Photo by Edwin Hooper  on Unsplash During the pandemic, we lost much more than routines; we lost mental space and psychological resources. The implicit belief that stress was something of quiet endurance was stripped away. Discussions focused on vaccines and lockdowns and infection rates to cope with the mental strain of COVID-19’s impact on our experiences. But how did people manage their inner experience? Research suggests that playfulness had an active role in a person’s a

Photo by Antonio Gabola  on Unsplash What if a major problem at work is not the lack of focus, but instead, the lack of play? Wellbeing, as instructed by organisations, can be managed by reducing stress or increasing resilience, or squeezing mindfulness in between meetings. While these are useful techniques, what if there’s one major practice missing? Play does not have to be a break from work. What happens when it’s integrated into the way  we work? A different type of inte

Photo by Rosalind Chang  on Unsplash Somewhere along our timeline, the meaning of ‘play’ changed. Now, it is childish, and maturity comes from being serious, and those things that look joyful probably aren’t important. This ideology weaves through our workplaces, in how we reward behaviour and praise exhaustion while mistrusting ease. What if play was actually fundamental to our wellbeing? What if it isn’t something that distracts us from responsibility but evokes our alivene

Photo by Vlad Hilitanu  on Unsplash What comes to mind when someone says the word ‘play’? Frivolity? Distraction? Is it a childlike quality? In a professional environment, it’s not commonly encouraged, but rather, it’s a reward for when the ‘real work’ has been completed. Between the performance reviews, productivity hacks and ‘get your head down’ attitude, play is often seen as inefficient and generally expendable. The unserious nature of play is exactly why it’s been overlo

Photo by thom masat  on Unsplash There is often a divide between the professional and intangible, especially within leadership. Tangible measures, frameworks and technical competencies and the addition of more is where most leadership development teeters, but it may be the case that in order to effectively lead, we need to sway away from the measurable and move towards that which cannot be quantified; their inner selves. Science and organisational research pokes at the idea o

Photo by Yeshi Kangrang  on Unsplash How are leaders perceived? And which metrics mean the most? Pressure from organisational structures (expectations of speed, optimisation and unbeatable KPIs) quickly becomes corrosive to real human interaction. Meeting slots are full, calendars are packed, and words are exchanged constantly; but genuine connection rarely is. Employees spending their work life in a cycle without acknowledgement is a sure case for disengagement. This begs

Photo by Richard Horvath  on Unsplash Flow state. A psychological phenomenon where our attention is so absorbed that self-consciousness fades, time distorts and action feels effortless. The perfect middle ground, the match of challenge and skill in a dynamic balance. Flow is not simply a pleasant high, it’s a measurable state associated with deeper learning, creativity and sustained performance. It is also a catalyst for creating meaning in both work and life. The professiona

Photo by Yener Ozturk  on Unsplash It is not a unique experience to feel disconnected from the person at the helm; the COVID-19 pandemic made that painfully clear for many. What if the main, undeniably effective, quality of a leader is not about ability to strategise or make amazing PowerPoint slides, but simply being present… and not physically or performatively present, but there and aware throughout upheaval, mess and chaos. When organisational structure changes, the abse

Photo by Jehyun Sung  on Unsplash What makes a great leader? Decisiveness? Strategy? Or is human-centred leadership the quality we invoke when the old answers no longer hold? We talk about leading with purpose, emotional intelligence and culture, yet leaders are almost exclusively trained in external mechanics like performance frameworks and influence models. Why, if leaders are trained to execute impersonal methods, are we surprised when burnout spreads? Or when decision m