When we raise a hand and take the lead, all of our “stuff” comes along with us.  And none of us is perfect.

In a recent article in Harvard Business Review, researchers suggest that human beings aren’t naturally equipped to navigate the friction that comes with leadership.  They warn that well-intentioned leaders often step on behavioral “landmines” that quietly erode trust and stifle performance.

To unlock your full potential, watch out for these four predictable behavioral traps:

• Certainty: Convincing yourself that your interpretation of a situation is the only correct one. When conviction replaces curiosity, debate becomes a contest over who is right rather than an exploration of viable solutions.
• Inconsistency: The subtle disconnect between stated values and actual behaviors under pressure. Whether it is preaching work-life balance while emailing at midnight or advocating inclusion while interrupting in meetings, employees notice actions far more than words.
• Emotional Reactivity: Dismissing or misreading the intense, varied emotional responses team members have to the same event. Reacting with judgment rather than curiosity creates defensiveness and stops people from sharing honest input.
• Justification: Defending, rationalizing, or explaining away your own behavior—or justifying inaction on tough issues—rather than examining your missteps. Justification locks leaders into defensiveness and prevents genuine growth.

Here is how you can defuse these traps.  Turning workplace friction into value requires replacing knee-jerk defensiveness with six deliberate habits:

• Build Self-Awareness: Identify your personal triggers and ask yourself after tough interactions, “What assumptions did I make?”
• Return to Respect: When tension escalates, slow down. Treating another viewpoint as worthy of consideration doesn’t mean you must agree with it.
• Activate Honesty: Name unspoken tensions and candidly admit when you don’t have all the answers.
• See the Full Story: Before jumping to conclusions, pause and ask, “What else could be true?”
• Ignite Togetherness: Shift from “my solution” to “our solution“ by asking, “Whose perspective haven’t we heard yet?”
• Commit to Action: Address issues head-on, reinforce expectations, and hold yourself accountable when missteps happen.

Leadership is not about eliminating tension or enforcing artificial harmony. When you recognize these leadership traps and replace defensiveness with active curiosity, potential traps can stop being a source of dysfunction and become your greatest competitive advantage.

*Ideas for this blog taken from: Brady, S. M., Kliman, S., & Smith, L.  “4 Hidden Traps of Team Dynamics,” Harvard Business Review online, July 15, 2026.

“Let’s see if we can come to consensus.”

Ahhh!  Those can be scary words!

While well intended as a nice way to include everyone, consensus sometimes signals the beginning of a long, laborious – even nitpicking – process of group decision making.

It sometimes gives license to one member of the group to hold everyone hostage.  And it can result in the watering down of a bold, new path forward into the lowest common denominator.  Not inspiring.

A different process that has many of the same advantages, but fewer drawbacks, is called Five Finger Consensus.

While it is unknown who exactly invented this process, I learned it through the great people at Leadership Strategies.

Here is how it works:

*Someone proposes an idea for the group’s consideration.  After some discussion, a facilitator asks everyone at the count of three to hold up one – five fingers.  The meaning of each finger:

• Five: Strongly Agree
• Four: Agree
• Three: I see pluses and minuses, but am willing to go along with the group
• Two: Disagree
• One: Strongly Disagree and can’t support

*If everyone votes 5, 4, or three – you are done and move on.

*If people have voted 2 or 1, they have an opportunity to share their concerns and suggest changes to the proposal.  After they have shared, then the person who made the proposal is given the opportunity to make changes.  If they make changes, then the voting starts all over at the beginning.  If the originator of the proposal does not make a change, then a second vote is taken: same rules as before.

*If everyone votes 5, 4, 3, or 2 the second time – then the proposal is approved.  The people voting “2” have signaled that they are not going to block this.  If someone votes “1,” then they – once again have an opportunity to share why and make recommendations for improvement.  After they have shared, then the person who made the proposal is given the opportunity to make changes.  If they make changes, then the voting starts all over at the beginning.  If the originator of the proposal does not make a change, then you take a simple vote with hands raised, for and against – majority rules.

Five Finger Consensus may not be needed for every group decision, and it will not work for every organization culture, but it is a good option to consider.  It ensures that everyone is heard and that no small group can derail the effort.

Pessimism can be like a death spiral and leaders often have difficulty pulling out of it.

Even after the worst of a corporate restructuring, market downturn, or project crisis has passed, teams often remain stuck in a rut—flat in meetings, silent with new ideas, and constantly “bracing for impact.“ This lingering pessimism isn’t an operational issue; it is a psychological one.

In a new article in Harvard Business Review, positive psychology researcher Michelle Gielan explains that human brains are naturally wired with a negativity bias. In fact, a study Gielan conducted showed that just three minutes of negative news in the morning makes people 27% more likely to describe their entire workday as a bad one.

When negativity hardens, employees enter what psychologists call “learned helplessness”—the toxic belief that their individual actions no longer affect outcomes. But trying to fix pessimism with forced cheerfulness or “good-vibes-only” speeches backfires, leading to even higher burnout.

Instead, leaders and professionals must cultivate resilient optimism: the ability to see challenges clearly while maintaining a firm belief that action still matters. Gielan’s research across 25,000 professionals found that optimistic employees are 31% more productive, 40% more likely to be promoted, and five times less likely to burn out.

To build resilient optimism on your team, Gielan recommends three core strategies:

• Model Constructive Behavior: Attitudes are contagious through our brain’s mirror systems. Offer genuine, specific appreciation—studies show a simple “thank you” can boost output by 50%. Additionally, model healthy boundaries by stepping out of low-impact commitments and genuinely disconnecting during time off.
• Reframe Workplace Stress: Shift from viewing stress as a threat to seeing it as a signal that sharpens focus. Practice “Yes, and…” communication: acknowledge difficult realities (“Yes, we lost a key client…”), but immediately pivot to constructive action (“…and here is how we will adapt our strategy”).
• Highlight “Positive Dots”: In noisy environments, our minds string negative events into a discouraging narrative. Counteract this by intentionally supplying positive dots: send direct praise for quiet wins, remove small operational friction points for a colleague, and solicit good news during hallway catch-ups.

Countering workplace pessimism isn’t about ignoring hard facts or papering over real difficulties. It is about restoring agency. By modeling constructive habits, reframing daily pressure, and consistently highlighting progress, you can replace learned helplessness with an empowered, problem-solving mindset across your entire team.

*Ideas for this blog taken from: Gielan, M.  “How Leaders Counter Pessimism in Trying Times,” Harvard Business Review, November-December, 2026.

We have all dealt with that coworker who constantly weighs in on projects outside their scope or offers unsolicited opinions on how you should run your department.  According to a recent article in Harvard Business Review, this behavior triggers a visceral reaction because it threatens our fundamental psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and professional respect.

However, the article also points out that meddling is rarely malicious. It usually stems from insecurity, unmanaged enthusiasm, or unclear role boundaries across the organization.  Some people just don’t know any better.

To manage overstepping colleagues effectively without damaging working relationships, consider these expert-backed tactics:

• Find the 10% Agreement: If you avoid stonewalling meddlers, it often causes them to double down. Instead, hear them out privately and acknowledge the 10% of their feedback you genuinely agree with to disarm the tension.
• Adapt to Power Dynamics:
  • For Bosses: Move public micromanagement into private one-on-one check-ins.
  • For Peers: Require them to submit feedback in writing before meetings or ask probing questions that force them to justify their logic.
  • For Junior Staff: Redirect over-eager critique into a formal research assignment so they can explore the complexity of the issue firsthand.
• Shrink the Room: Oversized committee meetings encourage people to offer opinions just to show clout. Keep key decision-making teams small—ideally two to four people—and use tools like a RACI matrix to make decision rights explicit.
• Defuse Meeting Hijacks: Have go-to phrases ready for real-time interference, such as: “You clearly have strong thoughts on this, but let’s pin it for now to stay on schedule.”

You need to protect your team and boundaries.  When a colleague bypasses you to message your team directly, step in as a buffer. Instruct your peer to route all feedback directly through you, preserving your team’s focus and confidence.

Managing an interloper is not about shutting down collaboration—it is about restoring operational clarity. By setting explicit decision rights and redirecting unsolicited feedback into structured channels, you protect your autonomy and keep your team focused on what truly matters.

*Ideas for this blog taken from: Knight, R.  “When Your Colleague Keeps Meddling in Your Work,” Harvard Business Review online, June 17, 2026.

Maybe you need to say “no” more often.  I learned this the hard way when I had so much stress that I believe it contributed to a cancer diagnosis.  That was 43 years ago – I am happy to be alive and that I learned to start saying “no” more often.

Here is an interesting list from Matt Rutherford on ten ways to politely say “no.”

1. “Thank you for thinking of me, but I’m unable to take this on right now.”
   This response is polite and acknowledges the request while firmly stating your availability.
2. “I appreciate the offer, but I’m focusing on other priorities at the moment.”
   Here, you’re letting the other person know that you have other commitments that take precedence.
3. “I’d love to help, but my schedule is already full.”
   This acknowledges the request while making it clear that your plate is full.
4. “Unfortunately, I have to decline, but I hope it goes well.”
   This response is direct, but offers a positive sentiment, showing that you wish them success.
5. “I’m afraid I can’t commit to this at the moment.”
   A straightforward yet polite way to decline without needing to go into too much detail.
6. “This isn’t something I can take on right now, but thank you for thinking of me.”
   A gentle way of turning down the request while expressing gratitude for being considered.
7. “I’m honored you asked, but I need to pass this time.”
   This response shows that you value the offer but still places your boundary clearly.
8. “I’d rather not, but thank you for asking!”
   Sometimes a brief, honest response is the best way to say no, without over-explaining.
9. “I’m flattered by the offer, but I don’t have the capacity to help at this time.”
   You show appreciation for being considered, but also make it clear you can’t take on any more.
10. “I have to decline, but please let me know if there’s another way I can support you.”
    This is a great way to maintain the relationship by offering help in a different capacity, while still setting your limits.

Saying “no” is good role modeling for others.  So many people do not realize that “no” is actually an option.  Share this with your team and friends.  Say “no” and excel at the things you say “yes” to!

*Ideas for this blog taken with permission from Matt Rutherford’s post: “The Art of Setting Boundaries: Why Saying ‘No” is Key to Your Success,” October 13, 2024.

But sheer speed does not equal true productivity if the output lacks strategic nuance, audience awareness, or sound professional judgment.

In their Harvard Business Review article, “Help Employees Get Better-Not Just Faster-with AI,” strategy consultants David S. Duncan and Tyler Anderson explain that while AI possesses vast global knowledge, it has zero context regarding your organization’s internal politics, specific client histories, or non-public market realities.

True productivity in the AI era comes from mastering a new hybrid skill: making your tacit human judgment explicit enough to evaluate, guide, and refine artificial intelligence.

To ensure AI enhances the quality and accuracy of your work rather than merely accelerating generic first drafts, Duncan and Anderson recommend a systematic four-step workflow:

• Establish an Initial Point of View: Before opening any AI tool, scope your task and form a preliminary hypothesis. Define what specific question you are answering, who the audience is, and what a strong output looks like. Having an initial baseline gives you an objective foundation to evaluate AI outputs. Without your own baseline, you have no basis for critiquing the machine’s work.
• Collaborate Across Multiple Modes: Most professionals only interact with AI in a single mode: generation. To unlock higher quality, push the tool across four additional modes: ask it to critique its own weak assumptions, compare trade-offs between different options, simulate how key stakeholders might react, and challenge the reliability of its data sources.
• Analyze the Differences: Compare your initial baseline hypothesis against the AI’s output. Carefully categorize the differences into what AI added that you missed, what it got blatantly wrong, and most importantly, what looks right but isn’t. Plausible-sounding errors grounded in generic industry assumptions represent the costliest AI traps, and catching them requires genuine domain expertise.
• Deliver the Output with a “Reasoning Trail”: When submitting deliverables to team leads or clients, include a brief explanation detailing what AI initially generated, what you changed, and why. Documenting where AI succeeded and where it struggled makes your judgment visible, making your reasoning coachable and sharpening your expertise over time.

In knowledge work, AI models can easily generate 90% of a draft, but the entire value of the final product lives in the remaining 10%—the human editing, contextual correction, and strategic alignment applied on top. By transforming from a passive AI user into an active editor and calibrator, you ensure that technology makes you genuinely better at your craft, rather than just faster.

*Ideas for this blog taken from: Duncan, D. and Anderson, T.  “Help Employees Get Better-Not Just Faster-with AI,” Harvard Business Review online, June 15, 2026.

You see two games: chess or checkers.  So, you ask, “Which one?”

Today’s organizations – for profit, NGO, and government – confront challenges that, like the board, invite two different games: traditional management and adaptive practice.

To know which, you must ask: Is this a “we know how to do this” challenge? Or, a “we don’t know how to do this” one?

Say, you work at a commercial real estate firm.  The city wants to develop a vacant lot.  You got this.  It’s a “we know how” challenge.

Except, what if it’s a coastal city battered by hurricanes and flooding; and, seeks proposals for climate-resilient development?  If you’re honest, you don’t know how to do that.

Or, you’re a manufacturer needing a new piece of equipment.  Sounds like a “we know how” challenge.  Maybe.  But what if the machine requires operators to use (and trust!) AI-generated data instead of feel (“it’s running hot”)? Truth is, no one – not the CEO, not the head of manufacturing, not the operators, not their supervisors – know how to do that.

The Fundamentals of Adaptive Practice draw on the authors’ decades of experience across more than 70 industries and fields to describe how to address “we don’t know how” challenges.

In particular, the book lays out how to:

Use questions instead of assertions (“We just need to work harder!”) to know when traditional management will work versus when to switch to adaptive practice.

Switch to the team discipline (instead of boss as decider); embrace appreciative collaboration (tapping into everyone’s strengths and experiences); and, focus on performance results instead of change to learn what works, what doesn’t and why.

Navigate readiness, reluctance and resistance – what the authors call the constructive politics of change —to grow the “we” using design/do experimentation instead of decide-and-delegate to figure out the how

Convert assumptions (this might work, but we’re not sure) into knowledge (this does work) until success and new capabilities have emerged – at which point, making the switch back to traditional management.

Both/and.  Not either/or.  Without traditional management, the world would literally fall apart.  And.

And, our world is chaotic and filled with an ever-increasing number of “we don’t know how to do this” challenges ranging across AI, climate, supply chain fragility, health care, education, the consequences of forever wars, wealth and income inequality, mass migrations and more.

You cannot manage “we don’t’ know how” challenges. But you can adapt.

It’s your choice.  What’s your challenge?  Which game must you play?

But according to recent research featured in Harvard Business Review, traditional metrics miss nearly half the equation.  Findings reveal a powerful hidden dynamic: training frontline staff doesn’t just elevate their own output—it dramatically boosts the productivity of their managers.

The research study revealed a very impactful “upward ripple effect.”  It tracked frontline employees who completed a variety of different training programs and the results were striking:

• Frontline Growth & Retention: Trainees increased their goal achievement by 10%. They were also more likely to stay with the organization over three years and twice as likely to earn promotions.
• Managerial Time Unlocked: Supervisors working closely with trained employees saw an 8% boost in their own productivity, completing more strategic goals.
• Fewer Constant Escalations: Analysis of email data revealed that frontline workers sent fewer help-seeking messages to supervisors. Employees gained the knowledge and confidence to handle tasks independently.

Traditionally, organizations treat manager intervention as a necessary routine. When workers lack training, supervisors spend valuable hours solving basic problems and answering routine questions.

As someone who has spent – literally his entire career – in the education and training space, this is no surprise to me.  Whether it has been college students or Executive MBAs, the impact of quality education and training is a big double-win for organizations.

The study revealed that these managerial “spillover effects” accounted for nearly 45% of the training program’s total benefits. Without factoring in managerial time saved, an organization would need to train nearly twice as many frontline workers to achieve the exact same overall output.

As AI tools make upskilling more scalable, training should no longer be viewed as a mere expense. Equipping your team with practical skills liberates leadership from tactical firefighting, allowing managers to focus on high-impact strategic priorities. When you invest in your workforce, you aren’t just training employees—you are buying back valuable leadership bandwidth.

*Ideas for this blog taken from: Rand, B.  “Why Training Employees Pays Off Twice,”  Harvard Business Review online, January 16, 2026.

In reality, burnout looks different depending on where a person is in their career.  A recent Harvard Business Review article demonstrates how we can address issues of burnout at different career stages.

When organizations view burnout as a universal experience, they default to generic solutions like wellness apps or broad mandates. In reality, burnout manifests uniquely depending on your role, your proximity to decision-making, and your level of authority. Preventing burnout requires leaders to recognize these distinct pressure points across the org chart and redesign how work gets structured.

To effectively stop burnout before it starts, leaders must address its root causes at every organizational level:

• Early-Career Professionals (Invisible Overload): At this stage, burnout is driven less by sheer hours and more by a lack of clarity and low control. Junior employees burn out trying to decode unspoken expectations. The Fix: Limit weekly priorities to three or fewer, make decision-making workflows explicit, and grant permission to ask questions without penalty.
• Mid-Career Managers (Structural Compression): Managers face high responsibility with limited authority, trapped between executive demands and team needs. Flexibility often degrades into constant availability. The Fix: Reduce meeting bloat, clarify decision rights, and establish strict norms around off-hours communication.
• Executives (Moral Injury): For senior leaders, burnout stems from decision fatigue, isolation, and value conflicts when business demands clash with personal ethics. The Fix: Build trusted peer forums for confidential reflection and establish clear decision cadences to prevent constant firefighting.
• Founders & Mission-Driven Leaders (Identity Collapse): When a leader’s personal identity merges completely with their organization, rest feels like betrayal. The Fix: Structure governance so the mission does not rely on individual overextension, and maintain explicit “stop doing” lists.

Burnout is not solved by asking employees to tough it out or rely on productivity hacks. Real prevention requires evaluating systemic friction: Where has constant availability replaced actual performance? Which delayed decisions are creating unnecessary urgency? When we fix the underlying system design, we protect both human well being and organizational performance.

*Ideas for this blog taken from: Auger-Dominguez, D.  “Burnout Looks Different Across the Org Chart.  Watch for These Signs.”  Harvard Business Review online, April 3, 2026.

Trying to force action through hierarchy often backfires, anyway.  So, it is smart to learn how to use influence that does not rely on authority.

A recent article in Harvard Business Review discusses this “indirect influence problem.”  It turns out that effective leaders build influence through subtle, highly strategic behaviors.  To move projects forward without relying on formal power, you can leverage five actionable pathways:

• Become an Influence Spotter: Look beyond formal organizational titles. Observe who team members glance toward during meetings or whose opinions silently shape decisions behind the scenes.
• Use Back Channels Wisely: When formal negotiations freeze or public egos are at stake, establish private, low-pressure conversations. These off-ramps allow colleagues to explore options without needing public acts of contrition.
• Act as a Precision Mover: Good ideas fail when delivered at the wrong time. Master strategic timing by waiting for high-stress crises or group anxiety to cool before making high-stakes pitches.
• Build Genuine Connections: Avoid collecting contacts like business cards. True connectors build trust over time, bridging cross-functional silos by linking the right people to solve problems collaboratively.
• Read the Pulse: Pay attention to emotional currents, nonverbal shifts, and heavy silences. Connect emotionally before appealing to logic, framing challenges in ways that reduce defensiveness.

Direct authority still has its place, but true leadership lies in knowing when a subtler approach is required. By diagnosing the room and choosing the right combination of these strategic paths, you can build trust, align stakeholders, and drive meaningful impact across your organization—title or no title.

*Ideas for this blog taken from: Meyer, P.  “5 Ways to Wield Influence When You Lack Authority,” Harvard Business Review, September – October, 2026.