STRIPing Away the Disconnects Between Leaders & Their Teams

Behavioral science provides tools to help leaders better understand common disconnects and mitigate their negative impacts. 

“My team isn't using the new tool we spent so much time creating for them.”

“The training isn't sticking, our people keep making the same mistakes.”

“I'm always asking for feedback, but I never hear about problems.”

Across our consulting engagements, we've regularly heard comments of this nature from well-intentioned leaders. These executives have genuinely tried to support their teams by building tools, offering training, opening the door for feedback, and yet they're confused and frustrated.

Most leaders truly want to engage and understand their colleagues. And yet, in organization after organization, we encounter a similar pattern. When people aren't behaving as expected, leaders reach for simple explanations—and those explanations are usually misguided. This isn't a failure of empathy; it's often a failure of diagnosis. When employees don't follow procedure, don't speak up, or don't engage, leaders default to the assumption that they employees simply didn’t know what was expected of them—or perhaps they don't care. Yet the true explanation often lies elsewhere. 

Here are four disconnects we've seen repeatedly. Each represents a gap between what leaders assume, as opposed to what's actually driving behavior on the ground.

Disconnect #1:
Motivation vs. Friction

When employees aren't following recommended procedures, leaders often assume they lack information or motivation. This diagnosis leads organizations to pour enormous resources into training that explains what people should be doing—and why it matters. 

Yet in our experience, employees often have both awareness and intent. The real barrier is friction. The "ask" is clear, but there are significant barriers (of time, energy, and/or complexity in their process or environment) to actually performing the behavior—and the effort required appears to outweigh the perceived benefit. Thus, employees aren't misunderstanding or rejecting the request; They're simply making a rational decision to avoid it.

Disconnect #2:
Accountability vs. Uncertainty

When employees don't speak up about problems, leaders often assume ignorance or lack of accountability: either people don't know that the issue exists, or they simply don't see it as their responsibility to point out difficulties. This often leads to more extensive efforts to solicit feedback via surveys, hotlines, or reminders that "the door is always open."

In reality, the barrier is often uncertainty and the possibility of regretting any actions they were to take. What will happen if I do speak up? Will anyone actually listen? Will I be punished or ostracized for creating trouble? Will I be drawn into hours of bureaucratic meetings? 

In light of this uncertainly, it's understandable that many people rationalize that it's not worth their time or effort to voice concerns. Keeping their head down and finding a workaround may be the easier and more rational choice.

Disconnect #3:
Money vs. Meaning

When leaders think about motivating their teams, their thoughts often go directly to financial incentives like bonuses, raises, and perhaps promotions. This isn't unreasonable, as employee surveys consistently cite tangible benefits as powerful and preferred incentives.

Yet our experience (and the academic literature) tells a somewhat different story. We consistently find that intangible factors such as recognition, autonomy, and a sense of purpose turn out to be far more powerful drivers of both day-to-day performance and long-term retention. 

We’ve also often found that peer accountability is a powerful motivator. Many employees repeatedly show up and "do the right thing" because they don't want to let their teammates down.

Disconnect #4:
Input vs. Action

When leaders actively solicit input from their teams, they typically assume that the gesture itself will be well received. After all, most people want the opportunity to express themselves and want to feel heard by their boss, right? So leaders duly run surveys, hold listening sessions—and consider the box checked.

However, these same leaders consistently underestimate just how demoralizing it is for employees when their input isn't acted upon. Employees rarely have the broader context behind a decision (e.g., budget constraints or competing priorities), so when nothing visibly changes, they often conclude that their input was never taken seriously to begin with. The story becomes "they're just wasting our time," and this narrative makes it even more difficult to gather feedback the next time around. 

Closing the Gaps: The STRIP Framework

How can leaders systematically close the gaps we've highlighted? We know there's no single process that can guarantee improved communication, commitment, and compliance. 

However, behavioral science provides a set of tools to help us better understand these disconnects and mitigate their negative impacts. To that end, we can share a simple acronym—STRIP—to help leaders keep five vital principles in mind.

"S" is for Specify

An important starting point is to specify exactly which behaviors are expected or desired. Often, leaders are more comfortable speaking in generalities—such as "safety," "collaboration,” or “compliance"—which gain widespread approval and head-nodding and yet do not always translate to consistent actions. 

For example, in a recent engagement at a large financial institution, we found general consensus regarding the importance of cybersecurity. However, there was a miscommunication problem: many employees associated “cybersecurity” solely with avoiding phishing attacks, rather than a wider range of critical actions (such as those tied to password protection or the use of secure tools). 

"T" is for Team

As noted above, employees often feel the strongest connection with their immediate colleagues, rather than with their supervisor or the organization as a whole. These bonds can and should be leveraged as a motivator and a source of accountability.

For example, the vast majority of training is structured as an individual exercise—a set of web-based modules for employees to complete on their own. However, this training can be far more powerful when complemented with team-based discussions, which create a safe space for questions and dialogue, and serve to reinforce a sense of shared commitment.

"R" is for Rethinking Assumptions

As we've outlined, leaders often jump to simple (and misguided) conclusions about why employees aren't following procedures or speaking up. So before rushing to provide additional information or incentive, leaders should step back and dig deeper to understand the actual barriers at work.

We've found that simple behavioral frameworks such as COM-B—which holds that a Behavior occurs only when a person has the Capability, the Opportunity, and the Motivation to perform it—can be valuable in forcing leaders to think more thoroughly. 

For example, when an equipment check is skipped, the instinctive response may be to provide a reminder about safety culture, rooted in the assumption that the person lacks motivation. But when we view the situation through a COM-B lens, we're forced to also ask ourselves whether the person also had the Capability and Opportunity to complete the task. This may lead to deeper and more practical questions (e.g., was the safety checklist actually easy to reach and quick to complete?) and a different set of interventions that reach beyond Motivation. 

"I" is for Immediacy

As humans, we're all quite attuned to stimuli in our environment. So before tinkering with long-term bonus structures, leaders should review the processes and day-to-day feedback that employees receive at work. When they follow the recommended procedures or use the right tools, are they being thanked? When they speak up about a problem, are they being recognized?

As we've mentioned, these rewards don't need to be tangible or financial. Often, a simple "thank you" can make a difference. The key is to help people feel good when they do the right thing—and ultimately, to create positive feedback loops that reinforce habits. For example, when a manager immediately acknowledges (and/or publicly thanks) a sales rep for flagging a product bug, they’re reinforcing the exact behavior they'd like to see repeated.

"P" is for Psychological Safety

Finally, it's important to remember that all the best intentions, efforts, and processes are unlikely to result in open, honest communication (and consistent compliance with policies or procedures) unless there's an environment of psychological safety. Broadly speaking, this means a workplace in which employees feel free and confident enough to share unsettling news.

For leaders, the primary implication is to be careful and selective in using "the stick." While punishments may have an immediate impact, we've repeatedly seen that fear is an imprecise tool that can have negative unintended consequences. Punishing one visible mistake doesn't just discourage that specific behavior—it teaches everyone that mistakes are dangerous to reveal, which pushes future problems further underground.

It's also important to remember that psychological safety, once damaged, is very hard to rebuild. A single action can outweigh months of reassurances, because employees tend to weigh vivid, negative moments far more heavily than routine, positive ones. So leaders must often overcompensate—for example, publicly and specifically praising an employee who delivered unwelcome news, rather than simply thanking them privately. The visibility is the point: it signals to everyone else watching that raising a problem is not only tolerated, but rewarded.

A Common Thread

If we revisit the four disconnects that we’ve observed, a pattern emerges. In each case, leaders default to simple and easily-addressed diagnoses—an information gap, a communications gap, an incentives gap—and miss the dynamics that are more visible from the employee’s perspective: the friction of the process, the hassle of speaking up, the power of positive feedback, the sting of being asked and then seemingly ignored or even punished.

STRIP offers a framework or “checklist” to help systematically correct for these blind spots. Specify the desired behavior. Leverage team bonds, rather than relying on individual messaging alone. Rethink assumptions before jumping to simple explanations and solutions. Focus on immediate feedback, not just structural incentives. And protect the psychological safety that makes open communication possible.

Of course, this simple acronym only scratches the surface of what behavioral science has to offer—and we’d certainly recommend that leaders dive deeper into the research and writings of Amy Edmondson, Annie Duke, Eduardo Salas and Elizabeth Wiggins, among many others. However, we’ve found the most direct frameworks are often the most effective, as they provide an easy access point for people to discover the field and begin viewing their challenges through its lens. We also value the fact that this framework speaks to the process of behavioral science, while also hinting at its vast insights, including these three core realities: 

• People are not always able to accurately report what really “makes them tick” and drives their daily behaviors
• Employees often make rational decisions from their perspective (to save or optimize time, energy, and uncertainty), rather than simply ignoring or subverting policies 
• Leaders can potentially drive significant changes in their teams’ behavior with low-cost changes in communication, rewards, and/or procedures 

In our rapidly changing world, leaders face enormous challenges in helping their teams adapt to new technologies and evolving roles/responsibilities. Those who make a habit of viewing situations from their employees’ perspective—and embracing the tools and insights of behavioral science—are likely to be well rewarded. This shift in perspective can often help them bridge the gap between positive intentions and lasting behavior change.