Can you bring a quiet high performer back into the room?
Sam is a senior analyst on your hybrid team. For the last two years they have been one of your strongest
contributors: confident in meetings, sought out by other parts of the business, and on the shortlist for
promotion at the last cycle.
Over the past month, something has changed. The camera stays off in stand-ups. Contributions have dried up.
Two deadlines have slipped, one of them client-facing. A team social was declined.
You have heard fragments on the side. The team has been stretched since two analysts left in the January
re-org. Sam's recommendation in a recent client review was publicly dismissed by another senior leader.
And Sam's collaborator Riya mentioned a disagreement they had over methodology.
Your one-to-one with Sam is tomorrow morning.
Three decisions. Five minutes. How do you bring Sam back?
start
group
forum
checklist
sports_score
Sequence your support
You open the one-to-one with curiosity and Sam, after a long pause, opens up. The workload spike is real.
The recommendation that was dismissed in the client review still stings. The disagreement with Riya is
tangled up in both. There is more here than a single conversation can hold.
Rank the threads below in the order you would address them across the next few weeks; place the one you
would address first at the top.
Drag to reorder, or use the ↑↓ buttons.
⠿
visibility
Acknowledgement
Naming what you have noticed
Tell Sam what you have seen over the last month, that it matters, and
that you should have spotted it sooner.
⠿
healing
Trust repair
The dismissed recommendation
Address the moment in the client review when Sam's recommendation was
publicly dismissed and you did not push back.
⠿
inventory_2
Workload relief
Concrete capacity move
Redistribute work from Sam this week to ease the spike caused by the
two analysts who left in January.
⠿
forum
Conflict facilitation
The disagreement with Riya
Set up a facilitated conversation with Sam and Riya about the
methodology disagreement that has spilled over into how they work together.
⠿
flag
Performance expectations
Resetting on the missed deadlines
Have a direct conversation about the two missed deadlines and what
you both expect from one another going forward.
start
group
forum
checklist
sports_score
Sequencing your support
There is no single correct answer, but the trust cycle gives you a useful map. Insight and relationship
come before influence, and influence comes before intervention. Sequence each thread to follow that arc.
Things to consider
visibility
Acknowledgement
Naming what you have noticed is the bridge between a meeting that happens and a
meeting that matters. It sits firmly in the insight and relationship phase of the trust cycle. Without
it, every later move risks being read as managing the numbers rather than seeing the person.
healing
Trust repair
The withdrawal traces back to a moment of public dismissal. Repair is the deepest
wound and needs to be named explicitly: what happened, what it meant, and what you should have done.
Until rapport is rebuilt here, the rest of the plan rests on shaky ground.
inventory_2
Workload relief
Concrete capacity action signals that words and deeds align, but the right
intervention at the right time is the principle. Move on workload only after Sam feels seen and the
trust rupture has been named, otherwise the relief reads as transactional.
forum
Conflict facilitation
A facilitated conversation with Riya involves a third person and a different
context. Premature, it can feel like an ambush for both. Better to land it once Sam's footing is
steadier and the disagreement can be heard on its merits, not as a proxy for everything else.
flag
Performance expectations
The missed deadlines are a symptom, not the cause. Leading with them turns a
coaching conversation into an evaluative one and is the fastest way to lose a high performer. Keep this
in view, but only once the foundation is restored, and even then frame it as a shared agreement, not a
warning.
start
group
forum
checklist
sports_score
When everything comes out at once
Sam, senior analyst
You opened the one-to-one with curiosity rather than a theory. There was a long silence. Then, quietly,
Sam started to talk.
'Honestly? It is everything. The workload has been crushing me since we lost Maya and Tom in January.
That I could have lived with. The bigger thing is the client review two weeks ago. My recommendation was
dismissed in front of the team without discussion, and I have not recovered from it. And then Riya and I
had a row about the methodology, which was really about all of this. I have been trying to hold it
together and not doing a great job of it.'
How do you respond?
A
Thank Sam for the honesty, name the three threads as tangled together, take
responsibility for not pushing back in the client review, and ask Sam where they would like to start.
B
Move quickly to the most fixable thing: redistribute Sam's projects today and
promise that everything else will get easier once the workload pressure is off.
C
Push back gently on the client review point, explaining that the timing was not
right in the room and the recommendation may be being read more harshly than it was meant.
D
Apologise heavily for the client review and offer to do whatever it takes to
repair that trust, including a public correction with the team, before getting to anything else.
start
group
forum
checklist
sports_score
When everything comes out at once
Sam has just done something brave. The principle of building rapport before
intervention applies even in the middle of a conversation: how you respond now decides whether the next ten
minutes feel like coaching or like managing.
Option A
'Thank Sam for the honesty, name the three threads as tangled together, take
responsibility for not pushing back in the client review, and ask Sam where they would like to start.'
This is the right intervention at the right time. Naming the threads honours the
insight and relationship phase of the trust cycle, taking responsibility opens repair
without making the conversation about you, and inviting Sam to choose where to start moves you into
understanding and influencing together. Coaching, not managing.
Option B
'Move quickly to the most fixable thing: redistribute Sam's projects today and
promise that everything else will get easier once the workload pressure is off.'
Concrete capacity action is welcome and shows you took the disclosure seriously,
but acting on a single thread before all three have been heard skips ahead in the trust cycle. Sam may
feel relieved and unseen at the same time.
Option C
'Push back gently on the client review point, explaining that the timing was not
right in the room and the recommendation may be being read more harshly than it was meant.'
However gently it is delivered, defending the moment Sam just named will be heard
as 'you asked, I told you, you defended yourself'. It collapses the rapport you have just built and risks
being the conversation Sam never starts again.
Option D
'Apologise heavily for the client review and offer to do whatever it takes to
repair that trust, including a public correction with the team, before getting to anything else.'
The instinct is good but the weight is wrong. A heavy apology can make the
conversation about you and your guilt rather than about Sam, and it leaves the workload and the Riya
disagreement untouched. Repair without practical relief tends to feel hollow within forty-eight hours.
start
group
forum
checklist
sports_score
The plan that sticks
The one-to-one is winding down. What you do over the next four weeks will decide whether Sam comes back
into the team or quietly drifts further out. Sam is watching for whether words and actions line up, and the
team is watching too.
The workload is genuinely too much, two analysts down since January
Stand-ups have changed: cameras off, no contributions
The client review moment was witnessed by the whole team
Riya does not yet know that any of this conversation has happened
What do you do over the next four weeks?
A
Co-design a four-part plan with Sam: redistribute two projects this week,
revisit the dismissed recommendation publicly with the team, fortnightly check-ins with an explicit
'what has gone unsaid' question, and a facilitated conversation with Riya in week two.
B
Tell Sam that your door is always open, that you will keep an eye on the
workload, and that you trust them to flag it if anything starts slipping again.
C
Escalate to your director, ask to slow two delivery commitments, and cancel the
project that is taking the most of Sam's bandwidth so the whole team feels the relief.
D
Set clear written goals with deadlines, deliverables and milestones, and meet
weekly to review against them so any slip is visible to both of you early.
start
group
forum
checklist
sports_score
The plan that sticks
Sam's situation touches every layer of team cohesion: goals (what we are
aiming for and how we hold each other to it), roles (who carries what), and souls (the ground rules that
decide whether dissent is safe). A good plan does not have to fix every layer immediately, but it should
at least name them and assign each one a path back.
Option A
'Co-design a four-part plan with Sam: redistribute two projects this week,
revisit the dismissed recommendation publicly with the team, fortnightly check-ins with an explicit
"what has gone unsaid" question, and a facilitated conversation with Riya in week two.'
This plan touches each layer of cohesion: goals (the unsaid question and the
public revisit of the dismissed recommendation), roles (workload), and souls (the ground rule that
dismissed contributions get a return visit). Co-designing it with Sam moves the conversation into the
action phase of the trust cycle without leaving the relationship behind.
Option B
'Tell Sam that your door is always open, that you will keep an eye on the
workload, and that you trust them to flag it if anything starts slipping again.'
A warm conversation without a structure to hold it is the most common way these
moments quietly fade. The 'open door' puts the burden of raising things back onto the person who has just
spent a month going quiet. Patience is a change management principle, but patience without a plan is
drift.
Option C
'Escalate to your director, ask to slow two delivery commitments, and cancel the
project that is taking the most of Sam's bandwidth so the whole team feels the relief.'
There is real systemic thinking here, and the workload move would land. But the
scale of the intervention is not matched to where Sam is, and unilateral cancellations without
consultation can leave Sam feeling singled out and the team feeling unsettled. The right intervention,
but not at the right scale.
Option D
'Set clear written goals with deadlines, deliverables and milestones, and meet
weekly to review against them so any slip is visible to both of you early.'
Goal-setting after this conversation reads as managing, not coaching. Sam will
meet the goals, mechanically, and the withdrawal will become formal: high output, no contributions,
camera off. You will solve the symptom and lose the person.
start
group
forum
checklist
sports_score
Further learning
This simulation draws on frameworks from our Cohesion programme on high performing teams. Each one
shaped the choices you just worked through.
The trust cycle
Insight and relationship before influence, influence before intervention. The map you used to
sequence your support of Sam in decision one.
Explore the
trust cycle →
Key change management principles
Including 'build rapport before intervening' and 'the right intervention at the right time'. The lens
we used to read your response to Sam in decision two.
Explore the principles →
Goals, roles and souls
The three layers of team cohesion: what we are aiming for, who does what, and the ground rules we
live by. Used to evaluate your four-week plan in decision three.
Explore the model →
Micro simulation · schedule 5 min