When Systems Confuse Control with Care
“When we are no longer able to change a situation, we are challenged to change ourselves.”
Here's what we keep seeing across the organizations we work with.
A difficult decision gets made. Legal reviews it. HR drafts the email. The email goes out. It's clean, it's neutral, it covers the company. And it communicates almost nothing about the human being on the other end.
No conversation. No context. No acknowledgment that something difficult just happened or that the person mattered while they were there.
Sometimes it's worse. The realization comes through a calendar block, a system notification, or a message that reads like it was written by someone who was never allowed to care.
We see this pattern most clearly around exits, transitions, and moments of rupture, but it shows up anywhere uncertainty enters a system. When uncertainty enters, something predictable happens: fear rises, control tightens, and belonging becomes fragile.
Most systems don't experience uncertainty as a neutral condition. They experience it as a threat. Under threat, procedures harden.
Documentation increases. Discretion narrows. Context collapses. Human nuance flattens into behavior stripped of meaning.
This doesn't happen because people stop caring. It happens because fear narrows perception. Under stress, systems confuse control with safety.
But control doesn't create trust. And safety without trust isn't actually safety.
The people who are left behind, or asked to leave, are watching. They learn what is truly valued not from the website but from lived experience.
So what should actually happen instead?
Moments of exit, rupture, or uncertainty deserve a real conversation. A live meeting, not an email. A phone call at minimum, with a human voice. Someone who can say: this is hard. Here’s why this decision was made. Here’s what you contributed. Here’s what worked and what didn’t. And here’s why this needs to happen, even though it’s painful.
That's not softening the blow. That's treating someone like a person.
And here's what most leaders don't realize: it's also the strategically smart thing to do.
Why Relational Exits Actually Protect Organizations
Most institutions assume that cold, procedural exits are the safer path legally, reputationally, and operationally. The research says otherwise.
A landmark study by Gerald Hickson and colleagues at Vanderbilt found that only 24% of families who filed malpractice claims after perinatal injuries did so for financial reasons. The rest cited recognizing a cover-up, needing information, feeling disrespected, and wanting to protect others from similar harm. Most people don't take action because they want money. They take action because they feel unseen.
When hospitals shifted to transparent, human communication, what's called a Communication and Resolution Program, the results were striking. The University of Michigan Health System saw malpractice claims drop by nearly 36%, and average cost per claim fell from over $400,000 to roughly $228,000. Research from Georgia State University found these programs can reduce claims by as much as 50%.
The principle applies directly to organizations. When exits feel cold, opaque, or dismissive, the emotional conditions are remarkably similar: a sense of being unseen, a perception of dishonesty, and a feeling that the institution didn't value them enough to be truthful. Those are the conditions that breed not just resentment, they invite claims.
The Psychology Behind It
Uncertainty threatens two core human needs: control and belonging. When those needs are activated, nervous systems move into protection mode. For individuals, that looks like defensiveness or withdrawal. For systems, it looks like rigidity, risk aversion, and over-reliance on rules.
The problem isn't accountability. The problem is accountability without relationship.
Healthy systems don't abandon standards under stress. They are able to maintain proportionality, context, and dignity especially when things are hard.
The Groops Take
At Groops, we see teams come to us asking how to enforce standards more effectively, reduce risk, or "get people back in line." But the real leverage almost always sits elsewhere: in how leaders tolerate uncertainty, respond to fear, hold nuance under pressure, and preserve relationship while exercising authority.
Psychologically healthy systems don't just manage risk. They manage human impact.
Uncertainty isn't going away. The question is whether our systems meet it with containment or with care.
Something to Try: The Real Exit Conversation
Before the next transition or difficult decision lands on someone's desk, try this:
Replace the email with a conversation. A live meeting or phone call first - an email can always be sent after the meeting for documentation.
Name the difficulty. Say it out loud: this is hard. Don't pretend it isn't.
Acknowledge what mattered. Tell them what they contributed. What worked. What you'll carry forward.
Explain the why. Even when it's painful, people can handle honesty. They can't handle feeling like they didn't matter.
No script needed. Just a decision to show up as a human being.
Ready to Build a Culture That Holds Under Pressure?
At Groops, we help teams and leaders navigate uncertainty without losing what matters most: trust, cohesion, and human connection. If you're facing a transition, a difficult exit, or a season of pressure, let’s talk about how to do it well.
And if you’re developing new managers who are stepping into these moments, our Emerging Leaders cohort gives them the tools, language, and support to lead people through complexity before pressure turns into fallout. Sign up below!