Every leader will recognise this moment. Someone new joins the team, or steps into a stretch role, and you see that mixture of alertness and fear in their eyes. They nod, they take notes, they say the right things, but underneath you can almost hear the question: Am I going to be enough here? It is tempting to respond with reassurance, or with efficiency. We set out expectations, share plans, and show support through structure. All useful, but sometimes too soon. Because confidence does not start with plans or encouragement. It starts with belonging.

When people are new, uncertain, or suddenly visible, what they are really scanning for is safety. They are looking for small social signs that say, you are welcome, you will not be exposed here, your learning is allowed. Research on psychological safety confirms that people take interpersonal risks only when they believe those risks will not lead to embarrassment or punishment (Edmondson, 1999). In many organisations, we underestimate this early stage. We assume confidence arrives from competence, and competence comes from performance. Yet confidence is often the precondition, not the result. When people feel trusted to participate before they are proven, their contribution accelerates. This is supported by findings on autonomy and intrinsic motivation, which show that people perform best when they experience choice and relatedness (Deci and Ryan, 2000).

You can watch this in any team that handles newcomers well. Conversations are frequent, feedback is specific, and leaders pay attention to the human as much as to the task. The tone is not “earn your place” but “let’s find your place.” It is an invitation to step forward, not a test to survive. This kind of leadership is not soft. It demands attention, restraint, and a willingness to listen longer than feels comfortable. But it pays back quickly. Once people feel seen, they begin to risk ideas. Once they risk ideas, capability unfolds.

Confidence grows quietly, in small exchanges, before it shows up in visible performance. The leader’s role is to notice and nurture that fragile beginning, to create the conditions in which people can practise being brave. So before any model or process, there is this simple truth: confidence starts in relationship. It starts when someone experiences leadership as a form of welcome.

What behavioural science knows about confidence

Confidence is not personality; it is a pattern of reinforcement. It strengthens through experience, not through affirmation.

Behavioural psychology has spent decades mapping how this happens. Bandura (1997) described confidence as self-efficacy, the belief that one’s actions can produce desired outcomes. He identified four main routes through which it grows: mastery experiences, observing others’ success, constructive feedback, and emotional regulation. These mechanisms explain why learning by doing, seeing peers succeed, and receiving specific feedback all accelerate confidence.

Modern neuroscience adds further insight. Schultz (2016) showed that the brain learns from the difference between expected and actual results, known as reward prediction error. When the outcome is slightly better than expected, dopamine reinforces the behaviour that led to it. This means small, authentic wins are biologically rewarding and strengthen persistence. Glimcher (2011) also links this reinforcement effect to decision-making and motivation, confirming that progress often matters more than praise.

Social and motivational theory provides the next layer. Deci and Ryan (2000) argued that confidence and sustained motivation depend on three needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When leaders design environments that meet these needs, performance and learning both rise. Conversely, when people feel controlled, excluded, or unclear, their capability diminishes.

Leadership, then, is the practice of shaping experiences that meet these psychological conditions. It is not about supplying confidence through reassurance, but about helping others gather evidence of their own effectiveness. Bandura (1997) found that mastery experiences are the strongest builder of confidence; leaders can create those moments through well-sequenced challenges and clear feedback.

Predictability also contributes. Consistent routines reduce uncertainty and cognitive load, freeing mental energy for learning (Sweller, 2011). Reliable communication and regular reflection help people focus less on managing anxiety and more on applying effort.

When we translate this evidence into practice, the path becomes tangible. We begin with the person, design early wins, model learning, offer feedback that informs, create steady rhythms, and step back when strength appears. Each step gives people more proof that I can act and it will matter. The science aligns with lived experience. Confidence is not given; it is earned through experience and reinforced through design. The most effective leaders are not those who inspire through charisma, but those who quietly arrange the environment so that others can see themselves succeeding.

The six practices that follow turn these findings into action. Each one is a deliberate way to make confidence visible, repeatable, and shared.

Begin with the human, not the task

Most of us start new relationships at work by talking about the work. We open with the project plan, the timelines, the expectations. It feels professional and efficient. Yet when someone is new or uncertain, the human need that sits beneath the task, the need for orientation, belonging, and safety, must come first.

Behavioural psychology explains why. At the start of any role, the brain reads ambiguity as threat. Without cues of welcome or support, people narrow attention and self-protect, which suppresses learning and voice. That is why psychological safety, the shared belief that it is safe to speak up, is so strongly linked to team learning behaviours (Edmondson, 1999).

Leaders can reverse this pattern in minutes. When you pause before talking about tasks and instead ask questions that signal genuine curiosity such as What brought you here? What helps you learn quickly? What feels unclear so far? you change the chemistry of the interaction. You tell the other person that their experience matters as much as their output. You lower threat and start to build trust (Edmondson, 1999).

This is not about long pastoral conversations; it is about sequence. Connect first, direct second. Make the person feel seen before they are measured. That stance aligns with autonomy-supportive leadership from self-determination theory. Supporting autonomy, competence, and relatedness boosts motivation and adaptive functioning (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

A short experience: When Maria joined a logistics company as a team leader, her manager, James, greeted her with a spreadsheet of metrics and a week-one deadline review. She left the meeting doubting she had made the right move. Two days later, a senior colleague, Elise, stopped by and simply asked, “What are you proud of from your last role?” The question re-anchored Maria in her competence. Within weeks she was performing strongly, not because her skills had changed, but because someone had recognised her humanity before her function. That re-anchoring is how self-efficacy grows, through mastery cues and credible social signals that “I can do this” (Bandura, 1997).

How to begin with the human

Start each onboarding conversation with curiosity: Curiosity is a safety cue and an autonomy signal. Ask what gives the person energy, how they like to receive feedback, and what helps them feel confident. These questions collect behavioural data and communicate respect, conditions known to support intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).  Try, “Which part of this project feels most familiar, and where might you need a hand?” You are assuming competence, not testing it, an important nudge for self-efficacy to take root (Bandura, 1997).

Acknowledge the transition: Every new role involves loss: the loss of old certainty and reputation. Say aloud that this wobble is normal; naming it reduces anxiety and cognitive load and invites the speaking-up that strengthens learning (Edmondson, 1999).  Some leaders add a personal story of their own shaky start. Disclosure turns hierarchy into partnership without sacrificing standards (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Notice the small signs of confidence: When someone volunteers an idea or questions an assumption, name it as courage, not disruption. Specific recognition such as “That pause before deciding showed real judgement” creates self-efficacy evidence that risk leads to belonging (Bandura, 1997).

Model patience: Silence often makes us rush to fill it. Do not. Allow space for reflection. Ask, “Take a moment, what is your first thought?” Patience demonstrates steadiness and tells others their uncertainty will not unsettle you, which helps maintain psychological safety and learning behaviour (Edmondson, 1999).

Leading through uncertainty begins with attention, not instruction. When you attend to the person before the task, you create the psychological soil from which capability and authentic confidence can grow (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Bandura, 1997).

   

Design early wins

Confidence is rarely an act of will. It comes from evidence, the proof that effort produces an effect. Behavioural research calls this self-efficacy, the belief that “I can” (Bandura, 1997).  When leaders step into new or broader roles, that belief is often fragile. They know they were effective before, yet the familiar proof points are gone.

This happens frequently in senior transitions. A newly appointed Vice President moves from solving problems directly to leading through others. Without early evidence that their influence works, anxiety replaces agency. The leader may become overly hands-on or detached, each a form of self-protection.

Designing early wins is not about reducing expectations. It is about sequencing progress so that both leader and team can see tangible movement. Small, credible successes send the message that your actions make a difference here. They turn uncertainty into traction.

A brief coaching story: When I was transition coaching Ahmed, a new Vice President in a global engineering firm, we focused on one simple goal. Instead of tackling his entire transformation mandate, he would align his twelve regional leaders around one customer metric within four weeks. The result was visible unity and a pilot that worked. The success rebuilt his confidence and showed his team that collaboration could deliver speed. One small win became proof of capacity, not hope of competence.

Why early wins work

They trigger reward and motivation systems: Small successes activate dopamine pathways in the brain, reinforcing approach behaviour and persistence (Schultz, 2016; Glimcher, 2011).  These neurological signals make people more willing to take the next risk.

They reframe uncertainty as learning: Visible progress moves focus from loss avoidance to exploration. It reduces anxiety and increases cognitive flexibility, the basis for adaptive performance (Baumeister et al., 2001).

They create shared belief: Early wins shape social expectations. Teams that observe credible progress begin to interpret the new leader as capable, which in turn strengthens collective confidence (Edmondson, 1999).

They provide mastery evidence: Success, even at a small scale, is the most powerful source of self-efficacy. It teaches the individual that their behaviour can shape outcomes (Bandura, 1997).

How to design them

Choose the smallest visible achievement that matters: Find a deliverable that can be completed in weeks and demonstrates influence or skill. The result must be observable and relevant to key stakeholders.

Define what success looks like in behavioural terms: Specify the actions that count as progress. Clear criteria reduce ambiguity and accelerate feedback learning (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Make the progress public: Share results with the team and senior sponsors. Public recognition strengthens the social signal that competence is emerging and builds trust (Bandura, 1997).

Link the outcome to purpose: Help people see how this small step contributes to the larger goal. Connecting mastery to meaning deepens intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Maintain authenticity: Wins must be earned, not staged. Because bad experiences outweigh good ones, superficial praise or token tasks damage credibility (Baumeister et al., 2001).

Early wins do not replace ambition. They create rhythm, evidence, and belief. When progress becomes visible early, confidence shifts from reassurance to reality (Bandura, 1997; Schultz, 2016).

Model learning in public

Many leaders still believe that credibility depends on certainty. They fear that showing doubt or seeking help will erode authority. Behavioural evidence shows the opposite. When leaders are open about what they are learning, they create conditions where others can learn too. This is the essence of social learning: people observe and imitate what those with status do, not only what they say (Bandura, 1977).

In uncertain environments, employees do not expect perfection; they expect honesty about the process of improvement. When a leader models inquiry, transparency, and reflection, those behaviours spread through observation and imitation. Teams start to take calculated risks, surface errors earlier, and adapt faster. This is how cultures of learning form, and why they outperform those that prize control.

Why modelling learning works

It creates psychological safety: When leaders admit they are experimenting, they signal that mistakes are part of progress. This directly lowers threat responses in the brain and increases information sharing. Teams that perceive higher psychological safety report stronger learning and performance outcomes (Edmondson, 1999).

It builds cognitive flexibility: Public learning demonstrates that ideas and behaviours can change. This primes others for flexibility and reduces defensive reasoning. Leaders who show adaptability increase their followers’ tolerance for ambiguity, which predicts better problem solving in complex settings (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

It strengthens trust through authenticity: Trust is not built through perfection but through congruence. When words and actions align, and when leaders own their gaps, credibility rises. In a meta-analysis of leader behaviours, authenticity and self-disclosure were both correlated with higher perceptions of competence and integrity (Gardner et al., 2011).

It accelerates social learning cycles: Behaviour spreads faster through observation than through instruction. Seeing a senior figure pause, ask for input, or change course makes those behaviours legitimate at every level. This aligns with modelling theory, which shows that observation of effort and correction produces stronger learning than observation of flawless performance (Bandura, 1997).

It fosters shared accountability: When leaders learn in public, they normalise feedback and reflection. Team members begin to hold one another accountable through dialogue rather than hierarchy. This strengthens commitment and collective efficacy, a group-level version of confidence that predicts higher performance (Gully et al., 2002).

How to model learning in public

Name what you are learning: Use language such as “I am noticing…” or “I realised after that meeting…” to show reflection in real time. This signals that learning is continuous, not remedial.

Ask questions before giving answers: Inquiry before judgement invites others to think. Phrasing such as “What are we missing?” or “What would make this better?” keeps dialogue open and curious:

Share reasoning, not just decisions: Explaining how you reached a conclusion helps others learn your process. It turns authority into transparency and teaches analytical habits.

Admit adjustments publicly: When a decision changes, say why. Framing the shift as evidence of learning prevents others interpreting it as inconsistency.

Invite feedback visibly: Ask for input in front of others and respond with appreciation. This models that feedback is a resource, not a threat.

Learning in public is not confession; it is leadership through example. When people see you reflecting, questioning, and adjusting, they take permission to do the same. The outcome is not a loss of authority but the growth of collective intelligence. A leader who models learning turns uncertainty into an organisational habit of curiosity and progress (Bandura, 1997; Edmondson, 1999).

Give feedback like a mirror, not a verdict

Feedback is one of the most powerful influences on performance, yet one of the least skilfully applied. Too often it feels like a verdict, something done to people rather than for them. Behavioural psychology shows that people learn best when feedback offers information about behaviour and consequence, not about personal worth (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

To build confidence in uncertain or new roles, feedback must reduce ambiguity, not amplify threat. The AID feedback model—Action, Impact, Do (Desired behaviour), achieves this by turning feedback into a joint exploration of what happened, why it mattered, and what could happen next. A clear description of the model is available at andiroberts.com/feedback/aid-feedback-model.

Why the AID structure works

It separates behaviour from identity: Describing the Action keeps attention on what can be changed. This reduces defensiveness and promotes problem-solving rather than self-protection (Baumeister et al., 2001).

It strengthens causal learning: Explaining the Impact, how the behaviour affected results, relationships, or perception, links cause and effect. People repeat actions that have clear and positive outcomes (Schultz, 2016).

It reinforces agency through “Do.: The Do stage points to the desired behaviour or invites the recipient to propose it. Either way, it restores control. By clarifying what success looks like and offering choice, you activate self-efficacy, the belief that “I can influence results” (Bandura, 1997).

It preserves psychological safety: Because AID moves from description to future intention, it signals respect rather than judgement. Teams that receive feedback in this way report higher safety and learning behaviour (Edmondson, 1999).

Applying the AID model

Step 1 – Action: describe observable behaviour. State only what you saw or heard. “You opened the meeting by summarising last week’s decisions.” Avoid evaluative language such as “You were unprepared,” which implies motive.

Step 2 – Impact: explain consequence. Clarify the effect. “That helped everyone orient quickly and kept discussion focused.” This step connects behaviour to outcome and gives meaning to feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).

Step 3 – Do: identify or invite the desired behaviour. You can specify what to do next—“Keep starting meetings that way”, or invite reflection, “What might you do differently to keep energy high next time?” Both versions reinforce autonomy and learning (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Guidelines for effective use

  • Be timely and specific. Feedback loses value as time passes; immediacy enhances retention.
  • Keep tone collaborative. Use “we” language: “How could we handle that together next time?”
  • Balance reinforcement and refinement. Celebrate what worked before addressing what to adjust.
  • Model reciprocity. Ask for feedback in the same structure: “What did you notice me do, what impact did it have, what should I do next?”
  • Repeat the loop. Frequent, low-stakes feedback normalises improvement and builds confidence over time (Bandura, 1997).

Feedback becomes developmental when it reflects behaviour clearly and points to a possible next step. Using the AID model, leaders act as mirrors rather than judges. The “Do” is both direction and invitation, a moment where belief in improvement becomes visible. In that moment, confidence begins to grow from evidence, not reassurance.

Create predictable rhythms

Uncertainty drains energy. When people are unsure what will happen next, their brains devote resources to prediction rather than performance. Predictability, by contrast, creates cognitive space. It does not remove complexity but provides a stable frame for dealing with it.

Behavioural research calls this reducing cognitive load. Predictable routines lower the mental effort required to manage ambiguity, which frees attention for problem solving and creativity (Sweller, 2011).   In leadership, consistent rhythms of communication, feedback, and decision making serve as this stabilising frame. For someone new or lacking confidence, rhythm signals safety. It says: You can trust the process even when outcomes are unclear.

Why predictable rhythms matter

They regulate emotion and stress: The brain seeks patterns. When it finds them, physiological stress markers reduce, improving focus and memory (Arnsten, 2009).   Consistent meeting times, feedback sessions, and updates act as cues of safety, much like predictable routines help children or patients adjust in new environments.

They increase reliability and trust: Inconsistency breeds insecurity. Regular interactions show reliability, which strengthens psychological safety and willingness to share uncertainty (Edmondson, 1999).

They make progress visible: Rhythm allows patterns of improvement to emerge. When people know when reflection or review will happen, they prepare mentally and can see cumulative growth. This visibility reinforces self-efficacy, the sense that effort leads to progress (Bandura, 1997).

They embed accountability gently: Predictable check-ins remove the drama from performance discussions. Accountability becomes part of the routine rather than an event triggered by problems.

They free leaders from micro-management: With set touchpoints, leaders do not need to check constantly. Structure replaces surveillance and communicates trust.

How to create effective rhythms

Establish a consistent cadence early: In a new role or project, agree how often you will meet, what those meetings will cover, and how long they will last. Clarity reduces speculation.

Blend structure and adaptability: Keep timing predictable but allow content to evolve. For example, use a fixed weekly meeting but rotate focus: goals one week, learning the next. This keeps routine without rigidity.

Signal what matters through repetition: Topics discussed regularly gain perceived importance. If development conversations are always first on the agenda, learning becomes part of the culture (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

Anchor rhythm to feedback: Link predictable check-ins to the AID feedback approach. Each meeting can include one Action, one Impact, and one Do for the week ahead. This turns rhythm into a live feedback loop.

Communicate rhythm visibly: Post shared calendars, dashboards, or review dates so everyone can anticipate interactions. Visibility reinforces fairness and transparency.

Protect the rhythm: Cancelling regular sessions sends the message that structure is optional. When urgent work intrudes, reschedule quickly to show that rhythm still matters.

Predictability is not bureaucracy; it is generosity. It gives people time to prepare, space to think, and confidence to contribute. When leaders create steady rhythms of interaction, they remove the background noise of uncertainty. Within that rhythm, people start to see patterns of progress, and progress is the most reliable builder of confidence (Bandura, 1997; Arnsten, 2009).

Step back as strength grows

Confidence matures when trust replaces supervision. Early in a new or uncertain role, people need structure and feedback. As competence develops, the same structure can become constraint. The leader’s work then shifts from providing direction to creating space.

This process draws on a principle from developmental psychology known as scaffolding (Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976).   Effective teachers and coaches offer support that is gradually withdrawn as capability increases. In organisational life, the same idea applies. Leaders who continue to over-guide send an unintended message of doubt. Those who step back too soon risk abandonment. The art is in timing.

Why stepping back matters

It signals belief: People interpret autonomy as trust. When leaders delegate meaningfully, followers infer confidence in their competence. This perception raises intrinsic motivation and ownership (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

It strengthens self-efficacy: Success achieved under reduced supervision is the most powerful reinforcement of capability. Each independent win adds evidence to the belief “I can handle this” (Bandura, 1997).

It cultivates adaptive leadership; Over time, the goal is not only task competence but self-regulation. When people manage their own priorities and learning, they become more resilient in volatile contexts (Heifetz, 1994).

It builds team capacity: Leaders who retain every decision bottleneck limit organisational intelligence. Letting others decide expands the system’s ability to learn collectively (Edmondson, 1999).

How to step back wisely

Plan the exit while offering support: When assigning responsibility, state clearly how your involvement will taper. “I will check in weekly for the first month, then fortnightly once you are comfortable.” Predictable withdrawal keeps ownership clear and prevents shock.

Use questions instead of answers: Before offering guidance, ask, “What have you already considered?” or “What outcome are you aiming for?” This encourages self-diagnosis. Coaching questions activate reflective thinking and internal accountability (Goleman, Boyatzis & McKee, 2013).

Redefine your role as sounding board: Shift from giving direction to offering perspective. Be available for consultation, not correction. This maintains psychological safety while fostering independence.

Celebrate autonomous success publicly: When people deliver without heavy oversight, recognise both the result and the self-management behind it. Public affirmation of autonomy normalises distributed leadership.

Monitor for overload: Autonomy is empowering only when matched by resources and clarity. Check workload, skill fit, and support networks. True delegation includes ensuring that the person has the tools to succeed.

Continue reflective feedback loops: Even as you step back, maintain light-touch reviews. Use the AID model: Action, Impact, Do, to discuss progress without reclaiming control. This sustains growth while reinforcing mutual respect.

Stepping back is not withdrawal; it is stewardship. It tells people, “You are trusted to act.” When done with care, it converts dependence into capability. The leader who knows when to reduce involvement models a deeper confidence, the belief that strength grows best when it is trusted to stand on its own (Bandura, 1997; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Wood, Bruner & Ross, 1976).

After the practices: what confidence makes possible

By the time we have worked through these six practices, a quiet shift has often taken place. People no longer wait for permission to contribute. Conversations begin to sound different. Leaders move from fixing to listening. Teams start to own their progress. Confidence, it turns out, is not the end goal but a condition that allows everything else to happen. It creates the capacity for dialogue, for experimentation, and for stewardship. Once people feel able to act, they begin to imagine what is worth acting for.

This is why confidence work is community work. When individuals grow in assurance, they release collective intelligence. A confident culture does not compete for certainty; it exchanges learning. The leader’s task becomes less about motivating and more about hosting: creating space where contribution feels natural and valued.

It can help to think of leadership as rhythm rather than direction. Early on, the rhythm is close and steady. You set pace, give structure, and model learning. As confidence builds, the rhythm changes. You step back, allowing others to find their own tempo. When uncertainty returns, as it always does, you return to the beginning again. Begin with the human, not the task.

Confidence is fragile in its early stages but resilient once rooted. It grows strongest when fed by honest feedback, visible progress, and shared purpose. Behavioural science gives us the map; everyday practice gives it meaning.

In the end, the leader’s greatest act of confidence is trust: trust that people, when seen and supported, will rise to the work that matters. Trust that learning is not weakness but progress. Trust that leadership itself can be an act of invitation, not instruction.

When you lead this way, you stop managing confidence as a resource and start multiplying it as a relationship.

Three questions for reflection

  1. Where in my leadership do I still mistake control for care? What would change if I offered trust earlier and more visibly?
  2. When did I last design a small, visible success for someone uncertain? How did it alter their energy and engagement?
  3. If confidence grows from evidence, not reassurance, what evidence am I helping my people collect each week?

Do you have any tips or advice for uraising confidence in people?

What has worked for you?

Do you have any recommended resources to explore?

Thanks for reading!

References

Arnsten, A.F.T. (2009) ‘Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), pp. 410–422. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2648

Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: W. H. Freeman.

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. and Vohs, K.D. (2001) ‘Bad is stronger than good’, Review of General Psychology, 5(4), pp. 323–370. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) ‘The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior’, Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), pp. 227–268. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Edmondson, A.C. (1999) ‘Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams’, Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), pp. 350–383. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Gardner, W.L., Cogliser, C.C., Davis, K.M. and Dickens, M.P. (2011) ‘Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda’, The Leadership Quarterly, 22(6), pp. 1120–1145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.09.007

Glimcher, P.W. (2011) Foundations of Neuroeconomic Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. and McKee, A. (2013) Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. 10th anniversary edn. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Gully, S.M., Incalcaterra, K.A., Joshi, A. and Beaubien, J.M. (2002) ‘A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: Interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(5), pp. 819–832. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.5.819

Hattie, J. and Timperley, H. (2007) ‘The power of feedback’, Review of Educational Research, 77(1), pp. 81–112. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487

Heifetz, R.A. (1994) Leadership Without Easy Answers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Schultz, W. (2016) ‘Dopamine reward prediction error coding’, Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 18(1), pp. 23–32. Available at: https://doi.org/10.31887/DCNS.2016.18.1/wschultz

Sweller, J. (2011) ‘Cognitive load theory’, in Kalyuga, S. (ed.) Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Vol. 55. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 37–76. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8

Wood, D., Bruner, J.S. and Ross, G. (1976) ‘The role of tutoring in problem solving’, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), pp. 89–100. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x

Andi Roberts.. ME!! (no date) AID Feedback Model: Action, Impact, Desired Behaviour / Do. Available at: https://andiroberts.com/feedback/aid-feedback-model (Accessed: 15 October 2025).