In the boardroom, we call it risk management. In HR, resilience. In marketing, futureproofing. What we all really want is accurate predictions on when what is going to change, and solutions on how to delay – or ideally, prevent – the impact of those predictions.
When the advice to quell this fear-fuelled need for predictions is “you can’t prevent it, you have to adapt to it”, we however refuse to accept it. Instead, we lay the responsibility for adaptation at someone else’s feet, or we launch initiatives to figure out how to be the one company that withstands the storm and remain “resilient” while others experience ruin. Or we create and try to enforce preventative rules that simply result in busy work we can use to make ourselves feel more in control. All this is merely masking our ongoing search for an answer that will better align with how we thought/hoped/planned things would be in our future. To effectively respond to looming change (with the added threat of mass layoffs due to advancements in Artificial Intelligence (AI)), knowledge workers – and their employers – don’t need more predictions on what exactly will happen over the next two years as AI wrecks well-laid plans like coffee spilled over last-minute homework. They (we) need to buckle down and get to work. Different work. Refocus training and development If most knowledge workers are going to be managing AI agents in the near future, the skills they need to develop now isn’t coding. As the strength of AI – generative and agentic – lies in “doing”, we need to strengthen our human workforce on the part that AI is predicted to always need support; original, complex and organic thinking. Training and professional development plans for knowledge-based workforces must – across all employment levels – incorporate critical thinking, ethical reasoning and clear communication. Not just a company-wide townhall simply mentioning the broad topics, and also not a postgraduate degree in any of it. Just something that will equip a wide base of employees with the basics of these skills so they can focus on honing the skills as quickly as possible. The development of these skills might be slightly less urgent for manual labour workforces, but even in the trades the AI spill is starting to soak the edges of tertiary education, product design, quality assurance and logistics. Adapt policy making processes With a cohort of employees equipped to think beyond “how can I use AI to work less” or “how can I rig the system so AI doesn’t take my job”, the focus can turn to creating policies that enable a new way of work rather than policies that force a specific way of work. Policies across recruitment and reward, IT equipment and software, digital security, intellectual property, marketing, procurement and project management all need to be reviewed to balance real-time risks and opportunities. Even the process of creating, implementing and reviewing policies needs an overhaul. It needs to be fast and fluid with latest updates available in real-time. This speed will create an enormous problem as human behaviour in the workplace is guided by culture – the way we do things around here. Start before anybody’s ready Culture doesn’t shift because policies – or technologies – do. It takes time. Even under ideal circumstances and with the support of the most influential change champions, change in human behaviour takes time. Perhaps that’s one of the things we fear most: being forced to change before we’re ready, risking being exposed as not being as awesome as others (or ourselves) thought we were. Perhaps “losing face” by admitting that we are part of the learning curve rather than ahead of it is going to be the biggest leadership challenge in this era. Progress, however, does not care about egos and comfortable timelines. It happens whether we’re ready or not. The longer we wait to start experimenting with reinventing ourselves and our workforces, the fewer the options we’ll have for keeping the doors open.
In a world filled with opinions about the impact of Artificial Intelligence (AI), it’s worth having your own view of the big picture of this latest technological revolution.
My view is that we shouldn’t turn the conversation into a comparison. It’s not about who does it better, or who’s going to win or lose. For tradespeople – or artisans, as they’re called in South Africa – the conversation should focus on the collaboration between human and artificial intelligence through all the stages needed to fulfil the overarching purpose of artisan work: creating things that make life better, safer, easier, or more enjoyable. Collaboration in training Chatbot-based AI tools like ChatGPT use large language models (LLMs) trained on information from a huge range of fields. During an artisan’s training phase, these tools can act as lightning-fast research assistants, offering existing knowledge relevant to a specific question – packaged in a way that’s quick and easy to understand. But the strength of these tools is also their limitation: because they rely on existing information, they can’t create anything original. That’s where human trainers are still essential. Their creativity and ability to adapt to different learners’ needs are things AI can’t replicate. Human trainers also support more than just learning the theory – and since trades are by definition about applying knowledge through hands-on experience, there’s a lot of value in combining what people and machines each do best. The potential for positive collaboration in artisan training is huge. Collaboration in design In the design phase, humans bring creative thinking, while AI tools can offer memory, idea comparisons, storage and recall, and even theory-based testing of early designs. If artisans learn how to use these tools properly, they can spend more time focusing on what they’re trained to do. For those with more experience, it’s also a chance to keep pushing their skills and exploring new ways of doing things. Collaboration in production Looking at the robotics side of AI, there’s also plenty of space for working together. A robot – which still needs to be programmed by someone who knows the job – can repeat tasks without getting tired. But it can’t (yet) recognise when something’s gone wrong. This means artisans may take on more of a supervisory or robot-training role, rather than doing the task directly. But even that might not be the case everywhere – or any time soon. Technology may move fast, but it often takes much longer for large-scale, cost-effective rollout to happen. Collaboration in process optimisation and quality control Improving processes and maintaining quality takes loads of data, plus the know-how to spot where small tweaks can make a difference. AI can help by capturing, storing, analysing and comparing that data, which can save time, effort, and money. Even so, it’s still a collaboration – not a handover. Machines look at data, but they can’t (yet) take human behaviour or preferences into account. That’s why artisans are still key to making sure that everything runs in a way that works for people, not just numbers. Human artisans are still needed to use their special skill – being human – to ensure that processes and quality are optimised for the human experience.
Leaders often assume that delegation equals empowerment, only to be frustrated when delegated tasks end up back on their desks after some time. Unfortunately, more often than not, what is perceived as delegation is merely handing over the responsibility for task delivery without the structure, authority, or tools needed to deliver outcomes.
It’s not enough to empower. Leaders must also equip. Empowerment, in practical terms, means giving people the authority to make the decisions required to achieve a result. It involves being explicit about what they’re responsible for, what decisions fall within their mandate, where the boundaries are, and what preferences or non-negotiables should shape their approach. It also requires ensuring others in the organisation recognise that authority and are prepared to cooperate accordingly. But too often, empowerment is implied rather than clearly articulated. Someone is asked to “take ownership,” but there’s no follow-up conversation about decision rights, expected actions, or how to handle resistance from others. They’re left to interpret vague expectations, often running into unspoken rules or a lack of cooperation that undermines the very task they’ve been asked to lead. On its own, empowerment doesn’t guarantee outcomes. That’s where equipping comes in. To equip someone is to ensure they have the tools, systems, access, content, processes, information, and skills required to succeed. It’s not about spoon-feeding or micro-managing;it is about removing friction and making sure they aren’t spending time battling for basic resources. This disconnect is especially evident in organisations that demand innovation but withhold what’s needed to pursue it. In such an organisation, a team may be asked to find new ways to speed up delivery. They might research options thoroughly and identify specific tools or platforms that could make it possible. But if those proposals are dismissed – for example, because leadership is unwilling to fund essential software – the team remains accountable for outcomes they’re not equipped to deliver. The message is mixed: innovate, but don’t ask for support. Move faster, but use the same constraints. The result is frustration on both sides. Leaders feel the team isn’t delivering. The team feels their hands are tied. Momentum is lost – not because of poor ideas or weak execution, but because the conditions for success were never put in place. This dynamic isn’t limited to teams; it often shows up at the leadership level as well. In one coaching scenario, a CEO delegated key operational responsibilities to his second-in-command (2IC) but struggled to let go of control. Although he appeared to be handing over authority, he retained strong preferences shaped by how things had always been done. The result was that his 2IC, though technically in charge, had little room to exercise independent judgement. The delegation looked complete on paper, but in practice, it lacked the freedom necessary for progress. The cost of this leadership gap is real. Projects stall. Capable people hesitate. Leaders continue to carry too much, believing they’ve delegated when in fact they’ve only shifted the burden without enabling delivery. In some cases, it’s mistaken for a performance problem. In reality, it’s a structure problem. Closing this gap doesn’t require a new framework – just a more intentional pause. Before assigning a task, ask yourself: Am I clearly empowering this person, including what they’re responsible for and what decisions they have the authority make? And do they have what they need to succeed, or am I leaving them to piece it together on their own and fight their way through resistance from others? When the answer to both is yes, leadership becomes far more effective. Teams gain momentum. Individuals take real ownership. Delegation becomes a tool for progress rather than a source of friction. Empowerment feels good to say – but it only works when it’s matched with the means to act. True leadership doesn’t end at the assignment of responsibility. It includes creating the conditions that make success possible. Empower. Equip. Always both.
More and more publications are adding the “not generated by AI” disclaimer to their content contributor requests. The Harvard Business Review content submission form includes a standard question on whether generative AI was used; not only in the creation of the content submitted, but also in completing the submission questions!
On top of increasing revenue and views, newsrooms have the added pressure of distinguishing between genuine subject matter expertise and content compiled by generative AI. While it is still relatively easy for a trained eye to spot content written – or just “compiled”, as some would argue – by generative AI, it is an unnecessary burden on journalists and editors. Subject matter experts and communication professionals alike need to carefully consider whether their reputations are worth the perceived cost and effort savings of using an AI tool rather than an experienced human writer. On the other hand, writers and communication professionals need to understand that their clients are searching for solutions that make the effort feel less and the expense worth more than the straight monetary value of it. Subject matter experts need writers and communication professionals to interpret what they’re trying to say, rather than merely regurgitating it. While each party involved in this unpredictable rollercoaster of generative AI may feel like they have right on their side, they’re all indirectly working towards the same thing: increasing knowledge. Subject matter experts may approach the issue with increased speed and decreased effort in mind, writers and communication professionals may consider quality and differentiation as top priorities, and newsrooms may hold the journalistic principles of truth, accuracy, independence and objectivity as the highest standard. In the end, increasing knowledge – not simply reiterating existing information – is the point. Most generative AI tools use large language models (LLMs) based on existing knowledge to compile responses (answers) to prompts (questions). It is easy for users of these tools to think of the responses provided by the generative AI tools as new, simply because it is new to them, the users. Truly new knowledge however springs from critical thinking; a skill not yet mastered by most generative AI tools and not often requested by users. When using generative AI to produce content that will be submitted to media for publication consideration, we have to be honest with ourselves when we consider whether we are asking AI to help with the pure “doing”, or whether we are inadvertently outsourcing our thinking to AI. There is no easy solution to navigate these sticky situations. Having AI policies and rules for subject matter experts, writers, communication professionals and media in place is a good start. From there, the impact this phase will have on the future of information and media integrity is up to the moral compass of each individual who gets on board the generative AI rollercoaster. NOTE: Not one smidgen of AI was used during the creation of this piece. Not even for checking spelling or grammar.
Running a business today means more than just keeping operations going. Business leaders are constantly asked to juggle performance, relevance, and responsibility — all while navigating evolving market conditions, complex teams, and increased expectations. It can be overwhelming, even for those who’ve been at it for years.
The now money, next money, and never money model proposed by Juanita Vorster, an independent business advisor, offers a way to think more clearly about where attention and effort should go during times of extreme uncertainty. Now money Now money is what funds the present. It’s the income that pays salaries, covers bills, and keeps the business engine running. It comes from what’s already working — the established services or products that clients or customers rely on. The mistake some leaders make is focusing only on this stream. They become so involved in managing operations and protecting revenue that they forget to invest in future-focused learning or broader contribution. On the other end of the spectrum, some neglect now money because it feels repetitive. They assume that handing it off to a capable team means they no longer need to pay attention to it. But even a high-functioning business still requires strategic oversight from its leader. Another common blind spot is disconnecting financial results from the non-financial elements that influence them — things like customer experience, team culture, or innovation. These “intangibles” have a direct impact on now money, and often unlock potential for the other two streams. No matter how exciting the other streams become, now money must never be neglected. It’s the base that holds everything else up. Next money Next money is smaller, often experimental, and comes from efforts that are still taking shape — usually linked to new skills, future opportunities, or ideas that haven’t yet matured. It might be revenue from speaking, consulting, writing, or testing a new service or product. A common mistake here is assuming that next money will come from the same source or industry as now money — just packaged differently. This assumption can limit real innovation. There’s also the unspoken fear: what if the new idea outperforms the existing business? That can create hesitation, even self-sabotage. Another trap is chasing trends or fads without considering long-term relevance. Next money is meant to be future-focused, not just novel. And because it’s often more mentally stimulating than running the core business, it can become a time sink — drawing attention away from what still needs a leader’s eye. Just because a business has a great team doesn’t mean the owner should disengage entirely from its direction. The best next money initiatives are rooted in both curiosity and strategy. They grow steadily, not urgently. Never money Never money has nothing to do with revenue and everything to do with contribution. It’s the time and effort invested in work that strengthens others — individuals, communities, or the environment — without expecting financial return. The most common misstep is overcommitting, or not being upfront about how much time and energy a cause really requires. Others use never money efforts as a visibility strategy — attaching themselves to popular causes for exposure or credibility. But this stream only works when it’s approached with the same work ethic and integrity as the other two. It’s not a hobby. And it’s not a shortcut to new business. Another pitfall is expecting the same validation or feedback that now or next money provides. The reward here is different — it’s about impact, not income. When done right, never money deepens perspective, sharpens leadership, and reaffirms a business leader’s role in something bigger than financial success. Balancing all three streams isn’t about achieving equal effort in all three — it’s about being deliberate in the mix between the three. The mix will shift depending on what’s happening in the business, the market, or the wider world. But the model itself is a constant. It’s not a reaction to uncertainty — it’s a steady way to lead through any season. For business leaders wondering how to stay relevant, make a difference, and still deliver results, this is one way to do it: stay grounded in what pays the bills, invest time and effort in what could come next, and show up for what matters beyond yourself. Anyone who manages people – whether employees or suppliers – has experienced the frustration caused by differences between what they thought they asked for and what they actually got. Or if they’re working with clients, differences between what they actually promised the client and what the client thought was promised.
The amount of communication exchanged between people is higher than ever, but the quality of communication has not followed the same trend. From a business point of view, high quality communication requires less frequent exchange of messages, allowing more time and capacity for productive work. Effective communication – especially when asking for feedback or for an action – is a crucial skill that can significantly affect productivity and relationships in the workplace. When we spend time and effort ensuring our “ask” is geared to get the desired results, we minimise the risk of misunderstandings, reduce the need for redoing work, and foster stronger professional relationships. While the skill of an effective “ask” is quite complex, and takes many years to master, one quick tip for busy leaders is to always consider the “T’s & C’s” of an “ask” before sending – or saying – it: Tone, Time, Context, and Clarity. And, yes, these apply to instructions or mandatory required activities as well; it’s always better when people participate by choice rather than on demand. Tone The tone of the message has a massive impact on the outcome of it. We always need to be aware of our underlying emotions – frustration, anger, irritation, indifference – when we create messages, especially when we’re having conversations with other people. The speed of exchanging messages during a conversation usually doesn’t allow us much time to formulate and check what we want to say, so those emotions can quickly become apparent in our tone of voice and other non-verbal cues. Even when we’re communicating via text, our emotions might not be as hidden as we think. A few simple changes to the length and structure of a message, the grammar and punctuation used, and editing something that could be read as demanding, rude or manipulative, can make a dramatic difference in how our “ask” is received. After all, that should be our focus when we decide what – and how, and to who – to say: the action the message is intended to inspire. Time The effectiveness of our communication is also influence by when someone receives our message It’s best to assume that their attention is divided when they read or hear our “ask”, and that they will appreciate elements in the message that can help them to prioritise their response or actions. It can be as simple as including when we expect feedback or action from their side, why that specific time is important, and any knock-on effect a late response or delivery might have. Time and timing also affect the choice of communication platform. When an immediate response to a quick “ask” is needed, an instant messaging platform like WhatsApp or iMessage is appropriate during working hours. After agreed working hours, these platforms should really only be used for emergencies. Remember: a lack of planning on our part does not constitute an emergency on their part! An “ask” that includes more detail is best left for email. These types of “asks” often require deeper consideration, and we should therefore not expect an immediate answer. The reduced immediacy of email also allows for the editing of messages towards the greater goal of effective communication, especially when we’re managing misunderstandings, conflicts or sensitive topics. Context If the “ask” is instructional or requesting an action, give context for the “ask”. Explain what led to the “ask”, why they are receiving the “ask”, and which other tasks, projects or people are interlinked. If the “ask” is part of an ongoing conversation, and it is intended to clarify a misunderstanding, don’t be afraid to state that the purpose of the “ask” is to identify and clear up an evident misunderstanding before continuing with the task at hand. Clarity When we’re in a hurry, details that might be helpful to the person receiving our “ask” are often left out of our messages. Even if it is reasonable to expect that the other person will know the requirements – why, what, who, where, when and how – relevant to the “ask”, assuming that the other person already knows these things is one of the biggest communication mistakes we can make. When we have no specific requirements for the response or action to our “ask”, we should include that details and emphasise that what we require is to take initiative on the format and structure of their response or action. Otherwise, the first response we may get will most probably be a time-wasting “more information required” message. In a situation where the person we are communicating with is seemingly not understanding us in the desired way, simply restating our “ask” in a similar way to the original message almost guarantees the confusion and frustration to continue. We will do much better if we make sure that the other persons understanding of the details of our “ask” aligns with our intentions. The best way to do this is by giving them an uninterrupted opportunity to summarise the key points they understood from the communication up to that point. Listen carefully, as very often it is a very small, seemingly unimportant piece of the puzzle that is askew that is the root of miscommunication. The responsibility of effective communication is shared between everyone involved in the communication, but the only control we have over getting better answers is how we ask our questions. As the frenzy around the start of 2024 wears off, business owners and leaders must ensure that their trends watchlist for the remainder of the year includes more than technological advancements.
Societal and behavioural trends can significantly impact the operations – and ultimately the success – of any business. Small and medium businesses are especially vulnerable if they are caught unawares. Awareness and acceptance of neurodiversity A notable trend gaining momentum is the increasing awareness, acceptance, and accommodations for neurodiversity in the workplace. In 2024 business owners and leaders should challenge their perceptions of neurodiversity. The focus should shift to the potential strengths of neurodiverse employees like enhanced pattern recognition, unusually quick creativity, blunt honesty, and other elements that are crucial to working innovatively and resourcefully. Fostering an inclusive environment that both acknowledges neurodiversity and adapts working conditions to the strengths and needs of neurodiverse individuals can become a key differentiating factor for a business. Distracted employees While employers strive for increased employee engagement and loyalty, the prevailing “cost of living crisis” is driving employees to seek ways to generate additional income in their spare time. These longer working hours often lead to exhaustion which can in turn show up as distraction, disengagement, and even burn-out in employees at their primary workplace. If businesses can’t afford to pay their employees more, adaptations to contracts and performance indicators could be considered. These adaptations could allow more transparent conversations – without fear of punishment – about the individual circumstances of each employee. Insourcing Businesses that have traditionally outsourced some non-core activities – often marketing, HR, and accounting services – should consider bringing the activities in-house with the assistance of AI. On the other hand, businesses that offer services that can now be offered to some extent by AI tools must urgently reassess their offerings in the face of the resulting insourcing trend. It is now more critical than ever for these businesses to articulate their unique value proposition in a way that assists clients in making the outsourcing vs insourcing decision. Knee-jerk decisions In a world driven by viral sensations, knee-jerk reactions to capitalize on the latest trends can be tempting. It is however crucial to align such decisions with the overarching purpose of the business. Business owners and leaders should avoid being seduced by opportunity into making panicked moves that might compromise long-term objectives in pursuit of short-term gains. Social shaming As members of the public shine their social media spotlight on practices and products that were once accepted without question, businesses increasingly run the risk of coming under viral fire for any negative impact caused by their raw materials, manufacturing processes, working conditions, and marketing tactics. With a diverse workforce and client base spanning multiple generations, it's imperative for business owners and leaders to not ban or ignore social media platforms. While the feedback shared online might not be fully accurate, it often contains elements that allude to the root cause of issues that are also on the mind of a wider client base. Business owners and leaders should therefore remain attuned to any demographic shifts – and evolving behaviours – within their workforce and customer base. These shifts should be met with ongoing adaptation to product or service offerings and communication strategies accordingly. The business landscape in 2024 demands a holistic approach that integrates technological, societal, and behavioural considerations. By remaining aware of these trends and their potential impact, business owners can position themselves to navigate the challenges and opportunities with more ease. As published by Inc.Africa Running a sustained profitable business might be hard, but it doesn’t need to be complicated.
Traditional advice guides business owners who feel stuck in some way to review – or create – a business plan as a framework for identifying the cause of feeling stuck. The catch is that a business plan can often be unnecessarily complex or lengthy for a business owner that is in need of quick and practical insights. An existing or template business plan may also be more geared towards funding requirements than the relentless grind of running a business past the initial exciting first few years. Business owners who are feeling stuck or overwhelmed need a simple structure that they can remember and review of the top of their heads. The following structure requires that a business owner reviews the entire business using only three main topics – strategy, sales, systems – and five questions – why, who, what, where, when, and how. For more complex entities, the same three topics and five questions can be used for each distinct business unit. The trick to keep this structure as simple and useful as possible is to stick to the three main topics, and to adapt the specific questions to the unique needs of the business. This flexibility also makes it much easier for business owners to do this review quickly and regularly. Strategy Every business needs a strategy. In the simplest terms, designing a business strategy is deciding where the business is going and how it’s going to get there. Questions to ask during this topic of the business review include:
Sales A brilliant business strategy is useless without sales that bring it to profitable life. Questions a business owner can ask themselves when considering the state of sales of the business include:
Systems Under the systems topic of this simplified business review, a business owner has to consider the people, processes and technology that enable the business to consistently implement its strategy.
After completing this quick review, all that’s left for business owners to do is to create an action plan based on what they discovered during the review, and then do everything they can to make sure that the plan is followed. When we waterproof something, we do it to keep water out.
When we make something soundproof, we do it to keep noise out. When we make something tamper-proof, we do it to make it resistant to interference. If we consider this from a pure linguistics point of view, then why on earth would anyone want to FUTUREPROOF a businesses?!?!?! Of course, I know that the intended meaning behind "futureproof" was never to keep the future out, but the literal meaning of words hold and convey power, irrespective of the intent behind them. If the intent of future "proofing" is to prepare people and businesses for success in a fast-changing future, then future "ready" is surely a better (or at least more literally accurate) word. I first voiced this suppressed rant in 2021 as a client considered jumping on the trend bandwagon and adopt "futureproof" as their strategic theme for the year. I didn't have to rant too hard or too long before the client's team's eyes widened with realisation (in fact, the "rant" didn't even escalate beyond a polite but firm explanation of my point of view). A quick vote later the direction changed to my recommended "future-ready", and I am very glad to see that they are continuing to use the theme to this day. To end this rant, I implore you to have a good, honest look at whether any of your "futureproof" initiatives are inviting the future into your business, or whether some of it might eventually keep the future out. #rantover As published by Inc.Africa Companies spend millions each year on creating a culture of peak employee performance, but many still find their workforce stuck in the mediocre middle – often despite the best efforts of employees.
To move from mediocrity to consistent peak performance, business and team leaders must create a culture that allows employees to successfully implement what they’ve learned during training, mentoring, coaching, and conference sessions. Even the most well-trained and well-intentioned employees won’t be able to perform at their best in a culture that suffers from one or more of the following: Lack of clear expectations Business or team leaders should never assume that everyone is aligned in terms of expectations simply because policies, procedures, and guidelines are available for viewing on the company intranet or have been mentioned in a meeting. Making expectations clear requires communicating them in a way that others can understand, and then checking whether everyone correctly understood what was communicated. Employees also shouldn’t be expected to read the minds of their leaders or translate hurriedly relayed thoughts into clear instructions that will meet the expectations of leaders. Great leaders understand that they need to provide context and clarity when they assign tasks or request certain behaviours. If expectations aren’t clearly communicated in a way that resonates with them, employees will perform according to their own priorities and level of experience, which might then be unfairly measured as poor performance. Lack of planning and/or prioritising It is unfair to expect high-quality work and employee well-being when leaders are in the habit of piling on ill-timed ideas or demands without understanding the ripple effect it may have on activities already in line for delivery. Great leaders know how their decisions and actions will affect a team/project/organisation and they take responsibility for managing the impact of those decisions. They are also skilled at managing demands from others to allow the employees they lead to deliver quality work on time and within budget without suffering burnout. Lack of autonomy To create an environment conducive to peak performance, business leaders must keep red tape, compliance, and administrative activities to a minimum, so employees have more time and energy for delivering profit-generating work. Instead of micro-managing every task of employees, great leaders regularly emphasise the purpose, vision, and values of the business, and then trust that employees will get on with what they’re supposed to be doing in the way they’re supposed to be doing it. Lack of feedback Different employees will have different views of the expectations communicated by their leaders, so it is crucial that employees receive quick and ongoing feedback on their performance to highlight any misalignment. To avoid wasting the efforts of capable and well-intentioned employees, leaders must create opportunities for employees to do quick alignment checks without fear of being judged on the in-progress roughness of a task. Feedback sessions on progress should leave employees feeling focused and motivated, not confused and dejected. Employees can’t be expected to make improvements if their leaders aren’t specific in pointing out misalignments between expectations and current status, and why improvement is necessary. Lack of capability While an employee might have been appointed based on their proven ability to deliver what their role initially expected of them, changes to the business environment might require a change in capability. These changes require genuine two-way conversations about how each person sees their role within the changed context, and whether they are willing to make the necessary adjustments. If there are gaps between what the employee can do, and what they need to be able to do, it is easier than ever to find training material in a format that will help them to bridge the skills gap. To create a culture that allows employees to successfully implement what they’ve learned during training, mentoring, coaching, and conference sessions, business and team leaders must figure out what they can change about their own actions that will set employees up to win. Great leaders provide structure, training, trust and quick feedback to enable an environment of peak performance. This of course only really works when each employee is the right fit for the job, and if leaders are willing to act if an employee continues to not align with reasonable and clearly communicated requirements. |
