips that many ignore. Following these tips can take your brainstorms to the next level.

The first tip is, “During a brainstorm, do not use cell phones, computers, or tablets.”

This is a tough ask for everyone. We take our laptops and phones with us almost everywhere we go. Many of us are addicted to our devices. You may even be wondering, what if I come up with an idea but need to look something up? Don’t. Write down everything that you want to find out more information on in a list during the brainstorm. Then after, look it up. Staring at a device or looking something up will distract your train of thought. It is better to minimize the distractions and get out all of your ideas before bringing devices into the process.

The second tip is, “Always add to ideas, don’t edit or compare ideas.”

Often when we hear a new idea, our first thought is to analyze whether the idea would work. In brainstorming, that is counterproductive. The goal of brainstorming is to get as many possible ideas out there, not edit and start checking the viability of ideas. When someone pitches an idea, it is not our job to rate, evaluate or edit that idea during a brainstorming session. Additionally, it is essential not to compare two ideas to each other. Remember, brainstorming is for getting ideas out there, not trying and figuring out what idea is best. You can feel free to add to ideas, though! Here is an example of the difference between adding and editing: if someone pitches an idea for a new sneaker, you may think, “Wow, that sneaker would go well with these laces.” That is not editing but instead adding more valuable information to the brainstorm. If you instead said, “Well, this sneaker won’t work with this feature.” That is editing. It is important that you or your team clearly understand the difference as editing will hurt a brainstorm’s effectiveness while adding can help grow ideas.

The third tip is, “Don’t have a rigorous schedule.”

In American culture, this one comes as kind of a shock. Typically meetings are set for a distinct amount of time, whether on the hour or half-hour, lasting an exact amount of minutes. A rigorous agenda or schedule can hinder people’s ability to think creatively. Say you need to brainstorm three topics, and you have one hour. Naturally, you’d think it would make sense to brainstorm each subject for 20 minutes. But to be the most productive, you should brainstorm each topic for as long as it is comfortable. It may take 35 minutes for the first topic, 15 minutes for the second, and 10 minutes for the third. If you run out of time, it is important to schedule another meeting or extend the current session to continue. Often ideas can start flowing near the end of a time limit, and putting a time restriction can add unnecessary pressure. During a brainstorm, you want to make sure your team comes up with as many ideas as possible. That way, when you go to evaluate the results, you have as much information as possible.

Today, brainstorming can feel like a lost practice. We are so busy getting work done that it does not seem fruitful or financially profitable to direct employees to brainstorm. However, the best ideas come from the workers in the trenches. Giving employees time to think over their experiences and ideas for innovation in a brainstorm may lead to high-quality cost cutting or profitability-growing results.

Samuel Sanders is an award-winning entrepreneur who has seen innovation, creativity, problem-solving, and ideation in action at many different levels: a Fortune 500 company, an Inc. 5000 fastest-growing company, as well as incubators. He also co-founded the company Wundershirt, which at its peak, sold athletic training clothing to Olympic athletes preparing for the 2016 Olympics. Currently, he runs Heard, LLC, a software application that helps governments and large companies get targeted and reviewed feedback from their citizens/employees to improve decision making. His award-winning and highly-praised new book, Your Next Big Idea, is available for pre-order at www.yournextbigideabook.com and Amazon.

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

The Question Every CEO Should Ask Before a Global Hire

October 12, 2026/0 Comments/in Books, Business Toolkit, Career, Communications, Guest Blogger, Leadership, Strategy, Training /by Trevor Jones

Before a global hire, look beyond experience. Three practical checks help CEOs assess whether an executive can adapt when familiar approaches stop working well.

Today’s post is by Steve McKinney, coauthor of ‘Global Mindset: A Guide for Cross-Cultural Leadership’ with Bryan McKinney.

Consider a manufacturing executive who had successfully led a plant with 5,000 employees before taking on a much smaller team in another country. On paper, the move looked straightforward. Why would someone who had managed that much complexity struggle with a smaller team?

But the executive’s direct questions produced polite agreement rather than candid discussion. Decisions announced in meetings stalled afterward. The executive pushed harder, interpreting the delay as an execution problem. What he had misread was how people raised concerns and built commitment.

That executive was me. The experience shaped a question I have returned to throughout two decades of building global teams and evaluating senior leaders across markets: What evidence tells us this person can adapt when the conditions behind their previous success change?

That question belongs alongside every discussion of an executive’s track record. Past results matter. But they tell us what someone achieved in a particular setting, not automatically how that person will perform in the next one.

Before a major acquisition, a leadership team examines the assumptions behind the numbers. An executive appointment deserves the same discipline. Beyond asking whether a candidate delivered growth or improved operations, we should ask what made those results possible. Which relationships, decision rights, resources, and working habits supported that success? Which will be different in the new role?

This is where I find Proactive Agility useful: anticipating changes in the operating environment and adjusting before they force costly correction. In hiring, the task is not to ask whether a candidate considers themselves adaptable. It is to look for evidence that they noticed a mismatch, questioned an assumption, and changed their approach.

I call these three checks the Proactive Agility Screen. They complement a rigorous assessment by examining behavior that a list of achievements can leave unexplored.

First comes the ambiguity test. Ask for two specific examples of situations in which authority, process, or expectations were unclear or contested. These should involve more than a difficult target or a demanding deadline. Look for situations in which the candidate had to work out how to proceed without a settled plan.

Then stay with each example. What did the candidate initially assume? Which signal challenged that assumption? What changed as a result? Listen to how they created clarity for others, not just how they personally coped. If every answer describes executing a plan someone else had defined, ask again for evidence of judgment under uncertainty.

The point is not to reward improvisation for its own sake. It is to understand how the person learns and helps a team move forward when the familiar approach no longer fits.

Second, reframe the reference conversation. Asking what a candidate accomplished is necessary, but it should not end the discussion. Ask the reference to describe a moment when a plan failed, or the candidate misread a situation. What was the candidate’s first reaction? What did they do next?

Did they dismiss the concern, investigate it, or revise their approach? Speed alone is not the test; a thoughtful adjustment matters more than a quick reversal. If a reference can describe results but cannot recall a course correction, seek another perspective before drawing a conclusion. That person may simply not have witnessed the relevant situation.

Third, put an insider in the room. Before the final decision, include someone who has personally operated in the destination market or function. Give that person explicit permission to flag a mismatch the rest of the panel might miss. Their task is not merely to endorse the shortlist.

Ask where this executive’s communication style might create misunderstanding and which relationships they would need to build. What support would help them establish credibility? Use those insights to guide further inquiry, not to make assumptions about how everyone in a country behaves. If no panel member has relevant operating experience, acknowledge that gap rather than assuming headquarters’ perspective is sufficient.

This is not a search for cultural sameness. A leader may need to challenge established habits. The distinction is between someone who understands the context well enough to change it thoughtfully and someone who assumes that previous success makes understanding it unnecessary.

Selection is only part of the responsibility. Even an adaptable executive needs clear expectations, candid feedback, and access to people who can explain an unfamiliar environment. The assessment should help shape that support, not create an expectation that the right hire will need none.

My experience leading 5,000 people was real. So was my difficulty leading a much smaller team in a different setting. When decisions stalled, pushing harder did not address what I had missed: polite agreement was not the same as commitment. The lesson was not to discard my experience, but to question how I was applying it.

At your next hiring committee meeting, look beyond the scale of a candidate’s previous responsibilities. Ask what they noticed when their usual approach stopped working, what they changed, and who can confirm it. I know why those questions matter. I was the executive whose track record did not tell the whole story.

Steve McKinney is the founder of McKinney Consulting, a Seoul-based executive search and leadership coaching firm. He co-authored Global Mindset: A Guide for Cross-Cultural Leadership with Bryan McKinney.

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

3 Mistakes to Avoid When Investing Your Leadership Capital

October 7, 2026/0 Comments/in Business Toolkit, Career, Communications, Leadership, Strategy, Training /by Trevor Jones

I’ve seen leaders make three common mistakes when investing in their leadership capital. These mistakes hurt both their efficiency and their effectiveness.

Do you work a 40 hour week or are you working 24/7? How much effort are you putting into your work? How much stress do you experience from the energy you’re putting in? Your time and energy are finite resources. You can squeeze more time out by taking away from other activities in your life but you can’t do that forever. That time isn’t unlimited. If you squeeze out too much, bad things can happen. I’m speaking from experience here. I’ve had two heart attacks because I was spending too much time and energy with my work. Something needs to change.

To reduce the time you spend at work, reduce stress, and improve performance, you need to approach how you spend your time and energy differently. Leadership capital is the time and energy you invest in leading your team. It needs to be invested carefully like any other scarce resource. When’s the last time you assessed where you’re spending your time and energy? Who are you spending it with? How are you spending it? Are you getting the results you want from those investments? These are all questions I want you to consider as you assess how you’re spending the valuable resource of your leadership capital.

3 Leadership Capital Mistakes

I’ve seen leaders make three common mistakes when investing in their leadership capital. These mistakes hurt both their efficiency and their effectiveness.

The Peanut Butter Approach

The first mistake I see is what I call the peanut butter approach. What leaders do is give everyone on their team exactly the same amount of their time and energy. They just spread it around evenly. They do this because it feels fair to everyone. What’s wrong with this approach is not everyone needs the same amount of your time. It’s not fair to those who need less. It feels like micromanagement. It’s not fair to those who need more of your attention. They feel like they’re getting slighted for time.

The Reactive Approach

The second mistake I see is the reactive approach where leaders give people time and attention whenever they ask in the order they ask for it. Just think about a queue of people lined up outside that leader’s door knocking on the door and asking for time and attention and that leader just calls the next number in line. This mistake happens because this approach requires very little thought. What’s wrong with this approach is it fails to prioritize the leader’s time and allocate it to the most important issues. It also encourages team members to constantly take up the leader’s time rather than solving issues for themselves.

The Path of Least Resistance Approach

The third mistake is taking the path of least resistance. Leaders spend more time with people who are easiest or most fun to work with. They avoid team members who give them trouble. Leaders do this because this approach is easy. It avoids conflict. The issues with this approach include not solving issues that need to be resolved and instead dedicating time and energy to low return efforts. Spending excessive time with high performers doesn’t contribute a great deal to delivering outstanding results.

When you look at these mistakes, I’d like you to ask yourself a couple of questions. What would you do if your chief financial officer allocated budget and investment dollars this way? Do you spend your leadership capital this way? Once you know what these common mistakes are, it’s easier to avoid them and instead be more intentional about how you spend your leadership capital to get better results.

Want to learn more about leading effectively? How about taking an entire course on it? Go directly to the course and start learning how to navigate politics as a senior leader. The entire course is available at LinkedIn Learning. Enjoy!

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

Hiring Experience Makes All the Difference

October 6, 2026/0 Comments/in Books, Communications, Guest Blogger, Leadership /by Trevor Jones

The quality of a candidate’s hiring experience significantly impacts an organization’s ability to attract top talent.

Today’s post is by Lisette Howlett, author of The Right Hire (CLICK HERE to get your copy).

I have had a number of bizarre hiring experiences which, supported by research and leadership experience, have led me to reach a number of conclusions about hiring, namely that it is an often undervalued and overlooked area which can have a profound impact on an organization.

Along with many of my generation, my entry to the corporate world was through the fairly traditional graduate selection process. As graduation approached, I bought a suit (mid grey) with my mother’s help, and participated in a number of 1-2 day selection centers held by my target companies.

At one, I was asked which area of business I would like to work in and politely said that I did not want to work in marketing. The offer I received was to join the marketing department. To this day I am convinced the selector wrote down the words marketing when I said not marketing and either forgot the X or overlooked it during the placement discussion. This experience taught me the importance of listening, and more importantly, hearing, during an interview. If you do not later take into account, or at least refer to if you decide to ignore it, something important that is raised by a candidate during an interview you damage your credibility as an employer. For top candidates who have a very real choice about where they work, this can make the difference between them accepting your offer or one from your competitor.

4 Ways to Invest Your Leadership Capital

September 30, 2026/0 Comments/in Business Toolkit, Career, Communications, Leadership, Strategy, Training /by Trevor Jones

There are four major activities that will consume your leadership capital. Depending on your team, you’ll have a different mix of these activities.

There are four major activities that will consume your leadership capital. They’re directing work, doing work, delivering work and developing people:

Directing work

Directing including planning where you translate your vision into individual goals and activities. Prioritizing which is turning individual goals into team priorities. And coordinating using your position to provide broader perspective to the members of your team and help them see how their work fits into that broader picture.

Doing work

Doing is comprised of deciding where you as the leader have to make decisions that can’t be made by the members of your team. Motivating, inspiring your team members to do difficult things. And clearing, helping your team members overcome the roadblocks they’re going to face.

Delivering work

Delivering consists of monitoring where you’re tracking team progress against goals and objectives. Correcting where you’re fixing work that wasn’t done right the first time. And repairing where you’re repairing damage when mistakes are made. You’ll have to smooth over some relationships that get damaged when they make those mistakes.

Developing people

Developing includes training where you’re teaching new skills and building the capabilities of your team members. Coaching where you’re building their confidence and their capabilities by helping them understand how they need to grow. And promoting, advancing your team members’ careers by positioning them for growth.

Depending on your team, you’ll have a different mix of these activities but these activities comprise for the most part what’s expected of all good leaders.

Want to learn more about leading effectively? How about taking an entire course on it? Go directly to the course and start learning how to navigate politics as a senior leader. The entire course is available at LinkedIn Learning. Enjoy!

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

How to Help Your Team Contribute Better Ideas

September 22, 2026/0 Comments/in Communications, Guest Blogger, Innovation, Leadership /by Trevor Jones

Based on ground-breaking new research on innovation and problem solving, learn techniques to help your team bring you better ideas.

Today’s post is by Karin Hurt and David Dye, author of Courageous Cultures (CLICK HERE to get your copy). This is a post from our archives, originally published in 2020.

When we share our recent research findings on what prevents employees from speaking up and sharing their best ideas, sometimes we get this reaction: “Oh, that’s not our issue. Our problem is these damn millennials can’t stop speaking up. They complain about everything.”

“And do you listen?” we ask.

“Some of the time, but after a while, you can only take so much.”

Which begs the question: and then what happens? After you’re tired and they’re ignored?

We imagine it’s only a matter of time until they stop trying, or leave. Like Laura, a fellow keynote speaker we met recently at a conference. She shared:

I’m so intrigued by this research you’re doing on FOSU (fear of speaking up) and the downstream consequences for employees and organizations. The truth is I’m one of those people. I had such a bad experience when I was 23, that I would never offer my opinion at work again.

I was just out of college and so eager to make an impact in my new role. I had tons of ideas and was always looking for ways to make things better. So I offered my opinion on EVERYTHING. Which as it turns out, was exhausting to everyone around me. I got fired and was completely devastated. After all, my heart was in the right place. I was gung ho. But, the truth is, I was committed, but clumsy.

Once I got back on my feet in a new job, I kept my head down, my mouth shut, and just did my job. I had this FOSU thing you talk about in a big way. And I was miserable.

Situational Leadership: Leaders Can Adapt Their Leadership Style to Best Suit the Needs of Their Team

September 15, 2026/4 Comments/in Books, Communications, Guest Blogger, Leadership, Strategy, Training /by Trevor Jones

Leaders are continually assessing situations and follower readiness. Situational leadership encourages leaders to be flexible and receptive to their teams’ needs.

Today’s post is by Dr. James Walsh, author of “You’re a Leader – Now What? Build Trust, Inspire Teams, Drive Results.”

My subject today is situational leadership. I have an anecdote from my book, “You’re a Leader – Now What?”(Walsh, 2026) to articulate an application. It is taken from my experience as an Air Force Commander — but is equally applicable in a corporate context.

I found myself as a Commander in charge of 500+ people. A big part of the job was to administer discipline – not a part that I relished, but a reality. My first experience came shortly after assuming Command. The military member reported formally, I put him at ease and we had a discussion about circumstances causing the disciplinary action. I had a senior noncommissioned officer present as well.

When my discussion with the offender concluded, the noncommissioned officer spoke and offered unsolicited advice. He first asked whether this had been my first experience administering discipline. I responded that as a matter of fact it was. He then said that instead of having the discussion, that I should be more directive and belittle the offender: really come on strong.

I responded with a question: “What was the result of the discussion?” He responded that the offender had been severely disciplined. I then told the noncommissioned officer that I respected his view but chose to administer discipline with my (participative) natural leadership style. My chosen leadership style better enabled understanding the offender’s side of the story and reinforced that “the punishment fit the crime.” I then became more directive with the noncommissioned officer as I advised him not to impose his leadership style onto others.

I often use the foregoing anecdote to show that we all have a natural leadership style and that we can change the style according to the situation: hence, situational leadership. Had I chosen to be more directive with the offender, I would probably have not had the understanding that I sought as the offender would probably not be as forthcoming. Yet I had no issue using the directive leadership style to the noncommissioned officer whom I felt was trying to impose his leadership style on me.

Leadership styles were often the subject of class discussions as I transitioned from my military role to university professor. Classes would typically begin with students completing an exercise to measure their natural leadership styles. A discussion of results would be caveated by the fact that leadership style is most often a judgement call. There is no “one size fits all” best leadership style: It’s largely dependent on the situation and judgement of the leader.

Situational leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) describes four distinct leadership styles: telling, selling, participating, and delegating. Each style can be used according to follower readiness. The leader decides which style is most appropriate in any given situation. If followers are unable and unwilling, the leader can be more directive (telling). Willing and able followers may get a “selling” style where the leaders are convinced that a certain course of action is best for them and in particular for the organization. For example, overtime work is necessary to sustain an organization and employee livelihoods. A participative style can be used when all contribute equally to the “solution.” A delegating style can be used when there are experts who know the job well and can be relied upon to act in the organization’s best interests.

My brief anecdote showed a situation where I chose to be participative to better understand “both sides” before coming to a fair decision based on all facts known. A conversational tone would better serve bringing out the facts. My senior noncommissioned officer disagreed and felt that I should have been more directive (telling) with a focus on intimidation. I felt that the telling style would put the military member on the defensive to his detriment: He would be hesitant to share his side of the story. My senior noncommissioned officers judgement was different from mine. His mistake was trying to impose his leadership style when it was not appropriate as there is no one best leadership style to fit all situations. There is leadership that in the judgement of the leader, most effectively “fits.” I then adapted my leadership style and became more directive with the senior noncommissioned officer.

Dr. James Walsh has held leadership positions in the U.S. Air Force for over 44 years, both in military and civilian capacities at the Pentagon. Concurrently, he has taught leadership and management courses at colleges and universities in the U.S., Europe, and the Far East.

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

Solving Business Problems: Make Assertions and Recommendations

August 26, 2026/0 Comments/in Business Toolkit, Career, Communications, Leadership, Sales, Strategy /by Trevor Jones

No matter how good your problem solving is, if you can’t come up with a clear recommendation that’s compelling to your stakeholders, it’s all been for naught.

The last step in the problem solving process is coming up with a clear and concise recommendation. And I like to say you need to make assertions. Assertions are nothing more than facts stated to persuade.

I’ve used this method of making assertions with a telecom replacement project where we were going to replace all of the phone systems across our entire division. It was going to cost $4 million. That’s what I was going to the stakeholders asking for. I needed to make my case, so I put together my set of facts and my set of assertions to make that case and was successful in doing so. And you can do the same thing.

Now with assertions, you’re going to run into resistance. Your task is to overcome that resistance. The key to getting your idea supported is having the right set of facts and articulating them in a manner that’s going to be compelling to your audience. So, the most common types of resistance you’re going to hear, and I bet you’ve heard some of these things already in your past experience, are:

“Well, that’ll never work.” Well, bring assertions and facts that show it has worked somewhere else, perhaps in a different business unit or even one of your competitors.

You may hear, “Well it’s too expensive.” The assertions you need to bring to table are ones around the cost benefit analysis of making your recommendation.

You may find somebody says, “Well our customers won’t buy it.” You can build assertions and facts to support it by going and surveying customers or doing a small pilot in the market and gathering data from that.

Sometimes you’ll hear, “Well we don’t like any of the options that you’ve presented.” That’s my personal favorite, and that one feels like it’s really hard to overcome. The easiest way to overcome it is show them the cost of doing nothing. Show them the cost of letting your competitors continue to penetrate the market while you sit there on your hands. It can be a very compelling set of facts to pull together.

So as you’re thinking about your assertions and your recommendations, I want you to think about the recommendation you’re trying to make and what the right set of facts are that you need to pull together to compel your audience. I want you to think of some of these types of resistance you’re going to encounter and how you’re going to overcome it because there’s always a counterpoint to every point they’re going to make.

The real trick is making sure that you have the right of facts and a powerful assertion to overcome that resistance in front of you.

Want to learn more about solving business problems? How about taking an entire course on it? Go directly to the course and start learning how to solve business problems. The entire course is available at LinkedIn Learning. Enjoy!

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

The High Cost of Leaving Workplace Culture to Chance

August 10, 2026/0 Comments/in Books, Business Toolkit, Communications, Guest Blogger, Leadership, Strategy /by Trevor Jones

Leaders often believe culture changes because of a new mission statement, a kickoff meeting, or a refreshed list of values. Those moments create awareness. Culture is shaped by what happens next.

Today’s post is by Natalie Johnson, co-author of Leading the Culture Journey: Elevating Everyday Actions to Create Extraordinary Workplaces.

Organizations don’t begin paying for a neglected culture when people leave. They’ve been paying all along. Most leaders recognize turnover as the most obvious cost of a struggling workplace culture. By the time talented employees resign, organizations have often been paying hidden costs for months or even years. They simply haven’t connected those costs to culture yet. The irony is that every organization already has a culture. The question is whether it was created intentionally or accidentally.

Culture is not a mission statement, a set of values on the wall, or an annual engagement survey. Culture is the way people relate with each other. It is reflected in everyday conversations, meetings, decisions, feedback, accountability, and the interactions that shape how work feels. Like an iceberg, turnover is only the visible top. Beneath the surface are the hidden costs organizations pay every day through the quality of the relationships between the people who stay.

The Hidden Costs of Accidental Culture

Turnover is often the first noticeable signal that something is wrong. Research from MIT Sloan found that workplace culture is a stronger predictor of employee attrition than compensation. Employees are often willing to leave higher-paying jobs if the everyday experience of work consistently diminishes their energy, relationships, or sense of belonging. By the time organizations begin calculating the financial cost of turnover, they have already absorbed months or years of declining trust, collaboration, and engagement.

Disengagement

Long before people leave, many stop fully participating. They contribute less discretionary effort. They stop sharing ideas. They avoid difficult conversations. They remain quiet during meetings because speaking up no longer feels worthwhile. Gallup estimates that low employee engagement costs the economy $8.9 trillion each year. Gallup also estimates that actively disengaged employees cost organizations roughly 18% of their annual salary in lost productivity.

These losses rarely appear as a line item on a financial statement, but behaviors are experienced every day through slower execution, reduced initiative, lower productivity, and missed opportunities.

Relationships

Every one of these costs points back to the same source. Relationships. Organizations frequently describe people as their greatest asset. A more accurate statement is that the relationships between those people are the organization’s greatest asset. Healthy relationships create trust, strengthen accountability, accelerate learning, improve collaboration, and make adaptation possible. When relationships become strained, every business outcome becomes more difficult to achieve.

3 Ways to Change the Patterns

The encouraging news is that culture isn’t mysterious, and it can be intentionally designed. And it doesn’t begin with another engagement survey, a company-wide kickoff, or a refreshed list of organizational values. It begins with everyday behavior.

1. One practical place to start is by translating organizational values into observable behaviors. Many organizations say they value trust, collaboration, accountability, or innovation, but employees are left to interpret what those words mean. When values remain abstract, they cannot be coached, reinforced, or measured. Instead, define values in behavioral terms.If trust is a value, does trust mean admitting mistakes quickly instead of hiding them. Giving honest feedback with care? Asking for help? Assuming positive intent before jumping to conclusions?

2. If collaboration is a value, does collaboration mean inviting input before making decisions that affect others? Sharing information proactively? Building on ideas instead of competing with them?

3. Once values become observable behaviors, they become teachable and measurable. The next step is consistency. Values shape behaviors. Repeated behaviors become group norms. Group norms become culture. Every team develops norms, whether intentionally or accidentally. People learn what is expected by watching the people around them. Who speaks during meetings? Who remains silent? Are questions encouraged or discouraged? Are mistakes treated as opportunities to learn or reasons to assign blame? These everyday patterns become “the way things are done around here.” Changing culture means intentionally reinforcing the behaviors that represent the desired culture until they become the team’s new normal.

Leaders often believe culture changes because of a new mission statement, a kickoff meeting, or a refreshed list of values. Those moments create awareness. Culture is shaped by what happens next.

The meeting. The feedback. The difficult conversation. The recognition. The apology. Every interaction either reinforces the culture you want or strengthens the accidental culture you never intended to create. The opportunity isn’t simply to reduce turnover or improve engagement. It is to intentionally create a workplace where people trust one another, contribute fully, learn continuously, adapt confidently, and perform at their best.

Natalie Johnson is a cofounder of Vidl Work. She oversees business development, partnerships, strategy, and innovation while working with clients on keynotes, consulting, training and coaching. With more than 30 years of experience in human performance, resilience and leadership, she brings a deeply practical and human-centered approach to culture change. Natalie holds a master’s degree in Wellness Promotion and is an industry recognized Performance Coach sought-after keynote speaker, Certified Dare to Lead™ Facilitator and Wellcoaches® Certified Coach. Her first book, Leading the Culture Journey: Elevating Everyday Actions to Create Extraordinary Workplaces, with Vidl Work co-founder Rebecca Johnson, will be released August 4.

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

How to Stay Connected with Clients

August 5, 2026/0 Comments/in Business Toolkit, Career, Communications, Leadership, Strategy /by Trevor Jones

Learn the dos and don’ts of staying connected with clients as a consulting professional.

Client relationships are the lifeblood of your business. Be deliberate about maintaining them. Regular contact will keep you top of mind. Beware of excessive contact. They’re going to ignore you or block you if you’re in their inbox too much.

Find excuses to reach out to them like, “Hey, I read an article and I thought of you.” Or “I heard about a cool new technology and I thought you might be interested in it.” Send these notes and leave it at that. Don’t try and sell during those interactions. They know you eventually want to sell them something. Just focus on being helpful and good things are going to come.

I have one client who has had a great relationship with me over the years. Every once in awhile I’ll see something that I think would be interesting to him and I drop him a note saying, “I read this, I thought of you.” And he always writes back and says, “Not that you’re trying to sell me something.”

He and I both know the deal here, but I’m trying to be helpful and I stay top of mind. So anytime he has a need that my firm can fill, he’s going to call me first.

Some reasons you might wanna reach out to connect with your clients and prospects include things like:

You have a new service offering and they might be interested in it
You know a candidate who might be a great fit for their organization
Or maybe you read an article about a topic they’re interested in

I tend to stay away from personal stuff when reaching out. Things like anniversaries or kids’ birthdays can get a little bit tricky. It can get very awkward if you congratulate somebody on their anniversary only to find out that they were divorced recently.

Try to keep your outreach focused on professional topics. Articles about topics they might find interesting, new technologies, new books you’ve read, those are all perfect excuses to reach out to a client and reestablish that relationship.

Want to learn more about consulting? How about taking an entire course on it? Check out the video below to learn more about the course and get started. Or you can go directly to the course and start learning more about consulting. The entire course is available at LinkedIn Learning. Enjoy!

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

Navigating Passive Aggressiveness as a Senior Leader

July 29, 2026/0 Comments/in Business Toolkit, Career, Communications, Leadership, Strategy /by Trevor Jones

Passive-aggression is really challenging to deal with, because it’s so hard to see until it’s too late.

Sometimes people will say they agree with you. They love your idea. They say they’ll do whatever you need and give you all the resources you need to move forward. Then, they simply do nothing and passively resist your efforts. They might not give the resources they commit to or take the actions they said they’ll perform. When you’re dealing with this type of behavior, get written commitments that are then shared and followed up on publicly.

I know one chief operating officer who was involved in a major cost reduction project. He didn’t like the program’s direction, but he had to look committed to it. Especially because it was the CEO’s top priority. The COO said he’d provide teams to do analysis. He said they’d contribute ideas for cost savings. But he always came up with other priorities and excuses for why his folks weren’t contributing time or ideas for the project. To look committed, he spun-up a bunch of meetings to try and drive the cost reduction effort forward. The problem was all those meetings did was waste time, create new work, and actually slow the project down.

When dealing with the situation, the project manager sat down and got public commitments from this COO in terms of the time their teams would spend, and the ideas that the team was responsible for delivering. Those public commitments eventually got the behavior to change.

When you’re dealing with this situation, pay attention for patterns of failed commitments. Passive-aggression is hard to spot at first. So, by looking for where people are coming up short, it might be an indicator that you’re dealing with this type of behavior.

When you’re dealing with it, get public commitments from this person in terms of resources. Also ask this person to provide public updates, so everyone can hear how they’re moving the project forward. And when there’s a shortfall in terms of a commitment, make them explain it. It’s not up to you to make excuses for them.

Passive-aggression is really challenging to deal with, because it’s so hard to see until it’s too late. By paying attention to commitments and seeing when people are falling short, it gives you an opportunity to call the behavior out publicly and get things back on track.

Want to learn more about navigating politics as a senior leader? How about taking an entire course on it? Check out the video below to learn more about the course and get started. Or you can go directly to the course and start learning how to develop your leadership philosophy. The entire course is available at LinkedIn Learning. Enjoy!

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!

The Hidden Cost of Stress: How It Undermines Your Leadership Authority

July 20, 2026/0 Comments/in Balanced Lifestyle, Books, Business Toolkit, Communications, Guest Blogger, Leadership /by Trevor Jones

Stress does more than wear on leaders, it undermines them. What the research on nonverbal cues reveals about trust, and how to close the gap.

Today’s post is by Don Gregori, author of The Emergent Leader: A Guide to Brand Building, Leadership, and Self-Mastery.

The quarter was rough. I was just about to get in front of the team for a town hall, and some bad news was dropped in my lap. It threw me off my game. Business can be tough. I knew we would get through it. At the moment I was internalizing the stress and distracted by thinking of ways to lead through the challenge. As I spoke to the team my voice flattened. I was less animated, and the audience could sense a disconnect between how I was feeling and what I was saying. I could tell they weren’t buying it. I wasn’t lying to that room. I was stressed, and stress had changed the meaning in the words that I was saying.

Researchers who study non-verbal behavior under pressure have a name for that. It’s called the “flat affect.” Bergun and Kopper describe it as a pattern that shows reduced facial expressions, and speech that loses its dynamism and goes monotone. Interestingly, from a distance it looks like composure. Up close it reads as rigidity and detachment.

This isn’t about style and entertainment. What leaders should focus on is that people trust the non-verbal signal over the verbal one. Keep in mind that upward of 80% of our communication comes through non-verbal signals. People judge inconsistency between message and delivery as a sign of untrustworthiness, regardless of whether the words themselves are true. Unfortunately, we don’t get judged on what we meant or the words alone.

Researchers at Yale’s Center for Emotional Intelligence found that people calibrate to their manager’s mood within about seven minutes of interaction. They are unaware that they are even doing so. A leader’s emotional state shapes the performance and creativity of their team, not just their immediate mood. I didn’t simply lose credibility with the team at that town hall. Whatever confidence drained out of that meeting was carried back to other teams and perhaps to clients by people who had no idea they were carrying it. I unintentionally gifted them my stress.

I was standing in the gap between the quarter I’d expected and the reality of what was delivered. That gap is where the stress was really coming from. The distance between the two is where the anxiety lives. We set the expectation and as such, we are, quite literally, the primary source of our own suffering. That gap is wider right now for a lot of us than it used to be. Nobody can say with real confidence what skills will matter in eighteen months, what AI will and won’t touch, or what the market looks like two quarters out. Projecting certainty we don’t actually have is exactly the kind of incongruence our team can sense.

Two things would have served me better that day. First, narrowing the beam. Instead of trying to sound composed about a far-off uncertain future, I should have been specific about what we controlled and what we could have done right now. Certainty about the next ninety days beats vague confidence about the next year, every time. The second thing I could have done was to speak about the uncertainty out loud. Naming our fears takes some of the power away from them. The vulnerability that would have been demonstrated in that statement would have built so much more trust with the teams. It would have closed the gap between the message and the delivery that the room was picking up on.

If I could take that stage today, I’d throw away the artificial composure. I’d level with the room and say, “Sometimes business is hard. Sometimes work is a four-letter word. These tough times will pass, and when we come together to get through them. The satisfaction we will get on the other end will be so much sweeter. Let’s dive into what we can do right now.”

A stressed, rigid version of myself could have never delivered that message convincingly. Authenticity beats an artificially perfect veneer every time.

Don Gregori is COO of First Factory, Inc. and author of The Emergent Leader: A Guide to Brand Building, Leadership, and Self-Mastery (Torchflame Books). He writes and speaks on leadership, resilience, and building companies made to last. Find more about Don and his book at emergentleader.co and https://www.linkedin.com/in/emergentleader/

Did you enjoy this post? If so, I highly encourage you to take about 30 seconds to become a regular subscriber to this blog. It’s free, fun, practical, and only a few emails a week (I promise!). SIGN UP HERE to get the thoughtLEADERS blog conveniently delivered right to your inbox!