Roll For Insight

Tag: team dynamics

  • Cecil Stedman: The Adaptive Bureaucrat Nobody Wants to Be (But Somebody Has To)

    When I was writing about Omni-Man, I kept circling back to Cecil Stedman, the director of the Global Defense Agency. If Omni-Man is the worst-case scenario of charisma without ethics—the guy who can make mass murder sound like a pep talk—then Cecil is the polar opposite. He doesn’t inspire anyone. Nobody’s getting a Cecil tattoo. He looks perpetually hungover, like a guidance counselor who gave up on wearing ties sometime in the early 90s. But when the world is coming apart, he’s the one you actually want making the calls.

    Because Cecil isn’t about vision or inspiration. He’s about survival. He embodies what Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky call adaptive leadership—stepping into situations where there is no playbook, no technical fix, no “right answer” that saves the day. Omni-Man flexes, and cities crumble. Cecil grimaces, makes a decision that guarantees everyone will hate him, and then pours another drink. That’s actually the more realistic version of leadership.

    You can see it in how he operates: sending rookies into fights he knows they’ll lose, lying to Mark about how bad things really are until he absolutely has to tell him, constantly calculating which disaster leaves fewer bodies on the floor. He doesn’t pretend there’s a win waiting at the end. He just picks the path where the damage is survivable. That’s the entire premise of adaptive leadership—there’s no fixing the storm, only steering through it.

    This is why I can’t shake Cecil as the real counterpoint to Omni-Man. Charisma makes you believe in someone before you know what they stand for. Cecil makes you distrust him immediately, and yet, through sheer blunt honesty, he earns something more durable than admiration: grudging trust. He never tells you it’ll be fine. He tells you it’s going to be terrible, but here’s how we’ll get through it anyway. That’s a very different kind of authority than Omni-Man wielding his mustache like a badge of destiny.

    It also makes Cecil a pretty good metaphor for what happens once you’ve been leading people long enough to lose your illusions. Anyone who’s ever managed a warehouse crew, or run a hospital shift, or tried to GM a tabletop campaign knows what this feels like. You start bright-eyed, promising people big visions and meaningful work. Then reality sets in. The order backlog is impossible, the patients keep piling in, the party has just set fire to the only inn in town because someone thought a bar brawl would be “character-driven roleplay.” Suddenly, you’re not the inspirational Omni-Man figure anymore. You’re Cecil, making exhausted calculations about which choice leaves the fewest scars.

    That’s the unglamorous reality of adaptive leadership. Heifetz and Linsky talk about it as “living in the disequilibrium.” You can’t let things get so calm that people won’t adapt, but you also can’t let them get so chaotic that people panic or break. It’s this awful tightrope of tension management. Cecil lives on that rope. He knows if he underplays a threat, people die. If he overplays it, people revolt. So he does what real leaders do: he accepts that everyone will be angry with him, and then he does it anyway.

    Of course, there’s a cost. Cecil always looks one bad day away from collapsing into his whiskey glass. Adaptive leadership isn’t the kind of thing that makes you a beloved icon. It burns you out, leaves you scarred, and makes your victories invisible. No one celebrates the catastrophe you prevented. They only complain about the compromises you made. That’s why so many real-life leaders retreat into the comfort of technical fixes—new checklists, new policies—because at least those come with the illusion of control.

    But when you’re really in it—when you’re leading people through situations with no clean answers—charisma won’t save you. Vision won’t save you. The only thing that keeps people moving is knowing you’re willing to stand there with them in the middle of the wreckage, taking the heat and making the call. That’s Cecil. He doesn’t inspire. He endures. And in the long run, that’s what makes him the most honest kind of leader.

    Omni-Man showed us the dangers of charisma unmoored from ethics. Cecil shows us the price of leadership rooted in pragmatism. Between the two, Cecil’s the one you can actually trust to keep the world spinning, even if you hate him for how he does it. And if you’ve ever found yourself in a role where every option looked terrible but someone had to choose, congratulations: you’ve already had your own Cecil moment. You probably didn’t look good doing it. You definitely didn’t get applause. But you kept things alive long enough to fight another day. And that, grim as it sounds, is leadership.

    References

    • Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading. Harvard Business Review Press.
    • Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (8th ed.). Sage Publications.

  • 28 Years Later: Leadership Lessons From a World That Just Won’t Stay Fixed

    28 Years Later: Leadership Lessons From a World That Just Won’t Stay Fixed

    I didn’t expect to walk out of 28 Years Later grinning like I’d just seen the year’s best comedy, but here we are. The movie is bleak and brutal in all the ways you’d expect from a sequel to 28 Days and 28 Weeks Later, yet every so often it throws you a lifeline: a Swedish soldier cracking deadpan jokes, or the sudden introduction of the Jimmies—the tracksuit-clad hooligans led by Jimmy himself, who was introduced in the opening scene and then gone for basically the entire film until the Jimmies dropkicked their way into the finale like they’d been promised a spin-off and were fully prepared to beat the producer with folding chair until they got one. It’s a weird, awesome blend of relentless despair and absurd comedy, the kind of tonal whiplash that makes the whole thing feel like a fever dream.

    That’s the heart of Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky’s theory of adaptive leadership. Their big idea is that the hardest problems we face aren’t “technical”—the kind you solve with a known fix, like calling IT when your monitor won’t turn on. The hardest problems are adaptive, where the rules themselves have changed and no one has the answer. When rage zombies overrun London, it doesn’t matter how much you know about first aid protocols or where to find bottled water. You’re making judgment calls in the fog,. trying to figure out the difference between survival skills and suicide notes dressed up as wisdom. 

    What the movie shows us—and what Heifetz & Linsky emphasize—is that leadership in these moments isn’t about heroically swooping in with the solution. It’s about holding people together long enough that solutions can emerge. That’s why the Swedish guy’s humor works as more than comic relief. He’s practicing a form of situational leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969): shifting his approach based on the immediate needs of the group. Sometimes he’s lightening the mood, sometimes it’s played as dead serious. Either way, he’s paying attention to what the team needs in that exact moment.

    It’s easy to dismiss comic relief as just nonsense, but think about your own life. In the middle of a tense family dinner, there’s always that one relative who cracks a joke about the mashed potatoes being weaponized. In a D&D session, it’s the bard who pipes up with a one-liner when the dragon’s about to eat the cleric. At work, it’s the person who points out that the coffee is strong enough to strip paint. You roll your eyes, but everyone relaxes just enough to keep going. That’s adaptive. Humor buys the group another five minutes of cooperation before somebody snaps.

    And then there’s Jimmy. He starts by losing everything—family, friends, any shot at normal—and then ghosts the movie for what feels like forever. Just when you’ve forgotten him, he blasts into the last scene with the narrative subtlety of a golf club through a plate-glass window. It’s ridiculous and perfect. Because how many times in your own life have you seen the “forgotten” person, the one everyone assumed was out of the picture, suddenly reappear like they were hiding in the ceiling tiles, ready to drop down and steal the spotlight? The Jimmies represent the survivalist version of what a lot of groups become after too much upheaval: a stitched-together tribe of rituals, slang, and inside jokes that don’t make sense to outsiders but function as glue for insiders. They swagger like they’re in control, but under the surface, you can tell they’re improvising as much as anyone else.

    This is the piece leaders often miss. We love the myth of the solitary figure who knew the path all along. In reality, most progress comes from people stumbling forward, testing half-baked ideas, and then acting like it was intentional afterward. As Peter Northouse puts it in Leadership: Theory and Practice, adaptive leaders tolerate ambiguity and resist the urge to slap a quick fix on what’s really a systemic wound (Northouse, 2021). That’s as true for a ragtag survivor gang as it is for a PTA board that just realized their big fundraiser is scheduled for the same weekend as homecoming.

    I think back to my own experiences in warehouses and delivery networks. There were plenty of times when the corporate “solution” was nothing more than a PowerPoint full of buzzwords. But at the ground level, the only reason things kept moving was because frontline teams invented their own processes—borrowing equipment, making ad hoc spreadsheets, redesigning workflows with sticky notes and duct tape. From the outside, it looked chaotic. From the inside, it was the only way to survive. That’s adaptive leadership.

    Another thread the movie pulls on is resilience. When characters keep going after loss, or keep fighting when it’s clear they’re outmatched, that’s resilience theory in action (Luthans, 2002). You see the same thing in a burned-out sports team that still shows up to practice, or in a group of friends who keep making movie night happen even after everyone’s schedules have collapsed into chaos. The Jimmies aren’t admirable because they’re powerful; they’re admirable because they’ve found a way to keep showing up—even if it means vanishing for two hours and then reappearing like they just respawned from a glitch in the Matrix.

    And let’s not overlook psychological safety. Amy Edmondson (1999) describes it as the freedom to speak up, take risks, and fail without fear of punishment. In 28 Years Later, every group that survives does so because they’ve built just enough trust to admit fear and share ideas without instantly fracturing. That’s why you’ll never see a solo hero in this franchise succeed for long. The moment someone tries to go lone wolf, they’re either eaten, abandoned, or left clutching their ideals while the world moves on. Survival is a group project. The same is true whether you’re planning a heist, running a campaign, or trying to survive a school group project where half the team ghosts after the first meeting.

    So what does this mean if you’re not dodging infected hordes? It means that if you’re waiting for perfect information before you act, you’ll get eaten. The people who make it through adaptive challenges—whether it’s a viral outbreak, a corporate restructure, or your trivia team trying to win without a single person who knows geography and realizing too late that confidence does not, in fact, equal knowledge about state capitols—are the ones willing to experiment, pivot, and sometimes fail loudly in front of others. You don’t survive by clinging to the manual; you survive by writing the manual as you go, then tearing it up when the situation changes.

    That’s the lesson I didn’t expect from a movie where people’s faces explode in fountains of rage-blood: leadership isn’t about having the cure. It’s about helping people stumble forward together, half-blind and bleeding, like we’re all extras in someone else’s zombie movie. 

    References:

    • Heifetz, R. A., & Linsky, M. (2002). Leadership on the Line: Staying Alive Through the Dangers of Leading. Harvard Business Review Press.
    • Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of leadership. Training and Development Journal.
    • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.
    • Luthans, F. (2002). Positive organizational behavior: Developing and managing psychological strengths. Academy of Management Executive, 16(1), 57–72.
    • Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and Practice (9th ed.). Sage.
  • The Feedback That Was Actually a Trap: Weaponized Coaching and the Illusion of Development

    The Feedback That Was Actually a Trap: Weaponized Coaching and the Illusion of Development

    There’s a moment in bad D&D campaigns when the GM grins too much. You know the look. The party just triggered something, maybe opened a door they weren’t supposed to, or used a clever workaround to bypass some elaborate puzzle, and the GM, instead of rolling with it, tilts their head and says, “Interesting.” That’s the moment you realize you’ve made a mistake. Not in the game. In trusting the GM. Because that smile? That’s the “this is going in the kill box” smile. And the only reason your character’s still breathing is because the plot isn’t done punishing you yet.

    That’s what fake coaching feels like in the workplace.

    It starts off warm. Encouraging. Your boss says they’re “invested in your development” and want to “help you grow.” It’s like they just pulled you aside in the tavern and offered you a side quest. You feel chosen. Important. Maybe this is it—your chance to level up, to finally get out of the hell that is middle-tier oblivion where your talents are wasted and your coffee goes cold before you remember where you left it. But instead of getting a magic item, you get assigned a “stretch project” with no guidance, no resources, and no context. And somewhere around hour fourteen of trying to decode the office spreadsheet equivalent of ancient dwarven runes, you realize: this wasn’t a gift. This was a test. And you are not supposed to pass it.

    This is what I call development theater—the illusion of mentorship with none of the substance. It’s the kind of thing that looks amazing in a quarterly report. “We’re committed to employee growth,” they’ll say, while quietly tossing people into career quicksand and blaming them for not building a ladder. And the worst part? You can’t even prove it. Because technically, they did coach you. They gave you feedback. They offered you opportunity. They gave you rope—just enough to hang yourself artistically, in the break room, next to a printout of last year’s mission statement.

    The TTRPG version of this is the GM who swears they’re “collaborative,” then turns every piece of your backstory into a trap. You tell them your character once abandoned a sibling in a burning village? Great. Now the final boss is the sibling, and no, you don’t get a redemption arc, you get stabbed with a flaming pitchfork while the GM does a bad voice and says, “This is what you deserve.” You thought you were building a narrative. Turns out, you were providing raw materials for a vengeance fantasy they’ve been workshopping since their sophomore year creative writing class.

    But let’s go back to the office. Because this isn’t just bad management—it’s a strategy. It’s called plausible deniability leadership. It’s what happens when someone wants you gone, but doesn’t want to look like the bad guy. So instead, they offer you “growth.” They suggest “areas for improvement.” They ask you to “stretch beyond your comfort zone,” while quietly collecting screenshots and calendar invites like evidence for a crime they’re planning to report after the fact. You’re not being coached. You’re being turned into a cautionary tale.

    And you start to notice it, too late. You start wondering why your emails are getting ignored. Why projects get reassigned without explanation. Why every compliment you get sounds like it came from an AI that only read the first paragraph of your résumé. You start to feel like you’re being haunted by a ghost version of your reputation. Like someone filed a secret report that says you’re “difficult to work with,” and now everyone’s treating you like a cursed item—technically useful, but risky to equip.

    Leadership theory actually has a name for the good version of this: Individualized Consideration, one of the pillars of Transformational Leadership (Bass & Riggio, 2006). That’s when leaders offer feedback and development tailored to each person’s goals, strengths, and needs. But there’s a dark mirror to this: Pseudo-Transformational Leadership (Bass & Steidlmeier, 1999), where the tools of mentorship get twisted into performance theater. It’s the difference between helping someone grow and using the language of growth to justify pushing them out. The difference between a GM saying, “Let’s explore your character’s fears,” and a GM saying, “Hey, I noticed your character’s afraid of drowning, so I made all the dungeons water now.”

    And no, it’s not just one bad boss or one bad GM. This happens in systems where psychological safety—the foundation of trust and learning on any team—is treated like a luxury add-on (Edmondson, 1999). The moment people start to feel like feedback is a setup, they stop trying. They shut down. They play it safe. They stop asking questions, stop offering ideas, stop rolling with disadvantage unless absolutely necessary. And then leadership turns around and says, “Why don’t we have more innovation around here?”

    Here’s the wild part: most of the time, the people doing this think they’re being kind. They think that by softening the truth, or sugarcoating the failure, they’re protecting you. They don’t realize that fake feedback is worse than silence. That pretending to help while secretly preparing your exit is like handing someone a parachute made of spaghetti. You’re not saving anyone. You’re just putting on a show before the impact.

    So here’s how we do it better.

    If you’re in charge of people—at a table, on a loading dock, in a customer service team in a crumbling office park built entirely out of sadness and reused drywall—then ask yourself: Is this feedback meant to help this person? Or is it meant to protect me from looking like the bad guy later? Because that’s the line. That’s the moment when you decide whether you’re going to lead with integrity or script a fake redemption arc just to cover your own plot holes.

    Be honest. Be clear. If someone’s not meeting expectations, tell them—with support, with context, with a plan. Don’t dress it up in “opportunities for growth” if what you really mean is “we’re already interviewing your replacement.” If you’re a GM and a player is being disruptive or needs to shift how they engage at the table, don’t write it into the story like some kind of Saw-style morality lesson. Talk to them. You are allowed to be direct. You are allowed to be kind without being vague. You are allowed to be uncomfortable if it means being real.

    Because people know. They always know. The party knows when the GM has it out for them. Employees know when they’ve been moved to the short bench. And when trust breaks—when the coaching turns out to be a trap, when the feedback was just foreshadowing—it doesn’t just ruin one person’s experience. It poisons the whole table. It tells everyone else that growth is conditional. That failure is fatal. That support is a trick.

    And once people believe that, you don’t get innovation. You don’t get loyalty. You get silence.

    You get a campaign where nobody tries anything bold. A job where nobody brings up new ideas. A team that’s still technically alive, but spiritually checked out, like NPCs waiting for the next cutscene.

    So if you’re going to be a leader, be one. Don’t hand people a torch just to light their fuse. Don’t offer them a side quest when you’ve already decided how the story ends. And don’t call it feedback if it’s really just foreshadowing.

    We already know the trap is coming. The only question is whether you’ll pretend it was part of our development plan all along.

    Citations:

    Bass, B. M., & Steidlmeier, P. (1999). Ethics, character, and authentic transformational leadership behavior. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 181–217.

    Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.

    Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

  • You Can’t Lead by Sucking the Joy Out of the Room: A TTRPG Guide to Negative Leadership

    You Can’t Lead by Sucking the Joy Out of the Room: A TTRPG Guide to Negative Leadership

    There’s a particular kind of emotional exhaustion that settles in when your Game Master thinks being in charge means being right all the time. It starts slow–your character’s little backstory never gets acknowledged, your clever ideas get waved off with a smirk and a house rule, and pretty soon you’re just rolling dice and getting your turn over with as little friction as possible. You used to be excited to play. Now you’re mostly just tracking hit points and trying to survive the session. It’s not that you don’t like the game. It’s that the person running it has made the table feel like a minefield. 

    I’ve had day jobs that feel exactly like that. 

    What I call Negative Leadership shows up in real life the same way it shows up in bad tabletop campaigns. It’s not always loud or theatrical. It’s a mindset. A controlling, defensive, brittle approach to being in charge. It’s the manager who talks like a GM who’s memorized every line of the module but hasn’t noticed that half the players are disengaged. They think “leadership” means quoting the rulebook and punishing deviation. They treat innovation like it’s cheating and feedback like it’s a charisma check they can refuse. 

    I’ve worked across a bunch of different environments–logistics, operations, customer service–and while the industries changed, the vibe of a bad manager never did. You try to bring something to the table, and they act like you’re violating canon. I once stayed late to help a new hire finish up a shipment–just helping out. Next day, I get pulled aside for “disrupting the process.” In another job, a manager pinned dollar bills to his office wall from bets he won against his own staff, like we were all stuck in some sad, corporate version of Tomb of Horrors. Nobody said anything, but we all saw the message: this place runs on ego checks. 

    What makes it harder is that most of these leaders don’t see themselves as the problem. They think they’re enforcing standards. That they’re the only thing holding back the chaos. But treating your team like a bunch of unruly NPCs doesn’t build order–it builds resentment. Calling someone “not great with people” doesn’t begin to cover it. It’s more like they see empathy as a homebrew mechanic they don’t trust. 

    Frederick Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory puts a fine point on it: the stuff that demotivates people isn’t the same stuff that inspires them. You can have health benefits, free snacks, and an end-of-week XP bonus, but if your boss treats you like a barely tolerated raccoon who wandered into the breakroom–something to be monitored and controlled–you’re not going to stay motivated. You’ll stick around, maybe, but your heart won’t be in it. It’s like showing up to a dungeon crawl where the GM never lets you explore. You’re not playing–you’re just rolling to comply.

    And like any bad GM, the truly corrosive managers rarely blow up in obvious ways. It’s not all dramatic yelling or slamming doors. It’s a slow bleed: a joke that lands too hard, a change in protocol with no explanation, a public correction that wasn’t necessary. I once got called out for parking a training vehicle “the wrong way,” even though it was the safest available option. The response wasn’t, “Let’s talk through it.” It was, “Rules are rules.” No context, no conversation. Just pure authoritarian DM energy. 

    Douglas McGregor’s Theory X and Theory Y explains this kind of behavior. Theory X leaders believe that people are fundamentally lazy and need to be coerced into productivity. So they act like GMs who run every session like a power fantasy–one where players can’t be trusted to make good decisions, so every path is railroaded and every choice is an illusion. And when the team stops engaging, these managers see it as proof. “See? They only work when I’m watching.” Yes, because you’ve made watching feel like surveillance, not support. 

    The wild part is, I came into all those jobs wanting to contribute. I had ideas. I saw things that could be improved. I wanted to play the game well, not break it. But when your every move gets treated like a challenge to the GM’s authority, you eventually just stop rolling. Not because you don’t care, but because the consequences for trying feel too steep. 

    The worst leadership I’ve experienced didn’t look dramatic. It looked polite. Measured. Controlled. And deeply suffocating. You could ask questions, sure–but only once. And only if they were easy. The mood in the room said: Don’t make waves. It’s the difference between a campaign where the players feel powerful and one where they feel watched. Some leaders don’t know the difference. 

    What makes it worse is that these kinds of leaders often believe they’re respected. What they’re actually seeing is compliance dressed up as loyalty. It’s players nodding at the table because they’ve learned what happens if they don’t. Google’s Project Aristotle found that the most successful teams aren’t built on competence alone. They’re built on psychological safety–on people knowing they can speak up without getting wrecked by an attack of opportunity. Negative Leadership squashes that before the first session’s even over. 

    So what’s the fix? It’s not handing over the GM screen to chaos. It’s leading like someone who actually wants the party to succeed. Bernard Bass called this transformational leadership: building people up, not boxing them in. Sharing the story. Listening to the table. Trusting your team to be more than background flavor. 

    And here’s the kicker–any of us can drift into Negative Leadership if we’re not careful. All it takes is a little pressure, a little stress, and a little too much certainty. Suddenly, you’re making decisions to protect your own authority instead of supporting the people at the table. You’re no longer the GM guiding the story–you’re the final boss in someone else’s burnout narrative. 

    Leadership isn’t about being the smartest person in the room or holding the most lore. It’s about making the session better because you were there. If people feel freer, braver, and more creative when you’re gone, you’re not leading–you’re just running a game they can’t wait to finish. 

    And no one brags about surviving that campaign.

  • Sorry, We’re All Out of Suckers to Promote

    Sorry, We’re All Out of Suckers to Promote

    There’s a quiet panic in a lot of middle management circles right now, and it’s not about job security–it’s about succession. Business Insider recently ran a piece titled “Gen Z doesn’t want to be the boss, and it’s creating a succession crisis,” and the headline alone tells you everything you need to know. Managers across industries are looking around and realizing the next wave of workers isn’t lining up to be promoted–and for once, it isn’t being blamed on laziness. It’s clarity. 

    Gen Z watched the previous generation get sold a bill of goods. “Put in your time, go the extra mile, and you’ll climb the ladder!” was the pitch. But what did they actually see? Their parents and mentors burned out, underpaid, micromanaged, and tossed aside the moment they became “too expensive.” In a world where salary data is public and people share horror stories about middle managers crying in their cars during lunch breaks, you can’t sell a promotion as a reward anymore. It’s just…more work for a little more money and a whole lot more stress. 

    As someone who’s held leadership roles across multiple blue-collar environments–warehouses, delivery hubs, bike shops, you name it–I’ve lived that exact transition. That moment when you’re no longer “part of the team”  but not really upper management either. You’re stuck in the awkward middle, trying to protect your people from decisions you had no say in, while getting scolded from above for not “driving results.” I once had a boss who called me into his office to say I wasn’t “being inspirational enough.” I was running on five hours of sleep, conducting a bunch of new-hire training, covering a sick call-out, and rebuilding a spreadsheet that someone decided to delete while I was gone over the weekend. But sure, let me whip up a TED Talk real quick to inspire the team. 

    So yeah, Gen Z is opting out And that’s not a sign of laziness–it’s a sign of intelligence. They’re demanding clearer boundaries, more support, and actual authority to make decisions if they’re going to be held accountable for outcomes. They want leadership with teeth, not just titles. 

    What many companies are experiencing now isn’t a leadership vacuum. It’s a backlash. A generation is finally asking, “Why would I take on the stress of management when you’ve made it clear you don’t value the people doing that work?” If you want to fill the leadership pipeline, you don’t need to offer more free pizza or cute job titles. You need to rebuild trust. And that starts with listening. 

    Because here’s the secret no one wants to say out loud: You can’t guilt people into being passionate about a broken system. Not anymore. 

    And that’s not a crisis. That’s an opportunity. 

    It’s an opportunity to redefine what leadership actually is. To stop treating it like a punishment for doing well at your job. To make mentorship part of the job instead of an unpaid side hustle. To give new leaders room to breathe, grow, and–this is important–fail safely. It’s a chance to let go of the myth that the loudest of busiest person in the room is the best candidate and start rewarding people for emotional intelligence, clarity of vision, and actual people skills. 

    In other words, if no one wants to be the kind of boss we’ve had, maybe it’s time to create the kind of bosses we’ve always needed. 

    Let Gen Z say “no thanks” to the old system. Then build a new one that’s actually worth saying yes to.

  • Most People Don’t Quit Because of the Work. They Quit Because of the Bullshit.

    Most People Don’t Quit Because of the Work. They Quit Because of the Bullshit.

    There’s this idea some managers have that if someone quits, it’s because they “couldn’t handle the job.”

    Nah. 

    Most people don’t leave because the job is hard. 

    They leave because it’s unnecessarily hard.

    The work is fine. The bullshit is what breaks them. 

    It’s the unclear expectations.

    The last-minute policy changes.

    The meetings that accomplish nothing except making you late for the part of your job that matters. 

    It’s watching your boss walk past the overflowing trash can for the third time like it’s invisible. 

    It’s being praised for going “above and beyond” instead of just being given the time and resources to do the job right the first time. 

    It’s when the most difficult person on the team gets babied because “that’s just how they are.” 

    It’s when you ask a question and get treated like you committed treason. 

    People will lift boxes, sweat through 12-hour shifts, drive across the country, or sit through soul-crushing spreadsheets for years–if they feel like someone has their back. 

    But if you make them feel stupid, replaceable, or ignored?

    Then they’re gone. Even if their body is still clocking in. 

    Nobody’s quitting because they had to work hard. 

    They’re quitting because every time they tried to make it better, they got shut down or shrugged off. 

    And eventually, they realize they’re not burned out from the work.They’re burned out from caring in a place that doesn’t care back.

  • Most TTRPG Groups Don’t Fail Because of Bad Rules. They Fail Because Nobody Talks About What They Want.

    Most TTRPG Groups Don’t Fail Because of Bad Rules. They Fail Because Nobody Talks About What They Want.

    If you’ve ever watched a tabletop RPG group implode halfway through a campaign, odds are it didn’t happen because the rogue broke the stealth rules or someone forgot how grappling works. 

    It happened because the group never agreed on what kind of story they were telling. 

    That’s the real killer. Not bad dice rolls, not min-maxing, not even a toxic player (although that’ll do it too.) It’s mismatched expectations. One player wants a deep, interesting story where their backstory matters. Another just wants to vibe and roll for soup. A third is out here trying to trigger every combat encounter because they thought it was going to be dungeon-crawl heavy. 

    Nobody’s wrong. 

    But when nobody talks about it ahead of time, the group ends up playing three different games on the same night. And resenting each other for it. 

    A while back, I ran a Star Wars campaign set aboard a derelict research vessel in deep space. The tone I was going for was budget Event Horizon but everyone’s tired and no one trusts each other. No heroes. No clean uniforms. Just scavengers trying not to get pulled apart by a haunted ship with bad wiring and worse intentions. 

    The first character to show up was perfect. A burned-out salvager with a busted EVA suit and a cybernetic eye that twitched when the humidity got too high. Total grunge vibes. Paranoia baked into the character sheet. We were locked in. 

    Then came the next player.

    They introduced a rogue Jedi who was–how do I put this?–absolutely unhinged. 

    Imagine if Charlie Day got knighted by accident and now he has a lightsaber and a working knowledge of Force Push. He talked a mile a minute, stole rations from NPCs for “training,” and once used his telekinesis to hurl a toilet at a hallway camera for reasons I still don’t understand. His entire backstory hinged on being kicked out of multiple Jedi temples for “philosophical differences.”

    Now, this wasn’t a bad character. It just didn’t belong in this game. 

    By the third session, the tone was wrecked. One moment we were crawling through vent shafts trying to avoid a sentient virus, the next he was trying to telepathically convince the ship’s AI to adopt him. The salvager’s player pulled me aside, asking if I could “get things back on track.” The Jedi’s player thought they were keeping things fun. 

    Neither of them was wrong.
    But we never had the conversation.
    And by the time we tried, the tone whiplash had already torn the party apart.

    The game died a couple of sessions later. 

    It’s the same in leadership, by the way. 

    Small teams don’t fall apart because the spreadsheet formatting was wrong. They fall apart because no one agreed on what success looked like. No one clarified how they wanted to work together. Everyone just assumed their way was the default. 

    You have to talk about it. 

    You have to talk about tone, pacing, player buy-in, safety tools, table culture–all the boring stuff that keeps your game from catching fire three weeks in. It’s not exciting, but it’s essential. 

    Same goes for coaching.
    Same goes for management.
    Same goes for any environment where human beings are expected to collaborate and make something together. 

    If you’re leading a game–or a team–you are responsible for helping people articulate what they want. And then you’re responsible for guiding the group toward a shared direction that honors as much of that as possible. 

    Because if you don’t?

    You’ll end up with a group of well-meaning, creative, passionate people–who can’t stand playing together.

  • Your “Open-Door Policy” Isn’t Working

    Your “Open-Door Policy” Isn’t Working

    Every toxic workplace has at least one thing in common. Someone in charge who proudly says, “My door is always open.” 

    They love saying it.
    They say it to new hires, to seasoned employees, to anyone brave or naïve enough to raise a concern. 

    And on paper it sounds great. An open-door policy! Transparent! Supportive! Efficient!

    Except it’s not. 

    Becaus here’s what never gets said out loud:

    If the room is full of tension, no one wants to walk through the door. 

    I’ve worked in environments where the person saying “my door is always open” was the same person we all tried to avoid. Where people kept mental tallies of how many days they could go without speaking to upper management. Where the only think “open” about the door was how wide your ass would get handed to you if you walked through it with a complaint. 

    That’s not access. That’s a trap. 

    An open-door policy doesn’t work if the culture around it tells people

    • You’re soft for speaking up.
    • You’re disloyal for involving HR. 
    • You’d better fix your attitude before you bring anything to leadership.

    That’s not leadership. That’s control with a smiley face sticker on it. 

    If you want people to actually talk to you, if you want to be the kind of leader people trust, you have to earn it with more than a catchphrase. You need to create an environment where people believe they’ll be heard, not punished. Where they know the risk of speaking up won’t outweigh the benefit of staying quiet. 

    That starts small. 

    It starts with how you react the first time someone tells you something uncomfortable. 

    It starts with how you treat the person who brings you bad news. 

    It starts with who you listen to, and who you dismiss. 

    I’ve seen “open-door policies” weaponized by managers who just wanted to avoid union pressure. I’ve seen leaders say “come to me with anything” and then roll their eyes in the breakroom when someone actually does. And I’ve seen great ideas die in silence because nobody wanted to be the one who “made it weird.” 

    You don’t need a policy. You need a presence. 

    And if you’re not getting feedback, it’s not because everyone’s happy. It’s because the door may be open, but nobody feels safe walking through it.

  • You don’t Have to Be the Fastest Rider to Lead the Group

    You don’t Have to Be the Fastest Rider to Lead the Group

    When people picture a group ride, they usually imagine the leader pulling at the front. Setting the pace. Cutting the wind. Hammering away while everyone else hangs on for dear life. 

    But the longer you ride, and the longer you lead, you realize that’s not always where the real leadership is happening. 

    Some of the best ride leaders I’ve seen weren’t the fastest. They weren’t even at the front most of the time. They were mid-pack, floating. Or sweeping the back, making sure no one got dropped. Calling out potholes. Offering a spare tube. Saying, “You good?” when someone looked like they were about to blow.

    That’s leadership, too

    There’s a myth in both sport and work that the leader is supposed to be the strongest. The fastest. The most dominant force. And yeah, sure, sometimes the situation calls for someone to pull. But other times, leadership means watching the group and adjusting. Slowing down when someone’s hurting. Speaking up when someone’s too gassed to advocate for themselves. Setting a tone that says, “We’re doing this together.”

    I’ve ridden with people who could crush me without breaking a sweat, but they couldn’t lead a group to save their lives. No awareness. No communication. Just tunnel vision and watts. And I’ve led rides where I was out of shape, fighting just to stay on, but still managed to guide the group because I knew what people needed. 

    It’s not about being in front.
    It’s about being in tune.

    If you coach athletes, train workers, GM players, or even just try to keep your family calendar from collapsing under its own weight, you’ve felt this. Leadership isn’t about outperforming everyone. It’s about knowing when to push, when to wait, and when to say, “Let’s stop for a second and make sure we’re all still here.” 

    The best ride leaders know this.
    The best coaches live it.
    And the best leaders don’t always look like leaders from the outside. 

    But ask anyone who was on that ride, who didn’t get dropped, who found their rhythm, who felt like they belonged, and they’ll tell you who was really in charge.

  • Nobody Told Me Being a Manager Meant Having to Repeat Myself 400 Times

    Nobody Told Me Being a Manager Meant Having to Repeat Myself 400 Times

    When I started in my current role, no one warned me that 80% of the job would be repeating myself. 

    I thought it would be coaching. Teaching. Creating structure. And it is. On paper. But in practice? It’s standing in front of a different group of people every day, saying the same things in slightly different ways, hoping that this time it lands. 

    I train small groups. Sometimes just one person. Sometimes eight or nine. I walk them through the same material, safety standards, expectations, critical procedures. The content doesn’t change, but the people do. Which means every delivery has to adapt. 

    What clicked for the group yesterday won’t work today. 

    The guy in the back row who’s been a driver for 10 years and thinks he’s seen it all? He needs to hear things in a way that doesn’t make him feel talked down to.

    The nervous new hire who’s scared of reversing in a windowless van? They need clarity without pressure. 

    And the person who’s been half-listening because they think they’ve already passed everything? They’re the one that’s going to miss a critical detail and then say, “No one ever told me that.” 

    So you repeat yourself. 

    You find new metaphors. You switch up the tone. You test your own patience. And when someone asks a question you just answered, you don’t snap. You repeat it again, because your job isn’t to feel heard, it’s to be understood. 

    That’s the deal when you lead small groups. You’re not giving a TED Talk. You’re creating moments of clarity in a sea of distractions, nerves, and assumptions. That takes more than a slide deck. 

    It takes presence. Patience. And an understanding that you’re not failing when you have to repeat yourself. You’re doing the job right. 

    The day I really understood that was the day a trainee told me, “I don’t know why, but when you said it, it finally made sense.” 

    It wasn’t magic. It was iteration.

    And yeah, by that point, I’d said it 400 times.