How to succeed at work when your manager is a legacy employee

When you are in a junior position, almost any manager can help you learn. Whether it’s perfecting technical skills like sales or coding, or learning to understand and reflect corporate culture, almost all advice is helpful. Fast forward 15-20 years into a career, and your team leader plays a very different role in your career. They might not even share the same technical skills or background. People management and office politics might be the expertise they are teaching you. Or they may no longer be in a position where they are teaching you much at all. At that point, it is likely that your boss is a legacy employee. They have value, they can do the job and do it well. But they may be less integral to the organisation than they once were. At this point, they may be planning for retirement or a consulting role or a very different opportunity elsewhere. What does this mean for your own advancement?

Promoter or problematic? Not all legacy employees are an obstacle to your career advancement. For example, if you are still a couple of levels below your manager, they can support promotions and pay increases and expanded responsibility, without any personal conflict. Others may even welcome your transition into their role, if they are, for example pre-retirement. Both scenarios, however, require a legacy manager who is aware their own advancement path has ended and content with that reality. So how to handle the ‘other’ situation?

Your future first. Your network and allies should always be fresh and expanding. So, your first solution should be in place long before you are in this situation: never rely on one person for complete success at anything. Your manager is an important and natural first line of supporters, but they should never be the only one. You should have other people in the organisation that recognise your potential and will advocate for you. This includes not only people senior to your but direct reports (you don’t always know who their own allies are!).

Second, don’t let your manager’s future get into your present state of mind. Continue to do the things that made you a high potential team member in their eyes. If their attitude or opinion seems to change, keep in mind that might very well be an emotional reaction to their own vulnerability. At the same time, do not be dismissive of their advice or opinions. For one thing, they still can provide a lot of wisdom and inside perspective: they are living the role you want for yourself. But more fundamentally, show empathy and generosity towards people who have supported you. The road to the C-suite is paved with opportunities to build relationships, have empathy and navigate difficult moments. This might be one of the first times you can show true top-level engagement.

Your boss is not your brand. Some of my clients have become such good team players that they sometimes lose a little of their own identity along the way. It’s not unlike a marriage, where one spouse becomes so wrapped up in the others’ success that they fail to value their individuality. No matter how close you are to your manager, they will have both good and bad qualities that you cannot mirror. If they are now a legacy member of the organisation, this could be a good opportunity to push yourself to differentiate yourself from them. That doesn’t mean be disparaging of what their flaws are; it does mean recogising the gaps in their contribution and emphasising your own. Were they better at strategy than detail? Did they communicate better in groups than one-on-one? Perhaps you can demonstrate your project management or mentorship talent.

Reporting to a leader that is now legacy is a disappointment, not doomsday.

Many people discover that their boss is no longer the asset to the organisation that they once were, and panic. Our own egos make us fear that people we like, or who like us, are us. If they are no longer valued by the company, than we no longer are. As I have written before, the reality is that organisations who are successful today are run by people who value and embrace constant change, frequently reposition to meet the current needs, and will adapt their talent supply to the latest opportunities. This means that the person who was perfect for a role five years ago might not be now—simply because the circumstances have changed. Be gracious and calm. One day it might happen to you. They’ll live. So will you.

In terms of my background and expertise, I have spent my entire career working as a trusted advisor to senior leaders wanting to improve the effectiveness of themselves, their teams and their companies. Prior to starting my own consulting firm, I led the global executive assessment and development team for Cisco. Earlier in my career I  held leadership roles with RHR International, PepsiCo, Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School and the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Dr Robert Kovach
PSYCHOLOGY. LEADERS & TEAMS.

Here are the best ways to recognise and address a team member who is now legacy.

Performance is personal. When I say someone who is legacy, I mean the person has reached the limits of their potential, in their current role, or within the current strategy of the company. This is an important distinction. I have managed or advised leaders who had team members who weren’t performing well in another organisation or even in just another department. In a different role, they thrived. So potential is personal and specific to the organization and the role. As a leader who is making the most important strategic decisions of the company, it can feel like a personal failure when someone is moving into a legacy status. And that’s not just due to ego—a bad hire can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Leaders love to be right (you’re so surprised, right?) and it can feel like a personal failure when someone they saw as a long-term fit, ceases to be so.

But it doesn’t mean that person is a “failure”. It simply means that person’s strengths no longer align or have reached the extent of their potential with the goals of the organisation. It’s important for leaders to recognise that as painful as a legacy team member is, it doesn’t mean that the employee or the leader has failed.

Honest communication is vital. Second only to my clients’ resistance to recognising that an employee is underperforming, is their resistance to tell the person. This is easy to understand—you don’t need a licensed psychologist to explain why. If we have any humanity or decency, we feel badly when we know we are going to disappoint someone. We all avoid pain—physical and emotional—and we go to surprising lengths to minimize that discomfort. Add to that the fact that leaders take it personally when a team member has outlived their potential in a role, and it’s excruciating. I tell people on the receiving end of this conversation all the time—it’s really not personal, it is a business decision. And we work with their emotional response to what is happening, with sensitivity. But for people giving this news, it’s more blunt: tell them. Do it today, preferably yesterday. It’s not going to improve. It’s not going to be easy. But it’s unfair for someone to come to work each day, presumably doing their best to contribute, unaware that others no longer have confidence.

What’s even worse: many legacy team members sense it. They might think they are having a rough week, or not communicating clearly, or blame someone else. But most of us are self-aware enough, especially those reporting to C-suite or senior leadership teams, when our contributions simply aren’t landing the way we want. They might be initially upset, but on another level, it is likely not a complete surprise.

A team member who is now legacy doesn’t reflect a failure of the leader or the member.

The most important thing to remember is that people lose jobs and leave jobs and go on to thrive elsewhere. Companies change, and with that change comes differing needs. Leaders move on and bring in their own teams and styles and not all of the existing employees remain the best person for the role. In other words, it is critically important to recognize when a team member is now legacy. And it’s vital to communicate it. At the same time, it isn’t indicative of a crisis in the organisation. I advise leaders across a variety of industries, generations, cultural backgrounds and geographical locations—this comes up again and again. It’s the inevitability of the constant evolution and adaptation that good leaders embrace. It’s a painful situation, but not necessarily a bad one.

In terms of my background and expertise, I have spent my entire career working as a trusted advisor to senior leaders wanting to improve the effectiveness of themselves, their teams and their companies. Prior to starting my own consulting firm, I led the global executive assessment and development team for Cisco. Earlier in my career I  held leadership roles with RHR International, PepsiCo, Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School and the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Dr Robert Kovach
PSYCHOLOGY. LEADERS & TEAMS.

There is also the aspect of how much you report out to the organisation and the general public—call it the communications transparency continuum. At the one extreme, there is so-called corporate speak, including official statements to the public, which is usually heavily vetted and scripted and edited. Then there’s the other extreme, including reluctance to say anything at all, to the point of risking the appearance of obfuscation. That’s rarely intentional: it can either bely a lack of agreement at the top about what to say, or handwringing about committing publicly (and thus permanently, in the era of the internet) to whatever decision was arrived upon. But the cost of such poor communication can be more problematic than the decision itself: one survey found that 60 percent of North American employees didn’t know the company’s vision and couldn’t articulate the mission or cultural values. This might not be lack of articulation of core values: it might be that communication (or lack thereof) wasn’t consistent with those values.

Even when you are avoiding those extremes, you will operate along that continuum: it’s just unavoidable. That said, people will always read between the lines, and that is when trust becomes a huge issue. For leaders of public companies, what is said officially will be held to another set of official statements: all the legally required disclosures that public companies make to the government. Remember that employees of public companies are very savvy about acquiring additional context. And the requirements of companies listed on the London Stock Exchange or New York Stock Exchange mean those organisations regularly disclose compensation for leadership team members or key business decisions. What you say in your official statements, on social media, even comments by leaders picked up by the press all feed into the narrative.

What you say is permanent because of the internet. And thanks to social media, it will spread—an active living statement, not a static communication. It may even make its way to sites like The Vault and layoff.com because current and potential employees rely more and more heavily on these kinds of sources to get information—and importantly, form an opinion—about a future employer based on them. The point is that how you communicate will impact climate and culture long after any particular executive leaves, and it will always be a public record of how honestly and respectfully the company communicates difficult decisions.

The communication you make will last much longer than the decision.

In the digital era, corporate communications can be interpreted as a value judgement about how you treat people. If the organisation says very little about a departing executive, for example, it may be because the leadership doesn’t want to hurt their reputation, either out of mere politeness or because they might become a competitor or client. On the other hand, if the departure was associated with public-facing issues (they were high profile and there were unfortunate circumstances attached to them), then the decision to be quiet can be interpreted as a very different tactic. In fact, the worse the underlying circumstances, the more dangerous the decision to try to say as little as possible. If you sacked lots of people, admit it—people will be panicking anyway. If it was one person, with no extraneous issues, then perhaps you can say the company policy is to not discuss details because we respect everyone, current employees and former, and wish them well. Leaders today must understand the power and permanency of communications today and that style, tone and transparency are all part of the corporate culture and the public record. Be careful what you say but say something and say it well.

In terms of my background and expertise, I have spent my entire career working as a trusted advisor to senior leaders wanting to improve the effectiveness of themselves, their teams and their companies. Prior to starting my own consulting firm, I led the global executive assessment and development team for Cisco. Earlier in my career I  held leadership roles with RHR International, PepsiCo, Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School and the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Dr Robert Kovach
PSYCHOLOGY. LEADERS & TEAMS.

An underperforming team member isn’t making the cut. How do you bring out your best (and maybe theirs)?

Working with someone who seems to underperform can be incredibly stressful. For some, it can feel unfair or inequitable to be on equal footing with someone one doesn’t respect. It can even lead to feelings of resentment if it feels like they’re not pulling their own weight and others have to take on more. So how do you meet these colleagues where they are and work with them?

Find out where the problem is. It’s easy to assume that a colleague isn’t performing as expected because of their own incompetence or disinterest of other personal choice. But it’s worth considering whether the issue really lies somewhere else. Connect with your own manager—in an appropriate context that is neither accusatory or presumptuous—about whether your colleague is the symptom, not the cause. Do they have the information and support they need from their manager? Are they being given the same context and expectations? If you report to the same person, it’s easier to identify these issues. But if not, it can still be worth speaking to your own manager and ask for their help confirming that the disconnect is elsewhere.

Say something. Sometimes your best move is to just speak to the person directly. It’s important that the conversation be non-threatening, not accusatory, and come from a place of respect. First, find out how they feel about their performance. They may know that they are not meeting expectations. If so, learn what they think is the problem: is it their own inabilities or do they need resources they don’t have? If they aren’t aware, try to position the conversation as how you can help them. Don’t ask why they are struggling with a project; ask what they think they need to perform better. In other words, try to speak through a lens of empathy and position the interaction as something happening to them (lacking resources, context, support), not something they are doing to you.

Everyone works with underperforming team members occasionally. And you yourself may be the best solution.

Regardless of how the conversations with your manager and colleague go, find out how you might be able to help. No organisation is perfect, and helping a colleague who is less capable is part of the job description. In fact, having some team members not pulling their own weight is nearly inevitable. The more people that are assigned to a task, the more that each individual works a little less. The Ringelmann Effect (or “free rider effect”) that defines this dynamic has been proven in multiple studies. Therefore, the best performers not only accept that they will take on others responsibilities, they turn it into an opportunity to shine. Strong performers are not just incredibly capable at their own technical duties; they show the emotional intelligence and compassion to meet the whole team’s needs, including helping others. Even in the best teams, there will be someone who is not as experienced, or is new to the organisation, or is being asked to do something that doesn’t align with their strengths. And the reality is, that it could someday be you. Leaders like teams who lean in together, not perform in silos. Sometimes it will feel beneath you, but even those operating at the executive level are often supporting a (high-level) colleague who is not hitting the mark. The best leaders will do it without thinking or looking for credit. The team as a whole is better if the larger picture is the goal, not individual accomplishments. And that’s true in every company—the goal is not to work around the aspirant peer, it’s about learning how to accommodate them and succeed as a team. Don’t catastrophise the situation or blame the organisation. It’s ok to identify the problem—but also be part of the solution.

In terms of my background and expertise, I have spent my entire career working as a trusted advisor to senior leaders wanting to improve the effectiveness of themselves, their teams and their companies. Prior to starting my own consulting firm, I led the global executive assessment and development team for Cisco. Earlier in my career I  held leadership roles with RHR International, PepsiCo, Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School and the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Dr Robert Kovach
PSYCHOLOGY. LEADERS & TEAMS.

Companies must take a stand on political issues, quickly and decisively. They’re still learning.

It is unlikely, therefore, that most Gen X leaders–just entering the workforce at that time, dominating the C-suite now—had any experience watching their mentors deal with the politicization of business decisions. At least, nothing on the scale of today’s expectations that corporate leaders make highly visible, and unequivocal, statements on political and social justice issues today. The reality—and it’s not necessarily bad—is that the public holds organisations much more accountable for the impact their corporate operations have within a complex context of political shifts, social justice issues and more traditional ‘bottom line’ business priorities.

There are many upsides to this pressure: organisations have always been able to act more swiftly, and sometimes more impactfully, than nation-states. They can invest millions of pounds into a local economy. . .or not, having an immediate impact on the politics and legislation in the immediate area. Delta Airlines and Coca-Cola, both based in Atlanta, Georgia, made public statements supporting Black Lives Matter activism and other anti-racism dialogue in the wake of George Floyd. Whatever the personal views of their leadership team, or the state-level political actors they negotiate with traditionally, both companies hire from a local workforce with a sizeable African American population. And they both market to a national audience that was (according to polls at the time) also largely sympathetic to that community. Unlike South African apartheid, today’s leaders’ statements are closely tracked on social media and the impact on public reputation is swift and strong: and that attention doesn’t go away. The communities who are impacted keep focus not only on initial messages but ongoing commitment to the cause. That ranges from BLM supporters tracking organisations’ support a year after the George Floyd murder, or LGBTQIA+ people reminding organisations that ‘rainbow capitalism’ can be perceived as merely opportunistic.

Politics are local. But big business is global. While it might seem obvious that American companies reacting to American issues is a small adjustment, the reality is that the pressure is the same even if the company is a foreign presence. Adding to the complexity of the politicization of business is the globalization of operations, marketing and communications. As companies’ global footprint expanded far beyond their original headquarters, they both impacted and were impacted by local events. An invasion by Russia of Ukraine today impacts companies like McDonald’s, Apple and Google far more today than it would have forty years ago (recognising of course that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union at that time—you get my point). None of those organisations had a presence in either country. Now they have employees and customers throughout the region, and what they say or don’t say (and what they do, and don’t do, more importantly) is closely watched and quickly reported. There is almost no ability to stay silent, and today’s leaders are essentially flying the plane while writing the manual.

Which matters more to an organisation today: public perception by customers or working relationships with local authorities? The answer: both. And yet, you cannot stay silent and so each decision has a benefit and a consequence. Tough decisions are hardly new to today’s leadership teams: making tough decisions in the public limelight that are zero-sum and have little precedent, is fairly novel. Volvo leadership faced a similar yet different problem: the company had come out very publicly in support of the LGBTQIA+ community on a corporate, enterprise-level. But in their Poland operations they discovered it clashed a great deal with the values of local workers. This isn’t to suggest that companies should (or can) reflect the political mood of every local operation. This is simply to articulate the complexity of running a globalized business where locals hold a company accountable for their statements on political and social issues, in part because their presence makes them a local player.

Change seems to be the only constant. How do leadership teams plan for the unforeseen?

When issues arise that have millions of people on either side with equal passion, and both hold companies accountable if they don’t weigh in, it’s easy to see how this becomes a much more complex issue for leadership teams. The only thing predictable in this environment is ongoing unpredictability: the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the conflict between Israel and Hamas both arose overnight (as wartime often does). Even peaceful political shifts can be incredibly powerful: consider the political and social change from former President Obama to former President Trump. This year, 49% of the global population will be going through an election cycle. That includes an election for the United States presidency, where the presumptive nominees for each party exemplify the extreme future scenarios leaders must prepare for. Add that to the instability in regions around the world, and leadership teams may find that at least for the foreseeable future, only change itself is predictable. At this time, their key goals may be less about growth and more to simply stay on course. The most important strengths may be rapid responsiveness and clear, early communication. At the moment, it might not be about the products, but the perception. And leaders who learn fastest will go farthest. Until the next thing.

In terms of my background and expertise, I have spent my entire career working as a trusted advisor to senior leaders wanting to improve the effectiveness of themselves, their teams and their companies. Prior to starting my own consulting firm, I led the global executive assessment and development team for Cisco. Earlier in my career I  held leadership roles with RHR International, PepsiCo, Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School and the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Dr Robert Kovach
PSYCHOLOGY. LEADERS & TEAMS.

But it hasn’t.

What to do when your recent strategic hire is not producing as you hoped.

This is a scenario that I have seen play out many times over the years. Someone has been hired or promoted into a new and impactful role. The board and other members of the hiring team were excited about the choice and expected big new things. Then, after a few months, the new hire just doesn’t seem to be evolving into the leader they expected, milestones aren’t met and deliverables are lagging. They may even seem to be having a disconnect in team building or communication. Notwithstanding whatever promises or assumptions existed when the decision was made, doubts are now arising. Often I advise the following: 1) speak to them to determine your original goals are in sync, 2) confirm whether the messaging throughout the ecosystem is consistent (is this a translation problem, rather than a productivity one), and 3) identify your backup plan and timeline.

Are you on the same page? It might seem obvious, but make sure that your new leader understands the mission. Even if you hired from within the organisation, it’s possible that there is a disconnect between what are the actual deliverables or milestones that have been set. Who was in charge of communicating these goals, and with whom were they established? What was the timeline communicated: six months, a year? (By the way, I’ve written previously about why ninety days for a C-suite hire is not enough.) Who has been helping orientate or integrate the new hire? Was the prioritisation of different goals clear?

The higher the new person is, the more likely they are bringing their own perspective and experience (after all, being chosen for a key role naturally makes us think our decision making is accurate). For the same reason, those who hired that person will assume their perspectives and experience are accurate. The problem is, equally good judgement doesn’t always lead to equal conclusions. They could be making valid, but different assumptions or judgments even if they understood the goal. The ‘mirror image fallacy’ is common in situations like these, where people assume others’ reflect themselves, including their values, emotions and preferences. A new hire might not be failing to perform because of some intrinsic weakness but simply because they are doing things in a way that doesn’t align with what you expected. In all these cases, having conversations can illuminate where the gap is, and what kind of gap (priorities, execution, communication) exists.

Is this a messaging misfire? Sometimes the challenge is even narrower: a translation error. Maybe they are working towards the goals that were set but are doing it in a way that was not as expected. This is even more likely if you hired from outside of the company: they may have a different communication style, or team leadership strategy or sales playbook. These days, communication may be the most essential leadership skill, especially in situations of transition. But communication styles vary from organisation to organisation, from team to team, down to individual preferences. This includes everything from method to means: do you email a large group or only key stakeholders? Do you offer to do a zoom meeting to discuss live? Again, speaking directly to the new leader can help unearth if the gap between goals and performance is actually just a disconnect in how updates are being communicated. Don’t forget that communication style can impact not only information but perception—confirm your hire understands expectations on what to communicate and how to do so in an effective manner for their new audience.

Never stop networking. The need to network may be the current-day corollary of always be closing. The strongest leaders that I have seen remain consistently high performers are always out talking to people. They are staying in touch, either in real life or virtually and have a decent bench of talent available to them. Regardless of whether or not they have an open position at any given time, they keep close to a pool of potential hires. However, eight out of ten times, when I see an organisation concerned about a new leader who isn’t meeting expectations, they don’t have a support system in place. This doesn’t have to be a single individual to step in. It can be a team of people who can take on some of the responsibilities, or partner with the new person on a more involved basis than planned. And ultimately, the hiring team should also have that larger network in place in case a key hire does not work out.

Often the expense and time of a fully new replacement is unwanted and suboptimal. However, perhaps the original role as intended is broader than it should be (in general or for the person hired to do it). A ready network means you can get to pulling on outside resources as well as internal team members if you need to reconfigure the role. One note about networking: did your new hire bring any team members over with them? It can be a red flag when anyone in a leadership position doesn’t at least propose other potential colleagues who they have worked with before. Again, the most successful people that I have seen have a network of those who would be happy to work with them. Both your board and executive team should have a network, and so should those they hire.

In terms of my background and expertise, I have spent my entire career working as a trusted advisor to senior leaders wanting to improve the effectiveness of themselves, their teams and their companies. Prior to starting my own consulting firm, I led the global executive assessment and development team for Cisco. Earlier in my career I  held leadership roles with RHR International, PepsiCo, Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School and the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Dr Robert Kovach
PSYCHOLOGY. LEADERS & TEAMS.

Connecting with colleagues at work is what builds trust. And trust is key to success.

Trust in the workplace is an integral part of success at a company, from better results within teams, to increased profitability at the organisational level. Trust results in less stress at work, higher productivity and less burnout, amongst other things. We see this play out in the smallest of ways as well as in significant moments. We don’t waste time wondering why a colleague was late for a meeting if we trust that they are a hard worker with good judgement. Instead, we simply assume they had another call run late or had to attend to a client. In exchange, we continue to give them important roles and let them make their own decisions. And they respond in turn by feeling motivated, working harder, and producing more.

It all sounds so simple and effortless, but it’s not. We notice the challenges when the trust isn’t there. This can be for very simple and logical reasons, for example, a team member is new and we simply don’t know them well enough for trust to be earned. And that’s true on both sides of the equation. A new employee is less likely to share with their manager that they are running late every day because they are caring for an aging parent — or even that they just moved to town and keep underestimating the traffic. And without a proven track record, that manager has no reason to give someone the benefit of the doubt. Quite simply, trust is earned on all sides. Traditionally, however, our day in day out interactions with others gave us informal opportunities to build those relationships.

How do you build this trust in the workplace when we’re not even in the workplace?

It is much harder to build trust in online work environments, because so much of trust comes in the in-between moments. By that, I mean the small conversations — or shared laughs or somber pauses — that are not about the work directly. A lot of what connects us is mostly unsaid. It’s much easier to get the full set of what is happening with someone when you can read body language in person as opposed to through a Zoom call. When you extend that to a team dynamic, it’s even more difficult for people to read each other. In order to bond as a team you need to build a familiarity and shared sense of purpose. Everyone doesn’t have to be equally connected. Some individuals will forge closer relationships than others. But this is why the total is greater than the sum of the parts. And that is also why bonding over virtual tools is so much more difficult.

Trust comes from the shared small moments more than the larger ones. It can come from the smallest of shared values like choosing to live in the same neighbourhood or rooting for the same football team. But at the workplace, we reveal those smaller points outside of our formal meetings. But we no longer (or less frequently) have the opportunity to make small talk as we head down the corridor between meetings. We rarely connect with whomever is in the conference room early while we wait for others to gather. We get on a Zoom call at 9:59 and we’re off at 11:01 because we’re already late for the next call.

Rebuild the in-between spaces. So, we must rebuild room for in-between spaces. That could mean intentionally setting the first five to ten minutes after everyone gets on the call to go around the room and get a simple update about how everyone’s weekend was. Note that I said after everyone gets on, not the first five to ten minutes the call was scheduled: people will try to get on late to avoid this. Why? Because it’s going to be annoying and feel artificial, at least at first. And it is. It’s unlikely that human interaction which was developed and perfected for the first 10,000 years through in-person interactions is going to get the same emotional payoff over a video call. And yet, we must try.

Other equally imperfect ways to connect — have a virtual happy hour at the end of a Friday. You can’t make it compulsory or it really will feel like forced fun. But perhaps you can send a bottle of wine to everyone on a small team, or let them expense back their own (reasonably priced) bottle if they join. It isn’t the same as a quick one down the pub in person. It can’t be. But it can create the environment where we speak about the cinema or football or weather or whatever we used to talk about before we all went online. As this Forbes article notes, it’s important to not only see your team member as list of tasks, but a person with their own personal and professional goals. “Focus on the person — not their tasks — and building rapport. Especially during times of crisis and high uncertainty, it’s imperative to show concern for others rather than push for results.”

We can build trust among teams, without being in the same rooms. But it will take work.

I recognise that executive teams are looking for solutions that are more familiar – trying to bring teams back in with better offices and free lunches or simple mandates that employees must be in the office. The reality is that the most sought-after talent will likely find employers who are willing to accommodate remote or part remote schedules. You can meet workers where they are – in part remote environments – and find that connections are still built. And it may be that the connection itself is what drives people back into the office. Executive teams have understandably had the instinct is to pull people back into the workplace, in order to recreate those organic moments. However, what might be more realistic (and effective) is to help teams reconnect where they are. And once the relationships are better formed, employees may more naturally want to meet in person from time to time. But even if we don’t bring back the same in-person interactions, that doesn’t mean we can’t build trust.

In terms of my background and expertise, I have spent my entire career working as a trusted advisor to senior leaders wanting to improve the effectiveness of themselves, their teams and their companies. Prior to starting my own consulting firm, I led the global executive assessment and development team for Cisco. Earlier in my career I  held leadership roles with RHR International, PepsiCo, Ashridge Executive Education, Hult International Business School and the Central European University, Budapest, Hungary.

Dr Robert Kovach
PSYCHOLOGY. LEADERS & TEAMS.

Proud to be your partner! Solutions and Performances – Executive Search
https://lnkd.in/dJqm8z9a

KMR provides Executive Search and Talent Accquisition services, understanding the central role of the culture of an organization.