Accessibility

Main Menu
Main Menu
Menu
REGISTER NOW

Accessibility

Dual Track Performance Leadership

by Leave a Comment

Introduction: A Leadership Methodology Developed Through Real Practice

Across years of coaching leaders through complex performance situations, I have noticed a recurring pattern: many leaders avoid addressing performance issues in the hope that things will simply improve on their own. When that same employee later raises medical needs or requests an accommodation, the hesitation intensifies. Leaders freeze. They soften the message, delay the conversation, or avoid it entirely. Sometimes to the point of considering termination under the guise of restructuring. Not because of lack of competence, but because they fear getting something wrong.

To help leaders navigate this challenge, I have developed a leadership methodology that I call “Dual Track Performance Leadership”. It’s a practical, leader-friendly approach that teaches leaders how to manage performance expectations and support employee needs at the same time. This concept is distinct from the “dual track” term used in career progression; here the two tracks refer to Performance Clarity and Support Exploration.

Dual Track Performance Leadership is not a disability framework. It is a leadership capability: the ability to hold compassion and accountability simultaneously.

Why Leaders Freeze

When performance issues intersect with medical needs or accommodation requests, leaders often experience a freeze response. Common concerns include:

  • What if I say the wrong thing?
  • Will this seem discriminatory?
  • What if I make the situation worse?

The hesitation is understandable, but it has consequences:

  • Avoidance Harms the Employee: Without clear expectations, employees cannot succeed. They may believe their performance has been acceptable until the gap becomes unmanageable.
  • Avoidance Harms the Team: Colleagues absorb the workload, resent the inconsistency, and lose trust in leadership.
  • Avoidance Harms the Leader: Credibility erodes and leaders become known as people who avoid difficult conversations.
  • Avoidance Harms the Organization: Risk increases. Documentation weakens. Options narrow.

Avoidance is not compassion. Clarity is.

Why This Matters Now

Today’s leaders are navigating:

  • Increased medical accommodation requests
  • Rising mental health needs
  • Hybrid work complexities
  • Heightened expectation for empathy and inclusion
  • More complex employee situations than ever before

Leaders want to be human-centered, but many have never been taught how to hold compassion and accountability at the same time. Dual Track Performance Leadership gives them a practical way to do it.

The Myth: “If there is a medical issue, I can’t manage performance.”

This misconception is widespread and incorrect. Medical needs do not eliminate performance expectations. Accommodation is about removing barriers, not removing standards. Leaders can and must do both.

Research consistently shows that:

  • Accommodation improves employee outcomes
  • Early intervention improves return to work success
  • Supportive leadership improves well-being
  • Clear expectations reduce risk

Although research provides guidance on performance management and workplace accommodation, these areas are almost always treated as separate domains. In practice, leaders and HR professionals routinely have to navigate them concurrently. There is currently no published leadership model that integrates both into a single, practical framework for leaders. Dual Track Performance Leadership fills this gap by giving leaders a clear, actionable way to hold compassion and accountability simultaneously.

Dual Track Performance Leadership

This is a simple, practical framework that helps leaders act early, fairly, and confidently when performance issues and support needs intersect. It removes false choice between compassion and accountability.

The model has two parallel tracts: Performance Clarity and Support & Accommodation Exploration.

Track 1: Performance Clarity

This track focuses on the work itself: expectations, impact, and the required change.

Leaders must clearly articulate:

  • Essential duties
  • The performance gap
  • The impact
  • What needs to change
  • Timelines
  • How progress will be monitored

This track is about expectations, consistency, and accountability.

Track 2: Support & Accommodation Exploration

This track focuses on barriers and support, not diagnosis or medical details.

With the support of HR, their organizations, and disability management specialists/providers, leaders explore:

  • Functional limitations
  • Tasks impacted
  • Reasonable adjustments
  • What can be modified about how work is done
  • What cannot be modified because it is essential

This track is about compassion, flexibility, and problem solving.

The Power of Running Both Tracks Together

Most leaders mistakenly believe they must choose:

  • Do I address the performance?
  • Or, do I focus on support needs?

Dual Track Performance Leadership teaches leaders how to do both at the same time.

When leaders run both tracks together:

  • Employees feel supported, not singled out
  • Expectations remain clear
  • Accommodations are purposeful
  • Performance conversations feel fair
  • Risk decreases
  • Documentation improves
  • Trust increases

This is modern leadership.

Case Examples from Real HR Practice

Case 1: When Support Unlocks Performance

A leader notices declining performance and opens the conversation early. The employee shares they are experiencing medication‑related fatigue. With modified deadlines and a quiet workspace, performance rebounds, the employee feels supported and accountable.

Case 2: When Performance Does Not Improve

A leader provides clear expectations and reasonable accommodations. Despite this, the performance gap remains. Since the leader acted early and documented consistently, the organization can move forward fairly and transparently.

Case 3: Early Intervention Prevents Escalation

A leader notices small inconsistencies and checks in early. The employee shares that they’re struggling with temporary medical side effects. A short‑term accommodation is put in place, and the issue resolves before it becomes a pattern.

These examples illustrate a core truth: Support does not replace performance expectations; it enables them.

What Leaders Get Wrong

Across years of HR practice, several patterns consistently emerge:

  • Waiting too long to act
  • Assuming medical issues are equivalent to “hands off”
  • Over-accommodating without structure
  • Failure to document
  • Not looping in HR early
  • Confusing empathy with avoidance

Avoidance is not kindness. Clarity is.

Leader Scripts: Practical Language for Difficult Moments

Leaders often freeze because they do not know what to say. The following examples could help:

Opening the Conversation

“I want to check in because I’ve noticed a few changes in your work, and I want to understand what’s changed so I can support you and ensure expectations are clear.”

Asking About Barriers, Not Diagnosis

“Are there any barriers affecting your ability to meet expectations that we should be aware of?”

Or

“Do you think you would benefit from any workplace accommodations?”

Setting Expectations

“These responsibilities remain essential to your role. Let’s discuss what support you may need to meet them.”

Following Up

“Here’s what we agreed to, here’s what support is in place, and here’s what we’ll review at our next check‑in.”

Then follow up the conversation with a summary email so you and the employee have a record of what was discussed.

Why Dual Track Performance Leadership is a Leadership Model, not an HR Process

Dual Track Performance Leadership is fundamentally a leadership capability. It requires:

  • Courage
  • Emotional Intelligence
  • Clarity
  • Consistency
  • The ability to hold two priorities at once
  • The discipline to act early
  • The skill to communicate with compassion

These are core leadership behaviours taught across modern leadership development programs, including those offered by Queen’s University IRC. This model does not replace HR processes, but instead, strengthens leadership behaviour within them.

Conclusion: Courageous Leadership is Both Compassionate and Clear

Leaders today must be able to hold compassion and accountability at the same time. Dual Track Performance Leadership gives them a practical way to achieve this. You can be supportive and still set boundaries. You can accommodate and still expect performance. You can care deeply and still lead firmly.

Performance and support needs are not opposites: they are two rails of the same track. When leaders run both rails in parallel, aligned, steady, and consistent, the organization moves forward safely and smoothly.

This is responsible, human-centred leadership.

About the Author

Tina Sarkar-Thompson, CHRL, MEd, MBA, is a human resources professional with over 25 years of experience that includes providing strategic HR guidance to senior leaders and employees in all facets of HR, including employee and labour relations, talent development, organizational planning, learning and development, total rewards, health and safety, operations as well as policy and program development.

She is currently the Assistant Vice President, Human Resources at ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) and a part time course developer, designer and lecturer for Toronto Metropolitan University’s new HR Management & Leadership Program. Tina’s HR background includes roles at Trinity College in the University of Toronto, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), Toronto Metropolitan University and The Anglican Church of Canada. Tina has been sought out as a speaker and consultant in the areas of change management, team building and disability employment issues.

Tina holds a BSc in Psychology and an MEd in Leadership, Higher & Adult Education, specializing in Workplace Learning & Social Change from the University of Toronto. In 2022, she graduated with an Executive MBA with an HR concentration from the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University. She is a Certified Human Resources Leader (CHRL) from the Human Resources Professional Association. Tina is passionate about people, employment and inclusion.

Outside of work, Tina is a second-degree black belt in Taekwondo, an assistant martial arts instructor, and is training for her third-degree black belt. She has held various leadership positions on volunteer boards that serve the community.

 

Download PDF: Dual Track Performance Leadership

Navigating Power and Politics in Leadership

by Leave a Comment

Consider these terms – power and politics – in the context of your work. Although you are likely to acknowledge that they exist, you will probably view them as negative forces to avoid. In fact, many leaders I work with take pride in the fact that they don’t use power in their roles and that they successfully “rise above” politics. I would argue this perspective is flawed and the opposite is true. For your tenure as a leader to be truly impactful, paying attention to power and politics is essential.

It is important to underscore a truth here. Leadership occurs within systems shaped by power and politics. Ignoring these forces doesn’t make them disappear; rather, it leaves leaders vulnerable and impedes their ability to reach their potential.

Let’s explore further.

Power

Julie Diamond, author of Power: A User’s Guide (2016), notes an interesting irony. She describes that, of all the misuses of power she has observed in her research, almost all originate from a leader’s feeling of powerlessness. Let’s ponder that for a moment. What she is saying is that when we feel powerless (e.g., don’t feel competent, knowledgeable, or confident), we tend to use power poorly. We lash out, react, hide, direct, and over-rely on our positional authority to get things done. She argues that, in fact, power is only powerful when we feel it.

If this is true, then as a leader, you must be able to know yourself and the power you hold. Holding this knowledge allows you to intentionally and consciously use power nimbly and in ways that serve your teams and organizational progress. It is only then that you can maximize your potential as a leader. Not paying attention to the power that you hold, or not being conscious of it, puts your leadership at risk.

Power takes many forms. A significant study of power conducted in the 1950’s by John French and Bertram Raven remains relevant and is referenced extensively today. Their study identified both informal and formal sources of power in organizations.  They categorize formal power into three categories: coercive power (gained by threat or force), reward power (exercised through incentive), and legitimate power (obtained through one’s position within an organization). They categorize informal sources of power as expert power (your skills or expertise), referent power (trust-based relationships and affiliations), and informational power (information you hold that others desire to have).

Let’s reflect on these many forms of power quoted above. Consider these questions:

  • Which of these categories of power do you feel most comfortable holding?
  • Which one might be a type of power that you didn’t consider you have?
  • Which of these types of power do you underuse or overuse?
  • What power might you notice you have but not have the courage to use?

Without considering our relationship to these types of power, what we are left with is a distorted or, at a minimum, incomplete understanding of how powerful we are as leaders.  As a mediator, there is one theme I notice clearly when supporting leaders to enhance workplace culture or resolve conflict. It is that when team dysfunction and conflict emerge, there is often a noticeable gap between the power a leader believes they are using and the power that they are actually exercising.

Here is the risk. Leaders who believe their ability to lead is most strongly influenced by their relationships with others might be at risk of over-relying on what they believe is their referent power. What they might fail to notice is that the energy invested in their relationships does not provide them with enough power to achieve what they need to in their leadership role. For example, although they may be well liked, they could fail to build trust and respect, which are important elements of true referent power. They may also be at risk of mistaking popularity and kindness for influence when, in reality, they are powerless in efforts to influence and drive meaningful change. I notice that leaders who over-rely on building positive relationships and ignore other legitimate forms of power tend to be powerless when they need to address team performance. They struggle when conflict arises and are unsure of how to intervene. What these leaders may not be conscious of is that they are powerless to improve these circumstances. Having over-relied on building goodwill, they never recognized the importance of strengthening their formal, legitimate, and reward power.

Navigating Politics

As important as understanding what power is, being an impactful leader also requires you to be aware of and comfortable with navigating organizational politics. This will enable you to anticipate challenges, build alliances, and make decisions that are both strategic and principled.

I like to think of organizational politics as the “doing” of power; it is how we get what we want within a complex system of interactions, egos, wants, and needs. Just as the notion of power in an organization often carries a negative connotation, so does politics. However, at its core, politics refers to how decisions are made, how resources are allocated, and how influence flows.

Politics exist in both formal and informal organizational systems and structures and are inescapable. To be an effective leader, you need not avoid politics, but rather lean into them ethically, with nuance and courage.

How do we navigate power and politics well as a leader?

To be able to navigate, you need to increase your awareness of the power you hold – which source of power you pay most attention to, which you might overuse, and which you could leverage more often. In terms of navigating the political landscape, Micheal Jarrett, a professor at INSEAD provides a helpful framework which he references as “navigating the political terrain.” He explains that to be able to see the politics, you need to first pay attention to where it is occurring (at the individual level, team level, or across the whole organization). Once you can see at what level it is occurring, you can cross-reference this with the type of power showing up in the political arena. For example, are the efforts occurring through legitimate power (formal authority, positional power) or informal power (referent, informational, etc.)? Only after this identification can you know how best to respond.

To support your consideration, ask yourself these questions when you notice political actions taking place.

  1. Who is involved in the actions? One person? A whole team?
  2. Are you noticing a culture of this behaviour across multiple departments or worksites?
  3. Are you noticing the actions actively spreading or impacting others?
  4. To what degree are the actions within the organization’s legitimate decision-making structures?
  5. What outcomes might the actions be trying to achieve?

Ultimately, knowing where and how organizational politics occur is a responsibility you need to take seriously as a leader. Ignoring them will make your role much more complex.

Here are a few suggestions as you approach this work.

  • Take the time to know employees inside and outside of your team. Genuine interactions are key to building trust and respect, which in turn provide you with an opportunity for meaningful influence.
  • Create a ‘Map of Influence’ of your organizational context. Map out all of the key players with whom you interact. Identify where formal authority lines exist. Then, on top of that map, identify the informal power linkages. Who is influential, respected, and listened to?
  • Communicate with intention by keeping your communication direct, clear, respectful, and constructive. Never… and I mean never engage in gossip!

In the end, remember you cannot navigate a leadership position without an understanding of the power – both formal and informal – that you hold. Leadership requires a clear view of the broader political landscape within which the position is nested.

As Niven Postma (2021) eloquently explains, “All of us play some form of politics and getting better at the version that we want to play is critical to our career success and our personal wellbeing.”

About the Author

Janet Stewart is a respected facilitator, consultant, leadership coach and mediator who supports organizations as they navigate workplace complexity and change. She is particularly passionate about how strong leadership practices, focussed attention to workplace culture, and strategic organizational design can enable organizations to flourish. Janet is a Professional Certified Coach (International Coaching Federation), a Qualified Mediator (ADR Institute of Canada), a Certified Professional in Human Resources (BC and Yukon), and is Prosci® change-management certified.

She facilitates for Queen’s IRC custom programs on governance and is the lead facilitator for Queen’s IRC’s Leading Human Resources and Organizational Design programs. She co-facilitates the Workplace Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion program, and is a speaker with the Workplace Restoration program.

 

References

Diamond, J. (2016). Power: A user’s guide. Belly Song Press.

French, J. R. P., Jr., & Raven, B. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.

Jarrett, M. (2017, April 24). The 4 types of organizational politics. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved May 20, 2026, from https://hbr.org/2017/04/the-4-types-of-organizational-politics.

Postma, N. (2021, July 14). You can’t sit out office politics. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved May 20, 2026, from https://hbr.org/2021/07/you-cant-sit-out-office-politics.

 

Download PDF: Navigating Power and Politics in Leadership

Why AI Governance Can’t Wait

by Leave a Comment

Generative AI entered our workplaces only a few years ago, yet it has already transformed how many of us work day-to-day. The challenge is that AI is advancing faster than most organizations are built to absorb. As a result, governance, guidance, and practical guardrails have not kept pace with adoption.

Tools like Copilot appeared almost overnight within Microsoft 365 and were widely adopted with little oversight, limited training, and few clear boundaries around use. In a short period of time, we have moved from using AI for relatively simple tasks, including editing documents, drafting emails, or summarizing content, to applying it in ways that shape judgments, decisions, and outcomes.

This creates serious risks around privacy, trust, and accountability. AI systems rely on data; often large volumes of it, including sensitive information, and drawn from legacy systems where the data was not collected, structured, or governed with AI use in mind. If organizations are not clear about what data is being used (i.e., whether it is accurate, representative, and fit for purpose; whether consent is required; how outputs are monitored; and who has access), AI quickly becomes a significant risk. Those risks are compounded when employees have not been trained in data governance, privacy, and responsible AI use, and when people turn to unsanctioned tools, including personal or at-home tools, to get work done. Privacy breaches are not just compliance failures; they signal that adoption is outpacing our ethics.

We have already seen what happens when governance lags. Amazon’s resume-screening tool was trained on historical male-dominated hiring data and was found to disadvantage female candidates.[1] Facial-analysis tools used in interviews and designed to infer enthusiasm and fit have been shown to reflect racial bias and to disadvantage neurodivergent candidates.[2] Productivity-monitoring tools that track mouse movement and keyboard activity as proxies for performance have also failed to account for strategic, relational, or less computer-dependent roles.[3] These examples point to a troubling reality: when AI is not properly governed, the risk is not limited to privacy; it also becomes a reliability issue. AI does not simply reproduce flawed assumptions, but it can amplify bias, normalize distorted patterns, and scale poor decision-making. We cannot outsource human judgment to these tools without scrutiny. We need to equip people with the skills to engage with them critically and to question and validate their outputs.

This is why we need to shift our focus from AI adoption to AI governance. It is a leadership, trust, privacy, and ethics issue.

Here are five practical steps organizations can take to begin building a stronger governance foundation:

  1. Build a cross-functional AI ethics and governance team
    AI governance should not rest solely with IT. Bring together HR, legal, privacy, data, operations, communications, and leadership so decisions reflect technical, ethical, operational, and human realities.
  2. Inventory AI use cases and apply risk thresholds
    Start by identifying where AI is already being used, then distinguish between low-risk productivity uses and higher-risk applications that influence people, rights, safety, or opportunity. A simple red-yellow-green model can help determine the level of scrutiny, approval, and human review each use case requires.
  3. Strengthen data governance and clarify which tools can be used
    AI governance starts with data governance. Organizations need to know what data is being used, where it comes from, who owns it, whether it is accurate and appropriate for AI use, and what rules apply around access, retention, consent, and sensitive information. They also need clear direction on which AI tools are permitted for work and where the use of personal or unsanctioned tools is prohibited.
  4. Train employees and communicate the guardrails clearly
    Governance only works if people understand it. Employees need practical guidance on which tools they can use, what data should never be entered, what privacy risks to watch for, how to recognize higher-risk use cases, and when to escalate concerns. Regular updates can also help by sharing progress on AI integration, reinforcing expectations, and offering practical tips for responsible use.
  5. Create accountability, human oversight, and regular review
    AI governance cannot be a one-time policy exercise. Organizations need clear ownership of AI decisions, defined escalation pathways, appropriate human oversight, procurement and vendor checks, and regular reviews on how tools are performing over time. Governance must evolve as AI use expands and risks change.

The central question is no longer whether AI belongs in our organizations. It is here to stay. The work now is to take collective action to create the structures and safeguards that allow people and technology to work together in healthy and responsible ways. The time to put meaningful guardrails in place is now, while adoption is still taking shape and before these systems become too deeply embedded in workflows, decisions, and operating models. If we want AI to create value without eroding trust, then governance, privacy, and ethics cannot trail behind innovation. They must move alongside it.

About the Author

Wylie Burke is an innovation consultant, educator, and leadership coach with over 15 years of experience in business administration, human resources, organizational design, strategic and operational planning, and leading high-performing teams. She holds an MBA from Queen’s University, an Honours Degree in Sociology from York University, and she is an Adler Trained Coach. In addition to facilitating for Queen’s University IRC, she is also a leadership coach through the University of Toronto’s Centre for Learning and Leadership. Wylie brings a unique perspective to her work, having had the pleasure of working for a diverse range of organizations, including United Way Toronto, CIBC, SickKids, WSIB, and Toronto Metropolitan University. Wylie is passionate about unleashing potential inside organizations. Her skills lie in evolving talent models, aligning strategy to organizational structure, and building outcome-focused programs and processes.

Wylie is the lead facilitator for Queen’s IRC’s AI-Powered Workforce Planning program, as well as the Talent Management and Managing Workplace Conflicts programs.

Footnotes

[1] Dastin, J. (2018b). Insight – Amazon scraps secret AI recruiting tool that showed bias against women | reuters. Reuters. Retrieved April 27, 2026 from, https://www.reuters.com/article/world/insight-amazon-scraps-secret-ai-recruiting-tool-that-showed-bias-against-women-idUSKCN1MK0AG/.

[2] Engler, A. (2019, October 31). For some employment algorithms, disability discrimination by default. Brookings. Retrieved April 27, 2026 from, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/for-some-employment-algorithms-disability-discrimination-by-default/.

[3] Roh T, Esomonu C, Hendricks J, Aggarwal A, Hasan NT, Benden M (2023) Examining workweek variations in computer usage patterns: An application of ergonomic monitoring software. PLoS ONE 18(7): e0287976. Retrieved April 27, 2026 from, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0287976.

 

Download a copy of the PDF: Why AI Governance Can’t Wait

Workplace Accommodation is More Than a Checkbox

by Leave a Comment

Whether your organization calls it EDIA, DEIA, IDEA, or something analogous, inclusion, diversity, equity, accessibility, and belonging have been top of mind for employers for well over a decade and are still a hot topic today for organizations.

Employers not only need to be inclusive, but they also want to be inclusive. The research, as well as the anecdotal evidence, support this notion. In contrast, though, the employment statistics do not. People with disabilities in Ontario continue to have a higher rate of unemployment or underemployment than their non-disabled peers.

If we, as employers, are so open to a diverse workforce and champion equity over equality, why is this not the reality? The answer in one word: fear. Employers are afraid to ask the questions they really want to ask their employees and job seekers, so as not to get into legal or compliance issues. While at the same time, employees and job seekers are afraid to disclose information, fearing they will not be offered the job, keeping their job, and how others will perceive them. As an HR professional, I have experienced this fear from both the employer/HR perspective and the job seeker/employee perspective.

So how do we shift the narrative from compliance to compassion and inclusion? As HR professionals, if we do not have an understanding or experience with disability, we can start by understanding the job seeker’s perspective.

The Job Seeker/Employee Perspective

Disability can manifest in many forms: visible, invisible, chronic, temporary, and episodic are just a few examples. It can appear at all stages of life: it can be congenital or appear at any time during one’s life, and can be gradual or sudden. At some point in life, most people will experience a disability, whether temporary or permanent.

Disability disclosure is very personal. As an employer, I am a strong advocate of employees disclosing so we can best support them with employment accommodation and better understand their individual’s needs. From an employee perspective, there is often hesitation to disclose because once you disclose, you cannot take it back.

Fear

I was invited to write this article over a year ago because I have had over 20 years of experience working in HR across the manufacturing, not-for-profit, academic, and arts sectors. I also am a person with a disability.

So why did it take me so long to write this article? I told the editors I was busy with work, as well as personal and family priorities. While this was true, the reality was also that the first and second drafts were complete months ago…. but something did not feel right. The weekend before the article was due, I read a LinkedIn post that Jodi Kovitz, CEO of HRPA, had written earlier the same day:

“People do their best work when they feel seen, valued and able to bring their whole selves to what they do. When belonging is real – when people are automatically supported and empowered to contribute meaningfully – everything escalates: innovation, trust, performance and the ability to more effectively navigate and adapt change”[1]

I had my “ah-ha” moment and knew why I had procrastinated on submitting this article and why it did not feel right. There is a disability rights and inclusion principle, “Nothing about us without us.” I had written the article from a third-party perspective and what was missing was my lived experience.

If you Google me, you will see that I have appeared on TV shows and been quoted in newspaper articles as an HR or disability employment subject matter expert. While I have disclosed my disability to my employers and co-workers, nowhere in a public, professional forum have I done this… until now. I was afraid to publicly write that I have a disability for fear of how it may impact me professionally in the future. I had told the editors a year ago that I have a story to tell, but I had in fact failed to tell it.

Lived Experience

I have a congenital condition and always knew I was different. I am of South Asian descent and have Albinism. My family has brown skin and dark hair, but I do not. People with Albinism are very fair, have none-to-very-little pigment, are very light sensitive, and are legally blind, with varying degrees of low-to-no vision. If you don’t know anything about albinism, then you might think I just have really blond hair, happen to need glasses, and, now that I am of a certain vintage, that maybe my hair turned white early.

Unlike many of my peers who live with a disability, I have had a job since I was 12 years old. I started with a paper route, then various part-time jobs through high school and university, and then started working full-time right after school and have been consistently employed. I have been fortunate that all of the organizations I have worked for, regardless of if they had formal diversity and inclusion programs or not, treated me as an individual, saw me for my skills and abilities, and were supportive in terms of accommodation needs. Throughout my career, I experienced challenges with some individuals who felt that because I had a disability, I automatically was not capable of success. However, they taught me what not to be when I became a people leader.

This does not mean that I did not face barriers to employment. Like many employed people with disabilities, I faced underemployment, despite having work experience and the education. Early in my career, I felt it was important to disclose information about my vision during the interview process, even though I was not required to. At the time, I felt it was important to let potential employers know that, despite my disability, I can function in a normal environment, and that I had special glasses and used assistive technology that helped me to do so. I was bringing my whole self to work, even though that was not a term used 20 years ago.

Here was the reality that I faced: most of my HR classmates were interviewed by one or two companies before they found a job. I had 11 interviews before I got my first job offer. My first job was a contract HR Administrator role covering a maternity leave. My first manager, when moving on to her next role, gave me some career advice, where she strongly recommend that I spend the first few years of my career learning different functions in HR so that I could decide what I liked most. She explained that while she had been in HR for over 20 years and had managed the pension and benefits function, never did she do it herself and had always relied on my pension and benefits person.

With this advice in mind, I actively targeted a total rewards role with a plan to do for a couple of years and then move on to recruitment or training. My two-year plan turned into a seven-year plan. To be fair, I cannot tease apart whether it was the pension and benefits specialty or my disability that was the limiting factor to roles in other functions. What I do know is that the job search I started after two years in pension and benefits took over a year to land the role at the next level, which was also in pension and benefits. During this job search, I applied to over 100 jobs and had 25 interviews, some of which resulted in second interviews. Three years later, when I was actively seeking my next role, I was more deliberate in my record keeping and purposely decided not to disclose anything about my disability until I moved through the process where I might be the selected candidate.

I applied for 102 jobs, received 47 first interviews, and 30 of which went to the second and third rounds, where I was advised it was between another candidate and me. These roles were across HR functions and included generalist roles, recruitment, training, and pension and benefits roles, across industries: not-for-profits, professional services, financial institutions, and healthcare. When I received the “thanks but no thanks” calls for those 30 final round interviews, I asked what I could do to improve, should there be next time. The answer was consistent: “We went with someone who has banking experience (or insert given industry or function).”

While I did not express this to the employer, I knew that it could not be true because they knew I did not have banking, healthcare, or whatever sector experience they were seeking in a candidate, before the first interview from my resume and before they moved me through several rounds of interviews to the final round. The only thing that changed was that I disclosed my disability. But I could not prove it. This was 2005-2010. During this time, banks were very forward-thinking in terms of their diversity and inclusion programs and rotational employment programs. I was successful in being interviewed by four of the five “big banks” for several of these programs. Again, I moved up through multiple levels of interviews, and I waited to be asked about my accommodation needs before disclosing. When I received the rejection, they all told me I had too much work experience to qualify for their specific program. Again, this information was known to them as part of my application.

Fast forward to when I was ready to move on to my two most recent roles of Director at Trinity College and AVP at ROM. I purposely did not disclose to my respective boss about my disability because I was afraid that they would think I was not capable of doing the job. Both times, I waited until the offers had been signed and we were having pre-meetings in advance of my start date to tell them about my needs. My boss, the former CAO at Trinity, sensed my nervousness about telling him and asked me a great question which was accompanied by a reassuring statement: “You seem very anxious about telling me this. Why is that, given you are often in my position? This does not change why we hired you. Just let me know what you need, and we will make it happen.” When I disclosed to my current CHRO at ROM, I was not nervous. She was so open and welcoming and wanted to ensure I had everything I needed to support my success. As job seekers, we should all be so lucky. As HR professionals, we can help ensure all our candidates have the same experience.

The Employer’s Perspective

In 2016, I was in the role of Manager, HR for the Canadian National Institute for the Blind’s (CNIB) Ontario Division. This was the organization’s largest division, with over half of the country’s staff and the largest number of clients. At that time, CNIB was embarking on a new strategic plan that changed many aspects of how the organization delivered service and did business. The appropriately named strategic plan, “Path to Change,” included how CNIB supported their blind and partially sighted clients when it came to employment. Historically, the organization had employment support programs, but there had been little change in clients’ employment rates. Given my HR background and my lived experience as a person with low vision, I was asked to develop and implement a career support program that aligned with the Path to Change.

I knew that, as an organization, we had to do something different, and the answer was in the name: Path to Change. HR is very well versed in what our legal obligations and duty to accommodate are under the Human Rights Code, as we have policies, processes, and diversity and inclusion statements in place. That is all well and good, but what were the real barriers to employment?

As I embarked on this project, I met with potential employment partners. Time and time again, I heard, “we want to hire people with disabilities, we know they would bring value to our organization, but…”. I realized that I had to ask these employers to be brave, be vulnerable, be honest, and articulate what the “but…” meant while creating a safe space where they could be candid with me.

In a nutshell, I heard the following feedback: we know what our legal obligations are to accommodate, but how do we get to know these candidates if we can’t ask them about their disability? What if they are poor performers? If we discipline them or terminate them, we could be sued for discrimination. We are not sure how “they” would fit in – what if people were uncomfortable?

I commend my HR peers for their honesty. As a person with disability, I had seen it as part of me, but not something that defined me. In contrast, it was evident that if it was known a candidate had a disability, many employers defined that individual by their disability and, as a result, it became their barrier to employment, even though these employers wanted these candidates to come to work.

Through these conversations, it became evident that in order to have blind and partially sighted job seekers “come to work,” it was not about CNIB helping them with resume writing, or interviewing skills or even technical skills: there were other organizations that already provided those services and did them very well. It was about supporting the candidates with the skills that would ensure they could be strong, productive contributors. These included but were not limited to: orientation and mobility skills that would ensure they could independently travel to and from work and within their work environment; advocacy skills, so that they would have the confidence to speak up for what accommodations they needed; and interpersonal skills so they communicated all of this in a professional environment.

What started as candid conversations grew into the “Come to Work” Program that was built on many partnerships.[2] We worked with job seekers to equip them with the interpersonal skills and daily living skills to be job-ready. We partnered with community agencies that provided traditional employment services (resume writing, job search skills, etc.) and helped them make their programs accessible. Finally, we partnered with employers that were ready to welcome a diverse group of job seekers into their organizations by enabling them to ask the questions they wanted answers to: how do we make our workplace accessible? How do we have conversations about an employee’s specific accommodation needs? How do we address performance issues without them being perceived as harassment or discrimination?

We started with 10 partner employers in 2018 when the program launched, and it has grown to 190 partner employers across Canada, with 460 graduates of the program who are currently employed and a talent pool of 1,800 job seekers.

Answering the Difficult Questions

Q:        How do we make our workplace accessible?

A:         Almost a decade later, there are many more available resources to employers. For example, the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (AODA) standards, etc.

Q:        How do we have a conversation about an individual’s accommodation needs?

A:         Start by asking, “What workplace accommodation do you require?” Follow your company’s accommodation process or policies in terms of documentation and/or medical support, if required. Most importantly, listen. While educating yourself about an employee’s medical condition or disability is important, accommodation is not a one-size-fits-all solution, as People know what their needs are and how to accommodate them. In the event they do not, your company’s disability management provider will have additional resources.

Q:        How do I address performance issues?

A:         The same way you would address performance issues with any employee. Provide clear expectations, have open and honest conversations and address any issues in a timely manner before they grow into something beyond course correction.

Key Takeaway

Employment accommodations level the playing fields for those of us with disabilities. It is about equity and not equality. What is the difference?

Equality – giving everyone the same thing

Equity – giving people what they actually need to have an equal chance to succeed

Some Specific Tactics

1. Start with individualized accommodation not standardized support.

Equality might offer everyone the same chair or schedule.
Equity asks, “What does this employee need to perform at their best?”

Examples: adaptive technology, flexible hours, alternative formats, ergonomic setups, quiet spaces.

2. Remove systemic and environmental barriers. Equity means changing the environment, not the person.

Employers should assess:

  • Physical barriers (stairs, lighting, noise)
  • Digital barriers (inaccessible software, PDFs, intranets)
  • Process barriers (rigid job descriptions, inflexible scheduling)
  • This shifts responsibility from the individual to the organization.

3. Normalize and streamline the accommodation process

An equitable workplace makes requesting support:

  • Simple
  • Non-stigmatizing
  • Fast
  • Confidential

If employees fear being judged, they’ll avoid asking for what they need.

4. Train leaders and teams on inclusive practices. Equity requires awareness. Training should cover:

  • Invisible disabilities
  • How accommodation requests work
  • How to respond with empathy
  • Real-life inclusive behaviours

Educated leaders create equitable experiences.

5. Offer flexibility as a default. Flexible work arrangements support equity by acknowledging that people function differently.

Examples:

  • Remote or hybrid options
  • Adjustable schedules
  • Choice in communication formats (email vs. synchronous meetings)

Flexibility decreases the need for “special” accommodations.

6. Include people with disabilities in the decision-making process, and design WITH, not FOR.

True equity includes:

  • Consulting employees with disabilities
  • Creating ERGs or advisory groups
  • Including disability perspectives in policy and design reviews

Nothing for us without us.

7. Ensure equitable access to development and advancement. Equity means equal opportunity to grow, not just equal hiring access.

Employers can:

  • Provide accessible training platforms
  • Offer mentorship/sponsorship
  • Remove bias in performance evaluations

Without equitable development pathways, representation stalls at entry levels.

8. Focus on psychological safety. Employees must feel secure saying:

  • “I need this accommodation.”
  • “I’m struggling with this task because of a barrier.”
  • “This process excludes me.”

Leaders must model trust, empathy, and openness.

An image that shows people looking over a fence. Equality shows everyone with the same size of box to stand on, Equity shows everyone being able to see at the same height with different size boxes to stand on.

Next Steps: What Can HR Do?

Employment accommodation and disability disclosure is not a one-size-fits-all approach to inclusion, diversity, and equity. The common thread is our humanity – putting people first. As HR professionals, we have the responsibility to work with our respective organizations and their leaders to understand that disability is not always obvious and it does not define someone’s ability to succeed at work. We need to ensure we steward an inclusive workforce and community to create a workplace where employees feel safe asking for what they need. As employers, we need to respond with respect, flexibility, and equity so that everyone brings their whole selves to work and has a sense of belonging.

About the Author

Tina Sarkar-Thompson

Tina Sarkar-Thompson, CHRL, MEd, MBA, is a human resources professional with over 20 years of experience that includes providing strategic HR guidance to senior leaders and employees in all facets of HR, including employee and labour relations, talent development, organizational planning, learning and development, total rewards, health and safety, operations as well as policy and program development.

She is currently the Assistant Vice President, Human Resources at ROM (Royal Ontario Museum) and a part time course developer, designer and lecturer for Toronto Metropolitan University’s new HR Management & Leadership Program. Tina’s HR background includes roles at Trinity College in the University of Toronto, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind (CNIB), Toronto Metropolitan University and The Anglican Church of Canada. Tina has been sought out as a speaker and consultant in the areas of change management, team building and disability employment issues.

Tina holds a BSc in Psychology and an MEd in Leadership, Higher & Adult Education, specializing in Workplace Learning & Social Change from the University of Toronto. In 2022, she graduated with an Executive MBA with an HR concentration from the Jack Welch Management Institute at Strayer University. She is a Certified Human Resources Leader (CHRL) from the Human Resources Professional Association. Tina is passionate about people, employment and inclusion.

Outside of work, Tina is a second-degree black belt in Taekwondo, an assistant martial arts instructor, and is training for her third-degree black belt. She has held various leadership positions on volunteer boards that serve the community.

References

Kovitz, J. (2025, November 16). HRPA ignite: Idea: Jodi Kovitz. HRPA Ignite: IDEA | Jodi Kovitz. Retrieved December 10, 2025 from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7395637123187601408/

Come to work. CNIB – Come to Work. (n.d.). https://cometowork.ca/

Footnotes

[1] Kovitz, J. (2025, November 16). HRPA ignite: Idea: Jodi Kovitz. HRPA Ignite: IDEA | Jodi Kovitz. Retrieved December 10, 2025 from https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7395637123187601408/

[2] For more information about CNIB’s Come to Work Program, please visit https://cometowork.ca/

 

Download PDF: Workplace Accommodation is More Than a Checkbox

Leading Through the Fog: Imposter Syndrome in Leadership

by Leave a Comment

Leadership often looks clear and confident from the outside; decisive, visionary, and in control. But many leaders know that behind that polished exterior lies a quieter, more familiar voice of self-doubt. Even the most capable and seasoned leaders can find themselves wondering, “Do I really belong here?”

This question is at the heart of imposter syndrome: a very human experience that quietly affects people at every level of leadership. And for those of us in human resources, labour relations, or other high-trust roles where composure and emotional intelligence are essential, those nagging doubts can feel especially undermining.

The truth? Feeling like an imposter doesn’t mean you’re unqualified – it means you’re human.

Understanding Imposter Syndrome

Psychologists Pauline Clance and Suzanne Imes first introduced the concept of imposter syndrome in 1978. They described it as a pattern in which high-achieving individuals question their success, believing they’ve just gotten lucky or that they’ve fooled others into overestimating their abilities.[1]

Even when there’s clear evidence of their competence, people with imposter syndrome live with a persistent fear they’ll be found out and exposed as “not really good enough.”

Research shows that this experience is more common than we might think: up to 70% of professionals report having felt this way at some point in their career.[2] Additionally, for women and others working under greater scrutiny or pressure to prove themselves, the intensity of these feelings can be even greater.

For HR and labour relations leaders, they are often the ones others look to for clarity, reassurance, and stability. It can feel almost impossible to admit when doubt creeps in. Yet silently carrying that uncertainty comes at a cost.

Case Study: Jillian Kennedy – Reframing Leadership Doubt

When Jillian Kennedy stepped into a senior leadership role at Mercer Canada, transitioning from consultant to Head of Defined Contribution and Financial Wellness, she entered a space of greater visibility and influence. Still, even with years of experience and clear qualifications, she felt immense pressure:

Kennedy stated, “I felt as if the burden of the world was on my shoulders, and I questioned why they picked me for the role”[3]

Kennedy’s story is one many leaders can relate to. Imposter feelings don’t just show up at the beginning of a career; they appear when we’re asked to stretch into something bigger, when others put their faith in us, and when we privately wonder if we’re truly ready.

With time and reflection, Kennedy came to realize that these feelings weren’t proof of inadequacy, but a normal part of growth:

“The imposter feeling becomes a drive for continuous improvement but it also forces you to watch out for moments when you’re not celebrating your own success”[4]

Her experience is a powerful reminder: leadership isn’t just about guiding others, it’s about being willing to understand and manage what’s going on inside ourselves.

Recognizing the Signs

Imposter syndrome often hides beneath high performance and professionalism. You may not notice it on the surface, but it shows up in moments like:

  • Spending farmore time preparing than necessary
  • Deflecting compliments or credit
  • Hesitating to take on new challenges
  • Working long hours to “earn” your place
  • Taking failure personally even when the situation is out of your control

These patterns don’t just affect how we lead, they can limit creativity, erode confidence, and contribute to burnout.

Antidotes: Turning Awareness into Action

The first step is noticing it. The real transformation begins when we learn to relate to the experience differently. Here are a few ways leaders can start:

  1. Name It

It’s amazing what happens when you call it out. Saying “this is imposter syndrome” helps shift the experience from “I’m failing” to “I’m having a moment of self-doubt and that’s okay.”

  1. Reframe the Story

Start practicing kinder internal language:

  • “They made a mistake choosing me”becomes “I’m still learning like every leader before me.”
  • “I got lucky” becomes “I worked hard, and I earned this.”
  1. Keep a Confidence File

Collect positive feedback, grateful emails, and project milestones. When self-doubt surfaces, go back and remind yourself of the bigger picture.

  1. Normalize the Conversation

Seek out mentors or peers willing to be open about their own doubts. Leadership feels less lonely when we realize we’re not the only ones navigating those internal narratives.

  1. Take Small Bold Steps

Confidence rarely comes first. It tends to grow from speaking up in one meeting, raising a new idea, or leading a stretch initiative, even when it feels uncomfortable.

  1. Prioritize Psychological Safety

Creating team cultures that welcome growth, feedback, and imperfection doesn’t just help others, it gives us permission to be real too.

Leading from a Place of Humanity

At its core, leadership isn’t about always being sure of ourselves. It’s about being brave enough to move through moments of uncertainty with intention and integrity.

In the fields of HR and labour relations, we hold space for others every day. But we can’t fully show up for others if we’re not offering the same understanding to ourselves.

Imposter syndrome isn’t a sign you’re falling short. It’s a sign you’re evolving, which means you’re stepping into something bigger than who you’ve been before.

So, the invitation is this: be kind to the part of you that’s still catching up to your own growth. Lead not in the absence of doubt, but with the quiet courage to walk through it.

About the Author

Filomena Lofranco is an accomplished executive leader with over 25 years of experience driving organizational transformation across people management, finance, and operations. Known for her strategic foresight and operational rigour, she has successfully led enterprise-wide change initiatives, developed impactful training and onboarding programs, and championed leadership development through executive coaching and talent optimization. With a strong foundation in labour relations and dispute resolution, including senior roles with the Ontario Public Service EU, Filomena brings deep expertise in navigating complex workplace dynamics. She is a trusted advisor in high-stakes environments, recognized for her ability to foster alignment, resolve conflict, and drive sustainable, people-centred change. Filomena is the founder of a platform that curates high-level gatherings where leaders across sectors exchange ideas, spark innovation, and strengthen community impact. She also leads a boutique HR consulting firm that helps small businesses build strong foundations in the absence of formal HR departments.

Filomena is a coach for the Queen’s IRC Negotiation Skills and Labour Relations Foundations programs, as well as customized Managing Unionized Environments programs.

References

Bravata, D. M., et al. (2020). Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(4), 1252–1275. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1.

Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006.

Kennedy, J. (2023). Leadership spotlight: Young women in business Toronto. Women of Influence. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from  https://www.womenofinfluence.ca/2023/03/21/leadership-spotlight-young-women-in-business-toronto/.

KPMG. (2020). Advancing the Future of Women in Business. KPMG International. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/cr/pdf/2021-kpmg-wls-study.pdf

Sandberg, S. (2013). Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead.

[1] Clance, P. R., & Imes, S. A. (1978). The imposter phenomenon in high achieving women. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 15(3), 241–247. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086006.

[2] Bravata, D. M., et al. (2020). Prevalence, predictors, and treatment of impostor syndrome: A systematic review. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 35(4), 1252–1275. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05364-1.

[3] Kennedy, J. (2023). Leadership spotlight: Young women in business Toronto. Women of Influence. Retrieved November 25, 2025, from  https://www.womenofinfluence.ca/2023/03/21/leadership-spotlight-young-women-in-business-toronto/.

[4] ibid

 

Download PDF: Leading Through the Fog: Imposter Syndrome in Leadership

HR Trends 2026

by Leave a Comment

The Queen’s IRC 2026 HR Trends report highlights emerging HR priorities in Canada, based on a survey of 507 HR and labour relations professionals across public, private, not-for-profit, and quasi-public sectors. The survey captured responses from a diverse range of professionals, including executives, directors, managers, specialists, consultants, and union representatives, providing a balanced perspective between management and unions.

The findings reveal a profession at a critical inflection point. While HR has made visible gains in people-first practices, the deeper systemic enablers that sustain transformation (leadership pipelines, workforce design, skills development, and digital adoption) remain underdeveloped.

Download a copy of the full report: 2026 HR Trends

This study received ethical approval by the Queen’s University General Research Ethics Board.

Leading Top Teams Through Uncertainty

by Leave a Comment

How are the global shocks intersecting with your team’s work? Top teams aren’t leaving success to chance. They are focusing on the inner work of a leader and the team interactions, not just the business results in isolation. This article refers to the new Queen’s IRC Team Effectiveness Blueprint, which explores actionable ideas to elevate your leadership and that of your team, enabling you to move forward with confidence as you navigate uncertain times.

Consider the example of June, a VP in a public organization, who described a conversation she had with one of her managers, Corben. He said to her, “I am hearing confusion on the team about how we are to find budget cuts in our own areas.” He further described layers of tension and ineffective group chat communication among the four of them. Having prided herself on being team-oriented (which she is), she was surprised that her team of managers were not working together, and even more concerning, how uneasy he seemed to be.

June explained that her managers really need to collaborate on finding department budget cuts as a team, not in isolation. However, her focus on the performance outcome (to find budget cuts) blinded her to the lack of cohesion among the team.

A common question leadership coaches pose to leaders is: What role does your team need you to play right now? June’s response was to be the “active leader” by gathering the team together during this time of uncertainty and being involved in this critical moment of shaping how the team is learning to work differently.

This article is aimed at leaders and team members who want to stay actively engaged in navigating uncertain times. These challenges may stem from many sources, including structural changes, workplace culture, and personnel changes, as well as external pressures such as global and political instability, or the unpredictable long-term impact of tariffs. In the Queen’s IRC Building and Leading Teams program, we work with leaders to explore practical ways to strengthen cohesion, adapt to evolving work environments, and align team performance with organizational goals, creating teams that can thrive regardless of the changes that come their way.

A recent Building and Leading Teams program participant captured this so well:

“Leaders are still learning – both new and experienced leaders here in this room. I’m not the only one wanting to find ways to strengthen the team.”

Our new Team Effectiveness Blueprint frames this article, using real quotes from program participants and leaders who learned about the three interdependent components of team cohesion, team performance, and team leadership skills:

  1. Reframe the tension on teams
  2. Get comfortable with the grey
  3. A team that learns together, thrives together

Team Effectiveness Blueprint

Team Effectiveness Blueprint

1. Reframe the Tension on Teams 

Tension within a team can be reframed as valuable information rather than simply an indicator of problems. In June’s case, beyond the budget cut concerns, the key question is: What else is the team thinking about? The sooner she can create a sense of collective undertaking, the sooner the team can have meaningful conversations about what they are here to achieve – something they can’t do in isolation.

This could be an opportunity to generate new insights into how the team connects with its stakeholders, clients, customers, and anyone who benefits from the team’s work. One leader regularly asks their team to think differently about how to deliver on the mandate. This is another way to reframe the tension as information, by taking the topic back to the customer to explore how we can deliver on our mandate in a new way.

For many of the leaders and teams we work with, leading discussions like this often focuses a leader on the need to be self-aware and take ownership of their contribution to the current situation. As one participant in our recent Building and Leading Teams program observed, this means:

“Looking at the inner work of a leader and the team interactions, not just the business results in isolation.”

All three components of the new Team Effectiveness Blueprint (team cohesion, team performance and team leadership skills) are touched on here as the way forward for a team. One of the blueprint’s guiding principles is: You can’t deal with one component without impacting the other.

2. Get Comfortable with the Grey

Learning to live in grey and accepting ambiguity is quickly becoming a new meta skill for leaders. Uncertainty isn’t going anywhere, and the ability to navigate it with confidence is what sets effective leaders apart from the rest. Being authentic – even by admitting “I don’t know” – builds trust when it’s followed by a commitment to finding the best next step together.

Being intentional about gathering together is one of the most powerful things a leader can do. A recent program participant shared how she functions during times of uncertainty. She explained she keeps her team in learning mode and regularly gathers them together:

“We keep learning as a team, and I look for new programs or webinars that we can do together. If we don’t keep learning and unlearning, I know we won’t be able to stay effective and value each other’s contributions.”

3. A Team That Learns Together, Thrives Together

During times of uncertainty, how the team develops its capacity to achieve the performance expectations is just as important as the results. As a leader, there’s nothing wrong with taking your challenges to a coaching session with your coach; however, also include time with the group to explore how the team can collectively approach challenges in a different way. In many cases, a shared conversation is often the most effective path forward.

One way a group can spend time together to grow as a team is to focus on how to make decisions, instead of just focusing on the decision. Revisiting the team’s purpose (which is always determined by the stakeholders, clients or customers) can assist with this focus. Communicate opinions in a way that respects others by focusing on questions like “What can we learn?” rather than “Who is to blame?”

Collective brainstorming and future thinking are more effective than assigning blame, as they can help prevent negative workplace disruptions, including legal issues such as harassment allegations, investigations, and wrongful dismissal, where miscommunication is a common theme.

Preventing Miscommunications that Escalate

What may appear as personality clashes or underperformance often stems from unclear expectations, inconsistent leadership, or a lack of shared purpose. While one-on-one conversations certainly have value, group discussions, such as team debriefs or collaborative problem-solving sessions, are equally important. These shared conversations provide employees the opportunity to learn together, foster psychological safety, and view mistakes as part of the development process.

Workplace investigations and litigation are often triggered when employees feel excluded, blamed, or treated unfairly. A common theme in workplace harassment complaints is the question: Is this performance management, or is it harassment? While providing feedback is essential for effective employee management, the way it is delivered can significantly impact how it is received and whether it leads to improvement or conflict.

Legal processes can be disruptive, divisive, and costly. Whenever possible, it’s best to avoid them by fostering a respectful and constructive work environment. One effective approach is to frame discussions and feedback as forward-looking conversations, focused on solutions and growth, rather than solely on blame or discipline. This helps rebuild trust, encourages accountability, and maintains team cohesion.

Integrating group discussions when appropriate can elevate the team. If you usually have individual meetings, consider replacing them with pairs or triad discussions. A Building and Leading Teams program participant shared how she does this:

“Remembering to stay present with my managers and do group pulse checks, and allow for collaboration to happen. Find the team’s purpose.”

Leaders can, of course, retain one-to-one meetings; however, consider adjusting the frequency to quarterly instead of weekly and focus the conversation on development and career.

Leading by example is essential. This is especially important in the context of hybrid work. If you’re asking your team to come into the office on certain days, be intentional about the reason. Make those in-office days meaningful by prioritizing collaboration, connection, and team building, rather than relying on other tasks (such as video meetings) that can be conducted remotely. Use the time purposefully and communicate the “why” to your team. The goal should be to foster connection and collaboration, which will help the team thrive and not just survive.

The New Work of Today’s Teams

Even those without direct reports have insight into what you and your peers need. You can take the lead by sharing your observations and ideas. As one CEO client said:

“This model of team is bang on! I tell my whole team that I expect everyone to show initiative, ask questions, see what needs attention, and offer new ways of looking at a challenge. This is leadership, regardless of your title.”

It is heavy work to build and lead top teams in times of uncertainty, and team leadership is a critical competency. Leaders at every level have the opportunity to shape how this competency is designed for the future. By curating the experiences you want your team to have, you help create the kind of teamwork that delivers value and sets the standard in this evolving world of work.

About the Authors

Linda Allen-Hardisty

Linda Allen-Hardisty is an organizational development professional (Queens IRC OD Certificate), an executive coach (ICF MCC professional designation), a team coach (EMCC Global Accreditation), and a Forbes Coaches Council contributing member. She’s built a reputation as a vibrant, contemporary voice in the business world by blending her grounding in OD with a practical approach to addressing organizational challenges and opportunities. With a Masters of Education from the University of Regina, Linda’s uniqueness is that, prior to private practice, she fulfilled corporate leadership roles including the Director of Organizational Development in a company listed on the Hewitt Top 50 Employers in Canada and became the first Manager of Strategy and Performance for a municipal government undertaking cultural transformation. Over her 20-year OD career, she has helped many leaders – from corporate executives to entrepreneurs – improve their personal and professional success. She is a sought-after facilitator, coach and advisor for executive development, strategy and change, team effectiveness, and emotional intelligence.

Linda is a facilitator for three Queen’s IRC programs: Building and Leading Teams, Building Trust, and Performance Coaching.

Deborah Hudson

Deborah Hudson is one of the founding partners of Hudson Sinclair LLP, where she represents both employers and employees in all aspects of labour and employment law. She was called to the Ontario Bar in 2008 and has practiced exclusively in the areas of labour and employment law for her entire career. Deborah regularly advises both employers and employees concerning matters occurring at all stages of the employment relationship (including areas such as contracts, accommodations, human rights matters and termination). Deborah also conducts workplace investigations as an external, independent investigator, relating to various workplace circumstances and allegations, including harassment/bullying, human rights matters, privacy breaches, and fraud.

Deborah is a facilitator for two Queen’s IRC programs: Building and Leading Teams and Fact-Finding and Investigations

 

Download PDF: Leading Top Teams Through Uncertainty

More Than a Seat at the Table: How HR Can Shape the Business Strategy

by Leave a Comment

When we say HR should have a seat at the table, we don’t mean a silent chair in the corner, or a personnel function remembered only for transactional tasks. We mean influence, insight, and strategy. In fact, the notion of HR simply “having a seat” is already outdated. The real question: how well is HR shaping the table itself?

When human resource strategy is deeply aligned with business goals, by design, not by default, it becomes a powerful driver in helping the organization achieve success and competitive advantage. But alignment doesn’t happen by accident; it requires a shared understanding of what the organization is genuinely in the business of doing, along with clarity on culture, capability, and what makes it different. Achieving an excellent level of integration between HR and business strategy demands frameworks, feedback loops, and a willingness to challenge the status quo.

HR Alignment: By Design, Not by Default

Strategic alignment doesn’t emerge organically. It requires clarity about the core business, intentional connection between priorities and people systems, and the courage to challenge embedded routines, practices, and processes. And increasingly, organizations that get it right are outperforming those that don’t.

Take HMC, for example, a progressive, multidisciplinary clinic in Ontario. When they first opened their doors almost 10 years ago, their focus was clear: to offer timely, patient-first care in a community setting, centred around the ethos of the care of the patient being the first concern. But behind the scenes, they were already building something far more strategic. From day one, HMC aligned its HR practices with its clinical and operational goals. They hired based on shared values and adaptability. They structured the teams to support flexibility and continuity of care, and they embedded data-informed HR decisions like performance metrics and workload forecasting into their business planning cycles.

Today, HMC continues to evolve its model. Whether it’s through digital automation to ease administrative burden, or through staff recognition and wellness programming aligned to retention goals, HR is not an afterthought; it’s a key enabler and a boisterous member at the strategy table.

And it’s not just healthcare. The same principles hold true across other sectors and are scalable across any size of organization.

Three Strategic Levers for HR and Business Alignment

1. Define your strategic identity, then build HR around it.

HR alignment begins by answering: What business are we in? This includes:

  • Clarifying purpose, priorities, and value proposition
  • Understanding core customers and service channels
  • Assessing whether your current structure and people systems support future goals

Without this strategic anchor, HR may focus on excellence, but not necessarily relevance.

2. Position HR as a strategic partner, early and often.

HR should not merely respond to strategy; it should inform it. This means:

  • Embedding HR leaders in business planning cycles
  • Designing talent systems that anticipate future capability needs
  • Tracking people metrics alongside financial and operational key performance indicators

As Holbeche (2009) notes, the most effective HR teams don’t just serve the business, they help define its trajectory.

3. Use change management as the glue.

Even the best aligned strategies fail without thoughtful execution. Change is where alignment is tested. Sustain it by:

  • Equipping middle managers as champions of both people and strategy
  • Leveraging structured frameworks
  • Embedding alignment in performance conversations, reward systems, and team norms

Kateb and Ahmadi (2018) emphasize that alignment is as much about feedback loops and culture as it is about planning tools. Strategic alignment is more than linking HR initiatives to business objectives. It’s about embedding HR thinking into the very logic of how the organization operates, grows, and adapts.

So yes, HR should contribute to the strategy table in a boisterous manner using a sound and pragmatic voice that shapes the agenda, asks the hard questions, and builds the capacity for the organization to deliver on its promise.

About the Author

Lola Obomighie, an accomplished HR professional and healthcare executive, is the Vice President of People, Culture and Organizational Effectiveness at a regional healthcare organization. With nearly 20 years of experience in England and Ontario, she brings extensive expertise across sectors. She is a keen and enthusiastic people leader who believes organizational strategy is achievable through engaged and empowered people. A passionate advocate of equity, diversity and inclusion, Lola holds an MSc in HR Management and multiple certifications, including MCIPD, CAPM, CHRE, and CHE. Enrolled in the Rotman Global Executive MBA for Healthcare and the Life Sciences, she also serves on the Board of Governors at an independent private school and is a proud graduate of the Queen’s IRC’s Labour Relations certificate.

Lola is the lead facilitator for the Queen’s IRC Aligning HR and Business Strategy and HR Metrics and Analytics programs.

 

References

Holbeche, L. (2009). Aligning Human Resources and Business Strategy. Routledge.

Kateb, M., & Ahmadi, A.A. (2018). Aligning human resources and business strategy. Management Science Letters, 8(2018), 1399–1412. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2018.9.001

You Can Get Anywhere with a Pizza Box: Protect Yourself and Your Business

by Leave a Comment

There is a tremendous amount of resources invested in all manners of protection: sophisticated access control, camera systems, and investigations of various forms of maleficence. This is quite often augmented by uniformed security and executive protection. What we speak of today is a gap in almost every workplace, which can be easily be plugged with a bit of strategy. It will keep everyone safer, but only if everyone commits to a procedure.

Have you ever heard the term “you can get anywhere with a pizza box”? You need procedures followed by everyone present to restrict entry to your workplace. With a few simple steps, we have defeated every sophisticated security system we have ever faced. What is your procedure for unannounced personnel showing up and requesting entrance?

What is the Risk?

Your organization’s management can only understand and mitigate risk if they know what it is. The first step to make risk clear should be a physical security intrusion test (sometimes called a Red Team). Let me take you through a few scenarios of entry we have conducted into very sophisticated facilities.[1]

Trading Floor

In one of Canada’s cities, we prepared to conduct a test on the trading floor of a very large and reportedly secure institution. Multiple employees conducting sensitive business. Entry is restricted by access doors, which lock if anyone tries to follow (tailgate) the authorized person into the building. The latest technology, cameras, and physical security. A multi-layered approach should be effective. There was just one problem: Social Engineering, in the form of a cleaning lady (dressed like Carol Burnett) with a cleaning kit. I knew this was a good disguise when she went down for coffee in the hotel we were at and received the staff discount. She was dispatched to the facility, stood by the door, and as an employee approached, she advised him that she had been called to clean a workstation where another employee had gotten sick. She was immediately swiped in without question and spent the next 30 minutes wandering around gathering information. Even though no one was sick, she was never questioned and was left on her own. She headed back to the room to change into her next costume. While she was gone, Agent 2 showed up with a pass he had copied from the internet. His story to the manager was that he was checking the air emitted around the laser printers. He had a letter he presented to the manager, which was manufactured from publicly available information. Even though the manager was the one person who knew there was going to be a test, he was sure this couldn’t be it. The agent was halfway through examining the printers in the facility when the manager decided to conduct further inquiries. Agent 2 left the facility. This was good, but it should have been done before admittance. A bit of research and social engineering had defeated all the sophisticated defences.

Casino Bank

We had agents dress up as construction workers and enter a casino, where they were questioned by security. Although their story was fabricated, security believed it and took them on a tour. They then spoke to a surveillance officer, who mentioned they had to be careful because the casino had previously conducted intrusion tests. The agent asked what an intrusion test was and the surveillance officer said they were people dressed a lot like them. Then they were taken to the Casino bank, where security took them into the mantrap (the inside door will not open until the outside door closes and locks). Presumably, because they were accompanied by security, they were admitted to the Casino bank, where millions of dollars are held, and remained until they decided to leave.

Power Station

An agent went into a secure power control center where they were required to sign in on two levels to get into the main area, which contained controls for a huge area of a province. Again, false identification found on the internet and a plausible-sounding story that wasn’t checked.

There are many more cases, but I think you get the point.

How Do You Test Your Own Facility?

  • The first rule of thumb, make no assumptions
  • Research existing policy on security and entry to your facility
  • Carefully plan the objectives against that policy or procedure if there is one
  • Select agents who will be able to carry out your scenario
  • Have a mandate letter that they sign stating their objectives
  • The briefing must include an understanding that they use no physical resistance if found out
  • If detained, the agent should have a business card they can produce of the person running the operation, and that manager needs to be available when the test is being conducted
  • The agents need to supply detailed reports, complete with quotes and pictures, establishing the results

What Do You Do with The Results?

The beauty of this test is that it can quietly identify gaps in corporate security and allow for adjustments, policy and procedure development, and education or training without any public knowledge or reputational damage. This complements all the sophisticated technology available and required. Be sure to ensure there is a thorough review of the report, and if there is a failure, review and adjust the present procedure accordingly.

Immediate Response to Shore Up Weaknesses

  1. Educate everyone in the facility about proper access control and the dangers of not following the proper procedures
  2. Retest regularly (quarterly or semi-annually) to increase compliance
  3. Celebrate successes, especially those who identify agents and gaps in the process

[1] The tests mentioned in this article were conducted by agents of Buckingham Security Services Ltd. of Saskatchewan at various locations in Canada.


About the Author

Rod Buckingham headshot

Rod Buckingham is the founder and CEO of Buckingham Security Services Ltd., a company that evolved from a long and distinguished career in law enforcement. Rod spent 36 years in law enforcement for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the Regina Police Service (RPS). In his tenure with RPS, he served in several capacities, including criminal investigation division inspector, a role in which he was responsible for the operations of the police service’s 100 detectives. Prior to that, he was a major crimes investigator for RPS. Buckingham Security Services has more than 90 of the best investigators in the profession, including former law enforcement personnel with extensive experience in all types of in-depth investigations, extensive experience in undercover work, background investigation and pre-employment screening. Today, in addition to his role with Buckingham, he serves as the senior security consultant for the Canadian Football League.

 

Beyond Engagement to Commitment

by Leave a Comment

Introduction

Much has been written about employee engagement, especially prior to the social and economic disruption caused by the pandemic in 2020. Over the past four years, and in the rapidly emerging context of virtual work and the power of AI, thoughtful discussion has pivoted on the topic of workforce engagement. Perspectives have dramatically changed – is the concept of engagement still valid and under what conditions? Is there an approach or paradigm that goes beyond engagement and what might that be? Is it a relevant aspiration for all organizations?

Today’s organizations must navigate a landscape of multiple and shifting workplace challenges and the pace at which these realities occur. Workplaces far and wide are being profoundly impacted by rapid technology change, demographic trends, labour market shortages, and macroeconomic policy shifts. The net result is an unprecedented array of human capital challenges driving the need for new approaches to attraction and retention, skill and talent development, and deploying a highly productive workforce in an agile way. This human capital paradigm shift has significant implications for business strategy and policy choices and for some employers, going beyond employee engagement to a value proposition of elevated and two-way commitment, culturally and operationally.

When an organization moves beyond the basic retention of employees, we suggest the time has come for employers to think about the opportunity [as illustrated below] of going beyond retention and engagement to an optimized high-performance culture based on commitment. This point-of-view article provides a perspective on the distinction between engagement and commitment, what a commitment approach consists of, and the opportunities and implications associated with its adoption.

Download full article (PDF): Beyond Engagement to Commitment

Download the Brochure

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.