BeHR – People & Organization

Mental health deserves more than a place in workplace policy. It deserves a voice in how work is designed. This World Mental Health Day, the theme is: “Lived experiences heard: real voices, real change.” That message matters for HR leaders. Supporting mental health should not begin with assumptions about what employees need, it should begin by listening to the people experiencing the workplace. The scale is significant: 🧠 More than 1 billion people live with a mental health condition 📅 Depression and anxiety contribute to 12 billion lost working days each year 💰 The estimated productivity cost is US$1 trillion annually But mental health at work is not only an individual wellbeing issue. It is also shaped by organizational conditions: workloads, autonomy, psychological safety, manager behavior, role clarity and access to support. In our work with organizations, we encourage HR teams to move beyond one-off wellbeing initiatives and examine the work environment itself: 🔹 Are workloads genuinely sustainable? 🔹 Do managers know how to respond when someone is struggling? 🔹 Can employees speak openly without fearing negative consequences? 🔹 Are people with lived experience involved in designing support? Listening is important. Turning what we hear into better systems, practices and everyday behaviors is where meaningful change begins. Contact us to explore how behavioral science can support a healthier workplace.

HR teams rarely lack data. The harder question is: where should we act first? The Pareto Principle offers a useful starting point: a relatively small share of causes often drives a large share of outcomes. The idea originated with economist Vilfredo Pareto and was later applied to quality management by Joseph Juran, who described the “vital few” causes that deserve disproportionate attention. In HR, that might mean: 🔹 A few teams account for most regrettable turnover 🔹 A handful of manager behaviors shape engagement 🔹 Several process bottlenecks create most employee frustration 🔹 A small number of capability gaps constrain performance 🔹 A few critical moments define the employee experience In our work with HR teams, we use this principle as a diagnostic lens, not a rigid 80/20 formula. We start by defining the outcome, identifying and ranking its likely drivers, then focusing interventions where they can generate the greatest impact. The remaining factors still matter, but treating every issue as equally important spreads resources too thinly. The practical question for HR leaders is: 🎯 What are the “vital few” factors driving the people outcome you want to change? At BeHR, we combine behavioral science, people analytics, and practical HR expertise to help organizations identify those drivers and turn insight into action.

The employee creating the most value is not always the one creating the most visibility. In many workplaces, activity is easier to observe than impact: 📅 A calendar full of meetings 💬 Frequent messages and updates 🏢 Long hours in the office 🗣️ A strong presence in discussions 📊 Constant reporting of ongoing work These behaviors may reflect valuable effort, but they are not evidence of value on their own. Meanwhile, some of the most important contributions can be surprisingly quiet: 🔹 Preventing a problem before it becomes visible 🔹 Simplifying a process others have learned to tolerate 🔹 Producing careful analysis behind a better decision 🔹 Supporting colleagues without seeking recognition 🔹 Building systems that continue working without attention Research on “face time” bias suggests that simply being seen at work can shape perceptions of commitment and dependability, even when observers do not have corresponding evidence of performance. This creates a risk for performance management. When visibility becomes a proxy for value: ❌ Quiet contributors may be overlooked ❌ Hybrid and remote employees may be disadvantaged ❌ Busyness can become performative ❌ Employees may optimize for being noticed rather than creating impact ❌ Promotions may favor self-presentation over contribution In our work with HR teams, we encourage organizations to separate three questions: 1️⃣ What activity can we see? 2️⃣ What outcomes were created? 3️⃣ How did the person contribute to those outcomes? The distinction matters because not every valuable contribution produces an immediate or easily measurable result. Context, collaboration, quality and long-term impact still require informed managerial judgment. At BeHR, the People & Organization practice of the Center for Behavioral Decisions, we help organizations redesign performance systems around clearer expectations, better evidence and fairer evaluation. That can include: ✅ Defining outcomes before the review period ✅ Documenting contributions throughout the year ✅ Using multiple sources of evidence ✅ Calibrating evaluations across managers ✅ Recognizing enabling and preventive work ✅ Auditing ratings for proximity and visibility bias Visibility can help good work receive recognition. But it should never become the definition of good work. What valuable contribution is your organization currently failing to see?

Conflict at work is not always a problem to eliminate. Handled well, it can surface risks, challenge weak assumptions and produce better decisions. The real skill is knowing how to respond. The Thomas–Kilmann model, developed by Kenneth Thomas and Ralph Kilmann, describes five conflict modes using two dimensions: ⬆️ Assertiveness: the extent to which you pursue your own concerns ➡️ Cooperativeness: the extent to which you try to satisfy the other person’s concerns Different combinations produce five responses: ⚡ Competing High assertiveness, low cooperativeness You defend your position and act decisively. This can be useful during emergencies, when an unpopular decision must be made or when an important boundary needs protection. 🤝 Collaborating High assertiveness, high cooperativeness Both parties explore the issue and work toward a solution that addresses their underlying concerns. It can produce strong outcomes, but requires time, trust and openness. ⚖️ Compromising Moderate assertiveness and cooperativeness Each side gives up something to reach an acceptable solution. This is practical when time is limited or when the issue does not justify a longer process. ⏸️ Avoiding Low assertiveness, low cooperativeness You step back, delay or choose not to engage. This can be appropriate when emotions need to settle or the issue is minor—but repeated avoidance can allow important problems to grow. 🕊️ Accommodating Low assertiveness, high cooperativeness You prioritize the other person’s concerns. This can protect a valuable relationship or acknowledge that the other position is stronger, but overuse may lead to resentment or silence. 💡 No mode is always right or always wrong. In our work with leaders and teams, the challenge is rarely that someone uses an ineffective style all the time. More often, they rely on one familiar response even when the situation requires another. A strong conflict capability means being able to ask: 🔹 How important is the outcome? 🔹 How important is the relationship? 🔹 How urgent is the decision? 🔹 Is there enough trust and time to collaborate? 🔹 Am I choosing this response deliberately or reacting automatically? At BeHR, the People & Organization practice of the Center for Behavioral Decisions, we help organizations understand how people respond to disagreement and design better conditions for constructive conflict from leadership behaviors and team norms to decision processes and psychological safety. Which conflict mode do you rely on most often?

Have you ever felt too tired to start a task, only to feel more energized once you finally began? That is the paradox of energy: ⚡ Doing a task can create momentum. 🔋 Avoiding it can consume energy. When we postpone an unpleasant, uncertain or overwhelming task, it does not necessarily disappear from our attention. We may continue thinking about it, anticipating the difficulty and feeling the pressure of an approaching deadline. Avoidance can provide short-term relief, but often creates longer-term stress. Starting changes the experience. Even a small step can: ✅ Reduce uncertainty ✅ Make the task feel more manageable ✅ Create visible progress ✅ Increase confidence ✅ Clarify what needs to happen next This connects with the progress principle developed by Teresa Amabile and Steven Kramer: making progress in meaningful work, even through small wins can positively affect motivation and the everyday experience of work. But this is not simply a personal productivity issue. In our work with organizations, we often find that delayed tasks point to problems in the work environment: 🔹 Priorities are unclear 🔹 Tasks feel too large or poorly defined 🔹 Employees lack

A strong team should be able to say, “I disagree,” without communicating, “I don’t respect you.” That distinction sounds simple. In practice, it requires skill. 💡 Disagreement questions the idea. 🚫 Disrespect targets the person. Constructive disagreement sounds like: 🔹 “What evidence supports that assumption?” 🔹 “I see the risk differently.” 🔹 “Could we test another option?” 🔹 “What might we be overlooking?” Disrespect sounds like: 🔸 “You clearly don’t understand this.” 🔸 “That is a ridiculous idea.” 🔸 “You always make things difficult.” 🔸 Dismissing, interrupting or humiliating the speaker Once conflict becomes personal, attention shifts away from solving the problem and toward defending identity, status and belonging. But there is an important nuance: task-related disagreement is not automatically productive. Research suggests that conflict can still damage performance when it becomes intense, poorly managed or intertwined with relationship conflict. Healthy disagreement needs the right conditions: ✅ Psychological safety to speak honestly ✅ Shared standards for respectful behavior ✅ Curiosity about opposing views ✅ Leaders who respond well to challenge ✅ A clear process for reaching decisions ✅ Accountability when discussion becomes personal In our work with organizations, we often find one of two unhealthy extremes: Silence is mistaken for alignment, so risks and alternative perspectives remain hidden. Or hostility is mistaken for candor, so disrespect is defended as “just being direct.” Neither creates better decisions. At BeHR, the People & Organization practice of the Center for Behavioral Decisions, we help organizations build the behavioral foundations for constructive disagreement from leadership practices and team norms to meeting design, decision processes and psychological safety. How does your team challenge ideas without diminishing people?

Should organizations hire specialists or develop people with broader capabilities? The better question may be: What combination of depth and breadth does the work require? Skill profiles offer HR leaders a simple visual language for discussing how expertise is distributed: 🔹 I-shaped: deep expertise in one area These employees bring specialist knowledge and can solve complex problems within a defined discipline. They are particularly valuable when quality depends on technical depth. 🔹 T-shaped: broad knowledge with deep expertise in one area The vertical line represents specialization; the horizontal line represents the ability to understand and collaborate across adjacent functions. 🔹 M-shaped: broad knowledge with depth in multiple areas These professionals combine several areas of expertise. They can connect disciplines, manage complex interdependencies and contribute across different types of work. 🔹 V-shaped: expertise that expands into adjacent areas A strong core capability becomes the foundation for developing related knowledge. This profile can be useful where roles are evolving and disciplines increasingly overlap. 💡 None of these profiles is inherently better than the others. A team composed only of broad generalists may lack specialist depth. A team composed only of narrow specialists may struggle with collaboration, integration and adaptation. In our work with HR teams, we use skill profiles as a conversation tool, not as permanent labels. They can help organizations: ✅ Clarify what roles genuinely require ✅ Identify capability gaps across teams ✅ Design more relevant learning pathways ✅ Support internal mobility and career development ✅ Build teams with complementary strengths ✅ Prepare the workforce for changing business needs At BeHR, the People & Organization practice of the Center for Behavioral Decisions, we combine workforce analysis, behavioral science and practical HR expertise to help organizations understand the capabilities they have, the capabilities they need and how people can develop between the two. Because workforce planning is not only about how many people an organization needs. It is also about the shape of the capabilities they bring. Which profile is most important for your organization’s future?

Why do well-planned transformations still fail? Often, the strategy is sound, but people have not been supported through the individual process of change. The ADKAR® model, developed by Prosci founder Jeff Hiatt, offers a practical way to identify where change is getting stuck. It describes five outcomes people need to achieve: 🔎 Awareness Do employees understand why the change is necessary—not simply that it is happening? 🙋 Desire Are they willing to participate and support it? Awareness alone does not create commitment. 📚 Knowledge Do they know what to do differently and understand the new processes, tools or behaviors? 🛠️ Ability Can they apply that knowledge in practice? Knowing how to do something is not the same as being able to perform it confidently. 🔁 Reinforcement Are recognition, feedback, leadership behavior and organizational systems helping the new way of working continue? In our work with organizations, we often find that change initiatives focus heavily on Knowledge: more presentations, training and documentation. But training cannot solve every change problem. If the real barrier is Awareness, employees need a credible explanation. If it is Desire, leaders need to understand concerns, incentives and perceived consequences. If it is Ability, people may need practice, coaching, time or better tools. If Reinforcement is missing, familiar habits and systems can quickly pull behavior back to the old way. 💡 The practical value of ADKAR is diagnosis. Rather than describing employees as “resistant,” it encourages leaders to ask: Which condition for change has not yet been established? At BeHR, the People & Organization practice of the Center for Behavioral Decisions, we combine behavioral science with practical HR expertise to diagnose barriers to adoption and design targeted interventions across communication, leadership, capability building, incentives and the work environment. Where do change initiatives most often get stuck in your organization?

𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗲𝘀. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗵𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗻𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆, 𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗻𝗼 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝘄𝗮𝘁𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴. In our work with leaders and HR teams, we often see a gap between the culture described in corporate values and the culture employees experience every day. Three principles help explain how that gap develops: 𝟬𝟭 — 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱. When poor behavior produces no meaningful response, employees learn that the stated standard is optional. This is particularly damaging when exceptions are made for senior leaders or high performers. 𝟬𝟮 — 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. Silence is information. When leaders overlook disrespect, exclusion, blame or repeated boundary violations, people may interpret inaction as approval. 𝟬𝟯 — 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲. Culture is reinforced through recurring decisions: who gets promoted, which results receive recognition, how managers respond to mistakes and whether consequences are applied consistently. This is why culture change cannot rely on communication alone. A new values statement may describe the desired culture, but employees learn the real culture by observing patterns of behavior and their consequences. At BeHR, the People & Organization practice of the Center for Behavioral Decisions, we help organizations examine these patterns. We look at the behaviors leaders model, the signals employees receive and the systems that reinforce everyday decisions. We then translate those insights into practical changes across leadership, performance management, recognition, communication and employee experience. 𝗖𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮 𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗹𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝘀𝗵𝗼𝗽. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗯𝘂𝗶𝗹𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗮𝗻 𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘇𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗱𝗹𝘆 𝗮𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄𝘀, 𝗿𝗲𝘄𝗮𝗿𝗱𝘀 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝘀. What is your organization reinforcing every day?

𝗘𝗳𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝘆𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗹𝘆. 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗮𝗯𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗸𝗻𝗼𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘁𝗼 𝗮𝗱𝗮𝗽𝘁. That is the central idea behind the 𝗦𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗠𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹, developed by Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard. The model proposes that leaders should adjust their behavior according to what an employee needs for a specific task, not according to a fixed assessment of that person. It uses two dimensions: 🔹 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿: setting goals, explaining what to do, establishing timelines and monitoring progress 🔹 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗶𝗼𝗿: listening, encouraging, involving the employee and building confidence Combining these dimensions produces four leadership styles: 𝗦𝟭 — 𝗗𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 High direction, low support The leader provides specific instructions and follows progress closely. This is useful when someone is new to a task and needs clarity and structure. 𝗦𝟮 — 𝗖𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 High direction, high support The leader continues to provide guidance while explaining decisions, inviting questions and building motivation. 𝗦𝟯 — 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 Low direction, high support The employee has developed the necessary capability, so the leader reduces instruction and focuses on confidence, involvement and shared problem-solving. 𝗦𝟰 — 𝗗𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 Low direction, low support The employee can take ownership of the task. The leader agrees on outcomes, transfers responsibility and remains available without micromanaging. The corresponding development levels are often described as 𝗗𝟭 𝘁𝗼 𝗗𝟰, based on an employee’s competence and commitment: 🔹 𝗗𝟭: low competence, high commitment 🔹 𝗗𝟮: some competence, variable commitment 🔹 𝗗𝟯: moderate-to-high competence, variable confidence 🔹 𝗗𝟰: high competence and high commitment 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗹𝘀. An experienced employee may be D4 in a familiar area but D1 when adopting a new technology or taking on a different responsibility. In our work with organizations, we often see leadership difficulties caused by a mismatch: capable employees are over-directed, inexperienced employees are left without enough guidance, or responsibility is delegated before expectations are clear. At BeHR, the People & Organization practice of the Center for Behavioral Decisions, we help organizations turn leadership frameworks into observable behaviors, practical management tools and development programs grounded in real workplace situations. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆, “𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝘆 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝘀𝘁𝘆𝗹𝗲?” 𝗜𝘁 𝗶𝘀, “𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗺𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘄?”