Balancing Team Dynamics

As International Women’s Day nears, we’ll see the usual corporate gestures—empowerment panels, social media campaigns, and carefully curated success stories. But let’s be honest: these feel-good initiatives rarely change what actually holds women back at work on the daily basis. Instead, I suggest focusing on something concrete, something I’ve seen have the biggest impact in my work with teams: the unspoken dynamics that shape psychological safety. 🚨Because psychological safety is not the same for everyone. Psychological safety is often defined as a shared belief that one can take risks without fear of negative consequences. But let’s unpack that—who actually feels safe enough to take those risks? 🔹 Speaking up costs more for women Confidence isn’t the issue—consequences are. Women learn early that being too direct can backfire. Assertiveness can be read as aggression, while careful phrasing can make them seem uncertain. Over time, this calculation becomes second nature: Is this worth the risk? 🔹 Mistakes are stickier When men fail, it’s seen as part of leadership growth. When women fail, it often reinforces lingering doubts about their competence. This means that women aren’t more risk-averse by nature—they’re just more aware of the cost. 🔹 Inclusion isn’t just about presence Being at the table doesn’t mean having an equal voice. Women often find themselves in a credibility loop—having to repeatedly prove their expertise before their ideas carry weight. Meanwhile, those who fit the traditional leadership mold are often trusted by default. 🔹 Emotional labor is the silent career detour Women in teams do an extraordinary amount of behind-the-scenes work—mediating conflicts, softening feedback, ensuring inclusion. The problem? This work isn’t visible in performance reviews or leadership selection criteria. It’s expected, but not rewarded. What companies can do beyond IWD symbolism: ✅ Stop measuring "confidence"—start measuring credibility gaps If some team members always need to “prove it” while others are trusted instantly, you have a credibility gap, not a confidence issue. Fix how ideas get heard, not how women present them. ✅ Make failure a learning moment for everyone Audit how mistakes are handled in your team. Are men encouraged to take bold moves while women are advised to be more careful? Change the narrative around risk. ✅ Track & reward emotional labor If women are consistently mentoring, resolving conflicts, or ensuring inclusion, this isn’t just “being helpful”—it’s leadership. Make it visible, valued, and part of promotion criteria. 💥 This IWD, let’s skip the celebration and start the correction. If your company is serious about making psychological safety equal for everyone, let’s do the real work. 📅 I’m now booking IWD sessions focused on improving team dynamics and creating workplaces where women don’t just survive, but thrive. Book your spot and let’s turn good intentions into lasting impact.

“No, I’m speaking.” She had to say it nine times just to finish her sentence. I saw this clip, and it stayed with me. Not because of who was “right” or “wrong.” But because of how many times she had to repeat herself just to be heard. Nine. Times. This is what thousands of women face in the corporate world every single day: → Women are interrupted 33% more often than men, and 46% more often in mixed-gender groups. → In meetings, men hold the floor 75% of the time, even when women are the majority. At my last organization, this was the #1 issue women brought to my attention - how often they were interrupted or spoken over, no matter their role or level. Watching her say “I’m speaking” brought me back to all the times I had to stand my ground. Knowing the labels would follow: “abrasive,” “intimidating.” And I know I’m not alone. Every woman has felt that moment, the battle just to finish a thought. The comments were telling too: one even said her mic should have been turned off. That’s how the system responds to bold women. It doesn’t just ignore them; it silences them. And silencing women has real consequences. When voices are shut out, so are decisions, opportunities, and influence. Leadership isn’t about being the loudest in the room. It’s about making space for every voice to be heard, especially the ones that challenge your own. For women navigating this, a few strategies I’ve seen work: → Hold your ground. Calmly restate, “I’d like to finish my thought,” until space is given. → Use allies: ask a trusted colleague to redirect the floor back to you if interrupted. → Open with a key point so your voice is anchored in the discussion. → Support & amplify other women’s ideas so they’re not dismissed. To every woman reading this: Keep speaking. Even if you have to say it nine times. 💬 Have you ever had to say “I’m speaking” just to be heard? I’d love to know how you handled it. 💌 Click on the link in the comments to join my newsletter

Over the past 3 years, I have presented the ZaZaZu business case at INSEAD over 12 times, in front of over 500 students. Each time, I see the same pattern: 👀 Despite ZaZaZu being a sexual well-being platform made for women, by women, female students are at least twice as unlikely to raise their hands to ask a question or make a statement compared to male students. And it doesn’t stop there. During group work, where students collaborate to solve the business case, I notice something even more revealing: 🔹 Women often do the heavy lifting - researching, structuring, refining arguments - while men step forward to present the final solution. 🔹 Women hesitate to challenge flawed ideas, even when they see the gaps, while men defend their points with confidence, whether they are right or not. 🔹 Women default to the 'supporter' role, organizing the discussion and making sure the group dynamic works - but rarely claiming the leadership seat. And when it comes to speaking up, women hold back for deeper, more ingrained reasons: 1️⃣ They self-edit before they speak. Instead of thinking “Is this idea valuable?”, they ask “Is this idea good enough?” - and often decide it’s not. 2️⃣ They don’t own their expertise. Instead of stating their opinion, they cushion it with “I don't know whether it makes sense, but…” or “Just my two cents…”, diminishing their own credibility. 3️⃣ They prioritize group harmony over personal visibility. They want to be respected, not disruptive - so they let others take the floor. 4️⃣ They absorb criticism differently. A man hears “You need to be more assertive” and takes it as a challenge. A woman hears the same and wonders, “Did I say something wrong?” And these are some of the world's brightest women... 🚀 This is why Uma, Grace, and I have created a 4-week program for women - - ⭐ From HIDDEN Talent to VISIBLE Leader ⭐ Because too many women are waiting to be noticed - when they should be taking control of their careers. Check out the full breakdown of the program here: 🔗 https://lnkd.in/dXsA8Min 📅 The cohort closes on Monday, March 17. 👊 Brilliance in silence is still invisible. If no one knows what you bring to the table, it’s like you were never there.

Are you holding on too tightly to the reins of your organization? In this episode of Future Fit with Friska, I explor the paradox of control—a leadership trap that often feels like strength, but can quietly limit innovation, erode trust, and stall transformation. The truth? The more control we seek, the less agile and empowered our teams become. I share real-world stories, research, and personal reflections to unpack: 1. Why letting go isn’t weakness—it’s a catalyst for growth. 2. A 5-step roadmap to shift from control to empowerment 3. How leaders can build a culture of collaboration (not micromanagement) 4. Case studies of companies that thrived by loosening control 5. Powerful questions to help you reflect on your leadership style If you're ready to lead with trust, flexibility, and long-term impact, this episode is for you. Listen now here https://lnkd.in/gpw5RvcD Have you ever let go of control and seen things turn out better than expected? I'd love to hear your story 👇 #FutureFitWithFriska #LeadershipDevelopment #EmpoweredTeams #AgileLeadership #TrustOverControl #WorkplaceCulture #TransformationalLeadership #LetGoToGrow #ModernLeadership #PodcastForLeaders

I was recently in a meeting where I was tasked with sharing out ideas on how to improve student evaluations. I felt very comfortable contributing to the conversation, even when my idea was, IMO, quite radical (I wanted to move student evals to occur six months after a course, after students can “see” how useful (or not) the content has been for them, as opposed to it being largely a measure of how much they enjoy the class). But would I have so readily contributed this idea in other contexts? The results of a paper by Mengzi Jin Roy Chua suggest no, because what was special (among other things) about this meeting was that it was dominated by women. Jin and Chua were interested in how gender impacts the contributions of novel ideas. They use an interesting research paradigm: they task participants with generating as many novel ideas as they can and then choose one to execute upon. For instance, in one study, they task students with creating promotional videos for their college to increase its publicity. Creators are offered bonuses for having their videos chosen by a separate set of participants, who rate each contribution on its impact/success. In this study, the participants were asked how interested they would be in attending the college being promoted, and how likely they would be to apply. They find that while there is not a gender difference in the number of ideas generated or the novelty of the ideas (by looking at the frequency each idea is mentioned by all participants; the fewer people come up with the same idea, the more novel it is considered). However, there is a gender difference in which ideas are selected, in that men are more likely to select their more novel ideas than are women. Meaning, even though women generate equally novel ideas as men do, they don’t choose to share the most novel ones. This ends up hurting women overall, because there is a curvilinear effect of novelty avoidance on idea success: your craziest ideas probably are bit too out there, but your most mundane ones won’t get you any points either. Men tend to fall on the positive side of the curve, and women, on the negative side. Why are women holding back on their more novel ideas? They find that women have concerns about social backlash from evaluators. How to mitigate this? In a separate study, they manipulate the gender composition of the evaluating group, and find that women will share their more novel ideas when the evaluator group is gender-balanced or women-dominated. These findings suggest that it’s not that men are inherently more creative than women; it’s that women hold back their more creative ideas out of a fear that men evaluators will rate them negatively for having creative ideas. What’s more sad is that this happens even when no information is given out about the evaluation panel, meaning women assume that evaluators are men unless explicitly told otherwise.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't! Let me explain. Yesterday, while working on one of my favorite modules, Communication & Presence, as part of a leadership training for middle managers of an FMCG company, something powerful happened. One of the teams -who happened to be all women- brought to light an issue that many women experience at work but often struggle to name. And it's none other than the double bind dilemma. Speak up too much, and you’re seen as aggressive. Hold back, and you’re overlooked. It’s a lose-lose situation. In other words, we hold women to different standards than men and they are penalized no matter how they choose to communicate. This isn't just based on personal experiences, it's widely researched. • Women who are assertive are 30% more likely to be labeled as "abrasive" in performance reviews compared to men • In group discussions, men interrupt women 33% more often than they interrupt other men If you think it's not the case, think again. This is actually how unconscious biases work. They are...unconscious! ⮑ If you're a woman, reflect on how many times you had to rephrase or reconsider your tone or even your expectations from your team, for fear of being judged as "too bossy". ⮑ If you're a man, reflect on how many times you've heard a woman assert herself in the workplace and thought, "she's too tough" or "she complains too much", when the same behavior from a male colleague wouldn’t have raised an eyebrow. This isn’t just about confidence, but about deeply ingrained biases that penalize women for the same behaviors that are rewarded in men. And it has real consequences: fewer women in leadership, fewer diverse perspectives in decision-making, and an ongoing cycle that keeps workplaces inequitable. So, what can we do? ⮑ If you’re a leader, watch for biases in performance feedback and promotions. Are women in your team held to different standards than men? ⮑ If you’re in a meeting, actively invite women’s perspectives and call out interruptions when they happen. ⮑ If you’re a woman, know that it’s not about you, it’s about systems. Build a support network, advocate for yourself, and push for change. Given that International Women’s Day is just around the corner, let’s move beyond celebration and into action. It’s time to change the conversation and the structures that hold women back. What are your thoughts? Have you experienced or witnessed the double bind in action? Let’s talk in the comments. 👇 #IWD #Leadership #Communication #GenderEquality

I've led teams of engineers, clinicians, and researchers for 15 years. The pattern I see everywhere: brilliant people performing below their potential. Why? The control paradox. Medical training teaches us that details matter. Lives depend on precision. So we bring that same mindset to leadership. Result: we suffocate innovation. Here's what I learned building a 75-person healthcare team: The 4 leadership principles that changed everything: 1/ Hire for judgment, not just expertise ↳ Smart people can learn new skills ↳ Good judgment is much harder to teach ↳ Give them problems, not solutions 2/ Default to trust, verify through outcomes ↳ Set clear expectations upfront ↳ Measure results, not hours worked ↳ Intervene only when performance drops 3/ Create psychological safety for failure ↳ Healthcare punishes mistakes harshly ↳ Innovation requires safe experimentation ↳ Celebrate learning from intelligent failures 4/ Lead with questions, not answers ↳ "What do you think we should do?" ↳ "What's your recommendation?" ↳ "What would you need to make this work?" The result? Our team became significantly more productive. Turnover dropped substantially. Innovation projects flourished. The irony: giving up control gave me more influence. The lesson for healthcare leaders: Your job isn't to have all the answers. Your job is to create conditions where the best ideas emerge. ⁉️ What's the best leadership advice you've received in healthcare? ♻️ Repost if you believe trust beats control 👉 Follow me (Reza Hosseini Ghomi, MD, MSE) for leadership insights in healthcare

❗️𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻 𝗰𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗿. Especially if you’re a woman.  While preparing my workshop on confidence and communication skills, I came across some 𝘫𝘢𝘸-𝘥𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘨 statistics from McKinsey's 2023 𝘞𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘞𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 report (link in comments).  1️⃣ 𝗜𝘁’𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮 "𝗚𝗹𝗮𝘀𝘀 𝗖𝗲𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴"—𝗶𝘁’𝘀 𝗮 “𝗕𝗿𝗼𝗸𝗲𝗻 𝗥𝘂𝗻𝗴.”   ↳ For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 𝟴𝟳 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 are.   ↳ Women of color are even more disadvantaged—e.g. only 𝟱𝟲/𝟭𝟬𝟬 𝗕𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗸 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 get promoted.   ↳ 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗮𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴!  𝗪𝗵𝘆? 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗕𝗶𝗮𝘀.   ↳ Women are judged on their 𝗽𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗰𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀.   ↳ Men? On their 𝗽𝗼𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝗹.  𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁: Men hold 60% of manager-level positions, while women hold just 40%.  2️⃣ 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲 “𝗠𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀” 𝗛𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗰𝘁.   ↳ Women are 𝘁𝘄𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝗮𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲𝗹𝘆 to be interrupted or told they’re “too emotional" or receive demeaning comments tied to their identity.  ↳ 𝟳𝟴% 𝗼𝗳 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗲𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘆 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁, holding back ideas and concerns.   ↳ This leads to fewer opportunities, burnout, and slower career growth.  𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲𝗮𝘄𝗮𝘆? (Beyond the urgent need to tackle bias and create more inclusive, supportive workplace cultures) 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝘆𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲. ❗️Women must learn to:   ↳ 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗲 their achievements and visions.   ↳ 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 to share ideas.   ↳ 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗶𝗰𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗴𝗴𝗿𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 with clarity and courage.  𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗱.   𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳.   𝗦𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗸 𝘂𝗽 𝘁𝗼 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗱𝗲𝘀𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗲.  𝗡𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗵𝗼𝘄?   ↳ Join my two-part "Speak Up to Stand Out" workshop on confidence and communication skills on Nov 28 and Dec 10 (book your seats via the link in bio)  ↳ And while you're waiting, try Mel Robbins’ 𝟱-𝗦𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗱 𝗥𝘂𝗹𝗲: Count down from 5 to 0, and just start talking  𝗬𝗼𝘂 𝗴𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘆𝗼𝘂'𝗿𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵 𝗶𝘁❗️ #SpeakUp #WomenInTheWorkplace #CareerGrowth #Confidence #CommunicationSkills #Leadership #UseYourVoice #BreakTheSilence  #DEI #DiversityAndInclusion #McKinsey #LeanIn ♻️ Help raise awareness by reposting and sharing your thoughts: What’s your biggest challenge when it comes to speaking up, and what tips have helped you find your voice?

"I don't need your approval for this one." That's what your star employee used to say before confidently tackling complex projects. Now they're double-checking email drafts and waiting for permission to order office supplies. What changed? Your micromanagement killed their spark. Last week, I watched this play out: A high performer who once led million-dollar presentations now submits bare-minimum work. Their manager's "help" looked like this: → Rewriting every client email → Requiring approval for $50 purchases → Making last-minute presentation changes before client meetings The result? Textbook learned helplessness. Psychologists have studied this for decades. When people repeatedly experience situations where their efforts don't seem to matter, they stop trying altogether. The micromanager accidentally trained their high performer to become passive, then wondered why the team "lacks initiative." The painful truth: Every "helpful" revision and "quick fix" sends one message: "I don't trust your judgment." The cost is staggering: - Top talent leaves (or mentally checks out) - Teams become dependent rather than innovative - Managers become bottlenecks to their own success - Company culture shifts from ownership to compliance Here's your 3-step recovery plan: 1. Set clear outcomes, not processes 2. Create "decision zones" where your team has full autonomy 3. Schedule weekly instead of daily check-ins Remember: Your team's potential is directly proportional to the trust you give them. Want to know if you're building trust or control? Drop a 🎯 and I'll share the Trust vs Control Diagnostic we use with leadership teams

While reading Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow," I came across research on how surveillance and monitoring fundamentally alter human behavior at a psychological level. His research on surveillance and human behavior reveals exactly why so many organizations struggle with decision making and taking responsibility—and why it backfires so spectacularly; Kahneman's research demonstrates that when people feel watched or monitored, their cognitive processes change in three significant ways: - Reduced Spontaneity: - Increased Vigilance: - Loss of Ownership: The micromanagement trap occurs when leaders believe that maintaining tight control over all decisions will improve performance and reduce errors. In reality, this approach creates the opposite effect. When management makes all decisions, regardless of size or scope, several destructive patterns emerge: Teams become reactive rather than proactive, waiting for direction rather than identifying opportunities. Innovation dies because taking any risk feels dangerous when all decisions flow through a single point of control. Employee engagement plummets as people think their professional expertise and judgment aren't valued or trusted. Perhaps most significantly, over-control creates learned helplessness within teams. When people are consistently told that their decision-making isn't trusted, they eventually stop exercising that capability altogether. This creates a vicious cycle where managers feel compelled to make even more decisions because their teams appear incapable of independent thought. The psychological research suggests a different approach: establish clear goals, boundaries, and success metrics, then allow people the autonomy to determine how to achieve those objectives. This approach leverages people's natural problem-solving abilities while maintaining appropriate oversight and accountability. Organizations that successfully balance autonomy with accountability often see remarkable improvements in employee engagement, innovation, and overall performance. When people feel trusted to make decisions within their area of expertise, they become more invested in outcomes and more willing to take initiative. The most effective leaders understand that their role isn't to make every decision, but to create an environment where good decisions can be made at every level of the organization. #Leadership #Management #OrganizationalPsychology #EmployeeEngagement #DecisionMaking Daniel Kahneman