Your Team Is Watching How You Respond, Not Just What You Say

Oct 11

The everyday leadership reactions that build trust, discourage communication, and shape the culture people experience.

THE CULTURE PRESCRIPTION™ | THE LEADERSHIP JOURNAL

By Sharra Schewee-Blair

I've learned something important throughout my years in healthcare leadership. People pay attention to how we respond. Not just during formal meetings or performance conversations. Not just when we're delivering a message about teamwork, accountability, or organizational values. They pay attention during the ordinary moments. When someone asks a question we think they should already know the answer to. When an employee disagrees with our decision. When someone makes a mistake. When a team member brings us a problem at the least convenient time. And especially when someone tells us something we don't want to hear. As a frontline healthcare manager, I understand how easy it can be to underestimate the impact of those interactions. We're balancing operational demands, employee needs, patient concerns, competing priorities, and expectations coming from multiple directions. Sometimes we're tired. Sometimes we're frustrated. Sometimes we're trying to resolve three different problems while someone brings us a fourth. We're human. But we're also leaders. And whether we realize it or not, our reactions are teaching people something about the culture they're working in.

The question is whether we're teaching them what we intended.

The Conversation That Determines Whether There's Another Conversation

Imagine an employee approaching their manager with a concern. Maybe they've noticed something about a workflow that doesn't seem right. Maybe they're struggling with a coworker. Maybe they've made an error and need guidance. Or perhaps they simply have an idea for improving how something gets done. The employee begins explaining the situation. Before they've finished, the manager interrupts.

"Why didn't you handle that already?"

"That's how we've always done it."

"We've talked about this before."

"Don't bring me problems without solutions."

Now, there may be legitimate expectations behind some of those statements. Employees should develop problem-solving skills. Accountability matters. We can't expect managers to personally resolve every challenge. I believe all of that. But timing, tone, and context matter, too. When someone brings us a concern, our first reaction can influence whether they feel comfortable approaching us again. And sometimes the employee doesn't argue. They don't complain. They simply stop bringing things forward. That's what concerns me. Because silence doesn't necessarily mean the problems have disappeared. It may mean people have decided that raising them isn't worth the experience.

Psychological Safety Isn't Established by an Open-Door Policy

I've heard leaders describe their management style by saying, "My door is always open."

I've said versions of that myself throughout my career. And I believe accessibility is important. But I've also come to recognize that an open door doesn't automatically create an environment where people feel comfortable walking through it. Employees are evaluating more than our availability. They're evaluating our reactions.

Do we listen?

Do we become defensive?

Do we embarrass people for asking questions?

Do we dismiss concerns before understanding them?

Do we treat employees differently after they challenge a decision?

Or do we create opportunities for respectful conversations, even when the subject is uncomfortable?

Psychological safety doesn't mean employees are protected from accountability or that every suggestion must be accepted. It means people can raise concerns, ask questions, acknowledge mistakes, and contribute ideas without unnecessary interpersonal fear. That distinction is especially important in healthcare. We need employees who are willing to identify potential risks, question assumptions, and communicate information that may prevent harm. But we cannot reasonably expect people to speak openly if their previous experiences have taught them that doing so carries personal consequences.

An open-door policy is a statement of intention. Our response when someone walks through that door is what gives the statement meaning.

Accountability and Curiosity Can Exist Together

One of the leadership lessons I've had to learn is that listening to someone doesn't mean I'm agreeing with them. And asking questions doesn't mean I'm avoiding accountability. In fact, I believe curiosity often helps us hold people more effectively accountable because it allows us to understand what actually happened. Consider an employee who repeatedly misses an important operational expectation. We could begin with frustration.

"We've discussed this several times. Why can't you get it right?"

Or we could begin by trying to understand the situation.

"Help me understand what's getting in the way of meeting this expectation."

That question doesn't eliminate the expectation. It doesn't excuse repeated performance problems. It doesn't mean the conversation won't eventually require a clear corrective action. But it gives us an opportunity to identify whether the problem involves knowledge, skill, unclear expectations, inadequate resources, competing priorities, or a decision the employee is making. Those are different problems. And they may require different responses. As leaders, we have a responsibility to distinguish between them. Sometimes the employee needs education. Sometimes they need coaching. Sometimes the process itself needs improvement. And sometimes we need to have a direct accountability conversation. We can't make those distinctions effectively if we've already decided what the problem is before we've listened.

What Our Reactions Teach the Rest of the Team

Here's another part of leadership culture that I think deserves more attention. Our reactions don't affect only the person standing in front of us. Other employees notice. They see how we respond when someone challenges an idea. They hear how we talk about employees who aren't present. They observe whether we acknowledge our own mistakes. They recognize when certain people are encouraged to contribute while others are routinely dismissed. And over time, those observations influence what employees believe is acceptable, expected, or risky.

We may tell our teams that we value collaboration. But if we consistently reject ideas that aren't our own, what are we actually reinforcing?

We may say we want employees to grow. But if we become uncomfortable when someone develops expertise beyond ours, what message are we sending?

We may encourage people to take ownership. But if every decision must receive our approval, are we really creating ownership?

Culture isn't shaped exclusively through policies, organizational values, or leadership development programs. It's also shaped through repeated experiences. Those experiences help employees decide whether to participate, contribute, question, learn, or simply do what's required and avoid drawing attention. And that distinction matters for the kind of workplace we're trying to create.

Why This Matters for High Reliability

One of the connections I've been exploring through The Culture Prescription™ is the relationship between everyday leadership behavior and the principles of high reliability. Healthcare organizations invest considerable effort in teaching patient safety concepts, communication practices, event reporting, and the importance of identifying potential risks. Those investments are valuable. But the ability to recognize a concern isn't the same as feeling comfortable raising it. And encouraging people to speak up isn't enough if the environment discourages them from doing so. High-reliability organizing emphasizes sensitivity to operations, attention to potential failure, learning from unexpected events, and recognizing expertise wherever it exists. Those principles depend on information moving through the organization. Sometimes that information comes from an experienced clinician. Sometimes it comes from a newly hired employee. Sometimes it comes from someone who notices that a routine process isn't working the way leadership believes it is. And sometimes it comes from an employee admitting that something went wrong. Our response to those moments matters. If leaders routinely dismiss concerns, discourage questions, or make employees afraid of acknowledging mistakes, we may be weakening the very communication and learning processes that safer care depends upon. This doesn't mean every concern represents a safety event. It means we should recognize the importance of creating conditions where relevant information can be shared, evaluated, and acted upon.

We cannot build a culture that learns from problems if people are afraid to tell us the problems exist.

Leaders Need Support, Too

I also want to acknowledge something that can get lost in conversations about leadership behavior. Frontline leaders operate under pressure. I know that firsthand. It's easy to tell managers they should always listen patiently, remain curious, respond thoughtfully, and create positive experiences for employees. Those are reasonable expectations. But organizations also need to examine the conditions in which managers are expected to meet them. When managers are overwhelmed by competing demands, unclear priorities, insufficient resources, or constant interruptions, responding thoughtfully can become more difficult. That doesn't excuse harmful leadership behavior. But it does mean we should look beyond simply telling managers to communicate better. We need to help them develop practical skills for navigating difficult situations. We need opportunities for coaching and reflection. We need experienced mentors who can help emerging leaders recognize patterns in their behavior. And we need organizational leaders who are willing to examine whether operational expectations are supporting or undermining the leadership culture they're trying to create. Leadership development and organizational support should work together. One cannot consistently compensate for the absence of the other.

A Culture Prescription for the Next Difficult Conversation

The Culture Prescription™ is built around five leadership pillars: CONNECT, VALUE, CLARIFY, IGNITE, and LEAVE BETTER. I believe each has a place in the way we respond to people.

CONNECT reminds us to approach the conversation as an opportunity to understand another person rather than immediately defend our position.

VALUE challenges us to recognize that an employee's perspective may contain information we need, even when we disagree with their interpretation.

CLARIFY reminds us that listening and accountability are not competing responsibilities. We can establish expectations while seeking to understand the circumstances.

IGNITE encourages us to use everyday conversations to develop employee judgment, confidence, and problem-solving capability.

LEAVE BETTER asks us to consider whether our response helped the person, strengthened the relationship, or improved the situation.

These aren't complicated concepts. But applying them consistently requires intention. And that's where leadership development becomes meaningful. Not simply in knowing the principles. In recognizing the moments when we have an opportunity to practice them. For me, that's part of the purpose behind developing The Culture Prescription's leadership education, coaching, and mentoring resources. I want to help leaders connect what we're taught about leadership with the actual conversations, decisions, and challenges we encounter. Because those everyday moments are where people experience our leadership.

Before You Respond, Consider What You're Reinforcing

I don't believe effective leaders respond perfectly in every situation. I certainly haven't. Leadership involves learning, making mistakes, recognizing when our approach needs to change, and being willing to do something differently the next time. But I do believe we should become more intentional about recognizing the influence our reactions have on others. The next time someone approaches us with a concern, we have an opportunity. We can react out of frustration. We can assume we already understand the situation. We can make the conversation about why the employee should have handled things differently. Or we can listen long enough to understand what we're actually dealing with. We can ask a better question. We can clarify expectations. We can coach someone toward greater independence. And when necessary, we can hold people accountable without diminishing their willingness to communicate. None of those approaches requires us to abandon our responsibility as leaders. They require us to be more deliberate about how we fulfill it. So here's a question I think every leader, including myself, should consider:

If my team learned what leadership looks like by watching how I respond during difficult moments, what would I be teaching them?

Because our employees are paying attention. And sometimes the most powerful leadership lesson we deliver isn't something we say during a meeting or teach in a classroom. It's how we respond when someone needs us to lead.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Sharra Schewee-Blair is the founder of The Culture Prescription™, an author, and a healthcare operations leader with more than 20 years of leadership experience. Her professional background includes ambulatory healthcare operations, frontline leadership development, mentoring emerging professionals, and supporting organizational initiatives focused on leadership development, workplace culture, and high reliability.

Sharra is the author of The Culture Prescription: Leadership Practices for Connecting, Valuing, Clarifying, Igniting, and Leaving People Better Than You Found Them

Through The Culture Prescription™, Sharra develops practical leadership education, mentoring, coaching, and organizational consulting resources that connect established leadership principles with the realities of operational leadership.

Sharra Schewee-Blair https://www.cultureprescription.com