Blog, culture and engagement | Ambition In Motion

by Julia Gonzalez

Fri 26 September 2025

Digital transformation is rarely easy, and organizational change can often create friction, requiring a thoughtful approach to shifting employee practices. Consider a financial firm’s Chief Technology Officer, Anna. She had effectively promoted a new system, one meant to replace the old, outdated technology. This switch was projected to save the firm millions of dollars annually, but the only challenge was connecting the people to the potential of the new solution.

To smooth the transition, Anna had conducted three months of required webinars. However, staff members seemed to remain distant or hesitant, resulting in push back against the new system. The root of the challenge wasn't a flaw in the technology, but a gap in the organization's willingness to adopt change.

Anna's initial strategy treated the transition as a simple technical training exercise, when in reality, it was a crucial opportunity to align the organization's workflows with its strategic goals. Her role evolved from being solely the technology executive to becoming the leader of a strategic business mandate. The change now needed to be guided by Anna with conviction, rather than simply suggested.

Anna's pivot in strategy must move from passive persuasion to one of active, deliberate integration. Her success depends on clearly defining the path forward and gently, yet firmly, showing the organization that the new system is the best, most sustainable way to work.

Four Steps to Confident, Integrated Adoption

Anna's path forward requires her to exert leadership, transforming hesitation into a shared commitment.

Establish and Communicate the Confident Vision

The initial perception that adoption is optional needs to be dissolved by presenting the system as a clear, strategic necessity. When the firm is saving millions, the executive vision sets the strategy.

Executive Unified Endorsement: The CTO, the CEO, and the CFO must stand together for a company-wide address. The message, delivered by the CEO, must be consistent: "This system is a strategic imperative that ensures our future competitiveness. Moving forward with this system is an essential component of our collective success." This transforms the implementation from a departmental request into a firm-wide business opportunity.
Clear Timelines: Clear, supportive cut-off dates for the legacy systems must be announced. There must be a detailed schedule for a gradual, supported transition: "Effective December 1st, all new accounts must be processed in the new system. The legacy system will be retired and archived by January 1st." By gently guiding the organization away from the old alternative, the primary roadblock to forward motion is eased.
ROI as the Guiding Principle: Anna must confidently reference the projected millions in ROI when any hesitation surfaces regarding customizations or procedural changes. She must clearly state that the savings are directly tied to adopting the standard, efficient configuration. Any proposed "tweak" must be framed in terms of its potential to undermine efficiency and value, encouraging stakeholders to prioritize the company's financial health over immediate personal comfort.

2. Strategic Insights and Peer Guidance

While cultivating confidence internally, external guidance from peers can help Anna validate and refine her approach.

Join an Executive Mastermind Group: Joining a group of like-minded executives can provide immediate, practical insights on how other companies have successfully navigated large-scale changes like this. These peers can offer guidance on training methods, supportive enforcement tactics, and political dynamics unique to sweeping technological migrations. This external perspective ensures Anna's integration strategy is based on proven, real-world experiences, not just internal theories.

3. Empower Managerial Oversight and Engagement

Mid-level managers are the most crucial layer in translating confidence into daily practice. They must be empowered to take personal ownership of the outcome.

Mandatory Collaborative Sessions: Anna should mandate that all managers dedicate a set time to do a "collaborative session" for the first two weeks post-launch. They must sit with their team members, observe them actively using the new system, and offer immediate support and feedback. This makes the adoption process their direct responsibility, replacing passive oversight with active, supportive mentorship.
Confidence and Usage Scorecards: Managers must be required to submit weekly "Usage and Confidence Scorecards" detailing adoption statistics, remaining training needs, and employee comfort levels. This ensures that slow adoption is reframed as an opportunity for targeted managerial support in the eyes of Anna and the executive team.

4. Utilize Phased Rollout and Gently Remove the Safety Net

To prevent sticking to old routines, the old systems must be deliberately and visibly transitioned out.

Phased System Sunset: Launch the system in phases, but follow each launch with a firm, irreversible system sunset. For example, launch the new system for creating new records first. Then, two weeks later, make the legacy system read-only for that function. This encourages the use of the new tool while retaining access to old data for reference, mitigating initial panic and building system trust.
Visible Demonstration of Progress: Anna should have her IT team clearly mark the old servers as retired or archive the legacy application icons on desktop screens. This symbolic act reinforces the forward momentum and the finality of the successful transition.

By executing this shift from asking for tentative participation to confidently guiding the organization toward its new, efficient process, Anna can eliminate organizational doubts and ensure an invaluable return of millions. The battle for technology adoption is won by leading with confidence and ensuring the path of least resistance is the path of compliance and success in her own system.

by Julia Gonzalez

Fri 5 September 2025

A simple staffing request can easily reveal a fundamental clash of priorities in corporate leadership. Alex, a CEO, reviews the latest hiring report, an affirmation to the company's growth trajectory. He has hired six new people for the Operations team. Their resumes are impressive, and they were brought on as a strategic investment to scale capacity. Though, their potential is only valuable when it's put to use.

Ben, the VP of Operations, is focused not on his new hires, but instead an upcoming project for his team. He’s the brain behind the company’s operational success, and has built that success on a small, trusted team. His two best team members, Jenny and Mark, are the kind of employees who can perfectly see his vision and execute flawlessly. While he knows Jenny and Mark are his best associates, they are both already handling a significant percentage of the work of the entire operations team, leaving Ben with the stress of meeting a crucial deadline without them. Ben’s stress regarding his upcoming project leaves him walking into Alex’s office with a request: a budget to hire one more person.

The request highlights a difference in priority. The CEO, seeing a surplus of talent, pushes back. In his mind, he had just hired six new people for this exact purpose. Ben the VP, however, sees it differently. He views the new hires not as an asset, but as an investment he didn't approve. Because he didn't lead the hiring process, he lacks a fundamental level of trust in their capabilities and has been slow to integrate them with meaningful responsibilities. In his world, these new hires are just liabilities that could derail the entire project. He is unwilling to risk giving them a chance since he didn't select them. This is a classic conflict of priorities: the CEO's need for strategic resource optimization versus the VP’s need for guaranteed project delivery, by a team he trusts.

A Dual-Perspective Solution

Resolving this tension requires both leaders to step back from their immediate positions and embrace a shared, strategic vision. The solution isn't about one person "winning" but about creating a framework for success that aligns both operational needs and long-term organizational health.

From the CEO perspective:

For Alex, the challenge is not just about the hiring decision. It’s about building a culture of trust and ensuring the company’s investment in talent is maximized. The CEO's role is to facilitate a solution that is satisfying for Ben while safeguarding the company's resources.

Acknowledge and Validate the VP's Position: The CEO Alex’s first action shouldn't be to reject the request outright, but to validate Ben's ownership over his team. Instead of saying, "Just give them a chance," he can say, "Ben, I understand that it's challenging to integrate new people you didn't hire directly. I hired them because I thought they were a good match for the team you’ve built, and I’d like you to allow them to prove that to you. Give them some time and if they aren’t a good fit, we can reassess." This approach works better because it reframes the conversation from a conflict to a collaborative problem-solving session. By acknowledging his concerns about a lack of familiarity, Alex can address the root cause of the issue.
Define a Shared Integration Plan: The CEO must work with the VP to create a tangible and low-risk path for the new hires. This involves setting a clear, short-term trial period with well-defined, objective metrics. For example, "Let's assign two of the new hires to a specific, manageable task within the first phase of the project. We’ll measure their output against this baseline over the next four weeks." This transforms the unknown into a measurable experiment. Providing a safety net will ease Ben’s worries about the new hires jepordizing his project and provide a timeline to exploring alternatives if they don’t preform to standard.

From the VP’s Perspective:

For Ben, the instinct to rely on his trusted team is not a sign of poor leadership but a natural response to the pressure to deliver. His challenge is to shift from a mindset of risk aversion to one of strategic team building and scalability, even with talent he didn't select.

Acknowledge and Address the Reluctance: The VP must first recognize that his reluctance is rooted in the very real anxiety of project failure and personal reputation, amplified by a lack of ownership. He needs to confront the fact that his team’s long-term success is dependent on its ability to grow. The reliance on just two people, while effective in the short term, creates a single point of failure and makes the entire operation fragile and unable to grow.
Create a Structured Integration Plan: The VP should craft a phased plan for the new hires. Instead of assigning them to the main project immediately, he can start with a smaller task that allows them to demonstrate their skills, or pair them with Jenny or Mark to work on a task in a more controlled environment. This method will provide Ben with the data and confidence he needs to see the value of the new team members.
Embrace the Role of Team Builder: The VP’s role is not simply to manage tasks; it is to cultivate talent. By successfully integrating the new hires, he not only solves the immediate project challenge but also builds a resilient and adaptable team. He must reframe the situation from a burden to an opportunity. This demonstrates a transition from being a doer to being a truly strategic leader.

The resolution to this common leadership challenge is a powerful lesson in executive collaboration. It requires a CEO to move beyond a simple mandate and provide a supportive framework, and a VP to move beyond the comfort of the familiar and embrace the uncertainty of growth. By creating a collaborative action plan, both leaders transform a moment of conflict into a catalyst for organizational health.

by Kayla Ambrose

Fri 5 September 2025

As companies begin to encourage employees to return to the office, managers are often placed in a position to implement such changes for their teams. With many direct reports working hybrid or fully remote, it can be a challenging adjustment for them to begin following return-to-office requirements. It is a manager's responsibility to support their team members while implementing the company-wide policies promoting working from the office.

Managers should strive to ensure that their return-to-office policies are both fair and equitable for their direct reports. While this may be intuitive, it can be much more challenging in practice. When making decisions for how to create a fair and equitable return-to-office policy, managers should take into consideration the following:

In-Person Needs of Individual Roles

When designing return-to-office policies, consider what work truly needs to be completed in the office. Some roles that are more autonomous in nature may not require multiple days in the office each week, such as data analysis or individual contributor roles. These individuals may find it distracting to be in the office, surrounded by others, when their tasks can be done more easily out of the office. Other roles may be heavily team-based, including project coordination or client-facing roles, thus requiring more time in the office. While making these distinctions, evaluate whether the task should be done remotely.

By determining which roles are inherently more collaborative rather than those more independently focused, managers can create role-based hybrid frameworks for their direct reports. This structure ensures that time spent in the office is specific to the actual work requirements of each role.

2. Fairness of Policies

While accommodating role-specific needs is important, managers should also factor in the fairness of the policies. Fairness entails considering the burden of the new return-to-office policies on individuals. For example, some employees may live a lot further from the office, thus incurring higher commuting costs. Furthermore, some individuals may serve as caregivers for family members, making it more difficult for them to return to the office.

Managers may adjust their return-to-office policies to allow for flexibility in which days team members should work from the office. This allows individuals to be able to choose which days are best for them to be in person, creating a better work-life balance.

3. Requirements for In-Person Team Meetings

Highly collaborative teams may largely benefit from having dedicated in-office days for in-person meetings. Teams that require regular meetings may find it easier to mandate a specific day for all individuals to be in person.

When determining which day to dedicate as an in-person collaboration day, consider the importance of the meetings being in person and the attendance of all individuals. Managers may also find it helpful to gather feedback from employees. While gathering feedback from team members may help set the date, team members may have conflicting preferences. Ultimately, prioritize which day is best for the productivity of the team and the feasibility of team members' in-person attendance.

4. Providing Supportive Resources

To promote a fair and equitable return-to-office policy, managers should share resources with their direct reports that support them through these changes. These resources may include mental health and stress management resources, or even Employee Resource Groups (ERGs).

Some companies may have various financial support resources for employees, such as commuting allowances or discounted child care services providers. Managers should remind employees of the available supporting resources and help team members access them.

To help leaders gain insight from an outside perspective as to what other leaders and executives are doing to create a fair and equitable return-to-office policy, consider enrolling those leaders in an executive mastermind group.

Avoiding Favoritism

As a manager who works closely with direct reports, it may feel justified to make special accommodations for individuals. When implementing return-to-office policies, actively avoid presenting any favoritism biases. Return-to-office policies that demonstrate favoritism and set unfair requirements for certain individuals will cause friction within the team. Furthermore, catering more favorably to specific individuals may lead other team members to discredit the return-to-office policies and refuse to follow them.

Communicating Policy Changes

Managers must not only implement the return-to-office policies, but also develop strategies to communicate the new policies. When communicating the updated policies, managers should communicate the changes verbally and provide a written record for their direct reports to reference. After communicating the changes, provide opportunities for individual conversations with employees for them to ask questions and reassure them of the support mechanisms in place to provide a seamless transition. During this time, managers should demonstrate that they are there to help their direct reports and help them navigate the new policy.

DEI Considerations

Return-to-office policies need to be equitably applied to teams; however, DEI implications should also be taken into consideration. Parents and caregivers who previously worked mostly or fully remote may struggle disproportionately to return to the office. Those with a disability may also have an increased burden when commuting to the office and may require more individual consideration.

For both instances, work closely with the individual in such circumstances to provide means to support them while also ensuring they can adjust to a more in-person work environment. Communicate with the company's human resources department about company policies and other tools that can support these individuals.

Ultimately, the most important aspect of implementing a return-to-office strategy is to have open channels of communication. Managers who create feedback mechanisms for their employees to learn about their struggles and successes with the return-to-office policy can appropriately adapt the policy to these needs. Return-to-office policies are aimed at creating more effective teams, but this can only be achieved through communicating effectively within the team.

by Ritika Vijay

Fri 5 September 2025

When Aiden, the Chief People Officer (CPO) of a rapidly scaling tech startup, first joined the leadership team, he was excited to bring structure and strategy to a company that had doubled in headcount in less than two years. But within months, he noticed a troubling pattern: teams were bypassing their functional leaders and going directly to the founder and CEO, Michael.

At first, Aiden assumed this was the natural growing pain of a founder-led organization. But as he looked closer, the issue was more complex. Michael, though visionary and deeply invested in his team’s happiness, had a tendency to be a people-pleaser. When a group of engineers disliked the CFO’s directive requiring partial in-office work for regulatory and financial reasons, they didn’t raise the concern with the CFO. Instead, they went directly to Michael. Wanting to avoid conflict and preserve goodwill, Michael agreed with them on the spot, unintentionally undermining the CFO’s authority.

This cycle repeated across departments. Leaders would establish policies aligned with the company’s strategic needs, only for those decisions to be overturned, sometimes in casual hallway conversations, because Michael wanted to reassure employees. While well-intentioned, the CEO’s overstepping left the leadership team fractured, credibility strained, and employees confused about which rules actually applied.

The Core Challenge: The People-Pleasing CEO

People-pleasing tendencies in CEOs are not uncommon, especially in founder-led organizations where loyalty and culture are prized. But without boundaries, these habits can unintentionally destabilize the very leadership structure designed to support growth.

For business leaders like Aiden, the challenge isn’t just about managing their own function—it’s about managing up. The question becomes: how do you support a CEO who oversteps in the name of employee satisfaction, while ensuring other leaders maintain credibility and the company doesn’t drift into chaos?

Because objectivity diminishes the higher anyone goes in an organizational hierarchy, Aiden wasn’t getting objectivity. Fortunately, Aiden is in an executive mastermind group and those executives encouraged him to pursue the following steps:

Strategies for Managing Up Effectively

Clarify Decision Rights Publicly

High-performing leadership teams thrive on clear ownership. One effective approach is to create a “decision rights map” that makes visible which leader is accountable for which areas. For example, workforce policies might sit under the CFO’s purview, while the CEO provides input only at set review points. Codifying authority in this way helps employees understand where to direct concerns and reduces the temptation to bypass functional leaders.

Reframe Employee Requests

When a CEO agrees too quickly to employee requests, leadership peers can step in to reframe the moment as an opportunity for alignment. A useful response is something along the lines of: “That’s an important concern—let’s make sure the relevant leader is looped in so it fits into the broader plan.” This keeps the CEO connected to employees while reinforcing the authority of the leader responsible for the decision.

Create Feedback Loops

To avoid conflicting directives, organizations can set up systems where employee concerns raised directly with the CEO are logged and routed back to the appropriate leader. This preserves the CEO’s role as approachable and empathetic, while ensuring that input is integrated into structured decision-making rather than creating confusion.

Highlight Long-Term Impact

Sometimes a CEO needs help connecting the dots between short-term reassurance and long-term leadership credibility. Leaders can surface real examples—such as policies being ignored or authority eroding—to show how quick promises can undercut strategic goals. Framing the issue as a trust and alignment challenge, rather than a personal flaw, helps CEOs recognize the importance of consistency.

The Outcome

When these practices are in place, CEOs learn to respond differently: “I hear your concern, and I want you to know we value it. Let’s make sure the right leader is brought into the conversation so we can get this right.”

The result is a healthier leadership dynamic: credibility is preserved, employees know which channels to follow, and the CEO maintains their approachable style without undermining the authority of their team. Ultimately, these guardrails allow fast-growing companies to scale without sacrificing trust or clarity.

The Takeaway for Business Leaders

Fast-growing startups depend on both visionary leadership and operational discipline. When CEOs lean too heavily into people-pleasing, they risk undercutting the very leaders who drive sustainable growth. Business leaders who find themselves in Aiden’s position should remember: managing up isn’t about controlling the CEO—it’s about protecting leadership integrity and creating structures that allow empathy and authority to coexist.

by Garrett Mintz

Fri 29 August 2025

There seems to be one constant in business: change is inevitable.

Whether we are implementing something new with AI, restructuring processes, pursuing a new direction, or any combination of things that would necessitate change - one thing is certain: no industry is safe and most organizations will need to make changes to keep up or risk being left behind.

The question I am pondering is: How can people be at the center of this change?

Peter Drucker once said “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” and I would tend to agree with him.

No matter what promises we made to our board, how rosy a picture could look if we just made this one change, or how dire our situation is, if the people being asked to implement the change are not onboard with the change, it is never going to happen.

Does this mean that we should only change if our people approve of the change? Not necessarily. But it does mean that if we are going to make a change, our people must know what is in it for them and that result must be substantially better than what they currently have.

The purpose of change is typically for one of two reasons. Either:

If we don’t make this change, something really bad will happen to everyone at the company (e.g. potential of going out of business).
If we make this change now, it has the potential of improving the business and everyone involved in the business substantially.

It is typically easier to create a compelling why to the team in the first reason: if we don’t make this change, we all could be out of a job and if we like our lifestyle and the life our jobs currently afford us, then we should all be bought in to make this change. This requires a level of vulnerability from the executive team but is typically pretty compelling. This message does lose its luster if repeated too often as our people will go to a state of emergency with us but they will not live there (e.g. the lifestyle their work affords them won’t be worth it if they are constantly feeling like if they don’t make immediate changes that the company will go under).

For the latter (making a change that has the potential of improving the business substantially), most organizations struggle to create a clear and compelling WIIFM (What’s In It For Me) for everyone. If a CEO says that making this change will increase EBITDA which will help position the company for an exit - if the employees of this company don’t have equity, they don’t care about achieving an exit because there is no upside for them.

The company must create a compelling WIIFM for everyone involved. This takes a lot of time and effort. But it needs to happen for change to occur. Otherwise, the company will have to hire a consulting company who will charge an obscene amount of money to do the exact same thing and then leave once they gave the company the blueprint of everything they need to do to right the ship.

To align purpose when implementing change, everyone must be accounted for with a WIIFM to get the buy-in necessary for the change to be successfully implemented (and the WIIFM should be catered to people on a person by person basis, not a departmental one because what motivates one person could be different from another person, even if they are in the exact same role).

One final note on purpose, especially if it is for a brighter future instead of avoiding business failure, even if an organization successfully implements a change one time, they need to be mindful of stacking changes. Every change creates a cracking of trust that needs time to repair. The more frequent changes you ask of your people, the less receptive they will be to subsequent changes.

When it comes to aligning leadership during change, it is critical that everyone is on the same page. One of the most common hurdles companies have to overcome is misalignment of organizational goals and priorities.

The goal: the CEO sets a direction and everyone follows suit.

The reality: the CEO sets a direction, 25% of the team immediately follows suit, 50% of the team follows the old direction because the new direction wasn’t effectively communicated to them, and 25% are still following the previous direction that hasn’t been the direction for years but because of poor communication and a belief that the new changes will be backtracked and an overall lack of people holding others accountable, they are still following the old and outdated direction.

To align leadership during change, there must be a mechanism for holding people accountable and helping the executive team quickly and effectively understand when there might be a misalignment of priorities.

For example, if the CEO, with the guidance of her board and executive team, decides that the company is going to change the way they operate and transition to a new system that should be more efficient, cheaper, and minimize mistakes - there must be a way for her to know that the rest of the organization is picking up the change. If her VP of Operations says that he understands and to her face shares that he is onboard, and even sets goals in alignment with the new change, but if his team is setting goals not in alignment with the VP of Operations, the team will be working really hard to make very little progress. In this scenario, the VP of Operations thought he did a good enough job communicating the need for change to his team, but obviously he didn’t do that good of a job or else their goals would be in alignment with this new direction.

The VP of Operations reports back to the CEO that he has done an *effective* job of communicating this change and she takes him for his word. The issue with this is that most people, especially middle managers in an organization, believe that their communication skills are far more effective than they actually are. She takes her VP of Operations for his word and then 6-12 months later, some major balls drop, people quit or get fired, the VP of Operations is blaming his people saying they are incompetent and that he needs his CEO’s support to increase headcount for his team and the CEO is left wondering “where did I go wrong?”

At Ambition In Motion, we created a tool called AIM Insights that evaluates the goals of cascading levels of leadership in an organization and reports throughout the layers of leadership, in a one page format, which teams’ goals are in alignment, which are high/medium/low impact, and which are accomplished, and ultimately provide guidance for what each level of leadership in the organization can do to improve the impact, alignment, and achievement of their reporting structures goals.

Whatever tool is used, it must be easy to digest, updated regularly, and those using it must be receptive to the feedback and willing to make adjustments when they discover their are opportunities for improvement.

Ultimately, profit will be achieved when the purpose of change is clear and has accounted for what is in it for me for every person in the organization and leadership has a system for understanding and better holding the team accountable for the goals/expectations being set, their prioritization of those activities, and their willingness to change their leadership style when they discover that their are opportunities for improvement.

by Kayla Ambrose

Fri 22 August 2025

John is a manager of a marketing analytics team within his firm and is highly regarded as a positive and motivating manager. Despite these praises, John has recently noticed that his team has been decreasing in productivity and not implementing changes in response to his routine feedback sessions. With the high morale and weekly one-on-one sessions with each of his team members, John wonders why his team is becoming ineffective.

John’s Diagnosis: Not Communicating Feedback Effectively

While his weekly feedback sessions are a great tool for relaying feedback, the way in which John articulates his feedback is causing his team members to not understand it. Sometimes managers think they are being direct in their feedback, but they are actually masking their feedback with assumptions and indirect hints. Managers may spend entire feedback sessions sharing their insights, but still have their direct reports take nothing away from the meeting due to the communication barriers.

What are examples of communication barriers that cause managers, like John, to give ineffective feedback?

Lack of Clarity & Context

Providing ambiguous messages to direct reports can pose a communication barrier. When managers have unclear expectations or provide incomplete guidance, it may be difficult for team members to understand feedback. Without specific changes or advice, direct reports may be left confused, trying to guess what their managers expect from them

Overloading Information

Actively communicating through multiple messages, emails, or meetings can give managers the sense that they are communicating effectively with their team. Despite these active efforts to provide feedback, the usage of various channels and tons of messages can overwhelm employees. Flooding employees with feedback in addition to their other daily tasks reduces their attention to their feedback.

Emotional Barriers

Stress, defensiveness, and fear can muddle how feedback is delivered as well as how it is received. It is a manager's responsibility to reflect on these personal emotions to ensure their mindset isn’t causing misinterpretation. Additionally, managers should work to ensure the psychological safety of their employees to further reduce these emotional barriers.

Cultural & Language Differences

Teams comprised of individuals from various backgrounds present many strengths due to the diversity of thought. However, when communicating feedback, it is important to be conscious of this diversity. Direct reports from different backgrounds may perceive communication styles differently, causing feedback to land ineffectively.

John’s Remedy: Clearly Communicate Feedback

As John realizes that his methods for communicating feedback are ineffective, he works to implement changes to improve his communication style. Rather than having overly relaxed weekly one-on-one sessions with his direct reports, John implements the following 6 strategies to ensure clearly communicated feedback.

Be Direct

Rather than hinting at what changes direct reports should make, specifically address what actions should be taken and any applicable steps required. Along with communicating direct feedback, acknowledge that the feedback might have been confusing and open the conversation for dialogue.

2. Provide Context

Instead of simply diving into the specific changes that need to be made, create a shared understanding through contextualizing the situation. Leaving direct reports to guess what the feedback applies to can cause them to apply the feedback to incorrect tasks. Specifically address what the feedback applies to and any observations associated with it.

3. Identify Areas of Miscommunication

Reflecting on areas of potential miscommunication is a powerful strategy to prevent miscommunication early on. If there is something that a direct report says that is confusing, or vice versa, have them provide an example to ensure there is a mutual understanding. Strategizing to ensure clarification is provided during the feedback sessions will actively develop stronger communication.

4. Listen Attentively

Throughout the feedback session, make sure to listen attentively to what others share. Allowing silence for the direct report to clarify or expand on their thoughts will create a space for them to feel heard and recognized. Additionally, responding by paraphrasing what they said can help ensure their thoughts are understood.

5. Acknowledge and Clarify

When receiving feedback from direct reports, always recognize their feedback, even if there is disagreement. Further clarifying through follow-up questions and prompting them to ask follow-up questions as well will prevent misinterpretation.

6. Utilize Performance Management Tools

In order to ensure progress towards more effective feedback communication, implement tools or metrics to measure responsiveness to feedback. Utilizing performance management tools, such as AIM Insights, can help managers track their progress to support these communication changes.

John’s Update: An Effectively Functioning Team

After implementing these 6 strategies to improve his feedback sessions, John has noticed a drastic improvement within his team. Direct reports are quickly responding and adjusting their efforts to align with John’s feedback, and John is also able to receive feedback from his team. As he manages his team, John will continue to adapt and strengthen his feedback communication skills in order to best suit the needs of his team.

by Ritika Vijay

Fri 22 August 2025

When Maya Patel took on her new role as team manager at a fast-growing tech firm, everything seemed picture-perfect. The office radiated positivity with green plants adorned every corner, meetings ran smoothly, and her team of high-performing professionals appeared engaged and cheerful. Yet Maya couldn’t shake the feeling that something was missing.

Over time, she began noticing whispers in the hallways and closed-door conversations in small groups. Employees praised the company’s culture in public but privately expressed frustrations about inefficiencies, communication breakdowns, and missed opportunities. The concerns never reached team-wide discussions; instead, they simmered quietly.

Maya’s situation is not unusual. Many business leaders find themselves in organizations where everything looks flawless on the surface, yet undercurrents of dissatisfaction flow beneath. The challenge lies in addressing those undercurrents before they grow into cultural cracks.

The “Two Dogs and a Fence” Problem

Maya described her challenge as “two dogs barking through a fence.” On either side, energy and passion were evident, but the fence prevented resolution. Her team members weren’t voicing issues openly, so frustrations stayed contained within cliques. When she tried to intervene, the discussions quickly escalated into defensiveness rather than collaboration.

This metaphor captures a common leadership dilemma: when teams hesitate to bring up problems directly, managers often step into the role of mediator, sometimes with little success. Without a clear path for open dialogue, teams can appear harmonious while failing to address what truly holds them back.

Lessons for Business Leaders

Maya’s experience highlights strategies any business leader can adopt when facing a seemingly “too perfect” team culture that hides unspoken tensions.

Normalize Transparency

Leaders must create psychological safety where team members can voice concerns without fear of judgment. Regularly reinforcing that constructive criticism is valued, not penalized, opens the gate for dialogue.

Introduce Structured Feedback Loops

Maya implemented monthly “pulse check” sessions where every team member was invited to share one challenge and one improvement idea. Framing this as part of continuous improvement made it clear that speaking up was not only acceptable but expected.

Redirect Energy from Complaining to Problem-Solving

Private grumbling was redirected into collective brainstorming. Maya encouraged employees to bring concerns with at least one suggested solution. This shifted conversations from venting to action-oriented dialogue.

Act on Feedback Publicly

To reinforce trust, Maya prioritized acting on small but meaningful suggestions quickly, whether it was streamlining a reporting process or clarifying project ownership. Demonstrating responsiveness signaled that voicing issues led to results.

Break Down the “Fence”

By facilitating cross-group discussions, Maya ensured concerns were addressed directly rather than passed around in silos. She often played the role of translator, reframing complaints into neutral, solution-focused language that allowed both sides to listen productively.

The Outcome

Within a few months, Maya’s team began shifting from guarded perfection to authentic collaboration. Employees no longer felt the need to whisper frustrations in hallways. Instead, they trusted that their voices would be heard and that their input could shape team practices. The metaphorical fence came down, not by silencing the barking, but by giving both “dogs” a safe yard to meet face-to-face.

The Takeaway for Leaders

For business leaders, the lesson is clear: a team that looks perfect on the outside may be struggling with unspoken tensions underneath. By creating structures for honest feedback, modeling openness, and acting decisively on what is shared, leaders can transform hidden dissatisfaction into shared growth.

Maya’s journey demonstrates that handling complaints isn’t about preventing barking—it’s about opening the gate. When leaders replace silence with structured dialogue, they build teams that are not only high-performing but also resilient, authentic, and ready to innovate together.

by Kayla Ambrose

Fri 25 July 2025

When considering the appropriate number of direct reports to manage within a team, the easier answer would be to follow the rule of seven. While this rule encouraging managers to not exceed 7 direct reports appears to be a simple solution, it isn’t always the right answer. Depending on various factors, such as the complexity of work, experience of team members, and supporting systems in place, managers may be equipped to manage more or fewer numbers of direct reports.

Why does having too many direct reports matter?

When teams are comprised of too many direct reports, both engagement and performance may suffer. Overly large teams may struggle to have enough tasks that allow team members to contribute in a meaningful way. Without stimulating tasks that encourage direct reports to take ownership of their work and observe their own impact, they may feel their work isn’t important and lack motivation.

Other consequences of too many direct reports that a team may encounter include communication complications and missed development opportunities. With a large quantity of direct reports, maintaining clear and effective communication may pose a challenge. The more people there are, the more people that need to be kept in the loop for the team to function properly. Furthermore, more direct reports leads to less opportunities for them to experience direct mentoring and coaching by their manager, thus causing their development to suffer.

Not only does a large number of direct reports negatively impact the team, but it has direct implications for the manager as well. More reports require more time dedicated to oversight and mentoring. Managers with too many direct reports to oversee may experience higher stress levels, ultimately leading to burnout and decreased productivity.

Why does having too few direct reports matter?

Managers with too few direct reports are more susceptible to micromanaging their reports. With fewer people to focus on, these managers may become more compelled to hold unnecessary check-ins and become overly involved in the work of their direct reports. Micromanaging employees will only slow down productivity and create a more stressful work environment.

Another complication for managing too few direct reports is the potential for consolidation. Upper management may perceive managers with few direct reports as nonessential because it creates too many redundancies in the management hierarchy. Organizations looking to make a flatter structure will more likely remove these management positions with few direct reports.

What factors should be considered when evaluating the ideal number of reports?

Complexity of Work: Teams with more complex and varied work will need more guidance from their manager. Given the more involved nature of complex work, managers should have smaller teams to allow for ample time spent on guiding their direct reports.
Employee Experience: Experienced employees with higher skillsets require direct oversight, allowing for more direct reports. Conversely, less experienced employees will require more hands-on management, preventing managers from taking on more direct reports.
Manager Experience: Managers with experience that allows them to effectively manage, lead, and communicate with their teams give them the ability to take on more direct reports.
Support Tools: Managers with access to strong performance management tools and efficient communication software have more streamlined information sharing, allowing them to manage more direct reports.
Type of Work: Highly collaborative teams often benefit from fewer direct reports, since there is more communication within the team and coordination required. Whereas direct reports that work more autonomously may thrive with more direct reports to help divide the work.
Time Constraints: More direct reports equate to more one-on-ones per week. Holding more individual meetings along with team meetings, managers' work, mentoring/ coaching, and other unexpected issues that arise can really limit a manager's time. Consider if the additional time for one-on-ones makes sense in addition to all other time requirements in a given week.
Industry Specific Considerations: Industries that are more labor-heavy may require less oversight when compared to industries requiring more knowledge and expertise. The latter may require managers to be more involved, thus limiting the number of direct reports able to be managed effectively.

What is the best method to apply these considerations?

McKinsey devised a method to determine an ideal range of direct reports depending on 5 categories of manager archetypes: player/coach, coach, supervisor, facilitator, and coordinator.

Here is a short synopsis of the 5 archetypes:

Player/Coach

This managerial archetype requires a considerable amount of individual responsibility as well as extensive expertise.

Recommended amount of direct reports: 3-5 direct reports

2. Coach

A coach archetype requires individual responsibility and leads to self-sufficiency through structured apprenticeship.

Recommended amount of direct reports: 6-7 direct reports

3. Supervisor

A moderate level of individual responsibility while incorporating a standard work process.

Recommended amount of direct reports: 8-10 direct reports

4. Facilitator

A facilitator's main responsibility is managing the day-to-day work of their direct reports, as work is mostly standardized.

Recommended amount of direct reports: 11-15 direct reports

5. Coordinator

The work overseen by coordinators is highly standardized, and direct reports perform similar work.

Recommended amount of direct reports: 15+ direct reports

As the team evolves and new tools are introduced, don’t be afraid to adjust the number of direct reports. Just because a certain number of direct reports is more standard for a specific work style, doesn’t mean managers should be constrained by these recommendations. Continue to evaluate the optimal balance of direct reports that is most appropriate for work responsibilities.

by Ritika Vijay

Fri 25 July 2025

In early March, weeks after a difficult round of layoffs at Finverity, a mid-sized fintech firm based in Austin, Chief Operating Officer Daniel Kim sat quietly in his office, reviewing an email draft for the third time. The company had just let go of 40 employees, nearly 20% of its workforce, as part of a necessary restructuring. On paper, the move secured another 18 months of runway and realigned Finverity toward its most profitable tools. But the human cost was palpable.

The halls were quieter. Slack messages had taken on a colder tone. Managers reported a sharp decline in employee engagement, and HR flagged an uptick in anonymous feedback about "leadership silence" and burnout. For the employees who remained, trust had cracked. Daniel knew the numbers looked better, but culture, morale, and credibility had taken a hit.

This was the moment Daniel decided to stop focusing solely on operational recovery and start leading the emotional one.

Beyond the Layoff:

When layoffs occur, many leaders default to generic statements: “We’re realigning resources,” or “This wasn’t an easy decision.” A short internal memo is sent out, a brief all-hands is held, and then leadership often attempts to return to business as usual.

But “business as usual” rarely exists after a layoff.

The absence left behind isn’t just about empty desks or missing team members, it's about the emotional and psychological aftermath. Employees are left with unanswered questions: Am I safe? Why were certain people let go? Could this happen again? What does this say about our future?

Layoffs fundamentally alter workplace dynamics. They often introduce:

Survivor’s guilt among remaining employees
Distrust in leadership due to limited transparency
Overwork as roles are consolidated without clear communication
Silence and disengagement as fear replaces collaboration

Without open, ongoing communication from leadership, that silence gets filled by speculation, anxiety, and worst-case assumptions. What could have been a moment of unity becomes one of fragmentation.

Step-by-Step: Rebuilding Morale and Regaining Confidence After Layoffs

Don’t rush into “getting back to normal.” After a layoff, what was “normal” no longer exists. The emotional toll is real grief, guilt, anxiety, and distrust often simmer beneath the surface. The worst thing a leader can do is ignore it.

Instead, create intentional space for open dialogue. Host team check-ins where employees are encouraged to share how they're really feeling, and not performatively, but authentically. Acknowledge the loss, validate the discomfort, and resist the urge to pivot too quickly into productivity talk.

Step 1: Acknowledge the Emotional Fallout

Layoffs are not just operational events—they are emotional ones. Leaders must create space to process burnout, fear, and grief. Hold honest conversations, not to fix things immediately, but to listen. This can happen through small-group meetings, anonymous feedback tools, or one-on-one check-ins. Most importantly, leaders should reaffirm their commitment to the remaining team through visible, ongoing action—not just reassuring words.

Step 2: Shift the Narrative to What’s Next

After giving space to reflect, teams need a new direction. Avoid forced optimism and instead focus on building a future grounded in clarity. Reframe the internal message from what was lost to what is now possible. Use forward-looking language like “Here’s where we’re headed,” or “This is how we’ll rebuild together.” A vision workshop or all-hands Q&A can reinforce alignment and give employees a sense of purpose in the new chapter.

Step 3: Empower Teams with Shared Purpose

Buy-in grows when people feel ownership. Invite departments to co-create goals, and connect their work back to the company’s mission. When people can see how their role fits into the bigger picture, engagement follows. Empower team leads to facilitate planning sessions that allow input from all voices—not just top-down directives.

Step 4: Replace Perks with Meaningful Connection

Morale isn’t rebuilt through pizza or ping pong—it’s rebuilt through trust and real conversation. Host “Reconnection Days” or off-site sessions that focus on culture, values, and vision. Drop the presentations. Instead, prompt teams to reflect on what they want their culture to feel like moving forward. These gatherings should prioritize honesty and shared understanding—not performance metrics.

Step 5: Track and Reinforce Progress

Rebuilding trust is a process, not a moment. Leaders must regularly check the pulse of their teams through surveys, anonymous feedback, or town halls. Share progress transparently—what’s improving, what still needs work, and what’s being done about it. Celebrate small wins, especially moments of collaboration or resilience. Progress may be slow, but consistency builds momentum—and that momentum restores belief. Using tools such as AIM Insights can help with tracking and reinforcing progress.

Leading What Comes Next

In the months that followed, Daniel Kim didn’t just regain the confidence of his team, he helped redefine what leadership looked like in a post-layoff workplace. By choosing transparency over distance, dialogue over damage control, and shared purpose over performative perks, he reminded his company that trust isn’t rebuilt through strategy decks, it’s earned through presence, honesty, and follow-through.

For leaders navigating the difficult terrain after a restructuring, the lesson is clear: the business may survive the layoff, but the culture only survives if you lead what comes next with heart.

by Julia Gonzalez

Fri 25 July 2025

Nick was the kind of employee every company dreamed of. Diligent, resourceful, and could anticipate problems before they arose, he was a core member of his department. For years, he’d poured his energy into his role, consistently exceeding expectations and becoming the go-to person for many issues. Consequently, when a senior executive position opened up at his firm, Nick–along with many of his coworkers, believed he was naturally next in line for the position.

After the first month went by, Nick’s COO and boss, Sarah increasingly delegated high-level responsibilities to him. He was doing the work, attending the meetings, and even mentoring staff on tasks that technically fell under the senior executive’s delegation.

The problem, however, was Sarah. She recognized Nick’s unparalleled value. He was her best direct report, the one who ensured everything ran smoothly. The thought of losing him and having to train someone new to fill his shoes was a burden she wanted to put off for as long as she could. Despite Nick clearly operating at a higher level, and the understanding that he was next in line for the promotion, Sarah blocked his advancement. She’d praise his indispensability, reiterate how crucial he was in his current role, and subtly undermine any attempts he made to formally transition into the senior executive position. It was a strange dynamic, akin to a professional Munchausen by proxy, where Sarah was keeping Nick “sick” in his current role to maintain her own comfort and control, denying him the very growth he deserved. Nick was trapped by the idea of being indispensable.

Navigating the Trap of Indispensability

Nick’s situation, while frustrating, is far from uncommon. Many high-performing employees find themselves in a similar bind: so valuable in their current role that their superiors resist promoting them, fearing the void they would leave. This isn't always malicious; sometimes, it's a genuine fear of disruption or a lack of foresight regarding who would fill this position next. Regardless of the intent, the outcome is the same: career stagnation for the high-performing employee. If you find yourself in Nick’s shoes, it’s time to take proactive steps to reclaim your career trajectory.

1. Acknowledge and Assess the Situation

The first step is to honestly assess whether you are indeed in this situation. Are you consistently taking on responsibilities above your pay grade? Have you expressed interest in advancement only to be met with vague responses or praise for your current performance? Is your boss seemingly more focused on your present contributions than your future potential? Once you recognize the pattern, it's easier to strategize. It's crucial to understand that your value is not the problem; the way it's being leveraged (or exploited) is.

2. Document Your Contributions and Growth

Start keeping a record of your accomplishments, especially those that align with the responsibilities of the role you aspire to. This isn't just about your current job description; it's about the additional duties you’ve taken on, the problems you’ve solved, and the initiatives you’ve led that demonstrate your readiness for a higher-level position. Quantify your achievements whenever possible.Using tools such as AIM insights, you can get data regarding your growth for the past months or even years. If you create a sort-of resume, outlining all the qualifications for your promotion, it provides tangible documentation of why you should receive it. This documentation will make your case for promotion much stronger and harder to dismiss.

3. Initiate a Direct Conversation

Once you have your qualifications in writing, It’s time to have an open discussion with your supervisor. This conversation shouldn’t be accusatory, but rather focused on your career development. Schedule a dedicated meeting, not a quick chat in the hallway. Start by expressing your commitment to the company and your desire for growth. Then, present your documented achievements, clearly outlining how you're already performing at the next level.

Frame the conversation around the benefit to the company: "I believe I'm ready to take on the senior executive role, which would allow me to contribute even more strategically to the team's success by doing X, Y, and Z. I've already been handling A, B, and C responsibilities." Be prepared for potential pushback, such as concerns about who would fill your current role. This is where you can proactively offer solutions or highlight the benefits of your advancement.

4. Propose a Transition Plan

Your boss’s hesitation often stems from the fear of losing a high-performing employee without an adequate replacement. Anticipate this and come prepared with a proposed transition plan. This could involve:

Training a successor: Offer to train a junior colleague to take over your current responsibilities. This demonstrates your commitment to the team's continuity and alleviates your boss’s burden.
Phased handover: Suggest a gradual transition of your duties, allowing for a smooth handover over several weeks or months.
Cross-training: If applicable, propose cross-training other team members so that multiple individuals can handle aspects of your current role, reducing single points of failure.

5. Seek Mentorship and Sponsorship

Look for mentors or sponsors within the company, ideally in different departments or at a higher level than your current boss. These individuals can offer advice, advocate for you, and potentially open doors to new opportunities. A sponsor can champion your promotion directly with senior leadership, especially if your direct boss remains resistant. Their perspective might carry more weight and help overcome internal roadblocks.

Additionally, look for peers and mentors outside of your organization who may have experienced similar pushback for a promotion by joining an Executive Mastermind Group. Getting perspectives from peer executives outside of the company can be critical to garnering objectivity and a clearer perspective on the situation.

6. Look Externally if Necessary

If, despite your best efforts, your current employer continues to hold you back, it might be time to consider external opportunities. While it’s frustrating to leave a place where you’ve invested so much, your career growth should be a priority. The experience and skills you’ve gained, even if unacknowledged internally, are highly valuable in the broader job market. Don't let the fear of change prevent you from reaching your full potential. Updating your resume and exploring options can provide a valuable reality check and often reveal that your skills are in high demand elsewhere.

Being indispensable can be a double-edged sword. While it’s a testament to your abilities, it can also become a barrier to advancement. By taking a strategic and proactive approach, documenting your value, communicating effectively, and being prepared to look beyond your current situation, you can break free from the handcuffs and propel your career forward. Your talent deserves to be recognized and rewarded with growth, not stagnation.

BLOG

Four Steps to Navigating the Human Element of Digital Transformation

Just having a business case doesn't mean everyone will be into business transformation

The Trust Crisis: When VPs Reject Talent They Didn't Hire

How to embrace legacy team members as a new leader

4 Strategies to Effectively Implement Return to Office

Implementing fair return to office policies can be hard

How to Manage Up to a CEO Who Oversteps

A people-pleasing CEO can be hard to navigate

People-Centric Growth: Aligning Purpose, Leadership, and Profit

Culture eats strategy for breakfast

6 Strategies to Drive Change Through Feedback

How to ensure feedback is a gift

Breaking the Whisper Network: Building Trust and Transparency in High-Performing Teams

Why we need to communicate clearly when trying to build trust

Adapting Your Number of Direct Reports for Role and Work Type

Here are some tips on how to determine how many direct reports you should have

Leading After the Layoff: How to Rebuild Culture and Trust

Overcoming survivor's guilt and charting a path for the future is critical to getting through a layoff

Six Steps to Escape the Indispensable Employee Trap

How to overcome a boss's overreliance on you is critical to achieving the professional growth you desire

Recent Keywords

Recent Contributors