Promoting Open Communication

The predominant narrative can't be changed by simply pointing to technological developments, financial investment in clean energy or green policy changes. All of that is important. But as individuals we will not be open to the narrative of capacity, capability and agency unless we touch that openness within ourselves, unless we are aware of the fact that we are incredibly powerful: that our thoughts, our words and our actions have an effect on the outside world, and that therefore we can, if we collectively choose to, address climate change in the timeframe that science has established. But it must start at the roots of who we are, who we want to be in this world, and how we show up.

When I debrief teams on their psychological safety scan results, I see the same dynamics over and over again: The loudest voices often dominate the room, while the most thoughtful contributors hesitate to speak up. Not because they lack insight, but because the environment makes it risky to challenge ideas, ask questions, or share unconventional perspectives. Here are 3 steps to foster team psychological safety: 1️⃣ Establish ground rules for inclusive discussions Create norms that actively encourage everyone to contribute, such as asking quieter team members for their input or setting a “no interruption” policy to give space for reflection. 2️⃣ Celebrate constructive dissent Normalize disagreement by framing it as an opportunity for growth, not conflict. Leaders can model this by asking, “What might we be missing?” or “Who sees this differently?” 3️⃣ Reinforce learning over perfection Create a culture where mistakes and questions are seen as stepping stones, not setbacks. Praise team members for their willingness to take risks and share ideas, even if they’re not fully formed. The result: 🧠 A team that doesn’t mistake confidence for competence, speed for depth, or volume for value. Instead, it’s one where collective intelligence thrives. P.S.: How does your team ensure that thoughtful voices are heard and valued?

🌱 Are we walking the talk on corporate climate action? A new study by Colesanti Senni et al. (Environmental Research Communications, 2024) examines how corporations disclose their climate transition plans. Using a Large Language Model-based tool, the research assessed the disclosures of Climate Action 100+ companies—the largest global emitters. The findings reveal critical gaps and opportunities in how companies communicate their climate commitments. 📊 What the study found: ✔️ Most companies are adept at outlining ambitious targets (the “talk”), such as net-zero goals and interim milestones. However, they often fall short on the actionable steps needed to achieve them (the “walk”). ✔️ The companies that disclose more tend to show lower emissions, suggesting that transparency might signal a stronger alignment between planning and progress. ⚠️ A lack of standardization in reporting frameworks remains a major barrier. Without clear, consistent benchmarks, stakeholders are left questioning whether disclosures reflect genuine efforts or greenwashing. 🧩 My reflections: When I think about corporate climate responsibility, I see three interconnected layers: intentions, actions, and outcomes. Each is critical, but the gaps between them are where trust and progress falter. ✨ Intentions: Bold commitments are often a sign of leadership, but when they remain vague or unsupported by detail, they risk being seen as little more than a marketing exercise. 🔨 Actions: This is the most critical layer—and often the weakest link. Without concrete, measurable steps, even the best intentions lack credibility. Actions should demonstrate not just a plan but a willingness to take tough, sometimes unpopular, decisions. 📊 Outcomes: While outcomes are the ultimate goal, they’re also where the evidence lies. The study’s findings suggest that detailed disclosures might correlate with lower emissions, but is this because these companies are more transparent—or simply more prepared? This cycle of intentions, actions, and outcomes is not just a corporate issue—it’s a systemic one. How can we better connect these layers to create a climate response that is both transparent and transformative? 🌍 What are your thoughts? 💡 How can companies ensure their actions truly bridge the gap between intentions and outcomes? 💡 Are current disclosure frameworks helping stakeholders distinguish between real progress and polished promises—or are they creating more confusion? You can read the full study here: https://lnkd.in/exEDwzaK #ClimateAction #Sustainability #Greenwashing #CorporateResponsibility #NetZero

Feedback fuels High Performance High performance doesn’t happen by chance—it requires a culture where feedback flows freely, consistently, and constructively. Without rich, ongoing, and actionable feedback, growth and performance stall. I was reminded of this recently while listening to Kim Scott’s excellent interview with Guy Raz on the Wisdom from the Top podcast (link in comments—totally worth a listen, especially for her distinction between managing Superstars vs Rockstars). Drawing from her time at Google with Sheryl Sandberg and her experience as a startup founder, Scott developed the Radical Candor framework—a simple yet powerful model for creating feedback-rich environments. At its heart, Radical Candor is about balancing a polarity: caring personally AND challenging directly. It helps us avoid feedback pitfalls like “Ruinous Empathy,” where we avoid difficult conversations to spare feelings, and “Obnoxious Aggression,” where bluntness is delivered without care. Why does this matter for high performance? Because when teams lack actionable feedback, issues fester, decisions are delayed, and growth slows. Feedback isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s a critical driver of results and development. Yet, in my experience, many leaders struggle with this skill. Delivering feedback effectively is not innate—it’s learned and practiced. If you’re looking to build a feedback-rich environment, start with a simple exercise: Draw the Radical Candor 2x2 grid on a whiteboard and ask your team to identify your dominant feedback style as a group—not what you wish it was or think it should be, but how you truly experience the team’s feedback culture. Use this as a springboard for an honest and constructive discussion. - What changes would help us operate in the Radical Candor quadrant more consistently? - What agreements can we make to ensure feedback is both frequent and constructive? And, if the team is unable or hesitant to share their view on the feedback culture - well, that’s also data. Organizations that embrace a feedback-rich culture unlock their full potential. The real question isn’t whether feedback is hard—it’s whether you’re willing to accept the cost of not having it.

Most people run from difficult conversations. Especially when they suspect someone does not like them. The instinct is understandable. Staying quiet, minimizing contact, and hoping the tension fades feels easier. And sometimes, that is the right call. If you truly do not need to engage with them, distance is often the simplest solution. Not every strained dynamic deserves your energy. But if you do need their cooperation? Avoidance only prolongs the problem. Here is what actually works: ✅ Decide whether engagement is necessary ↳ If the relationship is optional, you may not need to fix it. ✅ Name a specific moment ↳ Skip general accusations. Reference a concrete instance and ask for clarification. You might say: "When I was presenting in the meeting, I noticed you seemed to disagree. Was that accurate?" This approach does three things at once: It surfaces misunderstandings before they grow. It brings hidden tension into the open. It signals you are not going to pretend everything is fine. Either the issue gets resolved, or the other person realizes you are paying attention. Letting a negative dynamic fester rarely improves it. If something feels off, change the pattern so you can change the result. 👉 Share this with someone dealing with a tense working relationship who needs a practical way forward. ➕ Follow Dorie Clark for strategies on navigating workplace dynamics with clarity and confidence.

Thrilled to share insights from our latest research on high-performing teams. In a time-crunched world, leaders often lack the bandwidth to coach their teams effectively. What's the solution? A shift towards peer-to-peer coaching and accountability. We found two powerful practices for fostering this coaching culture: 1️⃣ Open 360 - where team members provide transparent, oral feedback in a team setting, leading to actions based on the feedback received. 2️⃣ Dial Up/Dial Down - an exercise in self-reflection to identify behaviors to increase or decrease, driving personal and professional growth. Regular team meetings present an ideal venue for these practices, fostering resilience, growth, and a culture of mutual support. Want to dive deeper? I invite you to check out the full article. Link below: https://lnkd.in/dTGfWiWH #Leadership #Coaching #PeerToPeer #Teamwork #Growth

Leaders: Stop winging feedback. Use frameworks that drive growth. Giving feedback isn’t easy - but winged feedback often leads nowhere. Without structure, your words might confuse, demotivate, or even disengage your team. Here are 4 feedback frameworks that create clarity, build trust, and drive growth (and 1 to avoid): 1) 3Cs: Celebrations, Challenges, Commitments 🏅  → Celebrate what’s working well. → Address challenges with honesty. → End with commitments for improvement. 2) Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI) 💡  → Describe *specific* situations. → Focus on observed behavior. → Explain its impact on team or goals. 3) Radical Candor 🗣️  → Care personally while challenging directly. → Show empathy but stay honest. 4) GROW Model: Goal, Reality, Options, Will ⬆️  → Set goals for feedback. → Discuss current reality. → Explore options for growth. → Commit together on action steps. ❌ 5) DO NOT USE: Feedback Sandwich ❌  → Start with something positive. → Address areas needing growth. → Close with another positive. ‼️ This outdated model tends to backfire as people feel manipulated. Structured feedback isn’t just about improving performance. It builds trust, fosters open communication, and creates an environment for continuous learning. ❓Which framework do you use to give feedback? ♻ Share this post to help your network become top 1% communicators. 📌 Follow me Oliver Aust for more leadership insights.

What do you do when someone on your team is brave enough to criticise you? Me? I promote them as soon as possible. Why? Because in high-performing companies, innovation thrives when teams feel empowered to challenge ideas respectfully. As a leader, fostering a culture of constructive dissent can unlock your team’s full potential and fuel spectacular business growth. Here are 5 techniques I use to build openness and encourage dialogue: 1. Encourage continuous feedback Don’t wait for annual reviews or formal discussions. Make candid feedback a regular part of daily operations — through check-ins, town halls, or anonymous surveys. The more often feedback is shared, the less intimidating it becomes. 2. Model respectful dissent How do you react when your ideas are challenged? Leaders should actively invite differing viewpoints and listen with an open mind. When leaders encourage respectful dissent, it signals to everyone that diverse perspectives are truly valued. 3. Reward honest opinions Recognise those who respectfully challenge the status quo. This reinforces the idea that fresh thinking is an asset, not a liability. (Fun fact: The US State Department has an annual Constructive Dissent Award, given to those who courageously stand by their principles.) 4. Be transparent in decision-making After making a decision, explain the reasoning behind it. Even if someone’s idea isn’t chosen, knowing their input was genuinely considered strengthens future buy-in and trust. 5. Align after discussion Once a decision is made, the team must unite behind it to make it work. Remind everyone that while debate is healthy during the process, whole-hearted execution is key to success. You really can criticise your way to success. A culture of constructive dissent leads to smarter decisions and a more productive team. The key? Making sure every voice is heard and valued. Do you agree? Promise not to fire you if you don't!

If you’ve ever been in a tough conversation (like getting surprise feedback from your boss, disagreement with your partner, or a tense conversation that suddenly turns emotional), you know that feeling: your heart races, your face gets warm, and your mind blanks. The worst thing you can do at that moment is try to “push through.” Because when emotions run high, real listening and problem-solving shut down. Here’s what to do instead: 1. Step back before you react If you feel adrenaline kicking in, pause. Try saying: • “Let me gather my thoughts. Can we circle back on this?” • “Let’s pause here and revisit on Friday” You’re not avoiding the issue; you’re creating space for a better outcome. If they’re the one who’s emotional, lead with calm: “Let’s take a little breather. I’m going to grab some coffee. Let’s regroup in 10 minutes.” You’d be amazed how much tension disappears in those few quiet minutes. 2. Find common ground When you return, start with what you agree on: • “We both want this project to succeed” • “We’re on the same page about the goal” Agreement softens defensiveness and rebuilds trust. 3. Shift to next steps Once things cool down, move forward: • “What’s our next step?” • “How do we resolve this?” Focusing on solutions gets everyone out of the emotional past and back into progress. The takeaway: In emotionally charged moments, calm is your greatest communication tool. Instead of winning the argument, try to regain clarity and guide the conversation forward.

An open door means nothing if people don't feel safe walking through it. Most leaders struggle with team communication. Not because they're bad leaders— But because they mistake silence for everything being fine. Silence hides your biggest risks. If you see even one of these signals, pay attention: 1. The sudden drop in questions → When "any questions?" gets zero response That's fear, not clarity 2. The quick "yes" to every proposal → When pushback disappears overnight You've lost the real conversations 3. The "everything's fine" updates → When status reports are too perfect Problems are hiding in plain sight 4. The private back-channels → When feedback comes through others Direct trust is broken 5. The missing disagreements → When was the last time someone challenged you? Harmony isn't always healthy Here's what actually works: 1. Ask Better Questions → Not: "How's everything going?" → But: "What obstacle should I know about?" → And: "What would you do differently?" 2. Create Multiple Channels → Schedule skip-level meetings → Set up anonymous feedback loops → Use async channels for timely inputs 3. Go Where They Are → Walk the floor (or virtual rooms) → Join project channels → Show up in their space, not yours → Engage with those whom you haven't heard from Most importantly: Act on what you hear—even if you disagree. Nothing kills trust faster than ignored input. When people see their input matters, they'll give you more of it. Leadership is active, not passive. Stop waiting. Start seeking. 💬 Leaders: What other listening mechanisms work for you? ---- Follow me, tap the (🔔) Omar Halabieh for daily Leadership and Career posts