by Joy Maitland | Jan 22, 2026 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Leadership Development, Managing Directors, Middle Managers, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers, Women Leaders
Networking is transactional. Community is relational. This article explores why the latter powers meaningful, resilient organisations.
Networks will not save you –
Most leadership content celebrates networking: meet people, expand contacts, leverage connections. But networks are transactional by design. They serve a purpose — introductions, opportunity, exposure — yet they do not create belonging.
It is community that sustains performance, commitment, loyalty, and a sense of shared fate.
Networking is currency; community is identity
In a network, people connect because it might be useful. In a community, people belong because it feels meaningful. Networks are surface; communities are deep.
Leadership that focuses only on the surface misses the real power: human connection that endures beyond convenience.
The leadership value of community
Communities share:
- trust
- resilience
- shared learning
- mutual accountability
- collective identity
These are not outcomes of networking. They are outcomes of commitment to shared purpose.
The business that survives disruption is not the one with the largest contact list. It is the one with the deepest mutual commitments.
Community counters isolation
When leaders build community — internally or externally — the organisation no longer relies on individuals to “perform” for approval. It relies on people to show up for each other.
This makes cultures more forgiving, more loyal, and more resilient.
Why communities endure when networks fade
Networks respond to opportunity. Communities respond to challenges. Networks are about “who you know”. Communities are about “who you become with”.
This difference determines whether people stay when times are easy, and stay when times are hard.
Leadership practice that builds community
- Intentional listening.
- Shared rituals.
- Collective problem-solving.
- Mutual accountability without hierarchy.
- Celebrating effort as much as outcome.
These are practices, not programmes.
A reflection worth sharing
If your organisation is rich in contacts but poor in belonging, there is a gap. The question leaders should ask is:
- Do we have connections, or do we have continuity?
- Because continuity keeps people, effort, insight, and value when networks alone won’t.
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
by Atiya Sheikh | Jan 21, 2026 | Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Leadership Development, Managing Directors, Middle Managers, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers
The psychology of delay, why it is often emotional not logistical, and how leaders turn hesitation into decisive action
The uncomfortable truth about procrastination –
Most leaders already know the usual advice: plan better, prioritise, break tasks down, block time. Useful, yes. But it misses the real reason procrastination persists even in capable, high-performing people.
The strongest research-led explanation is surprisingly human. Procrastination is often short-term mood repair. We delay not because we cannot do the task, but because doing it triggers discomfort, and we instinctively choose relief now over consequences later.
Leaders rarely procrastinate on easy admin. They procrastinate on emotionally loaded actions: the conversation, the call, the decision, the message, the boundary.
What leaders are really avoiding
When a leader says, “I just need more time to think,” it can be true. But it can also be a socially acceptable cover for something else.
In leadership settings, procrastination often clusters around four hidden stressors:
- The identity threat – If I act and it does not go well, what does that say about me?
- The reputational risk – If I decide and people disagree, will I look wrong in public?
- The conflict cost – If I raise it, will it trigger anger, defensiveness, or a political mess?
- The moral weight – If I choose one path, who gets disappointed or disadvantaged?
Research reviews consistently link procrastination to task aversiveness, low expectancy of success, impulsiveness, and the way rewards feel distant, which is one reason deadlines suddenly create motivation.
The brain angle leaders find oddly reassuring
If you want a sharper explanation, neuroscience has explored procrastination through the lens of emotion regulation and action control.
One widely discussed finding is that procrastination relates to how effectively the brain regulates negative emotions and shifts into action, with studies pointing to connections involving the amygdala and control regions. This supports the idea that procrastination is not simply laziness, but a struggle between discomfort and regulation.
In plain terms: the task feels like a threat, and the brain nudges you towards avoidance.
The leadership version of procrastination
In organisations, procrastination is rarely “scrolling social media instead of working.” It is more polished than that. It turns up as:
- Scheduling another meeting instead of making the call
- Requesting more data when the decision is already clear
- Rewriting the email repeatedly to remove any possibility of misinterpretation
- Waiting for “alignment” when what is really needed is a line in the sand
- Delaying the feedback because you are trying to be liked and respected at the same time
A small dose of humour is helpful here because it is true: some leaders do not procrastinate by doing nothing. They procrastinate by doing everything except the one thing. That is why “structured procrastination” resonates with so many professionals, even if it is not a scientific intervention.
Why self-criticism makes procrastination worse
Here is the trap. Leaders procrastinate, then become harsh with themselves, and the harshness increases stress, which increases avoidance.
Research has linked procrastination-related stress to lower self-compassion, and suggests self-compassion can be part of breaking the cycle. This is not about being soft. It is about reducing shame so action becomes psychologically accessible again.
A practical framework leaders can use immediately
If procrastination is mood repair, the intervention is not only better planning. It is better emotional handling and clearer decision design.
Try this sequence:
Setp1 – Name the emotion in one word: Anxious, irritated, resentful, exposed, guilty, uncertain.
Step 2 – Name the threat: What exactly feels at stake? Reputation, belonging, control, fairness, identity?
Step 3 – Reduce the task to the “first irreversible step”: Not “solve the whole issue.” Just “send the message,” “book the meeting,” “state the decision,” “ask the question.”
Step 5 – Shorten the distance to reward: Temporal motivation research highlights how delay reduces motivation. Create near-term payoff: clarity, relief, momentum, fewer open loops.
Step 4 – Choose courage over comfort, in that moment: The point is not to feel ready. The point is to stop negotiating with the discomfort
A closing reflection that starts conversations
Procrastination is not always a character flaw. Often it is a leadership signal. A sign that something matters, that stakes feel high, that the emotional load is real.
A useful question to ask yourself or your leadership team is this:
What are we calling “prioritisation” that is actually avoidance?
Because the day leaders stop waiting to feel perfectly ready is often the day momentum returns.
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
by Atiya Sheikh | Jan 21, 2026 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Leadership Development, Managing Directors, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers, Women Leaders
How leaders can go beyond talent and commitment to build excellence that endures — inspired by those who hold multiple Michelin stars and unmatched standards.
Excellence feels glamorous until you watch the work behind it –
When people hear about a chef holding three Michelin stars and three hats — like Clare Smyth — it’s easy to focus on glamour. But mastery is not accidental, nor is it a weekend feat. It is the result of unglamorous repetition, focus on fundamentals, and disciplined refinement.
Most leadership content glorifies “breakthrough performance”. What few explore is how leaders sustain excellence over time, across contexts, and under pressure.
Discipline is the invisible backbone
Excellence is not a moment of brilliance. It is a daily commitment to repeat the fundamentals better than yesterday. In kitchens, studios, sports teams, and boardrooms, the pattern is the same: those who sustain peak performance are obsessed with refinement — not recognition.
In leadership, the temptation is to chase strategy, innovation, and differentiators. These matter. But without discipline — the practice of doing the right basics well — excellent strategy remains unexecuted.
The cost of consistent refinement
Sustained excellence demands continuous attention to:
- process quality
- personal reflection
- feedback integration
- resilience in setbacks
A leader who embodies these behaviours communicates more than what they do. They transmit a culture of mastery that others feel encouraged to adopt.
What separates the brilliant from the enduring
Short-lived breakthroughs are often tied to inspiration. Sustained excellence is tied to habits. It emerges where leaders internalise discipline as identity rather than imposition.
This matters because organisations often confuse enthusiasm with persistence, or charisma with consistency. Real excellence is not visible in highlights; it is visible in the day-after-date grind.
The leadership ripple effect
When discipline becomes cultural, it shifts expectations. Teams begin to see resilience not as endurance, but as rhythm. Performance becomes less about urgent peaks and more about reliable excellence.
Purpose becomes practice.
When people know that excellence is the daily baseline, they adopt behaviours that match it.
A reflection worth passing on
Ask yourself and your team:
- What behaviours are praised for their impact in the moment, rather than their value over time?
- What habits do we honour because they build sustained excellence?
When excellence is practice, not performance, everything changes.
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
by Joy Maitland | Jan 21, 2026 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Leadership Development, Managing Directors, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers, Women Leaders
A leadership lesson from a luxury brand about value, credibility, and what organisations risk when they cling too tightly to control.
Not really about watches –
When leaders hear “Rolex” they think luxury, precision, heritage. What few realise is that Rolex has a strategic response to the second-hand market — not just as a fight against grey-market sellers but as a claim on who gets to define value. This raises a question every leader should consider: if you carefully guard your organisation’s value, who gets to shape it — you, or the market and stakeholders outside your control?
Control feels good — until it doesn’t
Rolex approaches its product and its market with an unusual mindset. Instead of pretending the second-hand market doesn’t exist, it engages with it strategically. That’s not just marketing. It is a choice about reputation, narrative, credibility, and who owns the customer journey.
Many organisations try to hold tight to control — of brand, process, data, message — and miss the fact that control is an illusion. What truly drives resilience and relevance is the ability to recognise where control ends and influence begins.
Trust isn’t granted, it’s co-created
Rolex doesn’t win loyalty because of polished messaging. It wins trust because its legacy and rarity are co-created with users, resellers, collectors, and even critics. Each participant in the ecosystem adds meaning. Each resale communicates confidence in the product. The brand becomes richer because it doesn’t deny the secondary market — it incorporates its energy.
For leaders, the question is not, how do we stop others from interpreting our value? It’s, how do we shape the shared experience that defines our value beyond our walls?
The risk of ignoring the ecosystem
Organisations that treat stakeholders as passive recipients of authority rather than contributors to meaning invite fragility. Market narratives, social media, competitor comparisons, customer stories — these voices exist whether you acknowledge them or not. When leaders try to squeeze ambiguity out of every plan, they also squeeze out connection.
Rolex didn’t win its sense of prestige by monopolising interpretation. It won it by acknowledging that value is lived, shared, and experienced.
Trust and control in leadership practice
Control is appealing because it feels safe. Trust is much harder because it feels unpredictable. But understanding where your influence ends and where your partnership with stakeholders begins is a leadership skill, not a softness.
Leaders who can balance clarity with openness — who can protect their organisation’s meaning while inviting collective value — create cultures that survive change, not just endure it.
A reflection worth sharing
If Rolex can accept the second-hand market as part of its reputation, what market are you refusing to engage with in your organisation? What conversations are you avoiding because you fear losing narrative control? And what value might you unlock if you shared the story with others instead of guarding it alone?
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
by Joy Maitland | Nov 26, 2025 | Board Members, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Human Resources (HR), Leadership Development, Managing Directors, Middle Managers, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers
Why leaders feel they must soften expectations and how rising sensitivity reshapes performance conversations and leadership confidence.
A shift leaders have noticed but rarely name
Many leaders are saying privately that it has become harder to set expectations, give direct feedback, or uphold standards without triggering defensiveness, disengagement, or emotional reaction. What once would have been a normal performance conversation now requires careful preparation, softened language, and emotional cushioning.
This is not because leaders have become harsher. It is because organisations have become more sensitive. Leaders describe it as walking on eggshells, even when their intentions are constructive and clear.
When accountability begins to feel dangerous
Leaders report that they hesitate before addressing missed deadlines, inconsistent delivery, or declining quality. They worry about how the message will be received, how the individual will interpret tone, and how quickly discomfort may escalate into grievance, withdrawal, or complaint.
Some say they now adjust expectations downward to avoid emotional disruption. Others say they absorb additional work rather than confront underperformance. Many say they have stopped being as honest as leadership requires.
The result is not kindness. It is avoidance. And avoidance erodes performance faster than incompetence ever could.
Why this fragility has emerged
Several forces have converged at once.
- A generation entering the workforce with different emotional norms.
- Anxieties amplified by uncertainty and economic pressure.
- Hybrid environments where signals are misread.
- A cultural narrative that discomfort equals harm.
In this climate, leaders are expected to protect emotional safety, sometimes at the cost of organisational effectiveness.
The paradox no one admits openly
- People want to be developed, yet resist feedback.
- Teams want autonomy, yet avoid accountability.
- Organisations want high performance, yet dilute standards.
- Leaders want to be supportive, yet fear being perceived as demanding.
This creates a workplace where expectations become softer, clarity becomes blurred, and excellence becomes optional.
The consequences leaders are already seeing
- Performance variation widens.
- Mediocrity becomes normalised.
- High performers become frustrated and quietly disengage.
- Leaders become cautious rather than confident.
- Teams become reactive rather than resilient.
When standards fall, culture weakens. When culture weakens, results decline.
The truth beneath the surface
Leaders are not lowering standards because they believe in less. They are lowering standards because they fear the reaction. And when fear shapes leadership behaviour, fragility spreads through the organisation like a silent fog.
How leaders restore strength without becoming harsh
The answer is not force. It is clarity. It is consistency. It is adult-to-adult communication.
There are approaches that rebuild resilience while maintaining trust.
- Define expectations explicitly rather than implicitly.
- Link feedback to purpose, not fault.
- Treat discomfort as a normal part of growth.
- Acknowledge emotion without being governed by it.
- Praise effort, but reward performance.
Resilience grows when challenge and support exist together.
The role modelling effect
When leaders demonstrate calm firmness, teams learn that high standards are a form of respect, not criticism.
When leaders speak truth without aggression, people learn that honesty is safe.
When leaders refuse to walk on eggshells, the organisation stops producing them.
Strength is contagious. But so is fragility.
Organisational fragility is not a problem of personality. It is a problem of culture. It emerges quietly and spreads through hesitation, avoidance, and emotional sensitivity that confuses guidance with judgment.
Here is a question worth exploring among leadership peers.
Are we protecting people from discomfort, or preventing them from developing capacity?
And here is the insight that lingers:
Organisations do not become fragile because leaders are too strong, but because leaders feel they must become weaker than the role requires.
The leaders who will strengthen their cultures are those who can uphold standards with humanity and communicate truth with steadiness. They will build workplaces where resilience returns, excellence is expected, and trust grows rather than fractures.
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
by Atiya Sheikh | Nov 26, 2025 | Board Members, Board Trustees, CEO, CFO, COO, CIO, General Managers, Heads of Divisions, Human Resources (HR), Leadership Development, Managing Directors, Middle Managers, News & Articles, Non-Executive Board Members, Senior Managers, Women Leaders
Facial analysis and behavioural AI in hiring: what it means for fairness, bias, and whether algorithms should influence decisions. Should they influence decisions? A provocative look at fairness, ethics, and the risk of replacing judgement with algorithms
A leadership dilemma that is emerging quietly
A growing number of technology platforms now claim they can analyse a candidate’s facial expressions, micro-movements, voice tone, eye focus, and behavioural signals to predict suitability for a role. Some claim to detect confidence. Others suggest they can assess emotional reliability. A few even imply they can identify leadership potential.
The question many leaders are beginning to ask is not whether this technology works, but whether it should be allowed to shape decisions that define someone’s future.
The appeal of certainty in an uncertain hiring landscape
Hiring has always involved uncertainty. Leaders have relied on interviews, CVs, intuition, references, and observation, only to discover strengths or limitations later.
It is tempting to believe that AI can remove doubt, reduce risk, and eliminate bias. The promise sounds compelling. Data feels objective. Algorithms feel neutral. Technology feels precise.
Yet here is the truth that many overlook. Facial analysis does not measure competence. It measures conformity to the patterns of those who designed and trained the system.
The human cost hidden beneath efficiency
If facial interpretation becomes a hiring gatekeeper, who gets excluded?
- What about those who are neurodivergent?
- What about cultural differences in posture, tone, or eye contact?
- What about candidates whose thoughtful expression reads as serious?
- What about individuals whose anxiety masks capability?
A system can quietly conclude that someone lacks confidence, warmth, or leadership presence, even if none of it reflects reality.
Technology can measure movement, but it cannot recognise humility, integrity, courage, empathy, or strength of character.
The myth of bias-free technology
AI is often presented as objective. But every dataset reflects the preferences, assumptions, norms, and demographics of the humans who built it.
- If historic hiring rewarded extroversion, the system will reward extroversion.
- If leadership has been modelled on a narrow profile, the algorithm will reproduce it.
- If certain faces have held power, those faces will be scored as more suitable.
Technology does not remove bias. It automates it. And it scales it.
Why leaders are vulnerable to adopting these tools now
Workforces are stretched. Talent shortages are real. Time to hire is under pressure. Boards want certainty. Regulators demand fairness. The cost of a hiring mistake feels higher than ever.
In moments of pressure, leaders are most likely to outsource judgement. But outsourcing judgement comes with a price. Once leaders surrender discernment, they surrender humanity in the process.
What hiring is truly about
Hiring has never been simply about selecting skills. It is about understanding potential. It is about recognising values. It is about sensing maturity, adaptability, resilience, and capacity to grow. It is about reading the person, not the face.
Leadership development is a human discipline. It requires human interpretation.
A more responsible path forward
Technology can support hiring, but it should never replace the leader’s ability to see the whole person.
There are three grounding questions that help leaders stay anchored.
- Is this technology enhancing fairness or disguising bias behind complexity?
- Is it improving insight or relieving leaders of uncomfortable responsibility?
- Is it honouring human dignity or reducing individuals to data points?
If leaders cannot answer confidently, the organisation should pause.
Facial analysis in recruitment may appear modern, efficient, and scientific. Yet beneath the surface lies a profound risk to diversity, fairness, and the essence of what it means to recognise talent.
Here is a question worth asking in any senior leadership conversation.
If your early career had been judged by an algorithm reading your face, would you be where you are today?
And here is the insight that stays with people long after the conversation ends.
The future of hiring should not be shaped by how a face is interpreted, but by how a leader recognises potential in another human being.
Leaders who understand this will build organisations that perform strongly, decide wisely, and remain unmistakably human.
The Right Conversation Can Change Everything. Let’s Talk.
