Businesses generally succeed by choosing one of three strategies: being the cheapest (cost leadership), being the best or most distinctive (differentiation), or focusing on a specific niche (focus). Trying to do more than one weakens performance. It then explores “core competencies,” asking what a business is genuinely good at—efficiency, deeper investigation, specialised expertise, or quality—because this determines how it should grow. Businesses expand when they believe they can outperform others in their chosen strategy, and they shrink when they cannot. For health providers, the key is not the clinical service itself but how that service competes: is it cheaper, higher quality, or tailored to a specific group? Growth comes from clearly understanding and leaning into that strategic advantage.

I explain how people often tolerate minor frustrations in silence—whether with kids or coworkers—until their internal “fuse” burns out and they suddenly snap, leaving the other person confused because they never saw the buildup. While this patience-burning is a normal human tendency driven by a desire to avoid conflict, it creates problems at work because staff may not realise behaviours like lateness, sloppy work, or poor communication are an issue until it’s too late. The solution is to avoid giving soft signals that things are “fine,” seek the full story, discuss concerns directly and calmly, listen to their reasoning, state the behavioural expectation for next time, and avoid relying on email for important conversations.

Many workplace problems stem from mismatched assumptions about priorities, expectations, and what’s acceptable, because staff and managers naturally see things differently. People act based on their own hierarchy of what matters—sometimes work-related, sometimes not—and often miss the wider context. Since workplaces vary in how routine they are, these gaps arise regularly, making it essential to “align heads”: to periodically talk, explore perspectives, and ensure shared understanding, much like orienting yourself to someone in zero gravity so you can see things the same way. While disagreement is inevitable, leaders should listen, try to understand, and, when consensus isn’t possible, make a clear decision—because clarity matters more than everyone being right.

Teaching workplace skills is different from teaching knowledge, because understanding alone doesn’t make someone able to perform. The TIPS model—Tell, Illustrate, Practise, Support—guides skill development: first explain the action, then demonstrate it, let learners try it themselves, and provide feedback as they practise. This hands-on approach builds competence, confidence, and automaticity in tasks that require precision, safety, or consistency.

ChatGPT said:

Contractors often adopt a “not my circus, not my monkeys” mindset, doing only what they’re paid to do and avoiding pushback—but while this approach keeps things smooth, it can also stifle valuable insight, problem-solving, and early warnings that come from employees who truly care. Disagreement is crucial because it sparks brainstorming, reveals overlooked details, and prevents mistakes—but people will only speak up if they trust there will be no negative consequences. Leaders can encourage open dialogue by listening fully, soliciting input, keeping discussions tentative, staying calm, and leaving space for contribution, creating a culture where speaking up is safe and valued.

This article explains the difference between knowledge, skills, and abilities, and why the distinctions matter for both hiring and employee development. Knowledge is information people can learn quickly but is often specific to an organisation; skills are the practiced actions needed to perform tasks and transfer well but take time to develop; and abilities combine natural aptitude with high-level proficiency. Understanding these helps leaders judge competence, identify performance gaps, decide whether to train or recruit, and recognise when it’s worth growing internal talent rather than “buying” it through hiring.

Mentoring is the ongoing process of guiding and supporting someone with less experience through discussion, questioning, and real-time learning, helping them bridge the gap between being told how to do something and becoming truly competent. Good mentors listen actively, adapt to different styles, give honest and constructive feedback, and build trust so learners feel safe to think aloud, make mistakes, and develop their own approach rather than simply copying the mentor’s.

Exit interviews aim to gather honest feedback from departing employees about why they’re leaving and what their experience was like, but they’re only useful if leaders genuinely listen and are willing to change. While they can reveal issues that might cause further turnover, they’re often time-consuming, uncomfortable, and vulnerable to bias—employees may justify their decisions or use the interview as a platform, and managers may become defensive. Done well, they require openness and a focus on fixing avoidable risks for current staff, but the author believes that in most cases, especially in small teams, they aren’t worth the effort.

Merit increases are small pay rises given to strong performers on top of cost-of-living adjustments, which most organisations use except in tough financial periods. After setting the CPI-based baseline, the challenge is deciding who counts as “good,” often using performance categories that determine how much each employee receives. These increases are typically modest—around 1–2% above CPI—and while they help retention, they can feel underwhelming. Because merit increases become permanent, they can also leave some employees earning more for past performance than their current value, so HR needs to balance fairness with retention.

Mentoring is a key workplace learning tool, helping people gain skills that can’t be learned from books alone. Effective mentors guide mentees through complex tasks by observing, coaching, and providing constructive feedback, while allowing them to learn by doing. Key skills include active listening, flexibility, honest feedback, and building trust. Mentors must balance when to correct mistakes and when to let mentees learn independently, focusing on supporting growth while managing risk and fostering understanding.

The 70/20/10 rule highlights that most workplace learning comes from experience (70%), followed by guidance from others (20%), and only a small portion from formal courses (10%). True development occurs through doing new tasks, learning from colleagues and mentors, and seizing small, everyday teaching moments. While courses have value, real growth comes from hands-on practice, feedback, and a workplace culture that fosters learning opportunities beyond structured programs.

New employees often receive higher starting salaries than existing staff due to bargaining power, market pressures, and status quo bias. Existing employees are less likely to negotiate because they have personal and professional ties to their current role, while new hires can walk away easily. Over time, promoted employees may remain underpaid compared with newcomers, despite proven performance, as salary adjustments lag behind market rates and initial promises.

Hiring is inherently a gamble, and sometimes employees who seemed like the right fit turn out not to be. Poor outcomes can stem from misjudging a candidate, missing warning signs, taking calculated risks, or settling for the best available option rather than the perfect one. Other times, hires initially perform well but later falter due to management, training, or engagement issues, highlighting that recruitment and retention are intertwined and complex processes.

Long-term employee absences can arise from illness, injury, or other personal issues, and managing them requires balancing compassion with practicality. Employers aren’t at fault, but must decide how much accommodation is reasonable, considering the nature of the incapacity, recovery or resolution time, and organisational capacity. While some absences have clear remedies or recovery periods, a general guideline is to review the situation around six months, adjusting support or decisions based on progress and feasibility.