Human behaviour is fascinating! Let’s be honest, we’re so weird! Falling in love for example, is basically a form mental illness that we welcome into our lives. Humans are interesting and our relationships with each other are even more so. Since work is such a major part of our lives, how the system works and how the people within that system relate to and are affected by each other is also very interesting.

During the later months of 2025 I had a particularly challenging week. Three people contacted me within that week to vent (and in one instance cry) about how terrible their work situation was. Since I’d been on the phone in tears to a friend not too long before myself, my heart broke because I knew how awful they must have been feeling. Three different people, three different jobs, three different locations, three different personalities, yet the common thread was, according to each of them, their jobs in general and poor management/leadership in particular.

When the dust had settled, I reached out to these people and others, to ask if they’d like to contribute to a blog I was thinking of writing about work and leadership. Most were happy to contribute ideas and be quoted anonymously, which makes sense if you know them as I do.

One of the people who agreed to participate is someone I’m going to call ‘Chris’. I reached out to them because I felt they may be able to offer a different perspective on leadership.

Chris describes themselves as follows:

“I have 35 years of leadership and management across multiple sectors, have made a lot of mistakes and continue to make them. I believe people expect leaders to be heroes, and most sectors reinforce that expectation, so that when organisations have to resolve errors, they do it by sacking one person rather than addressing the culture, policies or processes”.

Eww, people!

Something everyone I spoke to in preparation for this piece mentioned was a lack of basic people skills, in particular the lack of empathy, care, and understanding of their colleagues by managers. It seems they’re not alone in feeling this way.

According to a 2025 article in Insight Magazine: “Just 47 percent of employees say their leaders show interest in them as people, compared with 79 percent of senior leaders. Meanwhile, only 48 percent feel that their suggestions are genuinely considered, while 82 percent of leaders believe they’re open to ideas. Appreciation and recognition also fell short, with only 49 percent of staff saying they feel their efforts are valued, versus 80 percent of leaders who think they show appreciation.”

If the above stats are accurate and leaders think they’re doing better in areas of appreciation and accepting suggestions than the people they lead would suggest, then a conversation needs to be had about how effectively leaders are doing this. If they say they’re considering staff suggestions and showing recognition but the staff aren’t feeling it then, perhaps the leaders aren’t doing these things very well.

The general feeling among the people I spoke with was that requiring empathy might come across as being too ‘sensitive’ or ‘needy’, especially in male-dominated environments and/ or traditionally task-oriented teams. I asked Chris about their thoughts on this:

“I would hope that a leader is empathic, but if you are describing the ‘employees’ as ‘sensitive’ and ‘needy’, you are forgetting that the leader is an employee too. If the leader is lacking in empathy, I would imagine the organisational culture is leaning towards all employees being ‘too sensitive and needy’ because no one is getting what they need from the organisation or industry you are hypothesising.

If this situation is something you know about, I would suggest you look at how much people engage with the staff surveys or how openly common cultural issues are discussed. If it isn’t discussed, then be the person who leads the discussion. Leaders aren’t just the people who are senior in the hierarchy; they are the people who lead the way. Be the leader you want to see…. (I am sure that is a Buddhist phrase or something).”

Of course, it’s hard to empathise with or support people you can’t see. Often the view of an organisation and the people within it will differ according to where within said organisation one ‘sits’, and if we’re not actively and meaningfully engaging with people and things outside of our ‘bubbles’ (whether you’re a leader or not) then it becomes increasingly harder to even know that others exist, let alone be able to appropriately support them when necessary.

Due to their role in the organisation, senior leaders often experience a different culture to everyone else, particularly those lower on the organisational chart. So, what, if anything, can and/or should senior leaders do to be more aware of the ‘true’ culture (ie, the culture experienced by most people) and how said culture impacts people at different levels? According to Chris: “They need to care. I think that empathy has been overused recently (I mean in the last ten years in the management world) and the ‘compassion’ element of empathy is often missed.

Leaders can express empathy without doing anything productive with their learning. When I say ‘productive’ I mean in a way that benefits or serves the group or person that the leader is feeling empathy with. So, if the leaders care, they will bridge the gap between the stakeholder groups they are peers with and report to, and the stakeholder groups that report to them. If they don’t care, then [those effected should] whistle-blow, contribute to the staff survey or whatever it takes. With facts and data. Not ‘ I dislike Chris because I know they are useless’ , instead put ‘ in several meetings in the week of 4^th of December I saw Chris be dismissive of their team with language that included “my team are all rubbish at their job” and when x person objected Chris told them to be quiet as they didn’t know Chris’s team like Chris did’.

It is important, if you are lacking in trust, that you identify several events that many people could have witnessed. This means you aren’t identifiable, and if someone is keen to look into the data, they are likely to find out what happened more than just who told them about it.”

Of course, training, coaching, and/or mentoring would be useful to help those who don’t naturally possess the skills necessary to connect with the people they manage. I asked Chris if non-senior leaders are trained well enough – or at all – in people management, and if not, why not: “No. I think that junior managers are often given no support to learn to manage and lead effectively. Often, if they achieve their first management role because they are skilled as a worker, they end up retaining the skills as a worker and not as a manager.

“The workers become resentful as they are no longer listened to, since the manager’s value depends on their insight into being a worker. This means the manager is performing two roles poorly, the workers resent the manager, and this will create a widening communication gap between the workers and the manager. The time required for cracks to show increases in proportion to the skill required to perform the worker’s role. This allows the manager to disguise their lack of actual insight into the worker’s role or their lack of connection with the individuals they manage. Silence from the workers will further increase the time it takes for cracks to appear (performance to decrease or attrition to increase). If the manager’s manager also got their role in this way, especially if they were also skilled in the worker’s role x years prior, it further increases the time it takes for anyone with influence to see what the workers see.

“This is not conducive to the effective development of good leaders. The manager will either continue to be promoted out of their skillset putting more pressure on them and their teams, or they will move organisations based on their previous performance and it becomes ‘someone else’s’ problem”

So what can leaders do to create a warmer relationship with their employees while maintaining professionalism? “Some responsibility lies with the organisations. If they are getting the results they need, what benefit would the manager get by creating a warmer relationship? Until the organisations concentrate on creating long–lasting and high performing cultures, the leader probably gains little by creating a warmer relationship”.

I guess knowing they’ve created a great environment for their team means nothing.

“There are numerous courses, training, leader development programmes as well as coaching available that will help any leader if they wish to be effective as leaders. Individual leaders will require different skills. I would suggest that people start with the authenticity and people-centred nature of the organisation”.

A failure to communicate (well)

We all (should) know that good communication is key in any situation, yet many employees still feel that communication from people in leadership is…Not great. The people I spoke with talked about having their concerns dismissed, with no real effort to really understand where they were coming from. Nearly all said regular catch-ups/appraisals rarely, if ever happened, and those whose communication style or personality type differed from the group felt they were often misunderstood or ignored.

Communication (or lack thereof) based on who you are or your role within the organisation is interesting too. It was a running joke within a team I worked with a while back, for example, about a particular male manager who not only talked down to women but would only respond to emails from other managers.

If ever there was a time for communication to be as near perfect as possible, it would be during times of organisational change where people’s lives are literally going to be impacted, but sadly, this isn’t always the case. Anyone who has ever experienced being on the wrong side of a redundancy or witnessed the process without being directly impacted will have their thoughts about this. The process itself is messy regardless of the organisation. It’s often confusing and, in some cases, highlights the incompetence of some organisations which had previously been undetected, for example, inaccessible information, inaccurate and out of date job descriptions…

Having experienced no less than 5 redundancy situations thus far across multiple organisations; some where I was directly impacted and others where I wasn’t; I remember a particular situation where, on a Friday afternoon, I received an email from HR summoning me to a meeting on the following Monday (no information regarding what the meeting was about) and informing me that I could bring a representative if I required one. Panicked, I tried calling and emailing HR and to this day have not received a response. I obviously contacted my manager, and they were just as confused as I was – not about the meeting, apparently, they had known about that – but about the fact that HR had contacted me before my manager had the chance to meet and discuss it with me first. Basically, HR had said they would send out the email the following week to give managers time to speak to us about changes to our roles, then I guess changed their minds (?) As you can imagine this led to all kinds of confusion and upset. Despite this, no apology was forthcoming, and when I raised it in-person with the Head of HR at the meeting I’d been summoned to, her nonchalance was almost comical, and my restraint deserved a medal.

What does good communication within organisations look like then? Well, first, according to Chris: “It is impossible for a leader to be a poor communicator. Managers fail at communication regularly. Leaders are leaders at ‘all levels’ because they are brilliant communicators.” I agree. I’m not sure you can really call yourself a leader if you lack a basic skill like communication. “Good communication looks like people listening to each other, checking understanding and adopting a common language that improves outcomes for everyone involved in the communication.” Again, I agree and I’d also add that I think giving a shit is helpful too. Not everyone has empathy, and this is unfortunate because it’s actually quite important. The simple exercise of placing yourself in someone else’s shoes and thinking about how you would like to be communicated with or treated in a particular situation, or how you would want someone you love and care about to be treated were they in that situation might serve as a guide as to how to treat others. Failing this, one would think that a true leader would be concerned with professionalism. Professionalism shouldn’t be confused with perfectionism – we all make mistakes – but acknowledging what went wrong, apologising, actively making amends, and putting things in place to reduce the likelihood of it happening again, seems like something a decent person would do and someone in a position of leadership should absolutely be doing.

Inclusion for thee but not for me

Despite endless information surrounding diversity and inclusion, whether managers or management teams engage with this information is a lottery. Some are very engaged. I know of a CEO who offered to be mentored by minoritised members of staff to improve their understanding of issues they were unfamiliar with. The mentors were not part of the senior leadership team but people from across the organisation who were skilled and had lived experienced in these areas. The CEO was aware of the limitations of their knowledge and actively did something about it.

Then there are leaders who kind of engage. They’ll do some training, say some things, take photos of themselves with the Disability rep, the LGBTQAI network chair, and some random Asian guy who happened to be walking past, and post it on multiple social media outlets with accompanying text about how ‘enriching it is to be part of such a diverse community at [insert name of organisation here]’. Meanwhile, minoritised staff have less access to progression opportunities than their non-minoritised counterparts, staff with disabilities are still experiencing some covert discrimination, and, despite multiple requests from everyone – the short-sighted, the long-sighted, the partially sighted, the great sighted, the neurodivergent, the dyslexic, and the pigeon that chills outside the conference room window on the 6^th floor, PowerPoint presentations are still a visual nightmare! (sorry, it’s a pet peeve!)

And then there are the managers who don’t participate at all. Actually, that’s not true. They attended a course once about how to incorporate ‘coloured’ people into the workforce in the mid-seventies. They also have ‘lots of black friends’ and always take time to ‘have a chat with Mr Khan from round the corner’. They don’t even mind all the immigrants ‘flooding’ the country ‘if only they would learn English and stop clogging up the NHS’.

These are very exaggerated examples, but they do exist in various forms.

Despite every organisation’s supposed ‘commitment to EDI’, many minoritised employees still feel that EDI is treated as ‘other’ with a ‘leave it up to the affected groups to do the work’ attitude instead of understanding that everyone especially leaders/leadership needs to take an active and consistent approach to EDI for it to be successful. I asked Chris if they’d ever witnessed a positive example of leaders/leadership actively engaging with EDI:

“The only positive examples I can recall are leaders from marginalised groups themselves.” Well, there’s a surprise.  “I think that many leaders can be performative, and whilst it suits films and stories for leaders to be ‘heroes’, leaders are simply human and want to earn a living and get the job done. It is obvious that if the leader is involved in all aspects of the organisation and EDI is a real need for them, the benefits are immeasurable for marginalised and not. I would again make clear that nothing will ever change if the majority within the organisation do not use the mechanisms within it to speak up.”

I’m not sure that the average worker wants their leadership to be ‘heroes’, just to exhibit basic human decency, but that might be the problem. Somewhere along the way, taking an interest in the people around you, actively challenging negative behaviours – no matter who is exhibiting them – and generally wanting to educate yourself on issues you may be unfamiliar with to ensure that you’re not inadvertently contributing to another person’s pain is now seen as ‘heroic’ instead of being a normal part of human existence. And while I agree that anyone at any level of an organisation should use organisational mechanisms to speak up (‘it’s not my problem’ people are a huge part of the problem) we can’t ignore the fact that leadership at all levels set the tone and culture of an organisation, so their collective indifference on this or any other matter sends a powerful message.

Developing or festering?

Funny story. When I was a child, I thought a masters was a qualification specifically for social workers. This was because every social worker I knew at the time (loads of my friend’s mums worked in that field!) spoke about studying for their MA. They were asked to complete it by their employers at the expense of their employers, with the understanding that after receiving the qualification they would need to continue working for the same organisation for a specified period before leaving. Many of those women have excelled in their careers since.

I’ve been the recipient of development opportunities in the past. After years of re-designing and delivering training to volunteers, a former manager suggested I apply to join the ‘Education and Training’ course (known then at PTTLS) to get a formal and accredited acknowledgment of my skills. I tried to apply only to be told that the course was only available to managers. Til this day I have no idea what said manager did to get me on the course, but a few months later I was in Wolverhampton, the only volunteer coordinator amongst a group of managers, working towards getting that qualification.

Some years before that, just after I’d graduated from university, I volunteered with a counselling service. On my first official day, on my desk were two things: a massive pile of policies that I was expected to read, understand and be tested on later and, sitting on top of those, a single sheet of paper advertising a 2-year accredited course on working within the voluntary sector.

More recently, my coaching qualification was obtained through my former employer who were offering the course to all members of staff who were interested and had the support of their managers to participate.

In all instances these opportunities helped me to grow professionally, engage in areas of interest, develop new skills and experience, introduce me to areas of work that I may never have been exposed to, and become more confident in my abilities

But let’s not be naïve. These opportunities don’t just benefit the individuals. The organisations benefit too. What’s a better way to keep staff or volunteers for a set period than tying them to a qualification that they can work towards and receive only if they are still volunteering or working at said organisation?

The PTTLS qualification I obtained meant that all volunteer training could be done to a high level in-house as both my manager and I were qualified trainers, and during and after obtaining my coaching qualification, the organisation acquired myself and others as internal coaches, reducing the need to purchase more external coaches.

Staff development benefits both parties.

However, there has been a notable decline in development opportunities for UK employees.

According to the CIPD 2025 report entitled ‘lifelong learning in the reskilling era’:

“The research found that up to a third of UK workers will need to reskill in the next five years to keep pace with changes in their jobs, yet access to training opportunities remains uneven—particularly for older workers, those in lower-skilled roles, and people employed in smaller firms. The report argues that without targeted action to overcome these barriers, the UK risks widening inequalities in access to skills development, undermining productivity and inclusion. To build resilience in the face of technological change, demographic ageing and the green transition, employers and government must work together to ensure reskilling is accessible to all.”

So, I asked Chris what, if anything, do they think leaders at all levels can do to ensure useful and meaningful continuous professional development for all staff especially in the face of budget cuts? 

“I think poor leaders will roll out expensive training as a box-ticking exercise to avoid challenging individuals. Creating a continuous improvement culture is money well spent on developing individuals who will continually share learning and improve ways of working. Creating an empowered workforce through a continually improving culture saves a lot of money and needs more effective leaders.

When people speak up about how ineffective their leaders are, using every opportunity to do so rather than living in fear of outcomes, it holds those leaders to account, encouraging them to deliver a challenging performance management culture. That will leave plenty of money left over for individuals to benefit from coaching, bespoke training, securing additional qualifications or whatever works for them. Most importantly, the training will be what the individual knows they need rather than what the leader thinks will meet the leader’s needs.”

In addition to challenging performance management culture where applicable, I’d also add that individuals need to realise that we are responsible for our own advancement and such, we need to be proactive about our own learning and development. Don’t just wait for managers to tell you what you need to learn, do your research, pay attention to what’s happening in your area of work, and be open to learning and development opportunities.

Something that isn’t often discussed is the relationship between professional development and employee wellbeing. For example, a government report entitled: “A rapid review of reviews on the nature of the relationship between learning and development and employee engagement, wellbeing, attraction and retention” (catchy!) states that:

“…there is robust evidence that – in general – learning is good for wellbeing via social contact, skill acquisition and improvements in confidence and self-esteem. Both informal learning and formal qualifications may also contribute to greater well-being indirectly, via improved employment and higher-quality work and income (Watson et al., 2017). 

Chris agrees: “I don’t need to read the report to know the connections, links or data. I have seen this throughout my career. When training is used as a sticking plaster to fix mistakes, which is often the case, all it serves to do is highlight the lack of progression for high-performing individuals, and they leave.”

Of course, the quality of development is just as important as the opportunities themselves. In a blog post featured on the British Chamber of Commerce website entitled: ‘Britain’s workforce is not ready for what’s coming’, Raphael Dennet writes:

“Daniela Amodei, co-founder of Anthropic, was arguing in February 2026 that the very things that make us human, our capacity for communication, innovation, emotional intelligence and collaboration, will become more important and not less as AI capability grows. She is right. But those are not capabilities you can easily deliver in a module or measure in an online assessment. They are professional orientations that develop through practice, over time, in conditions of genuine uncertainty, and they require a learning environment that most corporate training functions simply cannot provide. Skills England recently observed that 71% of the workforce that will be present in 2035 is already in employment. The people who need reorienting are mostly not sitting in lecture halls, they are sitting at desks in offices across Britain, right now, and most of them are not getting the help they need. If the UK really does need to reskill something like 20 million people in just a few years, a few click-through online AI courses will not do it, this is a generational education challenge.”

Offering employees more opportunities to develop by perhaps varying not just tasks but the ways in which some tasks are executed is key. Managers working with staff to understand, not just their development needs but their strengths, interests, and plans for their professional future is also a must to ensure that people are receiving the right kinds of training that both the individual and organisation will benefit from. This of course, requires managers actually get to know the people they manage and familiarise themselves with any systemic or practical issues that could get in the way of staff members reaching their career and/or learning and development goals. This requires better communication on the part of some managers and leaders, and a willingness to actively and consistently stay educated about issues outside of themselves and their own experiences.

See how everything is connected?

So what now?

Ironically, AI, (sorry, I was trying not to mention it but I kind of have to), has highlighted the need for many people, particularly leaders to level up in terms of their interpersonal skills. The qualities that were once referred to, insultingly I might add, as ‘soft skills’ are now being heralded as essential in this new AI centric world of work. But interpersonal skills have never been ‘soft’. It takes a high level of intelligence, skill, humility, creativity, observation, curiosity and confidence to communicate with a range of people effectively, face problems head on with compassion as well as common sense, speak up even if it makes you unpopular, be committed to continuous learning and growth, manage your emotions and sometimes the emotions of others, and be comfortable with vulnerability from both yourself and others.

Contrary to the belief that these skills are a nice addition to some jobs, the reality is that they’re not. They’re part of the job.

Interpersonal skills are the difference between a forward thinking, forward moving, successful, motivated, and engaged workforce, and disparate groups of bored, miserable, stressed out, individuals who are left to fester at their desks while their skills, experience, contributions and potential go unnoticed.

Managers and people who refer to themselves as leaders need to understand this this and change their management/leadership styles accordingly.

I’m aware that this is a very simplistic take on management and leadership and I’m sure right now someone is rolling their eyes at how much I don’t understand about leadership. I won’t say that they’re completely wrong, but it doesn’t negate the fact that these are areas that managers and leaders need to address to ensure an engaged and high quality workforce.