Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Ask Joe: Managing workplace culture

Ask Joe: Managing workplace culture

Hi, Joe

Not sure this is the kind of question you answer but I need some guidance. I am the new supervisor of my team after a challenging reorg. It’s been a hard process of taking on this role, but I think I’m in a good place. Except for one guy on my team. He is doing everything to make it hard to move forward. I’ve tried reasoning with him but it’s not working. Any suggestions?


New supervisor

Hey, New Supervisor.

Sorry to hear you are going through this. Many of my clients are asking me the same question. With so many companies and nonprofits dealing with budget cuts, discussions around returning to the office or working from home, and an increase in resignations, it’s getting more challenging to manage an effective work culture.

In my coaching and trainings, I use a classic framework from American author, speaker, and organizational consultant William Bridges, where he explains that transition is the psychological process of adapting to change. In his writings, he emphasizes the importance of understanding the many-faceted layers of transition as a key for systems and organizations to navigate change and growth effectively.

“Transition is the natural process of disorientation and reorientation that marks the turning points in the paths to growth,” he says. “Transitions are key times in the natural process of self-renewal.”

Bridges offers us a simple, three-phase guideline that leads to clarity and aids us in successfully moving through transition.

  1. Letting go of the past.
  2. The "neutral zone" where the past is gone, but the new hasn’t fully presented itself yet.
  3. Embracing the new.

While the external circumstances may have already changed, we all have our own relationship with change, based on our psychological makeup, trauma history, privilege and how much we have to lose with the imminent change. Some see it as an exciting chance to expand; others can feel a threat to their power.

Using this “map” is a helpful first step in coming up with a strategy of how to support you and each member of your team to all go through that process of stepping into the new. My suggestion is to see where all members of your team currently are situated in this process. It sounds like you have fully embraced the new, or are still hovering in that uncomfortable liminal space where you are still not sure how things will play out. And it sounds like this person you are having trouble with is stubbornly not letting go of the old.

Once you’ve evaluated what phase each person is in, then you can come up with strategies for how to support them to continue moving forward. If people have let go of the old, but are still not embracing the new, what can you do to alleviate some of their anxiety caused by the uncertainty. Perhaps you need to be clearer in exactly what is expected of them in this new model.

And for this colleague who is stubbornly holding on to the old, maybe it’s a question of them gaining their trust. What can you do to show them that they will not be left behind, or become obsolete, in this new configuration? Maybe find out what their deeper concerns are, or what they would need to open to letting go of the old ways.

You may find out that they are just sabotaging the process; that they will never support you. If that is the case, perhaps it is appropriate to ask them to consider whether this job is still right for them. This of course is tricky when dealing with HR issues, but the sooner it is made clear that there is no way that the team is going back to the old way, the sooner you can have them make their own decision of whether to be collegial or to move on.

If it doesn’t feel safe for you to address them in this way, perhaps you find someone to join you in this conversation. The best way to help the other people be more receptive is to meet them where they are, give them the benefit of the doubt, and still stay clear and steadfast in your conviction that the change is inevitable. If you have any questions on how best to have difficult conversations like these, where you ensure that neither of you get harmed in the process, check out my book, “Mastering Respectful Confrontation,” for skills and strategies.

This is one way to approach this, New Supervisor. Perhaps you can use this situation as an opportunity to sharpen your management skills, and also as a way to establish your authority as both a compassionate and decisive leader. By doing so you build trust and safety, and set the conditions for a work culture based on respect and accountability.

Keep looking forward on your path,

Joe

Learn more about Joe Weston and his work here. Make sure to c heck out Joe’s bestselling book Fierce Civility: Transforming our Global Culture from Polarization to Lasting Peace, published March 2023.

To Ask Joe, please submit questions to: AskJoe@Fulcrum.us.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less