Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
What if your company culture wasn’t just an HR buzzword but the secret weapon to scaling your business?
Welcome to Kan Talk Kulture, the podcast that dives deep into how remarkable company cultures are intentionally built and how they can transform your team, your business, and your bottom line.
Hosted by Kylie Anne Neal, founder of Kan Kulture and a passionate expert in people, culture, and leadership, this show is designed for business owners, CEOs, HR professionals, and anyone who believes that empowered people are the key to long-term success.
Each episode features real conversations with inspiring CEOs, business leaders, and culture champions who share how they’ve shaped their team environments alongside case studies, practical tips, and bold questions that challenge the status quo.
Whether you're looking to boost employee engagement, create a high-performance team, or align your people with your vision, this podcast will help you connect the dots between culture and growth.
At Kan Kulture, we believe in Kindness, Understanding, Learning, Trust, Uniqueness, Respect, and Evolving, and this podcast brings those values to life.
If you're ready to turn your team into your biggest brand ambassadors and create a workplace people love, this is the podcast for you.
Find out more at www.kankulture.com
Hi, I'm Kylie Anne Neal, founder of Kan Kulture, and welcome to Kan Talk Kulture. In this podcast, I sit down with some of Australia's most progressive founders and CEOs to explore the heart of their company cultures, what drives them, what they value, and what it's really like to work for the companies they lead.
You'll also find occasional episodes packed with practical HR insights to help you build s- safer, stronger, and more trusted workplaces. So whether you're a new team member getting to know your workplace, curious about creating remarkable company cultures, or just wanting to know more about implementing HR best practice, you're in the right place.
Let's dive in
Hello, and welcome back to the Kan Talk Kulture podcast. I'm Kylie Anne Neal, and this is a solo episode, which means it's just me and you for the next half an hour or so. So there's a study that I love, and it ran for decades. It followed more than 10,000 people, and the findings were that it wasn't the people with the most demanding jobs who got sick.
It was the people with the least control over them. Not the hardest workers, not the busiest, not the ones under the most pressure, the ones with the least say. So today I wanna talk about control. It's one of the psychosocial hazards in our legislation today. It's job control. It's how much influence or autonomy a worker has over how they perform their work.
The psychosocial hazards are not very easy to understand, and they're not easy to review in workplaces either, but they are part of legislation, and more importantly to me, they're a big part of creating remarkable company cultures. So I wanna talk about what happens when a leader under pressure quietly takes control away from the people around them without ever intending to, of course, and without ever knowing that they've even done it, because here is the thing that nobody tells you when you step into leadership.
Your stress does not stay with you. It travels, and it travels in one direction, downwards. I wanna start with a claim that's sounds a little dramatic until you look at the evidence. Autonomy is not a nice-to-have. It's not a perk you extend to people once they've earned it. It's actually a health variable, and in most organizations it's being removed accidentally by the people who believe they're being responsible and doing the right thing.
No one sits down on a Monday morning and destru- decides to strip control out of their team. It happens unknowingly. It happens through good intentions, and it, it shows up in the body long before it shows up in a resignation. So we've got three parts to this conversation. First is the evidence, because I want you to understand that this is not a philosophical position about how nice workplaces should be The second is the mechanism.
It's how a leader's anxiety becomes a team's physiology and what that actually looks like on the ground. And the third part, it's a part that I care most about. It's what you actually do about it in yourself. So let's start with the first part, the research. The Whitehall II study began in the mid-'80s.
Researchers followed more than 10,000 British civil servants and tracked their health over years. The assumption going in was straightforward It was that senior people carry more responsibility, they carry more pressure, they make more decisions. Therefore, senior people should have more stress-related illness.
It's the executive stress hypothesis, and it was the received wisdom of the time. And what they actually found was that the opposite was true. Health followed the hierarchy downwards. The lower the grade, the higher the risk. And when researchers dug into why, one factor kept surfacing, job control. How much say a person had over what they did and how they did it.
Stress wasn't about seniority. It wasn't about personality. It wasn't about smoking or cholesterol. Low control had its own independent signature on the body. Um, and here's the detail that matters most for leaders. Job demands were not the strongest predictor, job control was. Which means the story that we tell ourselves about pressure is largely wrong.
We think of stress as a volume problem, "Oh, I've got too much work on, I don't have enough time." So we design interventions accordingly. We hire someone else, we reprioritise, we talk about workload, and look, that's all useful, but what the research is telling us, and the more dangerous variable, is not how much is on someone's plate, it's whether they have any say over what goes onto that plate.
Pressure with agency is challenge. Pressure without agency is harm. And I want to give you the physiology, because once you understand it, you cannot un-see it in your own organisation. The human stress response is built for action. Your body mobilises energy so that you can do something, so that you can move or decide or respond or resolve.
Heart rate rises, glucose is released, attention narrows onto the threat. It is a magnificent system and it works beautifully when action is available. You act, the situation resolves, the system settles, and you recover. Now, take away the action You can see the problem clearly. You know exactly what should be done.
You feel the urgency in your body, but you're not permitted to act on it because someone else holds the decision. That mobilized energy has nowhere to go. The system does not stand down because from its point of view, the threat is unresolved, so it stays switched on at a lower level, but for longer. And that's not a mood, that's a sustained physiological state, and maintaining it costs something.
The researchers call this accumulating cost allostatic load. The everyday version is a little simpler. Load control is stress without an exit. That's the whole mechanism in one sentence, and it explains why two people can carry identical workloads, but they can have completely different outcomes. The founder working 80 hours is not necessarily damaging themselves.
Difficult, yes. Unsustainable, probably. But they chose it. They can change it, and they can see why it matters. The coordinator working 38 hours on tasks they can't sequence, they can't prioritize or question, is a materially different physiological situation. Same industry, same building, different biology.
Let's move on to part two and talk about the micromanagement trap. Leaders, listen up. This is an uncomfortable truth that you need to hear right now. Leaders who remove the most control are rarely the callous ones. They're usually the anxious ones. You think about what happens to a leader under pressure.
Uncertainty rises. The board wants answers. Revenue's tight. Client's unhappy. A key person's just resigned. The leader's own nervous system registers threat, and a threatened system reaches for control, because control is the fastest available way to reduce the feeling of danger. So the leader tightens It's more check-ins, more approvals, more visibility, more sitting on things they used to delegate.
They ask to be copied in. They want the draft before it goes out. They start rewriting things they used to sign off on, and they're not actually trying to disempower anyone. They are trying to feel steady. But here is the mechanism that almost nobody names. Control is not created in that moment. It's actually transferred.
The leader takes control out of the team and moves it onto themselves. The leader's anxiety goes down because their, they now have their hands on the thing, and the team's go up by exactly the same amount, and this is the trap. It works. This is the problem. It genuinely does reduce the leader's anxiety in the short term, which is pres- precisely why it becomes habitual.
You are being rewarded immediately for reliability, for a behavior whose cost lands somewhere you can't see So I wanna say this plainly to anyone listening who recognises themselves. That instinct is human, and it's not a character flaw. I've done it. Most leaders I work with have done it. But if you do not notice it, you will regulate your own stress by exporting it downwards every time, and your people will pay for your calm.
So what does a team actually experience? This is a question I was actually asked recently, and it's, it's the right one, because leaders genuinely do not know. You can't see it from where you're standing. From your seat, it feels like diligence. From theirs, it feels like something else entirely. Let me walk you through what's actually happening on the other side of that dynamic.
The first thing that changes is attention. When a person is being closely watched, part of their cognitive resource shifts away from the tasks and onto managing your perception of them. They're no longer just doing the work. They are simultaneously running a second process, which is monitoring how the work will look to you.
They question themselves. And the second process is expensive. It uses the same executive function you need for judgment, problem-solving, and creative thinking. So the person becomes measurably worse at the thing you are watching them do, which confirms your instinct to watch them, which tightens the loop.
The second thing that changes is speed, in a way that looks like the opposite. People under close supervision often become faster at responding and slower at thinking. They reply to your message within, like, 90 seconds. They stop pausing long enough to notice that the plan has a flaw. You've optimized for responsiveness, and you've quietly de-optimized for judgment, 'cause you're now doing the judgment.
The third thing that changes is what gets told to you, and this is actually the most commercially dangerous one. In a high-surveillance environment, information becomes a risk, so people begin to manage what reaches you, not by lying, by sequencing. They wait until they have a solution before they tell you about the problem.
They tell you on Thursday rather than Tuesday. They present the version that's already resolved Which means the leader who tightens control in order to see more has, within about a quarter, a couple of months, ended up seeing a lot less. You have more data and less truth. And the fourth thing that changes is the internal story, and this is the one that does the long-term damage.
Being closely controlled does not read to a person as, "I'm under pressure." It reads as, "I'm not trusted." And once that interpretation sets, it stays. A piece of feedback that would've been useful evidence, a question about a deadline becomes a check, a leader dropping into a meeting becomes surveillance.
You didn't do any of that. You did not think of any of that, but the environment communicated it, and the environment is louder, a lot louder than your words. And there's some signs that you will see if it's already happening in your workplace. So let's make this really practical, because the whole point is to catch it early.
So here is what I look for when I walk into a business where control has been quietly withdrawn. Decisions that used to be made in the team now arrive at you. Not big ones, but small ones, things you wouldn't have been asked about 18 months ago. Or the phrase, "Just checking," appears constantly in messages.
"Just checking you're happy with this. Just checking before I send it." It's the linguistic fingerprint of withdrawn authority. Or your inbox is full of things that you're being informed about rather than asked about. People are creating a paper trail, and people create paper trails when they feel exposed.
They wanna cover themselves. Or meetings have become quieter. Not hostile, but quieter. There's fewer challenges, fewer alternative suggestions, faster agreement. Consensus that arrives too easily is almost never consensus. Or work comes to you in a more finalized state than it used to and later than it used to.
That is people protecting themselves for being seen mid-process Or the, the same two or three people are answering everything and everyone else has gone quiet. Withdrawn control does not distribute evenly. The most conscientious people observe it fi- first. Or errors are being reported after they're fixed rather than when they occur.
Or you've started to feel
that you cannot take leave and you're privately a little proud of that. And that last one is the tell I trust most. If the business cannot proceed without consulting you, that's not evidence of your value. It's actually a description of the system that you have built in which no one else is allowed to decide anything.
And there's also physical signs too, if you're willing to look at them. Think about increased sick leave, particularly single days. A rise in that I would call presentism, where people are online but their output has flattened. Higher error rates on routine tasks, which is a classic marker of cognitive load.
And people leaving for roles that are on paper sideways moves. No one leaves a good job for a lateral one because of money. They leave for room to breathe. The two flavors of it, it's worth separating two things because they need different responses. The first is what I would call anxious oversight, and this is the leader who checks, reviews, hovers, and re-reads.
It's driven by fear of things going wrong, and it tends to show up around risk, reputation, and money, and it usually intensifies in proportion to external pressure. The second is expertise capture. This is a leader who can't let go because they are genuinely better at a task, often because they did it for years before they led It's not fear-driven, it's standards-driven, and it's arguably harder to shift because the leader is right.
They would do it better. But being right about the quality gap is not the same as being right about the decision. If you do the work to your standard, well done. You've, you've bought a better output today, and you've prevented the person from ever reaching that standard themselves, and it means that you will still be doing it in three years at a cost of your own strategic capacity.
The uncomfortable truth for the expert leader is that developing someone, someone else, requires accepting worse output for a period. If you're not willing to accept that, you have not decided to maintain standards. You've decided not to develop anyone. Both flavors produce the same experience for the team, incidentally Whatever the internal motivation, whatever lands, it's the same message.
My judgment is not sufficient here. And let me tell you what it looks like when it goes right, 'cause I wanna give you the positive picture too. 'Cause it's easy to hear all of this as a list of things to, to stop doing, but a team with genuine control is not an unsupervised team. I wanna make that really clear.
Autonomy is not about being unsupervised. That's a misunderstanding, and I want to head off. High autonomy is not absence of leadership. It's a specific kind of leadership that is arguably harder, and it looks like this. Clarity without the outcome is unusually high because when you're not directing method, the destination has to be unambiguous.
Constraints are stated upfront rather than discovered through disapproval. There's a known escalation threshold, so people are clear about what they should bring to you and confident about everything below it. Mistakes surface fast because the environment does not punish them, which means that they get fixed while they're small, and the leader spends their time on the things only they can do because they're not adjudicating decisions two levels down.
And that f- team feels quite different to be in. There's less checking, there's more thinking. Meetings contain actual disagreement. People have opinions about things outside their own remit, which is the clearest sign of ownership there is. And the leader's calmer, and that's not because the business is easier, but it's because they're carrying a proportionate share of it, where control quietly disappears.
Control rarely leaves a business in a dramatic act. It leaves in small administrative increments that will all look sensible in isolation. The approval threshold that keeps getting lowered because of one bad decision two years ago. The meeting that used to be a decision and it's now a briefing. The phrase, "Just loop me in," which sounds collaborative and functions as a veto.
Priorities that change without explanation So no one can plan their own week. Tools introduced to give leadership visibility that gives employees the experience of being watched. Policies are announced rather than designed, so people learn the shape of their working life from an email. The standing invitation you accepted to a meeting you were not originally in And never left.
Any of these is defensible. Stacked together, they produce a role where a capable adult cannot make a meaningful decision about their own work without permission. And then we run an engagement survey, and we wonder why ownership's low. What the current data says, so this is not just an '80s problem, it's arguably worse now.
Gallup, with the State of the Global Workforce, says that around 41% of employees report experiencing significant stress during the previous day, and that wellbeing and engagement continue to move together, not separately. That's in their Workplace Wellbeing Report 2026. And there was a Workplace and Wellbeing Report done this year in 2026 at an American university.
They found that in a nationally representative sample of 2,000 US workers, 61% were classified as languishing at work. The strongest signals were not demographic, they were conditions of the workplace itself, and particularly autonomy and support. It wasn't age, it wasn't generation, it wasn't industry, it wasn't conditions.
Which is the good news because conditions are the things that you can actually control as a leader. The commercial cause, since it always comes up in the health argument, does not move your board. The performance argument might. People with low control do not make judgment calls. They escalate. So your senior people become a bottleneck for decisions that should never have actually reached them, and you end up personally adjudicating things that a competent adult two levels down could have resolved in four minutes.
People with low control do not surface problems early. Raising an issue you have no authority to fix is just volunteering for blame, so problems arrive late and expensive. People with low control, they do the job as instructed and nothing more. And it's not laziness. It's a rational response to an environment where initiative carries risk and no reward.
And people with low control leave, and it might not be immediately. They leave about six months after they stop arguing with you Which is why so many resignations feel like they come out of nowhere. They actually didn't. You just missed that moment when they stopped trying. And as a leader, you can't buy discretionary effort.
You can only create the conditions where it becomes safe and sensible. Okay, now let's get to the good bit. What to actually do about it. Now, this is the really useful part, so listen up. And I want you to be honest with yourself, not work on your team, because the source of the problem is upstream. So one, catch the tightening in the moment.
The next time that you feel the urge to add an approval step, insert yourself into something, or ask to see a draft before it goes out, pause and ask one question, "What problem am I resolving here? Theirs or mine?" Because sometimes the honest answer will be that there is genuine risk that you are the right person to hold it.
Fine. Do it deliberately. But a great deal of the time, the honest answer is that you are uncomfortable and this makes you feel better Naming that to yourself silently in the moment is the single most useful habit in this entire episode. You do not have to fix the anxiety. You have to stop routing it through other people.
Number two, find another client for the anxiety because it does not disappear because you decided not to micromanage, and this is where most leaders fail. They read something like this, resolve to back off, and then find that the discomfort is intolerable. So within three weeks, they're back to checking everything.
The behavior was doing a job. If you remove it without replacing it, the pressure finds another route, usually a worse one. So build the outlets deliberately. A peer group of other leaders, so you have somewhere to take the uncertainty that's not your team. A coach or supervisor, and I mean that in the clinical sense of a structured reflective space, not a performance coach.
Genuine physical discharge, because a mobilized stress response responds to movement far more readily than it responds to insight, and a small number of people at your level with whom you can be unfinished. Number three, audit decision rights, not workloads. Pick three roles in your business, write down every decision that role can make alone, every decision it can make with a heads-up, and every decision it needs permission for.
Most leaders when they do that are genuinely surprised by what lands in that third column. Then ask the harder question, "Which of these needs my approval because of real risk, and which needs it because of my discomfort?" Then give at least two things back explicitly out loud so it's unambiguous. "From now on, you decide this and you do not need to check with me."
It's not implied, it's stated. Number four, give the why and the boundary, not the method. Tell people what outcome you need, what the non-negotiables are, and what the constraints are. Then leave the how alone. When you dictate method, you keep accountability with yourself, and you remove the only part of the work that generates ownership.
Number five, when you cannot reduce pressure, restore predictability. Some periods are genuinely relentless. You cannot always give people less to do, but predictability is a form of control. Consistent communication rhythms, clear sequencing, naming what is not going to change, telling people they will know something even if you cannot tell them what yet.
Predictability lets the nervous system settle even when the workload doesn't, and that's one of the most underused levers in leadership. Number six, say the quiet part out loud when you are under pressure. If you're having a difficult month and you can feel yourself gripping, tell them. One sentence, "I'm aware that I've been across everything more than usual.
This is about the board meeting. It's not about your work." And that sentence costs you nothing, but it removes an enormous amount of interpretive load from your team, because in the absence of an explanation, people supply their own, and it's almost always about them. Number seven, ask a better question than, "Are you okay?"
Nobody answers that honestly to the person who controls their income. Ask instead, "What decision are you currently waiting on me for?" Or, "What's the one thing that you would do differently if you did not have to ask?" Those questions produce actual information, because they're about the work rather than about the person's feelings towards you.
How to give it back without dropping everything. So I've got one caution here, because I've seen this go badly, where leaders decide to loosen their grip. They sometimes do it all at once and call it empowerment. Then something goes wrong. They snap back harder than before, and the team learns that autonomy here is a condition- is conditional and it's temporary, and that's worse than never having offered it.
So do it deliberately. Hand back one clearly defined decision. Say exactly what it covers and what its limits are. Agree how you will know it's going to go well, and then leave it alone, including on the occasion when they do it differently to how you would've done it. The last part is the test. If you hand over a decision and then correct the first output, you have not delegated.
You've set a trap, and people learn very quickly which of those they are being offered. The other thing worth saying is that autonomy without capability is actually abandonment, and it produces its own anxiety. If someone is genuinely not ready for a decision, giving it to them is not generous. Be honest about that.
Name it as a development p- path with a timeline, and then support them towards it. "I want you making this call within six months, so let's talk through how you're thinking about it each time until then." That's not micromanagement, and it's not abandonment. It's actually your job, and this matters most for you, not just them.
So I wanna close on the part that gets left out of these conversations The leader who holds all the control is not thriving either. You've made yourself the single point of failure in your own business. You can't take a genuine holiday. You can't be ill. You're carrying a volume of decisions that would be unremarkable if distributed, and it's crushing when concentrated.
And the exhaustion that you feel is not evidence of how much the business needs you. I wanna be really clear with that. It's actually the evidence of a design flaw that you are personally absorbing. Letting go of control is not generosity towards your team. It's the only way you get your own capacity back.
The Whitehall Findings are, yep, they're in the '80s, they're nearly 30 years old, and most organizations still design work of i- as if pressure were the problem. Pressure with agency is challenge. Pressure without agency is harm. Same load, completely different outcome, and the variable is you. So this week, before you add another check-in, another approval step, another sign-off, ask yourself honestly what problem are you solving?
Is it theirs or is it yours? And if the answer is yours, this is not a failure. That's the moment you actually get to lead. Thank you for listening. I would love to hear where control has quietly disappeared in your business, because once you start looking, you will find it everywhere. If this episode resonated with you, if there's leaders within your business that you feel it would be helpful for them to hear this, please share the episode with them.
I look forward to seeing you next time. Thanks for joining me on Kan Talk Culture. I'm Kylie Anne Neil. I hope today's episode gave you a clearer view into the values driving your workplace or sparked new ideas about building a remarkable company culture. If you're a founder or CEO interested in sharing your culture story, or if you're looking to build a safer, stronger, and more trusted workplace, let's connect.
Visit kanculture.com, that's K-A-N-K-U-L-T-U-R-E.com to learn more. Please hit that subscribe button to hear more real conversations with founders and CEOs and hands-on episodes full of people first culture advice. I look forward to connecting with you on our next episode