You can sit in leadership workshops for years and still not really know what kind of leader you are.
You only find out when someone in your team underperforms or behaviours change.
You don’t find out when the numbers are strong and morale is high. Not when the team is humming along. You find out who you are when a deadline is missed, when behaviour shifts, when results dip and people start looking at you for a response.
That is the moment when instinct speaks.
And broadly speaking, I’ve found that leaders will tend to lean in one of two directions.
Some reach for process first — formal conversations, documentation, consequences. Others slow the moment down and begin with relationship — seeking to understand before they escalate, while still holding standards firmly in place.
Both approaches can be justified. But they build very different cultures over time.
The Appeal of the Big Stick
There is something undeniably reassuring about a formal process.
It creates structure. It signals seriousness. It protects the organisation and, often, the leader. In cases of clear misconduct, safety breaches or repeated behavioural issues, decisive action is exactly what is required.
The challenge arises when the Big Stick becomes the reflex rather than the considered response.
When someone on your team falters, it can feel personal. Their underperformance reflects on your leadership. Senior stakeholders may be watching. The temptation is to act quickly and visibly, you need to demonstrate control before doubt creeps in.
And let’s face it, often fear works.
It corrects behaviour quickly. It sharpens attention. It creates a record.
But it also leaves a mark.
People notice the sequence. If consequence arrives before curiosity, they learn something about how safe it is to be human on that team. They start to think about whether problems should be surfaced early, or would they be better managed quietly in the hope that they will remain undiscovered.
Compliance is fast. Commitment takes longer.
And cultures built primarily on fear tend to narrow over time. Initiative and innovation reduces. Candour fades. People focus more on avoiding error than on pursuing excellence.
Pressure, in that sense, acts like a spotlight. It illuminates what was already there.
Pressure doesn’t create culture. It reveals it.
The Long Game
A relationship-first approach begins from a different assumption: most underperformance or change in behaviour is a signal before it is a character flaw.
That assumption changes the tone of the very first conversation.
Instead of opening with accusation, the leader opens with observation. Instead of leading with consequence, they lead with curiosity. The standards remain clear and the pathway to restoring them begins with understanding.
This is not about being soft. It is about diagnosing accurately.
Strong leaders know that if you misdiagnose the problem, you will prescribe the wrong solution. And the wrong solution, applied forcefully, often makes things worse.
Strength does not need to arrive loudly.
Slowing down in a pressured environment requires composure. When senior leaders are asking questions and targets matter, pausing for a genuine conversation can feel uncomfortable. It can look, from the outside, like hesitancy.
In reality, it is discipline.
A Practical Example
Consider a team leader, let’s call him James, operating in a high-visibility digital commercial role. One of his strongest performers, Aisha, has missed two significant deadlines. Her tone in meetings has become defensive. Colleagues have started to complain about her responsiveness.
James feels the pressure immediately. If this continues, it will not just be Aisha’s performance under scrutiny. His leadership will be questioned as well.
The formal route would be straightforward. Initiate a documented performance process. Signal seriousness. Protect himself.
Instead, he prepares differently.
He lists the missed deliverables and the specific behavioural shifts he has observed. He notes the impact on the team. He consciously strips out loaded labels like “unmotivated” or “difficult.” Then he schedules a conversation with a simple aim: seek understand first.
He opens calmly:
“I’ve noticed the last two deadlines slipped, and meetings have felt tense. That’s not typical for you. What’s changed?”
There is initial defensiveness — which is human. But as the conversation unfolds, Aisha explains that she has absorbed additional responsibilities since a recent restructure. She has been working longer hours, reluctant to signal that she is stretched. Frustration has built quietly, and it has begun to show.
The problem was not a lack of capability.
It was unspoken overload.
James does not excuse the missed deadlines. He reaffirms the performance standard clearly. Results matter. Behaviour matters.
But now they are solving the right problem.
Together they agree on redistributing specific tasks, establishing short weekly priority check-ins, and defining measurable milestones over the next 30 days. Expectations are explicit. Accountability is shared. Nothing is vague.
Three weeks later, performance stabilises. The tension in meetings eases. Aisha re-engages.
The Big Stick was never removed from the table. It simply was not the opening move.
Authority can enforce behaviour. Trust changes it.
The More Uncomfortable Truth
There is a harder layer to this conversation.
The Big Stick can feel powerful because it is visible. It demonstrates decisiveness. It creates documentation. It protects the leader if things deteriorate further.
The relationship-first approach is more demanding. It requires emotional control when you are frustrated. It requires you to sit in ambiguity for longer. And if improvement does not follow, you must escalate directly. You cannot hide behind formal process alone.
That takes confidence.
None of this suggests avoiding consequences. When standards are repeatedly ignored, when behaviour damages the team, escalation is necessary and responsible.
But if consequence becomes the substitute for leadership rather than the last resort, then your team culture will quietly erode until there is nothing left.
In the end, the defining question is simple:
Are your people performing because they fear the big stick or because they trust that you won’t let them fall?
Both can drive results in the short term but only one builds a strong team.
Reach out to The Workplace Coach today and explore how coaching can elevate your leadership style and help you be even more effective in your role.
Buy the Workplace Coach a coffee Flat white, extra shot, lactose free… one sugar please
The Workplace Coach 
Leave a comment