Peter James

Why appreciation is a leadership responsibility—not an optional personality trait

One of our clients described a conversation that stopped her in her tracks.

She was presenting to leaders in her organisation about people engagement. The overwhelming response was a question:

“Why should I say thank you to someone for just doing their job?”

It is worth taking that question seriously.

Organisations employ people to perform particular roles. They pay for their skills, set expectations and expect those expectations to be met. Leaders should not have to manufacture excitement over every completed task or describe ordinary performance as exceptional.

But the question contains an assumption: that work only deserves acknowledgement when it goes beyond what someone was employed to do.

That is where the argument starts to fall apart.

Expected does not mean unimportant. And being paid does not make a person’s contribution unworthy of appreciation.

“Just doing the job” may be exactly what you need to value

Consider what “doing the job” means in a technical or healthcare environment.

It might mean checking information carefully, documenting a decision clearly, explaining a procedure to an anxious patient, maintaining equipment correctly or providing a thorough handover to the next team.

None of these activities needs to be extraordinary to be valuable.

A useful question for leaders is: What would happen if this work were not done well?

If the answer involves confusion, rework, delays, missed information or poorer service, then the work matters. Its inclusion in a position description does not diminish that value.

There is also a difference between appreciation and an award.

A bonus might recognise exceptional achievement. A promotion might recognise readiness for greater responsibility. A simple thank you acknowledges a contribution.

You can say, “Thank you for the care you took with that,” without suggesting the person has exceeded every expectation or earned a special reward.

You are not paying them twice. You are communicating that you noticed.

 

What DiSC helps us understand—and what it does not

In the situation our client described, the organisation combined highly technical work with healthcare delivery. DiSC offered a useful way to explore different approaches to work and relationships.

Within the DiSC framework, C—Conscientiousness—emphasises accuracy, quality, expertise and questioning assumptions. S—Steadiness—emphasises support, cooperation, stability and sincere appreciation. Both styles can place considerable value on consistency and dependable work.

A task-focused leader might think:

“The standard was clear. The work met the standard. There is nothing more to discuss.”

Another person might experience the same exchange differently:

“I put care and effort into that work. Did anyone notice what I contributed?”

Neither perspective needs to be dismissed. The leadership task is to understand the difference and respond appropriately.

However, it would be a mistake to conclude that C styles are uninterested in recognition. Our DiSC training explicitly identifies recognition of specific skills and accomplishments as something C styles can value. A precise acknowledgement of sound analysis may be more meaningful than an enthusiastic but vague “You’re amazing!”

Equally, appreciating warmth and acknowledgement does not make an S-style employee less professional, less capable or unable to accept difficult feedback.

DiSC should help leaders ask better questions—not give them permission to put people in boxes.

The useful question is not, “Which types need thanking?”

It is, “How does this person prefer their contribution to be acknowledged?”

Ask rather than assume. A private conversation, a brief written message and public recognition are different experiences. A profile is a starting point for understanding someone, not a substitute for getting to know them.

“It is not in my nature” is a starting point, not an exemption

Some leaders are naturally expressive. Others are reserved, analytical or uncomfortable discussing feelings.

Good leadership does not require everyone to become outgoing or effusive. It does require leaders to develop behaviours that help other people work effectively.

At Career Life Transitions, we describe leadership as an “achievement oriented, relationship-based endeavour.” Results matter, and so do the relationships through which those results are achieved.

We would not usually accept a leader saying, “Planning is not in my nature, so I do not plan,” or, “Difficult conversations make me uncomfortable, so I avoid them.”

People engagement deserves the same seriousness.

A leader may genuinely feel little need for personal praise. But that does not establish what everyone else needs. Nor does it mean that colleagues who appreciate acknowledgement are asking for something unreasonable.

The responsibility is to lead the people in front of you—not an imagined team of people who think exactly as you do.

There is a difference between being false and being deliberate. False appreciation praises something you do not believe deserves praise. Deliberate appreciation means noticing something worthwhile and making the effort to say so.

You do not have to become a different person. You may need to expand what you do.

The case extends well beyond personality preferences

Research provides reasons to take recognition seriously, without pretending that two words will solve every workplace problem.

In a controlled field experiment published in Management Science, more than 300 people were employed to complete a three-hour data-entry task. Introducing unexpected public recognition increased subsequent performance. The effects depended on how recognition was allocated, with much of the improvement coming from people who had not received it. This was a short-term experiment involving structured recognition—not a test of everyday private thanks—but it challenges the assumption that recognition adds nothing once people are already being paid.

A different kind of evidence comes from Gallup and Workhuman. They tracked nearly 3,500 employees from 2022 to 2024 and found that well-recognised employees were 45% less likely to have changed organisations two years later. This was an observational finding: it does not prove that saying thank you causes a 45% reduction in turnover. It does show a substantial relationship between high-quality recognition and retention.

There is also a broader explanation for why acknowledgement might matter. Self-determination theory identifies autonomy, competence and relatedness—having agency, feeling capable and feeling connected to others—as important psychological needs supporting motivation.

A reasonable leadership application is that specific, sincere appreciation can communicate two things at once: your contribution was effective, and you matter to this team. That is quite different from using praise to control someone or make them feel indebted.

The evidence does not support a universal formula for appreciation. It does support taking the human experience of work seriously.

 

In technical and healthcare teams, people engagement is not a distraction from quality

A technical leader might reasonably ask, “Shouldn’t we concentrate on getting the work right?”

Yes. The question is whether relationships and communication help people do that work.

Research by Ingrid Nembhard and Amy Edmondson examined 23 neonatal intensive care units involved in quality-improvement projects. Leaders who invited and appreciated others’ contributions were associated with greater psychological safety and engagement in improvement work. This was research into inclusive leadership—not proof that thank you alone improves patient outcomes—but it is directly relevant to environments where different professions and levels of seniority must work together.

Consider a colleague who raises a concern.

“Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Let’s check it” is a different leadership response from “That is your job.”

The first response acknowledges the contribution without deciding, prematurely, whether the concern is correct. It leaves room to investigate, learn and act.

Of course, the words must be followed by an appropriate response. Thanking someone for speaking up and then ignoring the concern is not meaningful engagement.

As we explored in Culture Is What People Learn to Expect, people form expectations from repeated experiences of what leaders notice, welcome, dismiss and follow through. Appreciation is one part of that everyday pattern—not a replacement for it.

The practical implication is not to choose people over standards. It is to build relationships that help people discuss, maintain and improve those standards.

 

Appreciation does not need to be elaborate

For leaders who find acknowledgement awkward, the solution is not to become more theatrical. It is to become more specific.

A useful structure is:

What you noticed + why it mattered + thank you.

For example:

“You picked up the inconsistency before the report was issued. That gave us the chance to correct it. Thank you for checking it carefully.”

“I noticed how clearly you explained the next steps to that patient. You gave them time to ask questions. Thank you for the care you took.”

“Your handover clearly separated what was complete from what still needed attention. That made it easier for the next team to pick up the work. Thank you.”

These are acknowledgements of observable work, not inflated assessments of someone’s character.

They also make the standard explicit. The leader is identifying accuracy, care and clear communication as contributions worth noticing.

Research suggests we may overestimate how awkward appreciation will feel to the recipient. Across three experiments involving gratitude letters, Amit Kumar and Nicholas Epley found that people expressing gratitude underestimated recipients’ positive reactions and overestimated their discomfort. These were not workplace-performance experiments, but they offer a useful challenge to the assumption that appreciation will be unwelcome simply because expressing it feels uncomfortable.

The point is not to deliver a perfect speech. It is to say something truthful.

 

Notice the dependable work—not only the dramatic rescue

Leaders should also examine what attracts their attention.

Do you notice the person who quietly prevents a problem, or only the person who resolves the crisis?

Do you acknowledge careful preparation, or only visible delivery?

Do you thank those who help colleagues understand the work, or only those who present the final result?

A practical test is to look beyond the people who are most visible or most comfortable drawing attention to their achievements.

Recognition should be fair, specific and connected to real contributions. WorkSafe Queensland’s guidance recommends acknowledging work outputs as well as ideas and behaviours, providing prompt and practical feedback, and consulting workers about what recognition is meaningful to them.

This does not require a quota of compliments. It requires attention.

Try asking yourself at the end of a working day:

What went well today because someone did their job carefully—and did I acknowledge it?

 

Appreciation and accountability belong together

Saying thank you does not mean avoiding underperformance.

You can appreciate one contribution while addressing a separate problem. You can thank someone for reporting an error while still examining how the error happened. You can acknowledge effort without claiming that the result met the required standard.

The important thing is to be accurate about both.

“Thank you for telling me promptly” is not the same as “The mistake does not matter.”

“I appreciate the preparation you put into this” is not the same as “The work is ready to approve.”

Leaders do not have to choose between being demanding and being respectful. They should expect themselves to be both.

Equally, appreciation should not become the automatic opening line before criticism or a request for more work. Sometimes a thank you should simply be a thank you.

And no, thank you is not enough

There is an important boundary to this argument.

Appreciation does not compensate for unfair pay, chronic understaffing, unreasonable workloads, poor equipment, limited development or a manager who does not listen.

Our article on wellbeing initiatives and psychosocial safety made the same underlying point: positive initiatives do not remove the need to address problems in the design and management of work.

“Thank you for everything you do” should not become shorthand for “Please continue absorbing a problem we are unwilling to fix.”

The stronger response may be:

“Thank you for managing a difficult week. The workload was not reasonable. We need to address what caused it.”

Australian workplace-safety guidance also recognises low reward and recognition as a potential psychosocial hazard, particularly where exposure is frequent, prolonged or severe. That is not a claim that every missed thank you is harmful. It is a reminder that persistent patterns of how people are treated deserve management attention.

Appreciation belongs alongside fair treatment and practical support—not in place of them.

 

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question

“Why should I say thank you to someone for just doing their job?” focuses on whether the employee has earned something extra.

A better leadership question is:

“What am I communicating when important work is consistently done well, and I never acknowledge it?”

Not every completed task needs applause. Not every employee wants public praise. Not every thank you needs to become a conversation.

But work can be ordinary, expected and still worth appreciating.

Saying thank you need not lower standards, weaken authority or make you less authentic. Done sincerely, it is an opportunity to show that you understand the work, recognise its value and respect the person doing it.

Doing the work is their job. Leading the people who do it is yours.