Team Performance and Morale

I was the only woman in the room so through some unspoken rule — I was supposed to plan the farewell party? A University of California survey of 3,000 employees found that women were 29% more likely than white men to report doing more office “housework” than their colleagues. Planning team lunches, and parties, taking notes, cleaning up the table after a meeting, scheduling calls — and other such “thankless” tasks often fall into women’s laps. Each of these is significantly hurting gender equality. Harvard Business Review labels these tasks as 'low-promotability tasks' — that are helpful to the organization but the person performing them isn’t perceived as making an impact. The way work is allocated in organizations needs to change. Not only do we need to re-address the perceived value attached to these tasks, but we also need to ensure that women aren’t the only ones doing office housework. Whenever it happened to me, I didn't have the courage to push back. I still wish I had. It's an unappreciated burden that a lot of women carry but we’re afraid of pushing back because we want to be seen as team players. It's time leaders make sure all work is shared equally, including “Dave’s” goodbye lunch. The trend of non-strategic work being piled up on women's desks needs to stop. We don't need logistical tasks, give us career-making roles and responsibilities. We'll no longer accept being sidelined. #bias #genderequality #womenintech #womenleaders #career #leadership

THE BELL CURVE IS BACK. Because nothing says “modern talent strategy” like recycling a 1980s blunt instrument. Rank your managers on a forced distribution, lop off the “bottom 10%,” and voilà — instant performance! (And, coincidentally, a tidy cap on bonus payouts.) It sounds efficient. It looks rigorous. Boards like it because it feels like discipline. Investors like it because costs stay predictable. But here’s the problem: the Bell Curve assumes performance is an individual trait, neatly distributed like height. It pays no attention to system dynamics. Which means you might be “yanking” not your weakest talent, but the people stuck in the most dysfunctional corners of the system. And you might be rewarding the “top 10%” not for brilliance, but for being shielded from complexity. Meanwhile, collaboration erodes. Managers stop sharing talent, hoard information, and quietly sabotage peers — because your system told them: only so many of us get to survive. Yes, Rank-and-Yank controls the bonus pool. But it comes at a different cost: trust, collaboration, and leadership effectiveness. If the way you run the system creates toxicity, no amount of star-polishing or pruning will save it. --- Reflection Prompts: Performing in a Forced Ranking System Self: How would I react if my performance was judged relative to peers rather than the realities of my work? Role: In a forced ranking system, would I prioritise collaboration or self-protection in how I lead my team? System: What hidden costs might emerge for the organisation when performance is reduced to a curve instead of context?

When “can-do” becomes self-abuse You say yes to everything. Not because you want to, but because you're afraid not to. Afraid you'll lose the client. Miss the pitch. Damage the relationship. And for a while, it works. Clients are thrilled. You're seen as the hero. But behind the scenes? ↳  Your team is running on fumes. ↳  Weekends blur into load-ins. Rigs change mid-show. ↳  They're sacrificing recovery time just to keep up the illusion. One night, after another last-minute change, your lead producer quietly says, "We can’t keep doing this. We're burning out." You call it “can-do culture.” But really, it's self-abuse dressed up as client service. The more you say yes, the more that's expected. Until the cracks start to show: 🔻 Scope creep. 💥 Burnout. 🤐 Quiet resentment. 💸 Margins that vanish the moment you hit “go.” You wish you'd known then what you understand now: Protecting your team isn't a luxury. It's leadership. Saying no, or not now, isn't selfish. It's how you keep showing up with energy, clarity, and creativity. Today, you assess the full value of an opportunity: Not just financially, but operationally, emotionally, and ethically. Is this good for the team? Will it strengthen trust, or just test it? The goal isn't to say no. The goal is to say yes for the right reasons. Because real trust isn't built on blind agreement. It's built on boundaries. 🔔 Follow Iain Morrison for honest lessons from 35 years of leading events ♻️ Repost to help someone spot toxic positivity in their own process

Every time a company turns promotion into a contest, you see the same fallout: - People stop sharing knowledge - Trust drops fast - Quiet contributors disappear into the background - Teams freeze instead of move faster You don’t build excellence through forced competition. Here’s what actually happens: → One “winner” gets a new title and pay bump → Everyone else wonders if their effort matters → Even your top people start asking, “Why bother?” Want to know how great teams pick leaders? • They make what it takes to move up clear (no guessing games) • They give credit for helping others, not just hitting numbers • They share honest feedback so everyone can get better • They don’t play favorites behind closed doors Promotions should reward the ones who lift the team up—not the ones who step on others to get ahead. Forced ranking kills trust, not just engagement. Your best people notice. They don’t stick around to see if things change. Reward those who build others, not just themselves. Promotions signal what you value. How has recognition shaped the culture in your team? What would you change?

Do you find this insight confronting? We certainly did at Shape Talent Ltd when we uncovered this in our Three Barriers research. The findings applied across a range of industries and levels of seniority. On average, at least 50% of the time women are fearful of saying the wrong thing lest it impact their reputation, their opportunity for promotion, or how she is perceived by her manager or her colleagues. This is not the basis for good decision making or happy cultures. What can you do? 👉 Create psychological safety. People won't speak up if there is a fear of repurcussions. Invite differing perspectives in meetings and ensure there is no penalty levied for sharing a different view. 👉 Ask 'who's views aren't being heard'. If someone hasn't contributed, create space for them by inviting them to share their views. 👉 Equalise 'air time'. Watch to ensure everyone is contributing equally in meetings. Many AI tools will monitor if certain people are dominating the meeting discussion - watch for this and chair meetings in a way that encourages equal air time. 👉 Call out when different perspectives lead to better decisions. Acknowledging the value of different views helps to create an environment where people are more likely to contribute their views. #GenderEquality #EDI #ThreeBarriers

This may not surprise you: Civil workplace conditions can lead to increased engagement. While incivility often results in team member silence. Yet teams often focus on individuals speaking up rather than designing group norms and behaviors that encourage participation. Why does participation matter? Research shows that teams can achieve better outcomes when they learn from ideas offered by group members with a wide range of experiences and backgrounds. Yet not all team cultures make space for those different ideas. To better understand the role of teams in shaping individuals' experiences, researchers conducted two studies: an online experience and a survey of employees across industries. They looked at people’s reluctance or willingness to speak up, and the conditions of the group (rude vs. respectful). What they discovered is that both men and women withheld contributions more in uncivil groups than civil ones. However, women were more likely to choose silence in the face of incivility. In addition to responding to rudeness, concern for gender backlash had women choose silence more often than men. This does not mean that women will not speak up. The researchers found that in civil groups, women reported speaking up to share their ideas just as much as men. What can teams do? ✅ Focus on team norms that encourage respect. This can include perspective taking. When having a different point of view, instead of criticizing, say, “Yes, and…” instead of “Yes, but….” ✅ Value curiosity. Focus on learning from different perspectives. Notice when you align too quickly on consensus or one person’s view and ask, “What are we missing?” During this time when the words in DEI are under attack, many of us are returning to the “why” we do this work. In many ways, inclusion is about respectful environments that encourage different perspectives to contribute to group outcomes. Reducing incivility not only supports wider contributions from all, but it can disproportionately help those who have faced backlash due to bias. In the end, when individuals contribute, teams win. Research by Kristin Bain, Kathryn Coll, Tamar Kreps, and Elizabeth Tenney and published in Harvard Business Review. #teams #culture #inclusion

"Can she really be a leader if she’s acting so … girly?" 💄 The question stopped me in my tracks. It came up during a recent 1-1 coaching session with a male executive. It wasn’t meant to offend — it was an honest observation. But it revealed a much deeper issue about how we view leadership and the narrow expectations we place on women in those roles.  The executive shared his struggle to reconcile this team member’s strong leadership aspirations with behaviors he perceived as “girly.” That word — so loaded with societal biases 🌶️ — became the gateway to an important conversation about gender, stereotypes, and leadership.  Through our discussion, a few key insights surfaced:  🧩🌀 Leadership isn’t about fitting a mold: True leadership combines a spectrum of qualities. Assertiveness and decisiveness are just as important as empathy and collaboration. These traits aren’t “masculine” or “feminine” — they’re human. Their value lies in how they’re applied.  ⚡️🧠 Bias influences how we see behavior: The term “girly” often reflects our own unconscious expectations rather than the individual’s ability. Are we unfairly expecting women to embody “masculine” traits? Is "acting like a man" needed to be seen as a credible leader? 👩🏻🎤🧑🏻🎤 Supporting authenticity over conformity: The executive began to recognize the importance of supporting his team member’s authentic leadership style rather than pressuring her to conform to outdated archetypes.  This conversation reinforced a crucial truth: the problem isn’t women’s behavior. It’s the unrealistic expectations we place on them. When we judge leaders by narrow stereotypes, we limit not only their growth but also the potential of our teams. But transformation takes time and reflection. The seed is often planted in trainings, but it’s in the trusted, reflective, and safer space of 1-1 coaching where these biases and assumptions can be safely explored. As this executive began to shift his perceptions and actions, it reminded me: Leaders, especially those in positions of influence, have the power to challenge biases and foster environments where the courage to embrace authenticity breaks through the crust of stereotypes. What assumptions are you holding about what leadership “should” look like? Are they serving you — or holding your team back?  

There is a silent killer of execution on too many teams. It's not what you think. I've seen it too much over 25+ years of helping teams from startups to Fortune 500s: Lack of trust destroys results faster than anything else. I could tell stories, but there are decades of research on the costs: - 74% higher stress levels - 40% increase in burnout - 50% drop in productivity - $6,450 less earnings per employee - 2X higher turnover rates Here's what doesn't work: 😯 Extravagant offsites (fun, but a one-time event) 😯 Team building events (well-intentioned, but again, one-time event) 😯 Micromanaging (can work in tiny chunks; otherwise, unravels trust and productivity) 😥 "Trust fall" exercises (at best, an ice-breaker) Why don't these work? Because they ignore the simple math of trust: Trust = Time + Consistency Put another way, Trust comes from consistency over time. 3 proven ways to build trust through consistency: 1/ Make priorities crystal clear - and explain why when they need to change.   2/Create regular rhythms for updates that never, ever get skipped 3/Address issues immediately, even if solutions take time 🤺 Bonus method for max impact: celebrate wins (even small ones) every week. (You aren't being "tough" or having "high expectations" by ignoring this.) The research on the benefits of these practices is clear: teams with high trust show 106% more energy at work and consistently outperform their peers. The formula is simple, but it requires discipline to implement. What's powerful: These practices cost NOTHING but attention and commitment. Like and share so more people hear this. Then go out with your team and crush Q4.

There are players who never put up great stats, but you keep them around because they make the people around them better. Back in my corporate life in the automotive industry, we had 6 product managers. One of them was Lisa (name changed). She had a small portfolio She had no visible ambitions for promotion She had an average performance So when Lisa was let go, nobody blinked. The decision was rational. KPI-driven. MBA-approved. 6 months later: → Collaboration died. → Trivial conflicts exploded. → Toxicity flourished. → The team fell apart. Why? Because the invisible glue had left the building. Lisa was the glue. She wasn’t the loudest. She didn’t care for credit. But she made others better. She kept things human. She did what every leadership book forgets: 👉 She made people want to come to work. But glue work isn’t seen. It’s not in your OKRs. It’s not in your bonus calculation. It doesn’t show up on dashboards — until everything breaks. And here’s the uncomfortable reality: ➡️ Glue work is gendered. Most of it falls on women, especially those who are "nice", "team players", or "not career-driven". (Translation: socially conditioned not to say no.) ➡️ Glue work is undervalued. Once the glue is gone, companies hire expensive consultants to run "culture transformation" projects. ➡️ Glue workers are punished. In promotion rounds, they are seen as steady — but not "high potential". Steady doesn’t win the race. Loud does. So, what’s the solution? ✅ Name the glue. In performance reviews. In team calibrations. In leadership rooms. Make it explicit. ✅ Make glue work valuable. Give it weight in promotions. Allocate part of leadership KPIs to it. Because team performance is performance. ✅ Stop romanticizing ambition only in one direction. The "hungry for the next title" narrative is corporate monoculture. Stability, humanity, and creating cohesion are also leadership. 👩👉 For women: Stop doing glue work unconsciously. Do it STRATEGICALLY! If you hold the team together, own that narrative. "Without me, you’re paying McKinsey to fix your mess." (And you won’t even get my discount.) Lisa didn’t fail. The system failed to see what she did. And many teams today are quietly rotting… ... held together by invisible glue that is unpaid, unnoticed, and one resignation away from chaos. Glue is never urgent.... until it’s gone. And when it’s gone, it’s not the glue that breaks. It’s everything else.

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.