The Human Risk Files - The Quality of Connection
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about connection - that sense that is felt and seen only in the way people show up (and are lit up). I am not talking about communication, or collaboration. I am talking about connection and more importantly, the quality of it.
It sounds simple, doesn’t it? Almost too simple. In fact, if someone had told me thirty years ago that one of the strongest indicators of organisational health was the quality of connection between people, I probably would have rolled my eyes and gone looking for something more sophisticated. It surely can’t be that simple. A better framework. A leadership model. A strategy. Something that sounded more important.
Yet the longer I spend working with leaders and organisations, the more convinced I become that connection sits at the centre of almost everything. Simple, but not always easy. Think about Brene Brown’s work. The fundamental essence of it is about the quality of connection between people and how someone holds that connection. Trust, performance, engagement, innovation, collaboration, retention, the ability to navigate change and the ability to have difficult conversations - the quality of connection influences it all. Such a grounding human need, one of the foundational aspects of security and we place it in the context of Maslow’s work (Hierarchy of Needs), you can’t skip it and expect better life outcomes without it.
In 1996, I landed my first “real” job. The kind of job that came with a desk, a salary and something vaguely related to my university degree. And although I finally felt like I was on a career path, I found myself in one of the toughest environments of my working career with all the challenge and opportunity that this bought. There was no budget but there was desire to make a difference. The systems and processes were limited but the creativity was not. Support from the broader business was inconsistent but we tried to listen more than we spoke. I leant into the unknown and thrived. I became very comfortable with not knowing but finding out. I wanted to learn and I wanted to make a difference and I accepted the bumps along the way.
I got noticed. I got noticed because of the quality of connections I had with so many in the business. I was approachable, I delivered, I was curious, I didn’t need to be right, but I did need to be confident that our internal customers (I was in HR) were supported, and I would stand my ground if I didn’t think they were. I wasn’t the most qualified person nor did I have the most tenure. But, what happened was, I was leapfrogged through the organisation because I was trusted. And I was trusted because I had meaningful connections built on empathy, competence and care. I was seen, heard, challenged, i felt i belonged. My leader, the person who is still to this day in my top 2 leaders I have learnt the most from, the graduates (my peers) I worked with under this leader 30 years ago are still important connections for me today. They are CEOs, CPOs and Managing Directors and these connections helped us all thrive.
And this is where it gets interesting. I was 1000% in until the day that my most important connection in the company left, my leader. Why. Because the whole system changed. The most important reason that I was thriving, changed and the capability and style that replaced him was the antithesis of the qualities that facilitated trust and energy. The leader, who I still hold to be one of the most influential in shaping me was tough but fair. He coached, pushed, held me to account and didnt’ accept anything other than what he knew to be my best. He spotted potential a mile away and nurtured it. “When you know better you can do better” is the line I learnt from him, and it’s true.
It wasn’t the promotions. It wasn’t the desk. It wasn’t the perks or the titles that kept me in that role. Those things may matter to some, but are they really more important than connection. I don’t think so.
My greatest learning has come from connections, not a text book, people sharing with people. When my the leader changed, the system changed. Process became more important than people. Perception of performance more important than meaningful change. There was no depth, no care - I was out (and so did my high performing grad peers - all left). I’ve reflected on that experience many times over the years. Particularly when organisations tell me they’re struggling with engagement, retention or performance.
Because what that experience taught me is that humans will tolerate remarkably difficult conditions when they feel connected. And they will leave remarkably good conditions when they don’t. I’ve seen it time and time again. Which is why I’ve become fascinated by the research emerging from the Blue Zones. For those unfamiliar, Blue Zones are regions around the world where people consistently live longer, healthier lives than average. Researchers have studied these communities for years and the common themes they have found include: the quality of the diet; daily movement (not the gym, but housework, gardening, walking), and connection. Strong relationships, a sense of belonging, meaningful contribution, being part of something bigger than yourself.
If these are the things that people need in their system to thrive, why would an organisational system be any different. It is still a system made up of human beings who ultimately want to feel like they matter. Why do we accept that connection influences health, wellbeing and longevity everywhere else in life, yet somehow treat it as secondary inside organisations? I’ve never seen evidence that it is secondary. In fact, I’ve seen the opposite.
I’ve watched highly capable executive teams struggle because the quality of connection between them was poor.
I’ve seen organisations invest millions in strategy while ignoring the relationships required to execute it.
I’ve watched leaders focus on capability while overlooking trust.
And I’ve seen the consequences. Slow decisions. Political behaviour. Silos. Disengagement. Turnover.
Not because people lacked capability but because connection was weak.
Gallup’s engagement research points to exactly the same thing. People want to know what is expected of them. They want opportunities to learn and grow. They want recognition. They want their opinions to matter. They want someone who genuinely cares about them. What’s interesting is that none of these are really engagement drivers. They’re connection drivers. Every one of them requires a relationship.
Not a policy.
Not a process.
A relationship.
Which brings me back to Human Risk. I’ve come to believe that one of the most overlooked Human Risks inside organisations is a lack of meaningful connection. Not because connection is soft. It’s quite the opposite. Connection shapes trust. Trust shapes conversations. Conversations shape decisions. Decisions shape culture. Culture shapes performance. Everything is connected.
And this is where I think the CEO lens matters. If you are the CEO, Managing Director or Founder, ask yourself this:
Who in your organisation feels truly seen, heard and understood by you?
And who doesn’t?
Who gets your time?
Who gets your curiosity?
Who gets to challenge your thinking?
Who only ever experiences you when something is wrong?
Who knows what matters to you beyond the numbers? And who has no idea?
These are not soft questions. They are questions about the health of the system you are leading. Connection doesn’t happen by accident and disconnection doesn’t happen all at once. It happens in the moments leaders are too busy to notice. The skipped conversation. The rushed one-on-one. The person who stops offering an opinion because it feels easier not to. The executive team that slowly becomes transactional. The founder who becomes less available as the organisation grows. The leader who assumes people know they are valued without ever actually showing them. None of this looks dramatic in isolation.
But over time, it changes the system.
Perhaps that’s why I find myself asking different questions these days.
Not:
“How engaged are our people?”
But:
“How connected are they?”
Not:
“How do we improve performance?”
But:
“What conditions create performance?”
Because people are remarkably similar to everything else in nature. Put them in the right conditions and they thrive. Put them in the wrong conditions and they survive. Sometimes for years. The quality of connection is one of those conditions.
I’ve experienced it personally.
I’ve observed it professionally.
And the longer I do this work, the more convinced I become that connection isn’t simply a measure of organisational health. It is one of the things that creates it. And if Human Risk is the invisible force that slowly disconnects people from the contribution they are capable of making, then perhaps one of the most important responsibilities of leadership is creating the conditions where connection can flourish.
Because extraordinary organisations are rarely built on strategy alone.
They’re built on relationships.
And every relationship begins with connection.