Knowledge Base
How-to Guides
Step-by-step guides for common HR situations, each built on sourced, dated notes.
Compassion: the practice
-
Dignity and risk: why the manner of dismissal matters — legally and to the team
Canadian law imposes a duty of good faith in the manner of dismissal (Honda v. Keays; Wallace), so insensitive or misleading conduct can ground additional damages; organizational-justice and survivor research independently show the manner shapes fairness perceptions, litigation, and the remaining team.
-
Do compassionate-leave, bereavement, and supportive return-to-work practices matter — and what does Ontario or Canada require?
Ontario/Canada set a statutory floor for bereavement, family-medical/caregiver and compassionate-care leave (verify live figures at the government source), and the strongest outcome evidence is for supportive, multi-domain return-to-work practices, which reliably cut sickness-absence duration for musculoskeletal conditions but show weaker effects for mental-health conditions.
-
Do EAPs and workplace mental-health supports work?
EAPs show modest, real benefits (mainly reduced absenteeism/presenteeism) but weak effects on psychological distress, suffer from low utilization, and — being individual-level fixes — under-perform when the real driver is workload or job design; the widely-cited ROI figures are largely vendor estimates, not measured effects.
-
Do flexibility and job control (flexible hours, autonomy) improve well-being?
Flexibility that gives the worker more control or choice (self-scheduling, employee-controlled hours) is associated with better health and well-being, but employer-driven flexibility is not — and the highest-quality evidence is thin and cautious about magnitude.
-
Does manager or supervisor support actually buffer strain and reduce burnout?
Supportive supervision is a genuine job resource that is reliably associated with lower burnout and higher engagement, though most evidence is correlational and the buffering effect is moderate, not a cure.
-
Does training managers to manage better actually improve employee health?
Training supervisors in supportive management is a plausible and popular lever, but the controlled evidence that it improves employees' health, stress, or absenteeism is currently weak and inconsistent — and organization-directed change outperforms individual-directed change.
-
What actually causes burnout — and what are the six areas of worklife a manager can act on?
Burnout is best understood as a chronic mismatch between a person and six measurable conditions of their job — workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values — making it primarily an organizational problem managers can act on, not a personal weakness.
Coaching: the practice
-
Do development plans, stretch assignments, and the 70-20-10 rule actually develop people?
70-20-10 is a practitioner heuristic with little rigorous empirical support and should not be cited as an established ratio; the better-evidenced core is that challenging job experiences drive development — but with diminishing returns, and unsupported overload harms.
-
Does training managers to coach (and adopting a coaching culture) change behaviour and outcomes?
Coaching is a learnable managerial capability — brief mindset training can shift coaching behaviour and field studies show skills training transfers to observer-rated behaviour — but the evidence is small-sample, often self-report, and coaching-culture ROI figures are vendor claims, not controlled findings.
-
How do you diagnose underperformance — can't vs won't?
Before any performance process, first rule out a Human Rights Code-protected cause (duty to accommodate); then diagnose whether the gap is incapacity ('can't' — skill, clarity, tools, fit — performance management) or a choice ('won't' — conduct — discipline).
-
How do you have a career or growth conversation that keeps a high-potential person engaged?
Career/growth conversations and stay interviews are widely recommended for retaining ambitious people — surface what they want, be honest about real opportunities rather than over-promising, and give stretch in the meantime — but they rest on thin controlled evidence and borrow their strength from the development/retention literature.
-
How do you structure a coaching conversation — and does the GROW model actually work?
GROW is the most widely taught coaching-conversation structure but is a practitioner framework with little controlled evidence for the acronym itself; its components draw on better-evidenced mechanisms (goal-setting and solution-focused questioning).
-
Is asking really better than telling — does an inquiry approach develop people more?
A questioning/inquiry approach is supported by autonomy-support theory and some controlled question-type studies, but direct head-to-head asking-vs-telling causal evidence is limited and context-dependent — telling is sometimes correct (novices, emergencies).
Courage: the practice
-
Do performance improvement plans (PIPs) actually work — and how do you run one in good faith?
Rigorous evidence that PIPs rehabilitate performance is thin; in practice they often function as documentation and a runway to exit. If you use one, make it specific, achievable, time-bound, and genuinely resourced — and know that a PIP designed to fail can create bad-faith legal exposure in Ontario.
-
How do you actually conduct a difficult conversation?
The dominant how-to models (Difficult Conversations; Crucial Conversations) are credible practitioner frameworks that converge on sensible elements — separate intent from impact, make it safe, state the issue plainly, inquire into the other view — but independent controlled outcome evidence for these branded methods is essentially absent.
-
How do you make candor normal — building a team where hard conversations happen routinely?
Routine upward candor is driven more by specific leader behaviours — visible openness, inviting input, and responding non-punitively — than by exhortation; field research links managerial openness to employee voice via psychological safety, and a feedback-oriented culture makes give-and-take normal rather than exceptional.
-
How should a manager deliver corrective feedback so it is heard and acted on?
The evidenced principle is to focus feedback on specific behaviour and its impact rather than on the person's character — meta-analysis shows feedback that shifts attention to the self tends to backfire — while the popular packaging (CCL's SBI, Radical Candor) is a useful practitioner articulation of that principle, not independently proven technique.
-
How to conduct a termination meeting — 'blunt but warm'
A termination meeting should deliver a final, clearly-stated decision quickly and without debate, while treating the person with visible respect: clear and final on the decision, humane in the delivery.
-
The termination meeting checklist — what to have ready and what not to do
Before the meeting, have entitlements, paperwork, a witness, logistics, and a communication plan ready; in the room, avoid the recurring traps of over-explaining, unplanned promises, arguing the decision, and careless timing.
-
When do you keep coaching someone — and when do you manage them out?
Coaching can fix skill, clarity, and confidence gaps but not fundamental fit or motivation problems; when honest, resourced effort over a reasonable period hasn't moved performance, the humane call is a clear-eyed handoff to the exit track.
-
Why do leaders put off tough decisions — and does delay make the problem worse?
A cluster of well-replicated biases (status-quo bias, omission bias, choice deferral) reliably pushes leaders toward inaction on hard calls; the it-only-gets-harder-if-you-wait claim is intuitive and consistent with the biases but is not itself precisely quantified in the decision-psychology literature.
-
Why do managers avoid difficult conversations and withhold bad news?
Reluctance to deliver bad news is a robust, decades-old behavioural phenomenon (the MUM effect) driven by fear of the recipient's reaction and relationship-protection; the widely-cited 69%/37% figures are from a single non-probability vendor survey and should be treated as illustrative, not measured prevalence.
Connecting: the practice
-
Do skip-level meetings and frequent feedback add connection beyond the direct manager?
Frequent, meaningful manager feedback is one of the strongest engagement predictors in the evidence base (employees who get valuable feedback are about 5x as likely to be engaged), supporting a high-frequency feedback rhythm even where the specific skip-level format is consensus rather than proven.
-
Does a manager's visible presence and responsiveness actually matter?
The popular 'showing up is most of success' adage has no research standing; the closest real evidence is that manager and relationship quality strongly predict engagement and outcomes, while mere physical presence (management by walking around) is unproven and can backfire unless it drives problem-solving.
-
How do you build connection on a hybrid or remote team?
Hybrid and remote work are verified not to hurt productivity and to cut attrition by about a third (Bloom RCTs), but connection and belonging measurably erode unless managers counter the drift deliberately — and that connection evidence is softer, mostly vendor survey data.
-
How often should one-on-ones happen, and what makes them work?
Regular manager–report one-on-ones are well supported as relationship-builders (an LMX meta-analysis links relationship quality to satisfaction r≈.50 and turnover intent r≈−.31); the specific weekly-30-minute cadence rests on practitioner survey data, not causal proof.
-
Remote and hybrid onboarding - what changes for a distributed or hybrid employer
Distance most degrades social acceptance and informal culture transfer - the adjustment dimension hardest to deliver virtually - so remote and hybrid onboarding must deliberately engineer connection; the rigorous, remote-specific evidence is thin and post-2020.
-
The manager's role in onboarding (vs. HR's)
The direct manager - not HR - is the variable that most moves new-hire retention and time-to-productivity, because the manager is the primary source of role clarity, feedback, social integration, and the day-to-day relationship that newcomer adjustment depends on.
-
What a good first 90 days looks like - the 30/60/90 structure
A good first 90 days front-loads preparation (preboarding), role clarity, and social connection with a regular manager check-in cadence; the specific '30/60/90' template is practitioner scaffolding with no rigorous origin, not a tested formula.
-
What check-in and meeting rhythm keeps a team connected without overloading it?
A light, deliberate meeting rhythm beats sheer meeting volume: meeting-science evidence shows more meetings can reduce productivity and wellbeing, and daily standups have far less rigorous support than their popularity implies.
Clarity: the practice
-
Do team charters improve team performance?
Team charters reliably improve team processes (cohesion, communication, effort, satisfaction) but generally do not improve hard performance directly — they help only conditionally (paired with task strategy, or as a substitute for low conscientiousness), and the evidence base is thin and mostly student samples.
-
Does narrowing to fewer, clearer priorities improve execution and focus?
The cognitive cost of switching between tasks (attention residue) is well-evidenced, which supports protecting focus and limiting concurrent priorities; the broader strategy-execution consulting claims about prioritization are directional practitioner findings, not causal proof.
-
Does setting honest expectations up front (realistic job previews) reduce turnover?
Realistic job previews reliably but modestly reduce turnover and improve role clarity, met expectations, honesty perceptions, and commitment — a small, low-cost, well-replicated effect (voluntary-turnover correlations around r = −.06 to −.09), not a dramatic one.
-
Does writing goals down actually make them more likely to happen?
The famous Harvard/Yale study showing 3% who wrote goals down out-earned everyone is a documented fabrication; merely writing a goal has weak evidence, but forming an implementation intention (an if-then plan specifying when, where and how) is well-evidenced, with a medium-to-large effect (d ≈ .65) on goal attainment.
-
How do you set expectations so they actually land — and does the SMART goals format help?
Making expectations explicit and specific reliably helps performance, but the SMART acronym itself has essentially no rigorous evidence that the format improves outcomes — the evidenced mechanism is goal specificity and difficulty, not the mnemonic.
-
What communication norms keep expectations clear on a team — especially hybrid or remote?
Explicit communication norms are sensible and address a documented failure mode (the mutual-knowledge problem in dispersed teams), but the causal evidence that writing down communication guidelines improves outcomes is thin and largely cross-sectional — most communication best practice is consultant consensus.
Compliance calendar
-
The Ontario employer compliance year
A plain map of the recurring statutory obligations an Ontario SMB employer faces across the year — CRA payroll, provincial employment and tax rules, OHSA, AODA, Pay Equity and WSIB — organized by their durable recurrence patterns, with every exact date and dollar figure confirmed at the named government source rather than frozen here.