The psychological minefield of leadership – Part 2

You had the conversation. You finally said what needed to be said. You were clear, measured, and direct. You even followed the guidance in last week’s column. And then something unexpected happened: nothing changed. The employee nodded, returned to their desk, and resumed the same behaviour. Now you are standing in a different minefield, one that part one of the article never warned you about. What do you do when feedback lands correctly and still produces no movement?

This is where most leadership conversations stop. It is also where the real work begins.

Last week, we explored the psychology of avoidance: why leaders soften the truth and why employees defend against it. But there is a more systemic minefield that operates independently of any single conversation. It is the invisible architecture of your organisation, the unspoken rules, the reward structures, and the cultural norms that either reinforce or quietly cancel everything you say as a leader.

Think of this unformattable reality: if your organisation rewards results at the expense of relationships, celebrates urgency over accuracy, or tolerates dysfunction while praising individual performance, then no amount of honest feedback will produce sustained change. You are planting seeds in concrete.

Organisational psychologist Edgar Schein spent decades studying culture and arrived at a conclusion that should unsettle every leader: employees do not change based on what leaders say. They change based on what leaders consistently reward, tolerate, and model. Your feedback is competing with a much louder message broadcast daily through your organisation’s behaviour. And that message almost always wins.

There is a layer of feedback that lives between behaviour and identity. You may speak to actions, but the employee hears a challenge to who they are.

When you tell a senior professional their communication style is alienating others, you are not just addressing a skill gap. You are disrupting a professional identity built over years, one that may have earned them promotions. Research on identity resistance shows people can intellectually accept feedback while emotionally rejecting it. They hear you. They agree. And then nothing changes.

The solution is not more clarity. It is structured reauthoring. Effective leaders help employees build a new narrative: the change is not a rejection of who you are; it is an evolution of who you must become. One executive reframed his language from “This wasn’t your best work” to “This outcome doesn’t reflect the standard I know you are capable of.” One diminishes identity; the other elevates it while demanding more.

Even when feedback is delivered well, it does not end in the meeting. It lingers. The employee replays it, interprets it, and questions it. Leaders often assume clarity resolves issues. In reality, clarity starts a process. This is where leaders fail – not in courage, but in consistency. They deliver feedback, then withdraw. They assume space equals respect. To the employee, it often feels like abandonment.

Feedback without follow-through feels like criticism. Feedback with follow-through feels like investment. A practical discipline: after any significant feedback conversation, schedule a short follow-up within the week. Not to restate your point, but to ask, “What has been most helpful or most difficult about what we discussed?”

That question signals resistance early and signals partnership, not judgement.

There is a deeper minefield, one that sits uncomfortably close. Sometimes, the behaviour you are trying to correct is being shaped by you. Research by Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman shows that 69 per cent of employees identify their manager’s behaviour as the primary driver of their performance anxiety, not workload or pay.

So, the question becomes unavoidable: is the behaviour you are correcting something you have modelled, permitted, or incentivised?

Leaders who reward speed over quality should not be surprised when quality erodes. Leaders who interrupt others should not be surprised when confidence disappears. This is not blame; it is accountability at the highest level.

Does your organisation reinforce the behaviours you are trying to change? When employees resist feedback, what identity might you be disrupting? Who is still carrying the emotional weight of a conversation you never revisited? And where has inconsistency created confusion about your standards?

Before your next conversation, ask yourself, ‘Am I entering as a judge or a coach?’

During the conversation, notice your instinct. Are you rushing to ease discomfort or allowing space for reflection? Then do what most leaders avoid: return to an old conversation. Reopen it. Ask what has changed, what has not, and what support is needed. Close the loop.

Finally, identify one behaviour you are correcting in others that you have not addressed in yourself. Correct that first. Then watch what shifts, not because you spoke differently, but because you led differently.

The deepest psychological minefield in leadership is not between you and your team. It is between who you are and who your team needs you to become. The minefield does not clear when leaders find their voice. It clears when they develop the discipline to stay in the conversation long after it becomes uncomfortable.

That is where trust is built. Not in what you say, but in what you consistently return to.

About the author:

Dr Toye Sobande is a strategic leadership expert, executive coach, lawyer, public speaker, and award-winning author. He is the CEO of Stephens Leadership Consultancy LLC, a strategy and management consulting firm offering creative insights and solutions to businesses and leaders. Email: [email protected]