By John Cooper and Dr Mary-Clare Race
Why Leaders and Managers Struggle to Build Connection in Modern Workplaces
Sherlock Holmes once commented to his loyal assistant, “As ever, Watson, you see but you do not observe.” Perhaps, if the famous detective were to observe us in our modern, technological working lives, he might admonish us similarly, “You are connected but you do not connect.” Here, John Cooper and Mary-Clare Race consider the vital role played by connection in the workplace.
Connection is a fundamental human need. We are hardwired to form relationships, find common purpose, and feel that we belong to something larger than ourselves. This innate capacity to connect shapes how we think, feel, collaborate, and perform, not only in our personal lives but also at work.
Business leaders increasingly recognise that meaningful connection in the workplace is a powerful driver of engagement, trust, collaboration, and performance. Connection is not about everyone agreeing or thinking alike. Rather, it is about creating relationships built on trust, respect, understanding, and a shared commitment to working well together. When people feel genuinely connected to one another and to the organisation, they are better able to navigate differences, collaborate effectively, and contribute their best.
Nurturing human connection is therefore not simply a desirable aspect of organisational life. Increasingly, evidence suggests that connection is not merely a cultural outcome but a measurable performance condition. Research by Thomas on the Connection Performance Effect found that connection accounted for up to 8.8 per cent of the variation in long-term organisational performance across FTSE 250 organisations. While many factors influence business success, this finding suggests that connection contributes meaningfully to how effectively organisations execute strategy over time. Belonging, appreciation and trust emerged as the connection dimensions most strongly associated with performance.
Leaders are expected to build belonging and cohesion while operating in conditions that make those outcomes harder to achieve.
The challenge is not that most leaders fail to recognise the importance of connection. In fact, for many, its value is self-evident. The greater challenge lies in understanding how to foster, sustain, and strengthen connection consistently in the realities of organisational life. Many think that engagement surveys measure this and that they can assess the effectiveness of a few managerial “tweaks” such as changes in workplace rules (e.g., working from home, using new technology) which can effect engagement and thence productivity. But what drives engagement?
The issue is not managerial or leadership ignorance. It is more paradoxical. The problem is that leaders are trying to create connection within systems that increasingly undermine it. Organisations have become more digital, efficient, and measurable, yet often less relational. This creates a growing Disconnection Dilemma: leaders are expected to build belonging and cohesion while operating in conditions that make those outcomes harder to achieve. People report more alienation from colleagues and customers, bosses and teams.
People are increasingly loath to self-disclose to others at work, because there are no place, time, and media for it. Hence, they don’t really get to know one another.
Self Disclosure
Self-disclosure involves communicating personal attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours. The content of what is disclosed, to whom and when, depends on a number of factors, like breadth, depth, sensitivity, and veridicality of the information. It can be done both online and face-to-face. Researchers are interested in what is disclosed, to whom, for what purpose, and with what consequence. There are social conventions concerning what one says to whom, about what, and when. The psychological benefits of SD have been much explored, the consensus being that it has the potential to develop trust and authenticity with others, strengthening communities, especially when met with a positive response. SD is clearly related to issues like psychological safety, so that people obviously feel more inclined to disclose when they feel safe.
The costs of disconnection are becoming increasingly visible in modern organisations. Research suggests that only 29 per cent of employees report satisfaction with workplace collaboration, while one in five employees globally report experiencing loneliness during the working day. Disconnection affects more than well-being. It influences communication, trust, innovation, retention, and organisational performance. As work becomes more digital and distributed, leaders are facing a growing challenge: how to create human connection at scale.
1. The Connection Paradox
We have never been more connected technologically, yet many employees feel more disconnected psychologically. We can work from anywhere at any time. But this leads to a number of key paradoxes:
More communication, less connection
The ease and quantity of communication does not ensure connection. It is the spontaneous, elevator, water-cooler, staff-canteen moments that bring about real connection. Do you understand, trust, and even like people who you only communicate with electronically? Task-focused communication is vital, but it is best supplemented by the personal touch. It is before- and after-the-meeting conversations which are most telling. It is a case of more is less.
More meetings, fewer meaningful conversations
Large numbers of people complain about meetings. Of course they are necessary. And they need to be well run and well managed. But usually the structure and rules mean that people often don’t speak up or get the opportunity to speak. This is particularly true in remote or hybrid environments where virtual meetings are rarely designed to nurture organic connection.
More collaboration tools, less belonging
We may have an increasing array of clever electronic tools to ensure greater collaboration. Many of us work in international, virtual teams. And the bigger our reach, the smaller our impact. How can you feel part of a scattered group about which you know very little? Your “team” are talking heads, focused on task analysis. How well do you “really” know them – their hopes and fears, aspirations and inclinations, deep seated beliefs and values? Are they kind, trustworthy, forgiving? And what do they know about you? It’s difficult to know, because there appear to be no time and forum where we get this data.
Meeting Psychology
Meetings frequently do, as the old adage has it, “take minutes and waste hours”. Fully three-quarters or more of a senior manager’s day may be taken up with meetings. Despite deep cynicism about their productivity and usefulness, they remain sacrosanct.
Most of us know that meetings have little or nothing to do with the quality of decision making or the communication of information. Their two major functions are quite simply, first, diffusion of responsibility and, second, decision acceptance. That is, they are there to ensure that all present take equal blame and responsibility for the decision (particularly if it goes wrong).
Frustration with the time-and-effort-wastefulness of meetings has led various organisations to attempt to implement certain strategies to improve them. Some follow a structure. Thus all meetings begin with expectations and end with benefits and concerns. Some try to shock with efficiency by calculating an ROI on all meetings by working out the real cost (in money) of the meeting. This involves calculating the salaries of people present per hour and totalling it all up.
A recent fad is to colour-code meetings beforehand to indicate the type and amount of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour at the meeting. Some like to follow the black-to-red alert categories used by police and security services. Others like a simple traffic light system. But the trouble with both these arrangements is that they bring conceptual associations. So a simple one-to-five with varied colours works best.
How does it work? Quite simple. It starts with some criterion like level of contribution or level of support. The colour or number chosen for the meeting indicates the desired behaviour. Thus a high number might indicate the expectation that everyone will chip in regularly. A low number means the meeting is more about receiving information.
This system is usually used for three types of issues. The first is about process, not content; that is, how attendees treat each other. In brainstorming, there are very clear rules about no criticism of others’ ideas, about valuing quantity over quality, about acceptable piggy-backing on somebody else’s ideas. The same applies here.
Some process prescriptions are about politeness. Others are about simple things like how long one may speak for, or indeed how to get the floor in the first place. So a green meeting may indicate that what is required is short, crisp interjection. A blue meeting may indicate that it is acceptable to develop an idea.
Some meetings may prescribe, and others proscribe, humour – always a dangerous issue. Jokes can lighten but can also offend. They may introduce inappropriate levity where seriousness is required. One useful rule is about criticism. A blue meeting may indicate no criticism, green criticism of certain features, yellow that no criticism is allowed unless a feasible alternative is apparent, and red anything can be said.
But, more importantly, the system can be applied to content. Thus the rule may be about rule-breaking – about really thinking outside the box, about radical reformation, not just adaptation. The colour-indicated rules might put certain things out of bounds.
It is all aimed at making meetings efficient, to help people connect emotionally and cognitively, to make them feel part of, and contributors to, the outcome.
More data, less understanding
We need all sorts of up-to-date, relevant data to run a business. Now data is much easier to obtain, analyse, and store. But what of the people data? Many organisations have data on turn-over, many on engagement and, maybe, satisfaction. But how do we understand this data which is often driven by a deep sense of connection to group, department, or organisation? The old mantra of “what you don’t measure, you don’t manage” remains true. The question is getting good data about connection, the driver of engagement.
Connection and communication are not the same thing. Sure, they are related and drive each other. Better-connected people communicate more openly, honestly, willingly, and frequently.
2. Structural Sources of Disconnection
Surprisingly perhaps, modern organisations unintentionally create disconnection through a toxic mixture of process and procedure.
Hybrid and distributed working
This is a hot one, and increasingly important. But there are some very clear patterns. As people have voluntarily (or not) been (in part) working from home, their sense of community and connection has reduced. It is obvious but not inevitable, as we shall see. Feeling connected to your team, department, and organisation is not easy. That is why many organisations have “works outings”, “fun days”, and “extra-mural activities” to help people connect and get to know each other.
Remote working WFH
Whilst the number of teleworkers has increased linearly since the beginning of the millennium, it has been the COVID-19 pandemic and the compulsory “working from home” that has made people very conscious of their working environment. The WFH revolution has begun. Work is something you do, and no longer a place you go to.
There are many semi-synonymous terms for people who don’t travel to the office: homeworkers, teleworkers, mobile workers. They inhabit the virtual workplace. Since the millennium, companies and gurus have trumpeted all the benefits of this new work style: less time spent commuting (and traffic congestion / pollution); greater autonomy and flexibility about when, where, how to work (with greater productivity and satisfaction, and much less absenteeism); better work-life balance (for carers, the disabled); a better talent pool (no relocating, retaining valuable workers); an environment free of office distractions.
Some companies embraced the idea perhaps more cynically, for the obvious bottom-line benefits. Home-working can dramatically cut office costs: space, heat, light. Tele-cottages can help rejuvenate rural economies and get hero points for the company. Mobile workers can work anywhere and everywhere – airports, hotel rooms, etc. Mobile workers can go to customers rather than vice versa.
But there are downsides
Fewer learning opportunities through observation, coaching, mentoring, and training – in short, connection. How to prevent the homeworker from feeling isolated and alienated? This may involve setting up special and expensive training / educational opportunities just for homeworkers. People prefer to learn from others, to feel connected to them.
Communication with head office: Both parties can feel hostile, jealous, and antagonistic to the other. Propinquity is the best predictor of friendship at work. You get to know, like, even marry those you work with and contact on a daily basis.
Exclusion, poor promotion prospects, out-of-mindness: The homeworker is an outport, a colony of the empire, a forgotten person when it comes to climbing the slippery pole of life. They are not promoted to managerial roles, because they don’t manage.
Family and friends not respecting work time / space: People might be constantly interrupted at work, but by colleagues rather than children, neighbours, friends, etc., who might know you “work from home” but don’t see why you can’t have a quick cuppa and a chat, or fix the broken toy, or whatever. Individuals need to have a degree of self-discipline.
Subtle and effective communication: Electronic and face-to-face communication are not the same. The subtle tone of, and feelings associated with, the content of any work communication can substantially alter it. Electronic communication is cold, often blunt, and gives little insight into the ambiguities of management motivation.
Siloed structures and fragmented teams
Have a look at your latest “organogram”, if there is one. What is the structure of the organisation? How close (physically, intellectually, emotionally) is Finance to Sales, HR to Security? In some organisations, other departments are the enemy or competition. Physical and communicative contact is often a driver of connection. It is difficult to feel part of, loyal to, and trusting in an organisation with many scattered (in every sense of the word) teams. Think of connection as a wiring diagram and look at yours.
Contact overload and time poverty
Modern employees experience unprecedented levels of contact but often surprisingly little connection. Calendars are full, inboxes overflowing, and collaboration platforms constantly active. Yet genuine conversations that build trust, psychological safety, and understanding are increasingly squeezed out. The issue is not a shortage of interaction but a shortage of relational depth.
Efficiency cultures that undervalue relationships
The efficient use of time and resources is quite rightly an essential component of good management and successful companies. But there can be a powerful trade-off between efficient and effective. Efficient use of time, space, and resources may have short-term benefits as long as they don’t rupture close, trusting relationships. It’s harder to measure a “happy ship” than an efficient one, but if you understand that the former leads to the latter, while the latter may inhibit the former, you are on to something. Many organisations optimise relentlessly for efficiency while overlooking the relational conditions that make high performance sustainable. The paradox is that trust, belonging, and collaboration often appear inefficient in the short term but become highly effective performance multipliers over time.
3. The Accidental Disconnector
Most disconnection is not caused by poor leaders. It is created by well-intentioned leaders who:
Manage through dashboards rather than conversations
Data is a fickle friend. We are taught in business school to collect (good, relevant, up-to-date) data and use spreadsheets, which helps make better decisions. Nothing wrong with that, except what is often missing. Dashboards and spreadsheets rarely suggest or celebrate paradoxes. People are capricious, fickle, and contrary. That is how it is. And it’s best to work with it rather than against it. Spreadsheets rarely capture emotions and feeling, which are important.
Prioritise productivity over relationships
Productive teams are happy teams. Certainly productivity drives both happiness and success, but what is the causal mechanism? Given that one has chosen able people who are well managed, to what extent should one “work on” work processes and procedures or relationships? Case studies of successful leaders have, time and again, shown how much effort they put into understanding team dynamics, picking the right people, who understand and trust each other, and most of whom are well connected to important others in the organisation. Look at military training or case studies of highly successful business teams and you see the same thing: they invest in getting to know each other well.
Lead through process rather than presence
Sending out inspirational emails and even doing a monthly or weekly internal podcast does not substitute for personal contact.
If you have ever walked through the main office with the CEO or a senior leader, you can get an instant insight into the corporate culture. Do they even recognise him / her? Do they shy away (for a number of possible reasons)? Do they express joy and pleasure in having them as their leader. Sending out inspirational emails and even doing a monthly or weekly internal podcast does not substitute for personal contact. Successful politicians and monarchs know this well. Sure, make sure all the processes are in place and work, but don’t assume they will supplant the need to physically (and emotionally) connect with people.
Over-reliance on digital communication
Digital communication is cheap, fast, and efficient. You can record the communication and send it on to others. Some wonder how we ever coped without it. But it is a cold medium. People do less “small talk” on digital communications. You can’t always hear the emotion in their voice, or pick up the nuances in their tone. Therapists tell you that online therapy is very different, with different outcomes. This is not to be old-fashioned and iconoclastic but rather to point out that digital communication needs to be supplemented.
Feedback deficit
Many leaders recognise the importance of feedback but hesitate to give it, particularly when the conversation may be uncomfortable. In an effort to preserve harmony or avoid conflict, they delay, soften, or avoid feedback altogether. The result is a feedback deficit in many organisations, where people are left without the clarity, coaching, and honest conversations they need in order to grow, improve, and build stronger, more trusting relationships. Far from damaging relationships, timely and respectful feedback is one of the most powerful ways that leaders demonstrate care, build trust, and strengthen connection.
4. The Leadership
Traditional leadership focused on direction, control, and execution. Modern leadership increasingly requires relational intelligence, empathy, psychological safety, and community-building. This is nothing new, but it is important.
Take the concept of psychological safety, defined as the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. It is both an individual and group-shared concept, held by members of a team, that they are safe within the group to conduct many types of interpersonal risk-taking activities. It has various components: the confidence to share knowledge and request feedback without fear of negative (interpersonal risk-taking); mutual trust and respect between team members; the availability of organisational and structural supports, which renders them less vulnerable to resource depletion, insecurity, and defensiveness; understanding personal identity, importance, and security within the team.
Thomas research suggests that leaders play a disproportionate role in shaping connection. Employees who report that their managers are available, supportive, and capable of creating connection within the team also report significantly stronger overall connection. Together, these manager behaviours explain almost 60 per cent of variation in employee connection scores.
Emotional intelligence also appears to be a significant predictor of workplace connection, explaining approximately 42 per cent of variation in connection scores. This suggests that leaders may strengthen connection not by becoming more outgoing, but by developing capabilities such as empathy, self-awareness, and emotional regulation.
The leader’s role is shifting from managing work to connecting people. It is a skill that can be learned. It has a lot to do with understanding how teams work.
Healthy, Connected Teams: Consider these questions
- Does your team suffer from fuzzy goals / changing priorities?
- Do you think there is a false consensus among the members of your team?
- Does your team have unresolved overt conflicts?
- Does your team find it difficult to reach closure?
- Are “dreadful” meetings characteristic of your team (e.g., people coming late or arriving not at all)?
- Does your team suffer from uneven participation?
- Do the members of your team not feel accountable to one another?
What about?
- Are you prepared to reveal your thoughts, feelings, aspirations, goals, failures, successes, fears, and dreams, as well as your likes, dislikes, and favouritisms to other people?
- Are you willing to share with others information that helps them understand you better?
- Are you willing to put yourself at risk through intimate disclosure?
- Are you the kind of person who believes in the integrity, ability, character, and truth of other people?
- Do you have confidence in the capability of other people to make good on their promises?
- Are you always prepared to position yourself as vulnerable to others?
- Are you convinced that others will not abuse your confidence due to your trusting behaviour?
5. The AI Challenge
So much has been written about the power and the threat of AI. We have all experienced its magic. It is self-evident that AI can increase efficiency and insight.
As artificial intelligence transforms knowledge work, the uniquely human aspects of leadership become increasingly valuable. AI can analyse information, automate tasks, and increase efficiency. What it cannot create are the conditions that underpin workplace connection: trust, belonging, empathy, shared meaning, and psychological safety. This translates to things like a clear sense of shared meaning and a feeling that the organisation and the boss really do care about you. The challenge is not AI versus people, but how leaders use AI to augment rather than replace human connection.
Conclusion
For decades, organisations have competed through capital, technology, and operational excellence. Increasingly, another source of advantage is emerging: the quality of connection that exists between people.
Connection influences whether employees speak up, whether teams collaborate effectively, whether knowledge flows freely across the organisation and, ultimately, whether strategy translates into execution. In a world shaped by distributed work, rapid change, and artificial intelligence, connection is becoming less of a cultural aspiration and more of a strategic capability.
The challenge for leaders is no longer whether connection matters. The evidence increasingly suggests that it does. The challenge is whether organisations are prepared to measure, build, and manage connection with the same rigour they apply to every other driver of performance.
