184. Primark CEO’s Shock Exit, Jack Dorsey’s 'Good Layoffs' & Why Job Candidates Ghost Employers. PLUS! Why Tech Can't Fix Burnout, with John Chan - This Week in Work, 1st April 2025
53:09 Share

Coming up this week in work. The CEO of Primark has stepped down over what's being described as inappropriate behavior. But is this a company taking harassment seriously to protect its culture or a PR move to protect its brand? This is a developing story, so we're breaking down what we know so far.

Also this week, Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter and founder of fintech company Block. You might know them as Square. Laid off over 900 people. But here's the twist. Industry experts say he may have done it the right way. So is there such a thing as a good layoff? And if tough decisions have to be made, what can leaders learn from the way Dorsey handled it? Leanne and I break it down for you. And have you ever walked into a leadership role and immediately realized you've inherited a mess?

In this week's workplace surgery, a listener explains they've just stepped into a leadership role where deadlines are missed, the team divided and

and three managers have already quit. Now they're asking, how do I fix this without driving even more people out the door? This is Truth, Lies and Work, the award-winning podcast where behavioral science meets workplace culture. Brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network, the audio destination for business professionals. My name is Leanne. I'm a chartered occupational psychologist. And my name is Al and I'm a business owner. And together we help organizations build amazing workplace cultures. Let's dive straight into this week's episode after a very quick message from our sponsors.

Al, you've spent hours on Tumblr, haven't you? Yes, I have. I jump on for just like five minutes and look up and it'll be 11 o'clock. Well, guess who's just solved a huge problem for Tumblr? Mm-hmm. I think I know the answer. You do? It was HubSpot. HubSpot to the rescue yet again. So this is what happened, right? Tumblr needed to move fast to produce trending content, but their marketing team was stuck waiting on these engineers to code every single email campaign. And Al, you know how engineers want everything to be perfect.

Well, fast forward to today and they now use HubSpot's customer platform to email real-time trending content to millions of users in just seconds. And the impact? Well, it's had three times more engagement and double the content creation. Very nice. I know. If you want to move faster like Tumblr, visit HubSpot.com. Welcome back. It is now Leanne's favourite time of the week. It's time for News Roundup. Yes, it is. Cue that jingle out.

Okay, my love, what have you seen this week? Oh, this is hot off the press, this one. This was actually released on day of recording. Primark CEO quits over inappropriate behavior. But is this accountability or just Primark protecting its brand? So as I said, the story was released on the day of recording. So this is everything we know so far.

Paul Merchant, Primark's long-term CEO, resigned with immediate effect following what has been described as an error of judgment in his behavior towards a female colleague. The incident happened in a social setting. No further details have been shared, but it was serious enough to trigger a formal investigation commissioned by parent company Associated British Foods Ltd.

and conducted by external lawyers. Marchant cooperated the process, accepted that his actions fell below the standards expected by ABF and apologised to the individual, the board and his colleagues.

Finance director Owen has stepped in as interim CEO and ABF says it is continuing to support the person who brought the complaint forward. Now commercially the impact was pretty immediate. ABF shares dropped nearly 4% on the news. Not surprising given Marchant's 15-year tender and the scale of his influence.

Under his leadership, Primark expanded to 459 stores across 17 countries, employed over 80,000 people and brought in more than 1.1 billion in profit last year alone. ABF also released a strong sounding statement. It said it's

It seeks to provide a safe, respectful and inclusive work environment where all employees and third parties are treated with dignity and respect. Primark is committed to doing business the right way at all levels of the company. And CEO George Weston added, I am immensely disappointed. At ABF, we believe that high standards of integrity are essential. Our culture has to be and is bigger than any one institution.

individual. So that's the story as it's being presented. The CEO stepped down, the company acted quickly and values were reaffirmed. Or is it? Our thoughts. I often wonder with these and again obviously I know in situations like this it's really tough because you're

You almost want to take sides with the, what is it called, the plaintiff, the person who's the complainant. You want to take sides with them because you go, oh, that sounds awful. But then you don't know. You don't know what you don't know. It is all behind closed doors. And you have to also wonder what has this CEO been doing whilst this investigation was going on? It couldn't have been a swift process. You hope it wouldn't be too swift to make sure they collected enough details. He was still in that position of CEO in the interim. On paper, it sounds like the company has done the right thing, but...

I think there's just a few things that make it problematic. The first thing, the language here, right? The company kept referring to this in their official statement as an error of judgment. Honestly, it feels a bit sanitized that, like it's just a clumsy moment, a lapse.

You know, rather than something that's clearly not okay, that behavior isn't okay. And that kind of wording matters because when it's a CEO, the way the story is framed sets a tone for how seriously that behavior is going to be taken across the whole organization. And then there's a reaction from the industry as well, which really pissed me off, truth be told. One retail expert said that they were very, very surprised whenever I've met him in work situations. He's always been highly, highly professional.

fine but it's also kind of the problem because it feeds into this idea that misconduct only happens when somebody looks unprofessional or it's very overt inappropriate behavior which in itself is a problematic term doesn't always show up with that kind of a red flag it can happen quietly it can happen behind a very polished surface um you know and it wasn't in a work environment either which added in this this other kind of

grey area and I think all of this is something that

We heard from our guests, and I think we both learned from our guests, our Dr. Enya Doyle, also known as the harassment doctor, particularly around her beef. This is her hot take, her beef around inappropriate behavior. Her point is intent isn't the same as impact. You might not mean to cause harm, but if that's how somebody else experienced it, then that's what matters. And I think this is the same with this error in judgment. It completely dilutes and diminishes intent.

the potential impact this CEO has had on this member of staff. So I think it's, on paper, it's handled well, but really it's been handled in the same way that is problematic and why we're not seeing change

systemic change at a pace that is needed in terms of workplace harassment. Yeah, definitely go back and check out Dr. Anya Doyle's, it'd be about 178 or something, I'll put a link in the show notes. It was quite an interesting conversation because I came at her with some really, some quite difficult conversations, quite difficult things, and she handled them like a pro, but also taught me and schooled me on more than one thing.

So, yeah, we will follow up should there be any more significant developments on this story. But for now, Al, what have you seen this week? Well, it's a story about layoffs, but actually done right, supposedly. We'll find out because I'll ask Leanne in a second what her thoughts are.

Jack Dorsey, he is the co-founder of Twitter back in the day. He then became the CEO of a fintech company was called BlockNow, but it's formerly called Square. Have you ever been somewhere where they had a little square white thing they stuck in their mobile phone and you put your credit card in it? That was his company. Fun fact also, there's this talk of him being the inventor of Bitcoin or something. There's all kinds of conspiracy theory, but anyway. Anyway, so Block, they were doing all right, but they've recently laid off 931 people. That's about 8% of his staff. Here's what's going on.

His approach is actually getting some praise for its transparency. Now, I've got a copy of his email here. I'm going to read you a couple of bits, but the whole thing or a link to the whole thing will be in the show notes. He starts off, by the way, it's all in lowercase. I don't know. Oh, this is a trend at the minute, isn't it? I've seen that. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I've seen a lot of people doing lowercase. I'm not sure it's doing what you think it's doing, but...

Maybe it's just us with our English teachers talking and our ears going. I'm such a rebel. Also, as well, what I worry about is I first started seeing it from like the Gen Z kids. You know, from like my like 14, 15 year old nieces and nephews. And it's like you're a 35 year old man. Anyway, carry on. So here's the beginning of the email. It says, today we'll be making some organizational changes, including eliminating roles and beginning the consultation process in countries where required. I want to give you all the straight facts.

And here's the bit that's impressing so many people. He says, none of the above points are trying to hit specific financial target, replacing folks with AI or changing our headcount cap. They are specific to our needs around strategy, raising the bar and actually faster in performance and flattening our organization so we can move faster with less abstraction.

And finally, his email then goes on to explain exactly which roles are getting cut and why. Plus, he directly addressed the question of why now. And then, this is the bit which I think really was the cherry on the top for a lot of people. He asked for direct feedback. Check out the email, check out the link and read the link because he actually says, if you don't think I've done this correctly or you've got any feedback on how I've done this, here's my email. Just send it privately. I really, really like that. And

So he's not blaming others, which is, you know, so many of the CEOs do when it comes to layoffs. They blame the markets, they blame this, they blame, you know, the investors. It just seems like it's a great example of leaders being transparent during really difficult times.

Now, I think Leanne said before, without transparency, you get this sort of informational vacuum. And that means if you don't know what's going on, then your brain will naturally fill that in with the worst case scenario, which usually leads to a lot of anxiety. Now, what seems quite interesting is from, and I say workplace psychology perspective, I mean that from my workplace psychology perspective, we're going to go to Leanne in a second, is

is that he actually gave specific numbers for each category and clearly stated which open positions would remain open versus filled. So in essence, he basically said, we're getting rid of 200 people here, 300 people there, 400 people there, and we're also closing all of the job applications for these roles, but these are not being closed.

I think Leanne's always talked about this, that research consistently shows that during these sort of organisational changes, organisation is more damaging to employee wellbeing than the actual changes themselves. And I think what a lot of people are saying is this approach aligns with what we know about psychological safety in the workplace. Even difficult messages can be received better when they're delivered honestly and with clear rationale. I'm campaigning for Jack to replace Musk as the go-to advisor for the president. I'm in it, replace Musk.

Well, to be fair, Musk replaced him in Twitter. So it would be a nice full circle moment if he replaced Truss. Anyway, Lee, I'm sure you have thoughts. I

I do have thoughts. I haven't read this open letter out. So what I want to kind of comment on first is the things that I think are quite good and then I have some follow-up questions if that's okay. Yes, of course. So the first thing that's really, really good is that there's a focus on the roles. So any kind of organisational change like this, right-sizing exercise, should always identify...

the roles that need to be made redundant, not the people. Because what you're saying actually is that there's functions now within our business at this point where it's evolution and no longer required. So it's always about the role, not the people. So that's really good. Love that he did it all at once. It can seem really brutal.

But believe me, it's so much better than these kind of dripping redundancies being announced. It just leaves everybody, the entire organisation, with this sense of ambiguity in their threat state. Anxiety is high. It really, really messes with team cohesion. It's better to be brutal and rip off the plaster in this scenario.

Also really liked how he gave everybody a point of contact. It sounds like his personal point of contact, should they have any questions, concerns, and that type of thing. All good. I want to make a point that there is...

there are there are better ways to make redundancies they're still absolutely catastrophic for an organization in terms of its performance in terms of its talent drain in terms of everything find any other way to cut costs redeploy people reassign people um then actually make people redundant from your work plus your workforce it is it's catastrophic and will have a catastrophic impact on your business for the next 12 to 18 months we see that in terms of

talent drains than people voluntarily leaving the business we see in terms of performance and profitability in terms of an organization's competitors compared to who don't make redundancies compared to an organization that did so it's never it's never going to be done in a way that's like not going to negatively impact a business but it can be done in a way that limits the damage done to the human experience and it sounds like some of these things have been done which is brilliant

The only thing, and this is my question that I have now, Al, was there any wraparound support provided? Any information given in terms of runway? When these jobs were going to be made redundant? Any information about potentially people applying for the vacancies that do still remain open? Are they prioritising to fill those roles from within first? From memory, there was some of those things. I think he...

I don't want to say yes or no because I don't remember exactly. But I do think he went on after saying, here's my feedback, to saying this is what's going to happen and this is what we're providing. Good point about the roles. If someone's been made redundant, can they apply for one of those roles? That's something I hadn't considered. Yeah, well, that would, you know, that's...

this kind of reallocation of resources isn't it rather than redundancy um and really where you can prioritizing people within your organization particularly if there might be just some very um quick easy development um exercise you can do with people to prioritize you know filling these roles internally as i said this wraparound care whether it then be if you can't um

offer people alternative roles, helping them with their resume, putting them in employee support groups, letting them know that they've got three months runway in terms of salary. There's lots of other things we can do to minimise the psychological impact on the individual. So it sounds like there could be other things that are happening that we don't know about. If they're not, there are other things that could be happening and there are other things that you can do if you do have to right-size your workforce. But yeah, I mean, there's some good stuff there from...

from Mr. Twitter. Jack Dorsey. I know, I know, Jack. And I'm not surprised either. We had back in the day, we did a two-part episode on the Twitter layoffs and actually talked to a former psychologist who worked within Twitter who sang the praises of Jack Dorsey.

Jack Dorsey. Jack Dorsey, right? Yeah. Sorry, Jack, if you're listening. Jack. So yeah, not surprised. Good stuff. Yes. So check out the link in the show notes. There is a link. I think it's TechCrunch originally. It's in the entire emails in there. It's definitely worth a little read. Lee, anything else you've seen this week? I'm sure there is. Job ghosting. Job ghosting.

We talked about this about six weeks ago, I think. I was coming up with this idea. And there wasn't a particular term for it back then. Was it not job ghosting? Maybe it was just job ghosting. I can't remember. Some of you words. Talk to us. So let's assume that nobody knows what job ghosting is. So job ghosting can work both ways. It's either where the candidate ceases all communication with...

the employer or the other way around without any notice so they're saying that you'd go somebody that you're dating like you just go dark don't reply to their messages you never hear from from them again um job ghosting has been on the rise and it's got the attention of some psychologists and there is now some new research that tells us that the reason why people ghost might be a bit darker than we want to think

Really? Really. So, I'm sure this sounds familiar. Everyone's been ghost, I think. You're not alone, you're not imagining it. And as I said, it is...

Going up, and let's be honest, it is driving a lot of hiring managers mad and candidates as well. So according to this new research, this might not just be a case of flakiness or bad manners on either party. But, you know, we're talking about really the applicant here. There could be psychological patterns behind why some candidates disappear.

So this study was in the Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology and looked into this exact behavior. So the researchers found that ghosting is often linked to certain personality traits, especially ones from the so-called dark triad. Now, the dark triad may sound like some kind of Marvel villain, but actually it's a real psychological model and a well-studied one. It includes three main traits, hence a triad.

narcissism that's an inflated self-importance and entitlement i can never say this word out so you're gonna have to bear with me machiavel machiavellianism machiavellianism machiavellianism just need to run up to it you know um which is cynicism manipulation and strategic deceit and psychopathy impulsivity low empathy and disregard for others

It is this last one, psychopathy, that has turned out to be the strongest predictor of ghosting. So the researchers surveyed over 200 job seekers and tracked whether they ghosted a potential employer during the recruitment process, meaning no shows for interviews disappearing mid-process or going radio silent after receiving an offer.

This is what they found. Psychopathy was the most consistent predictor of ghosting. We're talking about people who are impulsive, low in empathy and not particularly concerned about how their actions affect others. These candidates were far more likely to vanish without any kind of explanation. The next thing was FOMO. Well, you know what FOMO is? Fear of missing out. Fear of missing out. Also a big factor. So these candidates tend to keep their options open and are more likely to ghost if something shinier comes along.

And finally, low self-control. On its own, not a big predictor, but if somebody has already been ghosted by an employer...

and they struggle with self-control, then that combination made them much more likely to ghost in return. So it's basically that, well, they did it first to me kind of thing, tit for tat. So while personality does matter, it's not the whole story. Ghosting isn't just about who people are. It's also shaped by how they've been treated during the hiring process.

process. Interesting. So now, you know, if you've ever been ghosted or been a ghost or a ghosty, then perhaps take a long, hard look at yourself and say, yeah, what have you got? This candid experience. I think we need to come back to that, Lee. I think we need to do an entire episode on that. So we need to... So if you're listening and you know someone to be a great...

guest to talk about candidate experience, then we want them on. We want them on. Okay, so after this very, very short break, we'll be back with a hot take from an organizational psychologist who has advice for leaders who think technology is coming to save us. And of course, we have our World Famous Weekly Work-Based Surgery, where I put all your questions to Leanne. See you in a second. Leanne.

Leah, do you know who I think is awesome? Me. Well, yeah, of course. Yes, of course. But also my long-term hero and former guest, Joe Thea, who's the host of Hustle & Flowchart podcast, brought to you by the HubSpot Podcast Network. Of course. I remember when you booked Joe as a guest last year and you were so excited. Yeah, he's just an awesome guy. I've been listening to his podcast since about episode 100, long before we joined the network. And I tell you what, if you like systems...

mindset tweaks, reframes and strategies to actually enjoy the process of being in business. And this podcast is right up your street. Now it's true. Joe does love talking about building business systems, which isn't entirely my bag. But when you bear in mind that he loves talking about these systems so he can work less and live more, I'm there for it.

He also has loads of guests I know our listeners are going to love too. Yeah, like episode 644 with a guy called Robert Glazer, who's an author and an employment expert. He's advocating for a new way to manage the resignation process. He's got a book called Two Week Notice and explains why two weeks notice is the wrong way of doing things. And well, obviously, I'm not going to spoil the surprise. You need to go listen for yourself. Episode 644 with Robert Glazer. Listen to Hustle and Flowchart wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome back. As regular listeners will know, every week we ask a workplace expert for their hot take on the world of work. Today, we are joined by John Chan, an organizational psychologist and managing director of Infinite Potential, a think tank dedicated to the development of high quality and rigorous thought leadership and research about people in the workplace.

John's work spans talent management, digital innovation and people analytics, giving him this wonderfully holistic perspective on workplace challenges. John is also known as one of the key scientists behind the State of Workplace Burnout Report, an annual research study by Infinite Potential that explores the real causes and consequences of burnout in modern workplaces.

In today's conversation, he's going to challenge our assumptions about productivity and explain why no amount of fancy AI tools will save us if we're not addressing the human element first. Let's go and meet John Chan from Infinite Potential. Yes, my hot take is that technology alone is not going to improve productivity. And no amount of AI is going to solve some of the systemic problems

problems that are entrenched in a lot of organizations. Now, no amount of technology is going to change how we are thinking about work today and how the new generation of the workforce thinks about work and what their relationship is with work. It's very different from previous generations. And so

I guess investing, so what I would say is that investing in creating what I'm calling a sustainable workplace is the key to unlocking productivity. Workplaces that we don't actually need to recover from. We all try to recover at the end of the day or on the weekend. We spend a lot of time trying to recover from work. Imagine if we didn't have to do that, how much more productive on everything else we might be. And so within our research, we see...

We know that healthy people are more productive people. And we have a lot of data, and not just us, there's a lot of data out there that shows that that is the case. And what our data is showing is that when people are experiencing burnout or chronic stress or this lack of psychological safety or fitness,

feelings of belonging, they're less productive. They produce lower quality of work and they're less engaged in the organization. And so investing in sort of this workplace well-being really will be the best solution to improving productivity and kind of unlocking what's already there. And one thing I want to be quite clear about here is, you know, when I talk about

improving the health or workplace well-being. I'm not talking about fruit bowls or having more yoga sessions at lunch. I'm talking about addressing the systemic issues like unsustainable workloads or removing psychosocial hazards. I'm talking about how do we build stronger team connections within the organization and how do we

have the time to evaluate work structures to ensure that, you know, we don't have like these kind of old outdated processes that are actually creating a lot of undue stress for our people. Just one last thing about, you know, in this current political climate that we're, you know, we're seeing so many organizations kind of regress and

in their kind of people policies. And there really is a real danger that all of these gains that we might have made in this area, especially during COVID, when organizations were really generous, they showed that they really wanted to take care of the people. A lot of this is going to start

to roll back and they're you know they're already hearing organizations kind of fully roll back um from all of these things so if we don't shift this mindset and perception to prioritize well-being um as a investment in productivity we have a real risk of losing it all mic drop john i just i just oh there's so much good stuff in here and i'm yes

First of all, I'm sorry, I'm very excited. First of all, I just want to, just for our listeners who maybe aren't quite clear about

If we're creating unsustainable organizations, that impacts our well-being, that impacts our productivity. And then technology coming in to increase our productivity ain't going to work if we're experiencing negative well-being because we're in an unsustainable organization. Have I got that loop right? Yep, that's exactly right. You know, people who are already exhausted, they don't want to learn another new system or there's nothing that you can convince them. You know, once they lose that

Once they're disengaged, trying to come in and say, hey, we got these new systems, we got these new fancy tools, they're not going to be engaged to actually use them or not use them at the rate that you want them to. So organizations can spend millions of dollars on very nice technology that nobody ends up using. Why are they so drawn to that that doesn't really have, as you say, much evidence behind it and ignoring the systemic impact?

issues of organizational life why is that and also can you maybe talk us through some of the systemic issues that you think needs fixing as a priority um a couple years ago we did a research with leaders on why exactly that question why aren't you fixing uh systemic things and you know that was one of the the problems um that they had kind of stayed in also two other things that really jumps out i'm not rewarded to do this like it's not

It's not something that anyone gets rewarded for doing, changing some of the systemic things. So they don't do that. And the other one is it's quite a big risk in wanting to fix these very difficult systemic type of issues. You know, like workload is a really simple or it's a very complex

common kind of systemic issue like these just unsustainable workloads and pressures that we put on people. I mean, where would a leader even start in trying to fix that? I mean, that has to be a whole culture that needs to be changed there. So they're really hesitant to kind of stick their neck out as well. You know, let's say we're on a team

I'm the only one that says, hey, let's try to fix this, and nobody else wants to. Me personally, that's sort of damaging for my reputation as well within the organization. Or worse yet, I've heard a couple of times this happen where the organization says, yes, go fix it. And obviously one person can't fix all of this stuff. And then they, again, their reputation ends up being quite tainted because they

weren't able to solve this very difficult issue. We found in our research is, you know, it's really important and it's such a great mitigator for burnout when you have really strong, supportive teams. So even when things around them are sort of on fire and there's a lot of chaos going on, when you know, hey, I've got my team, they've got my back and we're quite supportive of each other, that is a really good kind of,

a mitigator for burnout. And the third one I'll talk about, and it's what we found in this year's research, is this trust in the organization. And what we've been seeing is the steady erosion of trust within the organization where people, for the most part, people still trust their direct manager. But when you ask about the organization,

in the best interest of their employees, they're getting quite low scores of that. And what we've been able to link that to, again, is to things like productivity

If you don't trust your organization, you're probably not very likely to do your best work or do what you can for the organization that you don't trust. So fixing at that level, you're really going upstream in terms of fixing some of these root causes of the problem instead of kind of looking at some of the much more kind of superficial things.

in the downstream. All of us have a million things on our mind at work, personally, about the world, lots of stuff going on. And with technology and social media, there's this constant bombardment of information and pings or notifications. And what that is doing is that it is causing a lot of

Basically, it's overloading people's brains. And when that is happening, what we're seeing is people are a lot more distracted so that they have a much more difficult time focusing, especially where they need to focus more.

do focused work in the workplace or even when we're kind of having this conversation. A lot of times people are having conversations, but they're actually thinking about, oh, what's my next meeting? Or what's all the things I need to do before I leave today? And all of that kind of makes your work more likely to kind of make mistakes or kind of not do or do work that you kind of have to redo. And all of that

is causing, again, a much higher increase in lower productivity. And so what we're finding in terms of the age group, the younger generation do have much higher rates of being distracted. And we've been trying to find out, so with that question, why are younger generation burning out? And

And with research like this, we're trying to figure out, so this might be one of the root causes for that. There is no sort of one right answer at the moment. And what we need to do is to be open to doing pilots, doing experiments within our organization to see what works. Talk to your team about what the issue is. What do they need?

do they think their solution might be to alleviate this? And, you know, if you've got big enough teams, have one team do one thing, another team do another thing, see what works and what doesn't work and keep evolving from that. When you do that and you can kind of figure out that magical formula that actually does work for your organization, you're really creating this kind of competitive advantage that other people can't.

We know one organization that's been able to kind of move into a four day work week while keeping, while being, you know, as kind of productive and as profitable as ever. And they had to go through at least 18 months of just trialing different things, failing at certain things, learning from that. But now what they have is a version of a culture that no one else can really copy, at least not very easily. And I,

I think it's time for leaders to be open to trying new things. John has absolutely nailed it. There is simply a fundamental misunderstanding of what productivity is and what influences it within an organisation. And because of that, we keep throwing technology at systemic issues like unsustainable workloads, poor team communications, outdated processes. It drives me nuts because it's

You're spending money as a business owner on solutions that simply don't and will never work. It is all about connecting problems and solutions and solutions with the actual problems. And the research is really clear on this. When people are experiencing burnout or chronic stress, they produce lower quality work and they're less engaged. So even if you give them the fanciest AI tools, they're simply not going to have the capacity to use them effectively.

I think there's also this myth as well that you can demonstrate the return on investment on software or a product easily in a way that's...

that's yeah that's trackable whereas actually with any good well-being initiative employee engagement initiative you should be able to do that if you're working with an expert if you're working with a psychologist they're going to build an evaluation process into that intervention and that will include a return on investment in terms of commercial outcomes organizational outcomes and individual outcomes for the employee themselves so the red flag isn't whether that isn't that this solution can't

measure ROI is that you're not working with somebody competent enough to measure the ROI of that solution.

Yeah, I suppose like anything, there's no silver bullet, really. There isn't. And, you know, as John said, his research does show that there are three areas that will really make a difference. And that's around addressing unsustainable workloads, which is where AI could potentially play a role. Building strong, supportive teams, training your managers, for goodness sake. And rebuilding organizational trust. I refer to my previous point, training managers. Yeah, trust has been eroding. This is why we're seeing these return to work mandates increasing.

We need to do better and we need to listen to the actual scientists who know what they're talking about, which includes John. I will leave a link to John's LinkedIn profile, the latest state of workplace burnout 2025 report, and also his website where you can find out more about his services.

Okay, talking about finding out a little bit more, it is time for my favourite time of the week, which is the world-famous weekly workplace surgery, where I put your questions to Leanne. You know this, Leanne, she's a superstar. She knows everything about everything. She's a chartered occupational psychologist. You'd think I'd know how to say that. And she's here to answer your questions. So we're going to start with a question that I wouldn't even know where to begin. So rescuing a department everyone wants to quit.

I've just been promoted to head a department that's notorious for problems. I'm the third manager in 18 months. And in my first week, I found out we've missed deadlines on three major projects and there's a clear divide between two camps in the team. Some members are disengaged and defensive, while others are working themselves to exhaustion trying to compensate. When I asked about the issues, everyone blames the previous managers, but I'm starting to suspect there are deeper problems with team dynamics.

I do not want to be the fourth manager to failure, but I also don't want to alienate the few good performers I have for making drastic changes. How am I going to fix this without causing even more people to leave? I don't envy the person in this role, but also I'm kind of excited for you because this is a really cool opportunity. If they've already burnt through three managers and you could be the person to turn this around, oh, oh, what it's going to do for your career. Fabulous.

This is something that will be specific to every team. But one thing that I found particularly useful in the past is to hold what I like to call a shitposting session. Is that the official scientific term? No, it's probably more of a listening event or a focus group. But essentially, it's shitposting. So you basically have, you set aside an entire day that's going to be this kind of team development session.

exploration discussion kind of day and it's going to be a day at least, right? The morning you're going to say to everybody, right,

Tell me everything. I don't want to assume anything. I don't want to believe any of the rumors I've heard before about what's been going on. I want to know what's broken, what's annoying you, who's annoyed with who, why that is, what process is driving you crazy, what's making your job harder. And I want you to moan and moan and moan and moan and let it all out. This is essentially a bit of a therapeutic session as well.

With the view then that, right, okay, the morning we've vented. In the afternoon, we're then going to pick up each thing that's been pissing us off for the past three years, examine it and kind of go, right, what can we do about this? Is this something that in the organization is just fundamentally the way it works and we need to accept?

maybe what workarounds can we maybe look into is it a process we absolutely can change in our power to do so is it a interpersonal issue that just needs to be addressed is it something more serious that needs to be escalated in terms of performance management or harassment there's going to be lots of different scenarios and lots of different aspects of this conflict that are going to vary from interpersonal to process to organizational

What you're going to identify in that session is the people who really are the high performers, the people who really are coachable, the people who really are on the side of the organization and want to work with you to turn this around. Don't assume that your high performers, as you currently see them, are going to be those people. They could be toxic superstars. They could be the people that have been putting the blockers in place. And it could be that they've stuck around because their previous managers have been too afraid to let them go because of performance suffering, potentially. Don't make any assumptions on that.

The people who are going to continue to object, put up blockers, moan in that afternoon session, red flags. And it might actually be that they're the people that you'd want to potentially naturally leave the organisation because they're not on board with this change. And that has to be the message at the end of the day. Look, we've now got everything off our chest. We've got an action plan in terms of what we want to address. And we've got our kind of our month one, month two, month three agenda.

targets to go for this is everything I'm going to do as your manager to try and address the the issues we've got this is everything you've said that you'll commit to as a team to to push this transformation through and go from there I'm more than likely you're going to leave lose a few people and I also think more than likely it won't be the people that you'd expect it to be but that would be my advice start with that open your

honest, empathic, no judgment, no assumptions. And yeah, and go from there. And then maybe right back in six weeks or so once you've done that and we'll go on to the next step, which I think is fundamentally going to be just repeating this process until you're actually getting fewer and fewer complaints, more and more constructive feedback and continuous improvement. The only thing I'd say that to focus on in these kind of when you're looking at

solutions to some of the problems people are bringing up focus on what we call task cohesion everyone talks about team cohesion because it's sexy right we want these nice relationships with our people we want to have um teammates that really inspire us and that we really enjoy working with we had loads of fun with that's really great but that's like step five task cohesion is step one and that's just in terms of what individual role does each person have to play to deliver this task to achieve our performance objectives

If you have task performance that will naturally foster, sorry, if you have task cohesion that will naturally foster social cohesion and that's when these relationships are going to build into something really wonderful. So that would be my other advice, while any solutions focus on task cohesion. Long answer there because I've been there and it's really hard, but it's really quite fulfilling if you get it right.

Fabulous answer. I really, I think this should be a little workshop. This is like a mini workshop. So that is brilliant. If you want to learn more about this process or you want Leanne to do it for you or walk or hold your hand through it, then just check the show notes. Leanne's emails in there, all my emails in there. Just email us and we'll talk you through how to do it. And we can, yeah, Leanne's got lots of experience in this. It's cool.

All right, so the question number two. So this person says, I'm not HR, but I have to act like I am. So I'm the ops director and somehow I've become the default HR person despite having no formal training. Last week, one of our warehouse supervisors came to me with what sounds like a serious discrimination complaint against a serious sales manager. The sales manager allegedly made repeated comments about the supervisor's accent and cultural background during a company event.

Okay. I've documented what was reported, spoken privately with the supervisor, but now I'm completely out of my depth. We have no formal HR department, just an outsourced payroll service. Our company has never dealt with something like this before, and I'm terrified of mishandling it and making everything worse or even worse, exposing us to legal issues. What should be my next steps? Oh, I see this happen so often, you know.

directors, head of operations being lumped with HR and it's really unfair actually, particularly without any training or any kind of outsourcing to help you with. I think first of all, you've done the right thing by taking it seriously and documenting everything you're doing and what's been said and has been said to you.

So creating that basic record is a really good idea and it will be important if this does escalate and legal action is taken. Of course, throughout this process, being neutral, listening carefully, not brushing anything off, take it as seriously as you've been taking it so far.

The next step has to be to seek out some expert advice. You said you're not trained in this. You are out of your depth because you don't have the training. This is a very legal, legal world to be in. If I was in this situation, I'd be out of my depth. I'm not a HR professional. I'm not an employment law expert. So I'm also going to be very careful advice I give you. But my advice would be to seek out, seek out an expert.

When something involves a potential discrimination complaint, it is really serious. It falls under the Equality Act, which protects people rightly against harassment related to race, ethnicity, nationality. So mishandling, yes, could put your organisation at risk. So even though you're not HR, you are allowed to actually handle this. There's nothing to say you can't, as long as you follow through appropriately.

the process so it's fair, but also that you get this advice from an expert to

to talk you through it. Ways that you can do that, the first one, reach out to ACAS. It offers free confidential advice to employers. There's no membership needed. They're going to be able to talk you through this. Also go and have a look at the CIPD website. They actually have a fact sheet on how to handle these types of processes, or you could contact an outsourced HR provider like the Curve Group, who we spoke to last Thursday. So I think that's my

My advice, remain neutral, record everything, get the advice that you need. And then finally, I guess, check if you've got any internal policies.

And if you haven't, start building them because whether you like it or not, you've been lumped with HR. So if your organization doesn't have these clear policies around bullying, around harassment, around grievance processes, then yeah, start building them out so that you have this grievance process, a code of conduct, simple, clear policies around equality, around everything with that side of it is going to be a really important step as well.

Brilliant. Just when you say documenting everything, are we saying we're documenting everything from both sides or is it just from the person who's complaining? Both sides, yeah. Both sides, okay. Because it's one of those things where if it, say if it escalates, right, and it goes to an unfair dismissal, your only kind of point of defence is going to be documenting everything you've done. So even if, you know, the tribunal ultimately doesn't agree with the decision made, it's

That's less of a bigger problem than if you fundamentally not delivered a fair process. And the only way you can show that is to document everything that you do and consult with an expert. So obviously what we're doing here is we're dealing with the cleanup of a situation. But is this also related back to the way the company's being run perhaps?

Yeah, because it's going to build trust with the rest of your workforce that if this type of situation comes up, it's going to be dealt with professionally and seriously and comfortably for the person raising that complaint. It's like the Primark story we heard right at the beginning of the show. You want it to be taken seriously because the impact on that individual who has experienced this discrimination or this harassment is

has the potential to be significant in terms of their psychological well-being, in terms of their confidence, in terms of their career progression. There's lots of other rippling impact of going through this experience. So the more that you can show that you're taking it seriously

seriously you're working with experts you're executing everything to the to the law and in an ethical moral caring way offering to this you know the support to the right people at the right times um then it's gonna it's gonna show people that this is how how you deal with things like that in your organization they're gonna trust that they're they're safe in that organization should um you know it happened to them in the future

Fabulous. Fabulous. You say you're not an HR expert, but there was some pretty expert advice in there. As Leanne did point out, though, all the links will be in the show notes. Don't take anything we've said here as legal advice. Is that fair to say, Leanne? Yes. This is just general advice. Just like if you went to speak to someone who knew the law but wasn't a lawyer, you know, that's probably the same thing. Okay, on to this next question. This person writes in and says, the consultants are stealing my ideas and getting paid 10 times more.

Cheeky, cheeky buggers. Oh,

often with suggestions that I know won't work in our environment. My manager seems dazzled by their fancy presentations and is ignoring my concerns. Yesterday, I learned they're recommending we transition to an entirely new system that will cost a fortune and create months of disruption. Already fixed most of the issues they are using to justify this change. How do I get management to recognize they already have all the expertise they need in-house without coming across as defensive against these consultants?

Okay, there's a few things here. First of all, what you've described there is kind of what consultants do. And I say that as a consultant. Consultants typically will, the first phase of that project will just be to talk to lots of people within the organisation, understand what's going on.

been going on and gathering other people's ideas. And if there's consensus from a few people around that idea, they will present it back as an idea. So that's kind of how this discovery phase of consultancy works. So I understand it feels like they're stealing your ideas, but kind of what they're doing is collating ideas and insights from across the organization. I say this just as a question.

We very understandably can feel defensive when somebody puts a spotlight on an area of our work that we're proud of, we think we've been making good progress in, particularly if maybe you haven't been consulted in engaging that consultancy to dig a bit deeper. There could be an element here where understandably, naturally, you're feeling a bit threatened, you know, that threat states up.

When it is, you know, our hormones change, it's a very physiological reaction. We become less logical, we become more emotional, we start to disconnect from the people around us that could be these consultants that are trying to help. So just kind of a bit of awareness that this is very natural psychological, physiological reaction for you to go through when an outsider comes into an area that we're very protective of, understandably proud of.

It might be a case that the truth actually sits somewhere in the middle, because unless they're a really short consultancy, then they probably have found some areas for improvement, some business case for why maybe a bigger digital transformation is required in terms of financial systems and processes.

I guess my thought is always going to be get curious, really understand exactly what these consultants want to do. Potentially ask, you know, if this is in your level of seniority and your level of control.

Ask for a sit down with these consultants to walk you through the reports and where they've got these findings from and why they think it's going to be beneficial to bring this software, what the business case is. Just get really, really curious as it sounds like you are a naturally curious person anyway by wanting to fix these things and want to drive through these improvements. Lean into that to really understand the process of these consultants.

What that's also going to do, you might find out actually it's not as bad an idea as you thought it was. It might be that they're just going to be little tweaks. It might be that it's fundamentally a bad idea. But what that's going to do is it's going to enable you to go back to your management with more data points to say, this is why I think it needs tweaking. This is why I think it's a bad idea. Or actually, do you know what? Now I fully understand the process and what they want to do. I'm on board. Can I play a more central role in this implementation internally?

Because, you know, without that, you are going to look defensive. You are potentially going to look a bit petty. So that would be my advice. Lean into your curiosity. Don't assume these consultants are out to steal your job.

And from a bigger picture point of view, this could be a really great development opportunity for you in terms of working with an external consultant. Typically, external consultants will want to work with somebody internally who knows what they're doing to put this implementation in place. So it could be a really cool opportunity in terms of development. Could be really eye-opener for you as well in terms of potential career direction if you're enjoying this type of work.

maybe consulting is an avenue you want to pursue. So I think actually this is a good opportunity if we can just accept that

They might not be out to get us. It's understandable, very natural response that we're feeling threatened and leaning to the natural curiosity that you clearly have. Excellent, excellent answer. And I think it's great advice for anyone who's got consultants coming in. There's always going to be natural resistance against an outsider coming in, particularly it looks like, as Leanne says, that they are checking your work. But think about this, just two other possible sort of commercial ideas is, commercial aspects of this could be that

Maybe there's something that the consultants know that you don't know that's bigger in the strategy. Perhaps the current, the current accountancy, it was accountancy software, I think it's accountancy software. Perhaps the current accountancy software is going out of business. Perhaps they doubled the price for next year. Perhaps there's been some fundamental changes in it, which means it's not, not fit for purpose. So it could be that is, and you don't know that because that's the context.

They get a wider context. The second possibility is that actually if that's not the case and you go back and you manage to convince people that you should stick with the system you've got at the moment, how much money are you going to save the company?

You're going to be the hero. They will carry you on shoulders through the corridors of accounting by saving you, saving them millions of pounds. So it sounds to me like it's a win-win-win here, unless this is a secret way to get rid of you, which to be honest, the odds are it's probably not. So just be cool. Be curious.

and B, something else that begins with C. Not that one. Well, there you go. That's the end of the... That escalated quickly, didn't it? It did, didn't it? Stepped up a notch. That's the end of another Tuesday This Week in Work episode. If you like this kind of thing, then good news. There's another one next Tuesday and the one after that and the one after that and the one after that, but not the one after that. And that'll be another story for another day. By the way, if you...

don't subscribe on YouTube or have you not checked out YouTube? Leanne's been busy creating cool bite-sized videos, which I think you're going to love. So go and check us out on YouTube. I'm also getting some interesting comments over on YouTube. Really? Yeah, there's been some spicy reactions to our recent content around diversity, equity and inclusion. So if you want to get involved in the conversation...

head on over. If on the other hand, though, you prefer to hear from expert guests than social trolls, then you are going to love our Thursday episodes where we bring you an expert guest every week. This week, we're joined by Kate Donovan, a speaker, author and host of Fried the Burnout podcast. Through her burn bold framework, she's helping organizations and individuals turn burnout into a catalyst for resilience,

innovation and culture change. Kate is very cool. You can learn more about her and her framework in this 30s episode. So,

So we will see you very soon. Don't forget that we are, well, I say we're active on LinkedIn. Leanne's active on LinkedIn. I can't be bothered with it. But Leanne's very active. So if you tag it, if you tag, sorry, excuse me, it's getting emotional. If you tag Leanne in on LinkedIn on anything you want to say about the show, she'll see it, she'll respond to it and probably share it with our audience. So get on LinkedIn. Get atting at Truth, Lies and Work. Truth, Lies and Work. Truth, Lies and Work.

One of the two. It's in the show notes. Yeah, you'll find us. So with all of that admin covered, I think we're done. We'll see you on Thursday. Bye-bye. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.