As a Leader You Have a Choice, Or So It Seems ...

As a Leader, You Have a Choice, Or So It Seems

Most leaders reach this moment eventually, although it rarely announces itself in obvious ways. Nothing has exploded, nobody is openly difficult, and yet the atmosphere in the team has changed. Conversations feel tighter. Certain people speak less. Others become more defensive. Work still gets done, but it costs more energy than it should.

At that point, a familiar belief often surfaces, sometimes quietly, sometimes spoken aloud: if people could just get on better, things would improve. It is one of the most persistent ideas in leadership, reinforced by decades of well-meaning advice about teamwork, culture, and connection.

The problem is not that this belief is naïve. It is that it sends leaders in the wrong direction.

Many try first to encourage harmony, to remind people to be professional, to focus on what they have in common, to soften their edges for the good of the group. On the surface, this looks like emotional intelligence. Neurologically, however, it often has the opposite effect.

When individuals feel pressure to suppress disagreement, tone down their instincts, or hide aspects of how they think, the brain interprets this as a social threat. The amygdala becomes more alert, the nervous system shifts into protection, and cognitive energy is diverted away from problem-solving towards self-monitoring and caution.

The team may appear calmer, but the cost is subtle and cumulative. Conversations become safer rather than truer. Decisions lose sharpness. Engagement thins out in ways that are hard to name but easy to feel.

Other leaders react against this and move decisively in the opposite direction. They abandon the idea that people need to get along and lean instead on authority, making it clear that liking one another is irrelevant as long as results are delivered. This approach can work, particularly in the short term, and it often appeals to leaders under pressure. Yet neuroscience tells us something important here too because when compliance is driven primarily by fear of consequences or loss of standing, the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for judgement, flexibility, and creative thinking, becomes less available.

People do what they are told. They stop thinking beyond the task in front of them. Initiative narrows, ownership fades, and performance becomes dependent on constant oversight.

Both approaches are understandable. Both are incomplete.

High-performing teams do not rely on friendship, and they do not rely solely on hierarchy either. They operate on a different foundation altogether: trust that is strong enough to hold difference. When that kind of trust is present, the nervous system stays regulated even when people disagree. Intent is less likely to be questioned. Feedback is heard rather than defended against. Cultural, cognitive, and personality differences stop being interpreted as risk and start being treated as information.

In those conditions it no longer matters whether people like each other. What matters is that they understand one another well enough to work effectively under pressure, without needing the leader to constantly step in to manage tone, smooth tension, or translate meaning.

This is where many leaders secretly exhaust themselves, not because they lack skill or authority, but because they are compensating for a lack of cohesion in the system. Cohesion is about clarity, shared behavioural expectations, and trust that the brain recognises as predictable and safe. When it is designed deliberately the team begins to regulate itself.

The real question, then, is not whether your team gets along, or whether you should prioritise harmony over authority. The question is whether you have built the conditions in which difference no longer destabilises performance.

If you are leading a team where capability is high but friction keeps resurfacing, or where delivery depends too heavily on your personal intervention, this is often a signal that cohesion has been left to chance rather than designed with intent.

If you would like to explore what a COHESION strategy could look like for you and your team, grounded in neuroscience, emotional intelligence, and the realities of modern leadership, book a confidential strategy call with me. The focus is on creating the conditions in which teams can think clearly, work well, and perform consistently when it matters most.

Simply choose a time from my calendar and we'll take it from there : https://bit.ly/Teams-With-Gwyneth