Across UK organisations, the response to new employment rights measures brought in this April has been as expected, focused primarily on legal briefings, policy updates and compliance training.
The Employment Rights Act is being implemented in stages. Many major measures are now in force and will continue to roll out throughout 2026 and into 2027. It’s the most significant overhaul of workplace legislation in a generation.
Yet it’s crucial that organisations quickly realise the shift isn’t solely a legal one, and that the new measures signal a more significant change. In effect, they mark the end of informal management.
Unclear expectations, inconsistent decisions and avoided conversations have been tolerated within workplace culture for many years, because the law used to allow it. Under the new measures, this tolerance is being removed, highlighting informal management for what it now is: a significant risk.
Informality must be shown the door
In recent years, informality in management practices has become much more common. Managers could soften feedback, defer decisions or “manage people out” gradually, delaying direct conversations and relying on time or circumstance to resolve problems.
Yet leaders must now recognise that the new employment rights framework shortens the distance between a management failure and a formal consequence.
With earlier employee access to protections under the framework — including the unfair dismissal qualifying period decreasing from two years to six months, alongside new day-one entitlements including sick pay and parental leave — and much greater scrutiny around fairness and consistency, organisations have less room to rely on ambiguity. Expectations must be clearer; decisions must be defensible; and conversations must happen earlier.
The Act is bringing new management and leadership challenges, yet its biggest impact will be making existing ones impossible to ignore.
Are your ‘supportive’ managers avoiding straight conversations?
Today’s prevailing leadership styles tend to place strong emphasis on empathy, wellbeing and psychological safety. This focus has value, of course. But too often, the balance tips, and accountability disappears.
Managers have been trained to check in, but not challenge, to be endlessly supportive while avoiding anything that could be taken as criticism. The result is a generation fluent in the language of care, but largely unable to have a straight conversation about performance.
Ask yourself honestly: Do your managers tell people clearly what’s expected of them from day one? Do they give feedback that is specific and actionable, or feedback designed primarily to avoid discomfort? When someone is struggling, do they address it early and directly, or do they hope it resolves itself while noting “good progress” in every review?
All of this is crucial to consider thoroughly, because employment tribunals will ask questions such as:
- Did this person know what was expected of them?
- Were they told they were under-performing?
- Were they given a genuine opportunity to improve?
If the answer is no to those questions, no amount of policy compliance will protect you.
Clarity is a management requirement
Many leaders now fear being assertive because they associate it with outdated approaches. But they need to understand that a consistent approach, with clear expectations, direct feedback and accountability, is actually supportive, when delivered with respect and context.
Lack of clarity, dressed up as “kindness”, is where real damage occurs. With no clear feedback, a struggling employee isn’t given the chance to improve. Teams working alongside unclear or inconsistent standards carry the cost, in frustration, reduced performance and disengagement.
The changes to employment rights bring all of this into sharp focus.
A manager who has not clearly set expectations around attendance, performance or conduct can no longer rely on informal correction over time. A manager who avoids early conversations about performance isn’t protecting the individual; they’re storing up problems that will arrive considerably faster than they used to.
This isn’t about one leadership style
To be clear, I’m not calling for a return to old-fashioned, autocratic management. With a military background, my own natural leadership style is directive. Yet I’ve worked alongside leaders who are deeply empathetic, instinctively collaborative, quietly understated, and also extremely effective.
Style matters less than self-awareness. Successful leaders are those who have learned to understand their natural strengths and their blind spots. Tools such as psychometric testing and 360-degree feedback can help leaders map their authentic style and identify development areas. A directive leader who recognises their tendency to steamroller can learn to consciously dial that back when a situation demands it, while a more empathetic personality can prepare properly for a difficult performance conversation.
The problem is that many managers don’t know themselves well enough to lead with intention, so they default to whatever feels comfortable. For many, that means avoiding conflict.
A directive leader and a collaborative one can both meet that standard if they’ve done the work to lead deliberately, rather than by default.
Detailed compliance policies won’t save you
Ultimately, the organisations that navigate this shift successfully will not be those with the most detailed compliance policies. It will be those whose managers can look a new starter in the eye in week one and be completely honest about what success and falling short look like, and what will happen if things aren’t working. It will be those who have invested in building leadership capability intentionally, not assumed it exists because their managers are long-serving or perform well in other aspects of their job.
For organisations that already operate with clarity and consistency, little will change. For those that have relied on informal management – on ambiguity, delay and discretion – the shift will be more significant.
The system has changed, making informal management no longer sustainable. The question is whether organisations recognise that before consequences force them to.
Martin Johnson is the founder and CEO of leadership and performance consultancy T2, working with elite sports teams (Manchester United, Tour de France cycling teams under Sir Dave Brailsford), major corporations and public sector organisations.
A former Royal Navy serviceman and author of two leadership books, he brings unique leadership insights from the military, elite sports and corporate environments.
