Why Leadership Retention, Engagement and Productivity Are the Hidden Drivers of Organisational Value

A Perspective Paper by Ian Buckingham and Kate Hargreaves of Mosaic Partners

Executive Summary

Most organisations continue to evaluate people investment through narrow financial lenses:

 

• salary cost,
• recruitment spend,
• training budgets,
• or short-term headcount efficiency.

Yet the true economic performance of an organisation is shaped less by payroll cost alone and more by the quality, continuity and discretionary contribution of its people.

At Mosaic Partners, our work across leadership development, organisational culture, behavioural diagnostics and enterprise transformation consistently reveals the same pattern:

When organisations destabilise any one of the following three dimensions, organisational performance weakens rapidly:

• Leadership Continuity
• Employee Engagement
• Productive Contribution

Together these form what we call:

The Three-Legged ROI Stool

Like any three-legged structure, if one leg weakens, the entire system becomes unstable.

This paper explores:

• the hidden costs of leadership attrition,
• the economic impact of falling engagement,
• the value of discretionary effort,
• and why organisations must rethink ROI beyond traditional financial accounting.

The Problem with Traditional ROI Thinking

Most organisational ROI models are still heavily weighted toward visible, measurable and immediate costs.

This includes:

• salary expenditure,
• operational efficiency,
• utilisation rates,
• overhead reduction,
• and short-term profitability.

However, many of the factors that most influence long-term enterprise value are either invisible on traditional balance sheets or poorly measured.

Examples include:

• leadership trust,
• institutional memory,
• behavioural consistency,
• employee commitment,
• psychological safety,
• stakeholder confidence,
• cultural cohesion,
• and discretionary innovation.

The irony is that these invisible factors often determine whether strategy succeeds or fails.

Organisations rarely collapse because of spreadsheets.

They decline because:

• trust erodes,
• leadership capability weakens,
• morale deteriorates,
• key talent exits,
• and discretionary effort disappears.

The Three-Legged ROI Stool

Leg One: Leadership Continuity

High-performing senior leaders create value far beyond their salary cost.

They:

• accelerate decisions,
• stabilise teams,
• retain customers,
• hold political relationships,
• protect culture,
• and preserve organisational momentum.

Yet many organisations continue to underestimate the true cost of losing them.

The Real Cost of Losing a Director

Consider a high-performing UK director earning £120,000 per annum.

Most organisations initially focus on:

• recruitment fees,
• notice periods,
• onboarding,
• and replacement salary.

 

However, the true organisational cost is far greater.

Typical Hidden Costs Include:

Cost Area	Typical Impact
Executive search fees	£24k–£36k
Vacancy productivity loss	£20k–£60k
Leadership distraction during recruitment	£10k–£25k
Reduced performance of replacement during integration	£40k–£100k
Loss of tacit knowledge	Significant
Team destabilisation	Significant
Secondary attrition risk	Significant
Stakeholder relationship disruption	Significant

In practice, the strategic replacement cost of a strong director is often:

• 1.5x–3x annual salary,
• and in some cases significantly higher.

 

For a £120k director, realistic organisational replacement cost often falls between:

• £240,000–£500,000+

 

The most damaging losses are often the least visible:

• momentum,
• trust,
• credibility,
• judgement,
• informal influence,
• and strategic continuity.

 

Organisations that repeatedly lose strong leaders frequently enter cycles of:

• reactive management,
• cultural instability,
• change fatigue,
• and declining confidence.

Leg Two: Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is frequently misunderstood as a soft cultural concept.

In reality, engagement is an economic performance variable.

Engaged employees:

• solve problems faster,
• collaborate more effectively,
• contribute discretionary ideas,
• support customers more positively,
• and demonstrate greater resilience during uncertainty.

 

Disengaged employees rarely sabotage organisations intentionally.

Instead, they gradually withdraw:

• effort,
• creativity,
• emotional commitment,
• and discretionary contribution.

 

The result is slow organisational drift.

The Economic Cost of Falling Engagement

Assume a mid-sized organisation:

• 500 employees
• average salary cost = £45k
• total payroll = approximately £22.5m

 

If employee engagement falls by just 10%, a conservative productivity reduction of 4% creates:

• approximately £900,000 annual productivity drag.

 

However, direct productivity loss represents only part of the picture.

Secondary effects commonly include:

• increased absence,
• increased turnover,
• reduced collaboration,
• slower decision-making,
• lower customer satisfaction,
• reduced innovation,
• more management intervention,
• and cultural fragmentation.

 

When these broader effects are considered, the true annual organisational cost can easily exceed:

• £1.5m–£3m annually for a 500-person organisation.

For larger organisations, these numbers become exponentially more significant.

A 5,000-person organisation with a £250m payroll experiencing even a modest 3% productivity drag may see:

• £7.5m+ annual performance erosion before secondary impacts are included.

Leg Three: Productive Contribution and Discretionary Effort

The third leg of the stool is perhaps the least measured and most strategically important.

Most organisations do not merely purchase labour.

They rely on discretionary contribution.

This includes:

• initiative,
• problem solving,
• collaboration,
• innovation,
• customer advocacy,
• peer support,
• ethical judgement,
• and willingness to improve systems.

 

The challenge is that discretionary effort cannot be contractually mandated.

It is voluntarily given.

And it is heavily influenced by:

• leadership behaviour,
• organisational trust,
• clarity of purpose,
• recognition,
• fairness,
• and psychological safety.

 

When discretionary contribution declines, organisations often experience:

• reduced innovation,
• slower transformation,
• increased bureaucracy,
• passive compliance,
• lower accountability,
• and rising cynicism.

 

This is often the moment organisations shift from:

“people trying to improve the business”

to:

“people protecting themselves from the business.”

Once this shift occurs, organisational energy becomes defensive rather than productive.

The long-term economic consequences can be profound.

Why Traditional Organisations Miss the Signals

The problem is not usually the absence of warning signs.

It is that organisations often measure the wrong things.

Typical executive dashboards focus heavily on:

• utilisation,
• margin,
• revenue,
• turnover,
• and operational efficiency.

 

Yet many organisations fail to adequately track:

• leadership trust,
• behavioural consistency,
• cultural fatigue,
• decision quality,
• psychological safety,
• or discretionary contribution.

 

By the time financial indicators deteriorate visibly:

• morale has often already collapsed,
• key talent has already disengaged,
• and organisational trust may already be damaged.

 

This creates a dangerous lag effect.

Organisations end up reacting to financial symptoms rather than behavioural causes.

The Strategic Implication for CEOs and Boards

The organisations most likely to outperform over the next decade will not necessarily be those with:

• the lowest payroll,
• the leanest structures,
• or the most aggressive cost controls.

 

They will be those best able to:

• retain leadership capability,
• sustain engagement,
• protect trust,
• unlock discretionary contribution,
• and maintain organisational adaptability.

 

In increasingly volatile environments, leadership quality and cultural resilience become strategic differentiators.

This is particularly true in sectors dependent upon:

• knowledge,
• collaboration,
• trust,
• innovation,
• customer relationships,
• and judgement.

 

In these environments, people are not merely operational resources.

They are value creation systems.

The Mosaic Perspective

At Mosaic Partners, we believe organisations must evolve beyond traditional models of people management and leadership development.

Future-fit organisations require:

• leadership ecosystems rather than heroic individuals,
• behavioural intelligence rather than positional authority,
• sustainable engagement rather than performative culture,
• and adaptive capability rather than static hierarchy.

 

This requires organisations to measure and strengthen the three critical legs of the ROI stool:

1. Leadership Continuity

• Succession capability
• Leadership readiness
• Behavioural resilience
• Strategic alignment
• Retention risk

2. Employee Engagement

• Trust
• Belonging
• Psychological safety
• Purpose alignment
• Energy and commitment

3. Productive Contribution

• Collaboration
• Innovation
• Accountability
• Customer orientation
• Discretionary effort

 

When all three are healthy, organisations create:

• stronger performance,
• higher adaptability,
• lower attrition,
• stronger stakeholder trust,
• and more sustainable enterprise value.

Conclusion

The future of organisational performance will not be determined solely by:

 

• technology,
• systems,
• automation,
• or operational efficiency.

 

It will increasingly be determined by whether organisations can sustain:

• trust,
• leadership quality,
• engagement,
• adaptability,
• and discretionary human contribution.

 

The organisations that understand this earliest will possess a substantial strategic advantage.

Because ultimately:

• disengagement is expensive,
• leadership instability is expensive,
• and lost discretionary contribution is extraordinarily expensive.

 

The challenge for modern leaders is therefore not simply reducing cost.   It is protecting and amplifying the human factors that create sustainable organisational value.

About Mosaic Partners

Mosaic Partners is a leadership and organisational development consultancy specialising in:

 

• future-focused leadership,
• behavioural diagnostics,
• organisational culture,
• leadership transitions,
• stakeholder engagement,
• enterprise capability,
• and sustainable organisational performance.

 

Our work helps organisations align leadership behaviour, culture, engagement and strategic capability to create resilient, high-performing enterprises prepared for the future of work.

 

For further information:

Mosaic Partners Future Focused Leadership. Sustainable Organisational Performance.

As Emma walked into the conference room, she could taste the tension. A major project deadline had been missed, and her team was strung. Some were blaming each other, while others sat in silence, avoiding eye contact. Emma took a deep breath and reminded herself of one crucial skill that had helped her throughout her career:

 

Rather than succumb to the impulse to leap into loud action, she controlled her breathing, settled her emotions, paused, observed, and listened. Eventually the passions settled and her calm presence centred the room:

 

“I understand this is a stressful situation,” she began, her voice calm yet firm. “Let’s figure out what went wrong and how we can fix it together.”

 

Instantly, the atmosphere shifted. The team felt heard instead of persecuted and rather than fueling conflict, they started focusing on solutions.

 

Understanding Emotional Intelligence vs. Emotional Quotient and the rapidly growing impact of Emotional Resourcefulness (ER)

 

EI and Emotional Quotient (EQ) are often confused but have distinct meanings:

 

Emotional Intelligence (EI) is the ability to recognize, understand, and manage emotions—both in oneself and others. The concept was popularized by psychologists like Daniel Goleman.

 

Emotional Quotient (EQ) is the measurable score of a person’s emotional intelligence, much like IQ measures cognitive ability.

 

In short, EI is the skill, and EQ is the measurement of that skill.

 

ER, or Emotional Resourcefulness, on the other hand, is the extent to which we use EI and the ends to which it is put.

 

Typical of human nature, there is inevitably a darker side to emotional control.

 

Why Emotional Intelligence Matters

Emma’s ability to navigate stressful situations highlights why EI is essential. It impacts how we interact with others, manage stress, and make decisions. Used properly it can generate win/win outcomes for all parties. Here’s why it’s so important:

1. Stronger Relationships – EI fosters empathy, communication, and conflict resolution, improving personal and professional connections.
3. Better Leadership & Teamwork – Emotionally intelligent leaders, like Emma, inspire trust and collaboration.
5. Smarter Decision-Making – High-EIQ individuals stay rational under pressure, leading to better problem-solving benefitting all concerned.
7. Greater Resilience & Stress Management – EI helps in handling setbacks with grace and perseverance.
9. Enhanced Self-Awareness & Growth – Understanding emotions leads to better self-regulation and fulfilment.

The Growing Need for Emotional Intelligence

Two decades ago, leadership was about authority. Today, it’s about influence. EI continues to rise on polls assessing the importance of leadership traits. So why is EI become increasingly important?

1. Workplace Evolution – Collaborative leadership requires emotional intelligence.
3. Rising Workplace Stress – The pandemic and economic challenges have increased stress, making EI a survival skill.
5. Technological Shifts – As automation takes over technical tasks, soft skills like empathy and adaptability become more valuable.
7. Changing Expectations – Employees and consumers expect emotionally intelligent interactions.
9. Mental Health Awareness – Organizations prioritize psychological safety, increasing EI’s importance.
11. Different Generations and more diversity at Work – Very different behavioural norms are at play simultaneously calling for more than a single-size response.

How to Strengthen Your Emotional Intelligence and become more Emotionally Resourceful

 

Improving EI and converting it to ER takes practice. Emma didn’t always have it—she developed it. Leadership development programmes and initiatives increasingly focus around cultivating EQ to:

 

Develop Self-Awareness – Reflect on emotions and seek feedback.

 

Improve Self-Regulation – Pause before reacting and develop strategies for managing stress effectively.

 

Strengthen Empathy – Actively listen and consider others’ perspectives.

 

Enhance Social Skills – Communicate clearly and resolve conflicts constructively.

 

Stay Motivated & Positive – Set meaningful goals and build resilience.

 

There are steps that we can all take in our everyday interactions, especially when using “social” technology.

 

Emotional Intelligence in the Digital World

 

Online communication lacks tone and body language, making EI even more vital:

 

Pause Before Posting – Avoid impulsive reactions.

Regulate Emotions Online – Don’t engage in digital conflicts.

Practice Digital Empathy – Read messages carefully and assume good intent.

Manage Social Media Stress – Take breaks, restore agency over your devices and cultivate a positive online space.

Leaders and Emotional Intelligence

Emma’s leadership success stems from her EI. Here’s how leaders can improve their own:

Develop Self-Awareness – Recognize and manage emotional triggers.

Enhance Self-Regulation – Retain agency. Stay composed under pressure.

Cultivate Empathy – Validate emotions, listen deliberately and understand team concerns.

Improve Communication – Provide clear, constructive feedback. Involve and consult more.

Inspire & Motivate Teams – Align goals with values and celebrate achievements.

 

The Perception of Gen Z & Victimhood

 

Emotional Intelligence is a trans-generational challenge but is especially relevant to digital natives. Some say Gen Z “claims victimhood” more than previous generations. The truth, of course, is more nuanced:

Mental Health Awareness – Gen Z is open about struggles, reducing stigma.

Social Media’s Influence – Visibility of challenges creates perception biases.

Advocacy vs. Endurance – Gen Z pushes for systemic change instead of suffering in silence.

Cultural Shifts – Emotional intelligence is more valued, reducing tolerance for outdated behaviours.

Economic & Global Challenges – Rising costs and instability make struggles real and valid.

Over-Personalization of Struggles

Over-personalization happens when common challenges feel like personal injustices:

Workplace Challenges – Viewing feedback as an attack instead of an opportunity.

Economic Hardships – Blaming external factors without personal accountability.

Social Disagreements – Treating differing opinions as personal attacks.

Why does this happen?

Social Media Algorithms amplify emotional responses.

Awareness of Inequality makes struggles feel deeply personal.

Therapy-Speak in Daily Life sometimes misuses psychological terms.

Validation Culture reinforces certain mindsets.

Balancing Awareness & Responsibility

Acknowledge real issues but recognize personal agency.

Separate emotions from facts.

Focus on solutions, not just problems.

Build resilience through adaptability.

 

Cutting to the Chase

 

Emma didn’t start as a naturally emotionally intelligent leader. She took opportunities. She learned from mistakes and successes. She listened. She grew. Emotional intelligence is a skill—one that can be developed to build stronger relationships, make better decisions, and lead with confidence. In today’s world, it’s not just a “nice-to-have”—it’s essential. But the cynics persist.

 

The Power and Pitfalls of Sensitivity:

 

Do you remember when sensitive people were simply called “too emotional”? Back then, sensitivity was often ridiculed—seen as a weakness or a lack of resilience. The world celebrated the “tough” ones: stoic, unbothered, and emotionally untouchable.

But with time and experience, a new truth has emerged: sensitivity is not weakness—it’s awareness and that can be a resource.

Sensitive people feel deeply. Their emotional radar picks up subtle cues that others miss. They notice tone shifts, body language, undercurrents in conversations. This makes them intuitive, creative, and often, deeply empathetic. In a world where much is different, daily, that values emotional connection and psychological safety, these traits are powerful and potentially beneficial or resourceful

Yet, like any strength, sensitivity has its challenges. Left unchecked, it can become overwhelming—like trying to navigate the world with the volume turned up too high. Or it can be used for malign or selfish intent. But when developed and managed well, it becomes the foundation of true emotional intelligence.

 

Not all sensitivity, however, is the same.

Some individuals use their emotional awareness not for connection, but for control. Think of the spider weaving an emotional web—carefully crafted to ensnare. These are the passive-aggressive manipulators. They recognise the resourceful potential of emotional connection and create buzz and attention with few moral boundaries, stir up conflict, play the victim, and exploit empathy to get their way. It’s a distorted form of emotional intelligence: awareness without integrity.

In the digital age, this manipulation readily finds fertile ground and reward. Social media becomes the web. A single emotionally charged post—crafted to outrage or trigger—can spiral into viral influence. These “emotional spiders” gain validation through likes, shares, and attention. They thrive not on connection, but on control.

 

This is the darker side of emotional intelligence—where empathy becomes strategy, and emotions are tools for manipulation rather than understanding.

But let’s not confuse this with true emotional intelligence.

 

True EI empowers. It’s about building bridges, not burning them. It helps leaders inspire, teams collaborate, and individuals grow. It recognizes the power of emotion—but grounds it in self-awareness, empathy, and responsibility.

 

So where does that leave us?

It’s a delicate balance. Emotions and sensitivity have fast become commodities. Emotional intelligence or resourcefulness is a tool, and like any tool, it can be used to create or destroy.

Will we use our sensitivity to connect, uplift, and understand?

Or will we weaponize emotion to manipulate, dominate, and divide?

 

In a world overflowing with noise, buzz, outrage, and emotional overwhelm, tuning into our emotional intelligence—with integrity—at home and at work – is not just wise. It’s essential. This is why we’re seeing such a rapid rise in emotional intelligence as a characteristic trait or competency that leaders need to master in order to become and remain future fit. It’s no longer the domain of the artist too sensitive for business. In many regards, like it or not, it is modern business.

 

So how are you helping your leaders navigate and develop these skills to remain future fit?

 

Returning to work for that late Summer productivity push with stretch goals at the forefront of their minds, leaders can’t fail to be aware of the pervasive backdrop of identity debates that rage around gender; class; identity; culture and race.

These are unprecedented times. But you would be forgiven for thinking:

“What? Another global crisis  that’s popped up to distract and deflect my teams?”

It’s clear to the enlightened that, far from being a storm to weather, change and change management itself is going to be a lifelong process of continuous development for leaders, especially the people aspects. So time to start dancing in the rain.

 

If your title  on the org chart is leader and yet you’re there on technical merit alone,  you have to be aware that it is going to become increasingly more difficult to justify your status.

 

Critics on one side have suggested that this current emphasis on difference or what sets us apart rather than what we have in common, is a cynical form of populist socio-political engineering aimed at creating loyal tribes. They argue that it has coincided with the coming of age of digital natives and the rising power of digital media. They also claim, that it’s deliberately contrived to divide and thereby enable easier control of the masses, as global agendas overtake national priorities and tempers fray.

 

The other set of critics, on the other hand, suggest that the current discord is a bi-product of the growth of handheld media liberating and giving voice to the previously unheard, the disaffected, the downtrodden and the victimised. They point to the growth in higher education attendance and suggest that this is now manifesting as enlightened thinking.

 

These are just two, domineering but very different readings of the same situation.

 

Can both be right?

Does it matter to you in your role?

 

Whether you favour the money and the power lines; take the supposedly ethical high ground or just keep your eyes focused on more pragmatic horizons, refusing to be drawn, the prevailing truth, as ever, probably lies somewhere in-between the self-interested extremes.

 

Whatever your personal take on the root cause of the culture debate, one of the effects on organisations of these geo-political pressures and discussions, is that the talent management and employment landscape is undoubtedly becoming increasingly complex. This, in turn, demands deeper consideration and sensitivity and certainly more sophisticated and malleable leadership strategies as senior colleagues try to control their controllables, as they are trained to do. Invariably, they will look to influence the aspects of employer or employment brand that they believe they can shape directly.

 

As coaches with several decades of leadership experience at the sharp end, this increasing complexity certainly brings challenges. But, as ever, the fault lines of change also herald greater opportunity for those with the potential to thrive through complexity.

 

The emotionally and intellectually agile leader capable of inhabiting the sense-making role, who has a vision for how the people disciplines influence business outputs and who is dedicated to liberating that latent potential within their teams while remaining focused on their core goals, will become increasingly valuable. There’s little doubting that, now.

 

Typically, in times of change, newness, alternate perspectives and difference is often interpreted or positioned as a threat by those who are insecure about the unknown. And, let’s be honest, most of us welcome the comfort of the familiar over constant uncertainty and every one of us avoids uncomfortable truths, from time to time. Sometimes, insecurity and discomfort is justified when the demands of the changing world seems beyond the realms of our current capability, or threatens to de-stabilise our standing in a competitive world.

 

There is also a natural paranoia about the less scrupulous who look to exploit division in order to manufacture advantages for themselves. These types now seem to get a deal more airtime than they used to, because hysteria and drama and buzz sells. But retreating into extreme conservatism in response can’t be effective for long.

 

Sure, the philosophies of diversity management and multi-culturalism have their logical critics. There are plenty of self-interested charlatans about (that’s human nature) waving flags of popular convenience, after all.  But inclusion and culture change are both concepts bridging anthropology, sociology and the organisation development world, that, within the corporate sphere, started as idealised enlightened thinking, but now have a firm business case, proven in practice and theory. Given the direction of travel of society in general, these concepts simply can’t be ignored. There’s a clear imperative for both diversity and inclusion and culture development linked to sustainable leadership practice, certainly when organisations are properly managed and led.

 

Culture, in organisation terms, refers to norms and ways of working. These can and are clearly informed by nationality and background. But organisational norms are primarily focused on practices that deliver the corporate goals and which can be readily scaled and replicated. They are more deliberately contrived and, even when they have significant legacy roots, serve a pragmatic purpose, first and foremost. They require a high degree of clarity and consistency of application. But even in global corporations it is perfectly possible for leaders and teams to riff around a “set” list that comes from a single playbook, but adapt and interpret it to suit local tastes. In fact, that adaptability is a core part of the role of regional leaders. But it takes skill and guile and nuance and responsiveness as well as governance and focus. Even then, with the best will in the world,  culture change initiatives can be undermined by identity politics and insecurity, if wielded as weapons for political point scoring, as they too often are.

 

Regardless of your starting point, it’s natural and healthy to remain skeptical about the way ED&I is positioned and managed and, indeed,  how far any leader can promote multi-culturalism in its absolute form, within organisation structures that require clear differentiation, controls, compliance,  rules, regulations and consistency. Sadly not every version of being yourself at work will be appropriate for every brand and sometimes values clash or are at odds that just can’t be reconciled. But if individuals and organisations are explicit about their purpose and values before entering into a business relationship, like joining as an employee or purchasing as a customer, that should be less of an issue. Yet, again, that takes systems thinking, strategies and work.

 

For decades now, we have been advocating for leaders to proactively manage their ways of working and corporate culture and, in turn, employment brand. In fact, as showcased in Brand Engagement, Ian was collaborating with the European Institute for Diversity Management back in the 90s, before the term was even widely used and certainly before it was accepted as a business principle and was designing consultancy teams with these principles very much in mind.

 

A core argument for taking a proactive, focused and systems approach to culture management is that, if you don’t, someone else will do it for you and will shape it to their own ends:

 

1. – checked your Glassdoor reviews lately?
2. – how’s the recruitment going and what are your suppliers saying about you?
3. – are your engagement surveys explaining the current talent churn?

 

See how the soft stuff really impacts the hard bottom line?

 

OD isn’t about hearts and flowers. It is actually a form of hard-nosed systems thinking. When it’s approached properly, it will be taken at least as seriously as your strategy for marketing and sales. At least. Why? Because it is the key enabler that drives the hard business outcomes like customer attraction, satisfaction, market share and profitability. Are you regularly reviewing your OD strategy at Board?

Bet you talk about your Marketing plans. So why would you spend £millions to attract customers with lofty promises about the brand, only to disappoint them when they interact with your people and products online or face-to-face? This neglectful practice actually speeds up brand decline…

 

Most OD problems arise, when well-meaning (or in rarer cases malign leaders) equate enabling activity to outcomes or lead only with the ethical imperative. This is made worse when they’re hypocrites,  clearly deficient in authenticity or values-based practice themselves but projecting a shadow that is compelling.

 

ED&I or culture management within organisations has to be about much more than woke PR trotted out for any trendy cause for a month of a year. It’s surely about ever-adapting ways of working to encourage colleagues to find common ground between their core values and those of the organisation and, as a result, continuously delivering better business outcomes by taking increasing ownership over the  goals they share…willingly.

 

In the hearts and likes version of the people profession devoid of a mature systems approach, the means become the end. In this world, organisations either end up alienating the bulk of their colleagues with fluffy talk in pursuit of what remains a minority agenda or lose sight of why they’re in business for in the first place and hemorrhage customers. Witness some major brands like Harley Davidson who are back-tracking in this area, pointing to a perceived loss of focus.

 

Post pandemic, we’re clearly living in more emotionally attuned times. For better or for worse, people feel the zeitgeist more keenly now, whether driven by algorithms or what passes for news. Most are literally plugged into others, (whether they like it or not), via their electronic devices. Emotions are powerful and can undoubtedly cloud commercialism. But sustainable businesses are balanced businesses. Their leaders take multiple stakeholder management very seriously. It’s the compass that guides their strategy. The trick is, in order to continue to make proper, informed and balanced decisions about their identity as it evolves leaders have to be acutely aware of their vital anchor points and strengths:

1. – their purpose and core goals
2. – their unique selling points and differentiators
3. – how their OD strategy reinforces and perpetuates the above, continuously adapting to remain current and future fit.

 

They then need to enshrine these behavioural anchor points in the ways of working of all leaders and perpetually and agilely improve and enhance their offer in line with customer and wider stakeholder feedback. This calls for systems thinking, ensuring that all moving parts work in synchronicity and complement one another.

 

Invariably, the people elements are the trickiest to get right. But inevitably, on most projects or programmes, they receive the least investment in terms of time and budget.

 

Diversity has undoubtedly become a buzz word. It’s often mentioned out of context of its siblings equality and inclusion and too often is positioned as either a right; a moral crusade; an atonement for historic ills; a response to victimhood or even a manifestation of moral superiority. Positioned this way, it appeals to those who see themselves as somehow wronged, searching for a safe and not necessarily productive space; raises the collective heckles of those who feel blamed for something they had no active part in or sometimes, yes sometimes, it becomes a ready and consuming cause for folk to align behind, hopefully touching upon the commercials, at some point.

 

There are a host of difficulties with this positioning, not least:

 

1. – it places the focus of improvement activity on a minority cause to the exclusion of the majority of colleagues
   – it creates a parent/child, two camp dynamic that infantilises the minority
   – it breeds resentment as it often detracts from the business goals

 

The point of ED&I within the corporate sphere, stripping out the emotions and ethics, is to enable the organisation to perform more effectively either by accessing a wider talent pool; tune in to the needs of stakeholders more effectively; innovating better; evolving to changing demographics and markets faster or enriching with differing styles that stretch and evolve the core.

 

That last point is crucial. Organisations are made up of manifold individual identities but they are drawn together under one vision; purpose; strategy; value set and culture. If you own the business, you are the ultimate custodian of all of the above and it’s most likely that, in this era,  if you want to succeed commercially, clarity and inclusiveness are both key.

 

Whether you’re a business; organisation or nation-state,  the notion of multi-culturalism is both attractive and problematic. It’s attractive because it encompasses all-comers and caters for all varieties and tastes. But it’s tougher to manage and lead.

 

Brand, or identity, is mostly behavioural. It’s a signal to stakeholders, including investors, customers and indeed colleagues,  of the behaviour they can expect when interacting with the organisation and its leaders. It’s measured by reputation, what people say about you when you’re not there. And everyone’s on a form of Tripadvisor these days.

 

In order to differentiate, your brand has to define what it stands for. But it also has to be clear about what it doesn’t. It can’t be all things to all people. It takes a prejudiced stance. And that’s nothing to be ashamed of. That’s the point of having a unique point of difference. By the same token, it has to be scaleable and manageable, so its ways of working cant be entirely chaotic or self-determined by every employee. Unique standards and norms and guidelines and principles, governance and values and behavioural boundaries are part of the collateral that defines an organisation or a brand. These define difference. They are your USP. Consistency is an indicator of a healthy corporate culture, but it requires compliance and that’s an uncomfortable fact, for some.

 

So, multi-culturalism, in an absolute sense, is only really viable within a corporate environment within a range of tolerable variances. It’s the same principle that applies to total quality management where the nature of physical outputs is guaranteed by controlling a unique formula of inputs with the human inputs famously being the greatest source of problems, but also innovation. A strong systems-thinking environment can embrace diversity and inclusion. Of course it can and, of course it should. But as with any healthy adult relationship, there are behavioural boundaries that everyone has to work within in order to sustain the working status quo and achieve the key goals. There are givens. They create the bedrock on which the negotiables and variables should thrive. Systems and processes need to be in place to enable necessary experimentation; growth and continuous improvement to challenge and shape that status quo. But innovation is more an act of perspiration than inspiration and it requires discipline and focus. You’re just more likely to generate the good stuff if you somehow also embrace difference in pursuit of a common goal.

 

The long and the short of this debate is that leaders should treat culture development with at least as much care as the finances, not least because it’s a lot more complicated. They need to be as clear about culture development goals as they are outcomes sought and to role-model their core values. These simple steps alone should be sufficient for the future focused leader to embrace the notions of diversity, equality and inclusion as they can readily influence all three without marginalising their colleague base.

 

While multi-culturalism has its challenges, evolving core culture to remain inclusive and adaptable is eminently achievable. But like the best things in life, it takes dedication, commitment, focus, prioritisation, team effort, consistency and hard work.

 

Yet how many CEO’s still leave this task to the HRD to tackle on their own?

 

Do you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

We all walk around with more computing power in our pockets, these days, than the combined might of computers in the 80s and 90s. So it’s easy to think that the chatbots; filters; influencers and auto-generators can do our job for us as leaders. Because that’s what they claim.

 

Well, the good news is, for the evolving, authentic leaders out there, you’re probably more valuable than ever. Because, despite the catfishing; the smoke; the mirrors and the relentless personal PR endorsed by empty likes and melodramatic standout stewards and click-baiters, authenticity and results-based stewardship is more valuable now than ever. Because someone has to steer the organisation’s metaphorical ship through choppy and complex, ever-changing waters. And that somebody ain’t Big Brother/Sister or programmers.

We’re fortunate enough to work across sectors with individual coaching clients and cohorts of junior, middle and senior leaders who span most of the five generations at work right now. And despite embracing what the best of the fresh tech can bring, the classics remain and will always stand the test of time.

Certainly when it comes to personal standout, impact and appeal, these established tips remain as true now as they ever were, no matter how short the attention span of the stakeholder groupings who have, charmingly, brought back the notion of “crushing it like a boss”..

 

Leading really isn’t about “bossing” anything.
Engagement (appealing to both head and heart) isn’t about stunning charisma mastered in selfies As most acting coaches will tell you, presence is largely conferred upon an individual by the reaction of others, not what you claim it to be.

 

True respect and deference comes from a combination of deep-seated self-belief (from success, plain and simple); planning; practice & authenticity.

Presence, on the back of these foundations, can be developed through following some simple principles, like these, & finding what suits your personality. But to be sustained, it has to be backed up by outputs; results and reputation:

 

1. Project Confidence: Believe in yourself and your performance. Stand tall, maintain eye contact. When you feel confident, the audience will sense it too.

2. Know Your Audience: Understand who you’re performing for. Adapt your energy, tone, & style to connect with them. Engage with their reactions and adjust accordingly.

3. Body Language Matters: Posture: Stand or move with purpose. Avoid fidgeting or slouching, unless you’re doing it for effect.

4. Gestures: Use expressive gestures to emphasize points or emotions.

5. Movement: Move purposefully within the space. & use it to involve different parts of the audience.

6. Energy & Enthusiasm: Be Animated: Express emotions genuinely. Show enthusiasm for your material and tell a story..

7. Vary Intensity: Adjust your energy level based on the content. Build anticipation during intense moments and relax during quieter ones.

8. Eye Contact: Connect with individuals in the crowd. It creates a personal bond and draws them into your performance.

9. Practice: Rehearse extensively. Familiarity with your material allows you to focus on engaging the audience rather than remembering lines or chords.

10. Breathing Techniques: Deep Breaths: Calm nerves and maintain control by taking deep breaths.
11. Diaphragmatic Breathing: Breathe from your diaphragm to project your voice effectively.
12. Authenticity: Be true to yourself. Authenticity resonates with audiences. Let your personality shine through.
13. React: Unplanned stuff happens. Respond to cues or energy.
14. Adapt to Mishaps: Stay Calm: If something goes wrong, maintain composure. The audience often forgives minor slip-ups. Improvise and turn mistakes into opportunities
15. Feedback and Reflection: Learn from Each Performance: Analyze what worked and what didn’t.

 

Take no notice of what the “one-upmanship” types are professing online. It’s easy to shine superficially with filters and gimmicks or empty “likes” Focus, instead, on your authentic style.

Hard work will pay dividends from the stakeholders that count.

Most of all, be yourself because, as your phone will remind you, everyone else is taken.

 

The Winter Solstice has always been a very testing time of year for people in the Northern hemisphere, where most of the mythology surrounding the period originates.

You don’t have to be a Christian to appreciate that, as the light dwindles and the days draw shorter and increasingly colder, it becomes increasingly tougher for everyone physically and emotionally. This is why people cleverly invented many of the traditions we now associate with the time like twinkling lights; the giving of gifts; indulgent behaviour and yes, the focus on goodwill towards one another. Yes, Indeed, it should be a time when people put aside their differences and group together to help one another through into the new year and the green shoots of Spring and renewal.

 

2023 seems to have been an especially tough year, for many, certainly judging by our cross-sector experience. It has often been made worse by unpredictability and the prevalence of identity politics and the exaggeration of difference to create otherness and perpetuate division in the interests of greed. But decent people know there’s always another, more hopeful and positive way.

 

The Mosaic proposition and approach to leadership development is based on the understanding that sustainable organisation cultures stem from unity of vision and common purpose. Yet they also thrive on embracing difference and inclusion. And that’s how we should view the unique and important rites, norms and rituals that shine like totems and beacons to steer us through the tough times and changing demands we all face.

 

2024 will probably not be any easier as the many forces that surround us all remain disappointingly chaotic and unstable. We may not be able to manage them all, but we can all change the way we react to them and, whatever happens, can continue to listen, learn and adapt.

 

Something else that we can all control is the way we apply our personal agency and energy. Regardless of how different others are and how they bring their traits and habits, norms and preferences to our “table”, if we respond from a place of positivity, respect, kindness and a willingness to try to improve together, we’re half way to overcoming the worst that life can throw at us and will be more receptive to spot the opportunities, the magical moments of lights and inspiration that we’re all capable of.

So our festive message to you, whether you’re reading this as a client, partner, colleague or someone we’ve yet to meet is simple: whatever your culture, belief system, background or aspirations for the future, the team at Mosaic would like to wish you a happy, peaceful, and fulfilling season and we hope that the new year is filled with opportunities to tap into your full potential, whatever role you play.

 

Here’s to you and your leadership journey and we look forward to sharing stories with you in the weeks and months ahead.

 

All the very best from Kate, Ian and the Mosaic team.

Times are tough, right?

So what’s the point of reviewing performance?

Any business founder or forward- thinking CEO will tell you that cultivating, expanding and then sustaining a business brings many challenges.

 

These are amplified during periods of perpetual pressure.

But why does the simple act of plugging employees into the core goals of the business present as a dark and troublesome chore, just when you need your team to step up?

 

It’s tricky assigning goals to people for many reasons. With five generations working together, many employees resent alignment, authority and accountability and especially don’t like to be told what to do. Yet decent performance has very little to do with a good “telling to” .

 

The golden thread connecting business goals to individual objectives really should be what entices employees to go the extra mile, the stuff that could make the critical difference to the business. But why do employees hate appraisals?

And why does the very concept of a performance review or process give so many managers sleepless nights?

 

Well, the simple answer is: they’re not skilled or confident enough to operate the process properly.

 

The competencies required are seldom cultivated or taught and the process becomes laden with negativity, especially when employees don’t have the same skin in the game as their line managers looking to set their goals.

As recently as last year, a major global consultancy firm claimed that over half the business leaders they consulted were considering abandoning their performance review process completely.

 

1. When pushed, they gave reasons like:
   1. “It’s not worth the time needed to fill out the forms”
   2. “The process leads to divisive and negative conversations that undermine morale”
   3. “ Younger employees especially, struggle with any hint of authority”

As a consequence, some high-profile organisations are experimenting with letting performance reviews slide.

While it may be trendy to bash appraisals, is it fair or even wise to undermine the process?
In my view, it’s madness, especially now.

 

So let me (briefly) debunk the excuses:

1. Time: It’s no surprise to me that the same leaders who blame process and can’t find the time often complain how hard it is to attract and retain employees or to cultivate a performance culture. Their behaviour is clearly the challenge, not the forms. What is more important than focus and encouragement, improvement and adjustment?
Their leaders need to re-frame the process; ensure every employee has clear and evolving goals and objectives and that they review them regularly with their line manager in short, focused sessions rather than treating it as an annual chore.

 

2. Negativity: Feedback and coaching skills don’t come naturally to most. If your process is driving cynicism, you’re not doing it right. Consider training or leadership coaching based on simple principles.

 

3. Authority: Again, positioning is key and this reaction suggests that your line managers need some development support. Accountability is a non-negotiable for all employees and if communicated appropriately, it should be a source of recognition and appreciation, a positive that bonds and inspires.

 

It’s a shocking realisation for some, I know, but companies really don’t exist solely for the benefits of their employees. Their purpose is to deliver the vision and objectives of the organisation. Hopefully their goals are balanced enough to include social and colleague metrics and will predominantly be linked to all-important customer and shareholder satisfaction. Even third-sector institutions get how important balance is.

 

The needs of colleagues, owners, customers and other stakeholders shouldn’t be mutually exclusive and won’t be seen that way, if the leaders are doing their job well.

 

The performance management system is a critical people process. It should help create and then cultivate the golden thread between corporate vision and employee contracts to drive performance, recognition and reward.

So it’s not only unwise to ignore PM.

It’s dangerously irresponsible.

 

We’ve recently helped one of the region’s largest building organisations re-construct their leadership development programme on the back of their approach to performance management. They’ve won awards for the resulting process. Their directors credit the resulting behaviour as the primary reason for their counter-cyclical positive performance as a business.

So if you’re tempted by the dark lure of the cynical chatter, try concentrating on re-engineering the way your leaders engage with others about their performance instead.

As their highly-rated HRD is fond of saying:
“it ain’t what you do but the way that you do it”.

                              How are your results?

 

Ian Buckingham is Mosaic’s Strategy Partner and Consultancy lead. and the CIPD’s former #HRFixer.

 

This article was originally commissioned by our client Bradley Hall for  Portfolio North magazine. Do connect with them on Linkedin for property and business updates from across the North and North East.

 

Decisiveness and the quality of decision-making is, not surprisingly, in the top half of Mosaic’s annual poll of Future Fit Leadership traits.

After all, it’s an unavoidable part of the role of any leader, to somehow make sense of the storm that includes: situation, context, circumstances, options and inputs and to come to a conclusion about a course of action that remains true to the official trajectory that the leader has subscribed to.

 

Yet it’s especially difficult, messy and lonely when that leader happens to work in the people professions, as many of our clients do.

 

The Mosaic team is drawn from practitioners who have all, at some stage, trodden similar paths to our clients, whether in the agency worlds or other sectors. But we recognise that, as objective third parties or consultants, the nature of the decisions we make, or influence, come with different levels of accountability. Our influencing relationship is different and the nature of the invitation is markedly different to that between a salaried Director and their Board.

 

With this in mind, we have again called upon the perspectives of a long-standing friend; someone with a legendary international networking presence; an HR pop star Steve Browne, to share his practical perspectives on this tricky topic, from the other side of the pond.

 

“I’ve worked in HR, here in the States, for oodles of years. My heritage pre-dates enlightened terms like “people-centered” and even “engaged employees”. To be blunt, workplace culture used to be sniggered at when terms like “satisfaction” or worse still, “employee happiness” were used.

 

Even as a junior staffer, I knew that something was wrong and that issues being experienced by colleagues downstream were the result of what was happening in the “water” above
(quite the metaphor for anyone who’s been camping).

 

My first “real” HR role was in a manufacturing company where the notion of process was strong. There were few bridges between HR and colleagues. So I took it upon myself to make the brave decision to get out of the office and to walk the floor, to go to where the bulk of the people were. Tom Peters calls this “managing by walking about, MBWA”. It just made decent horse sense to me.

 

Senior peers and managers said I was crazy and that I would be plagued by moaning or confronted by angry staff. But, within a relatively short time, the number of complaints and “tickets” raised dropped significantly. Why? Because I was accessible, people had a relationship with me and could come to me informally to address challenges before they snowballed. It worked.

 

My gut was right. My decision was vindicated.

 

I’ve always tried to present as an approachable, friendly person. It’s how I was raised and it is a natural part of my leadership style in a profession where others choose distance and many boundaries. Friends and contacts tell me that’s why I have nearly 50,000 international contacts, because I work on the social aspects of social media, a lot. I’ll take that. But it isn’t easy cultivating networks or leading change.

 

When I joined my current company, 17 years ago, my predecessor was known for his focus on due process; rigidity and hierarchy. Rules and systems took priority. Theory X was his leadership style.

 

I took a different view of our environment and felt strongly that integration and working across teams was the way forward, consulting and facilitating, coaching and influencing. To my mind HR should be seen as a partner and not a back office support function. It wasn’t always a popular view. But I held the line, despite strong opposition at times.

 

I have to admit that it’s taken longer than I’d hoped and has been a rocky road some weeks. But we’re now getting there. I’m proud of how HR is now woven into the fabric and that we’ve mentored and nurtured people-centric skills. It did test my belief in my convictions, however, and like many HR peers, I seldom get a lot of thanks.

 

Don’t get me wrong. I’ve had my share of setbacks during my career and there have been times where I’ve questioned why I didn’t adopt a more straightforward profession or approach with cleaner and clearer deliverables and outcomes.

 

There are HR professionals who set boundaries rigidly and come to work to focus on task. Perhaps they sleep better at night? But I’ve learned the hard way that there’s often an inverse relationship between organisations that claim, loudly, that people are “their greatest asset” and the sub-prime amount of time and attention as well as resources they actually dedicate to the people professions.

 

I’ve joined organisations where the reactionary and inflexible nature of the more traditional management strictures has been doggedly persistent. Here, my approach has been criticised as idealism and I’ve been constantly under attack. Sometimes, the adage “you have to work within the culture to influence it” is all too painfully true. And there have been situations and roles where I’ve had to admit defeat and give in to the status quo.

 

Where I have left the arena on my shield, I know that I’ve at least managed to cultivate enlightened sparks in at least some progressive eyes, through example. But rigid structures are hard to re-shape, even when they’re faced with a changing commercial landscape. Not surprisingly, however, one of those organisations was recently taken over by an acquisition they couldn’t defend.

 

In terms of lessons, I see leadership as something that has to change and evolve organically in line with changing pressures and norms and opportunities. I feel I’ve learned from mistakes. Not least that we all make them. But what’s important is that I’ve consistently made decisions that are true to my core values and beliefs; I’ve stuck to them; despite a lot of pressure and ultimately I’ve left most roles better for having been there. And that matters.

 

I’d have it no other way.”

 

We know that the community members who read these posts are interested in the power of the people professions to influence and enable effective business outcomes. Steve’s journey and examples highlight the importance of taking and sticking with values-based decisions at key moments. As an agency, we attract our fair share of cynicism and are often called idealists.

 

Well, long may that last.

 

Here’s to Steve and the fellow Don Quixotes, tilting at giants.  He’s an author, speaker and prolific HR networker on a mission to connect with HR professionals worldwide. Soi f you’re not connected with him on Twitter, look up @sbrownehr or contact us at @PartnersMosaic and we’ll join the dots for you.

The biggest frustration when working in the people and transformation space is the incredibly stubborn resistance to using evidence-based data to inform decisions.

 

You will all have heard at least one of these classics:

“Our work is not a science, it’s more of an art so can’t be measured”
“People are unpredictable and we can’t just reduce their outputs to numbers”
“A leap of faith is more inspiring than a decision based on logic”

Or our absolute favourite:

“It’s about the feelings not the facts”

These are all tropes from the people profession. Yet part of the reason why “people people” and HR departments are often disliked and not trusted is that the people who decry data are the same people who will consider nothing but “facts” over emotion come a recruitment, performance management issue, disciplinary, tough decision or even a tribunal. Employees certainly notice how swiftly the soft and emotional wrapping are discarded then.

 

There is, of course, a better, middle way that even we squishy people types can stomach.

 

Anyone who’s run a team or been accountable for a budget will tell you just how acutely aware they are of the adage: “what gets measured gets done as it’s what the leaders signal is important”.

 

The fact is that NOBODY is above the need for hard evidence. If you doubt us, then you won’t have been on the sharp end of an organisation re-size; planning cycle; budget bid or resource competition. And if you haven’t been involved in any of the above norms of operational reality, then you’re probably not doing “people stuff” right.

 

Kate: 

“Despite being a strong believer in the power of the people stuff, I wrote my MBA thesis on the ways to quantify the impact of learning and development. It wasn’t a simple thesis, but it had to be done. I have rarely been involved in a transformation project in the last ten years that hasn’t called for some form of evaluation. That may well have been a consequence of my influence. Rarely, however, without objective input, does the measurement process make the link to the golden thread that ties people initiatives to the organisation’s business plan and bottom line. However, when it does, (as we’ve seen with all of the leadership programmes we’ve developed and run over the last three years), the impact is adrenalizing and the engagement factor is multiplied.”

Ian: 

“Absolutely. Having been a senior leader within an agency and a corporate environment, I always insist on finding people metrics to sit alongside process management goals which in turn drive stakeholder outcomes as well as financial.

 

Taking a balanced approach to measurement is really important for HR functions to justify return on investment to gain share of purse. It’s also critical for line managers to ensure that their performance reviews with their teams are comprehensive and joined up. Having led large teams of big-brained consultants, performance indicators like billable hours or return on investment are vital both for demonstrating added value and giving appropriate recognition and performance management.

 

Failure to devolve responsibility for hard engagement; culture or employee development goals quite clearly leads to dissatisfaction; loss of recognition and morale and ultimately to employee churn, especially of the most capable colleagues. The ones leaders can’t afford to lose. And it’s actually not that difficult to come up with three or four meaningful metrics tied to the leadership strategy and business plan. Just don’t overdo it..”

We were recently struck by how one of the most successful members of a client’s leadership team proudly announced that he had increased his income by around 25% year on year since the turn of the decade. He’s a robust sort but hadn’t achieved success through schmoozing the right senior people or pulling the wool over the eyes of line managers or the people function, playing games with their processes.

 

The key to his success had been knowing his personal worth. In the context of billing. To this day, he creates a balanced scorecard or dashboard for every project he undertakes and grosses these up to what he calls a personal contribution matrix.

 

Quite simply, he writes down his three key goals under:

 

• finances
• sales and customer satisfaction
• processes and efficiency
• team satisfaction, engagement and contribution.

 

He then creates a narrative around the relative contribution of the enablers to the outcomes, shows how they have improved and quantifies (roughly) how he’s grown the organisation’s bottom line as a team leader.

 

There’s no rocket science involved and he uses existing metrics available within the group. The difference is that he proactively uses the data to negotiate more favourable terms. He doesn’t sit around waiting to be recognised.

 

He knows his worth and he secures recognition.

 

Ian:

“After running a small business, I learned the very raw lesson of taking money out of the hands of my children and placing it in the pockets of others. It is sobering or, indeed, motivational if you view it appropriately. I took this sort of thinking back to larger corporate roles and, regardless of the reactionary noise, every people initiative worth its salt should and could have a quantifiable business case and should be tested accordingly.”

Hopefully these reflections on our latest future fit leadership trait ring a bell or two with you and have prompted some fruitful ideas and things to try. Be interesting to hear what you have to say about this topic and whether it justifies its ranking in our top five future fit leadership traits. Begrudgingly, I’m sure even the most benevolent of you may have to concede that data and measurement are about to have their day, even in HR and won’t be going away.

 

We wouldn’t advise ditching the performance management process, especially if you work in HR, if we were you! Quite the opposite, actually.

 

Just think laterally about your performance indicators and the true areas in which you add value to the bottom line, soft skills and all.