Having traversed numerous industries, Gina Reilly Coates is a people-first executive who balances performance with empathy and authentic connection. She reflects on the experiences that have defined her leadership approach, each role and team pushing her to be more inclusive, innovative, and above all, human-centered.
Shiwon Oh: How has your career journey helped influence your leadership identity?
Gina Reilly Coates: My journey has spanned several industries, from retail to education to fulfillment operations to tech. Truthfully, I thought I was a leader at three years old. I’d been telling the other students what to do, and my teachers called home to set that straight.
In each industry I’ve entered, I’ve served as an operational leader and a leader of people. Along the way, I’ve internalized what I value as a person: how I want to be treated, what I need to know, and what winning looks like for me as a leader. I’ve taken each working experience (and there have been many) and found the teachable moments.
If processes existed and no one could explain why, I’d start digging. If managers (and I use that term intentionally) referred to employees as labor or headcount, I would correct them and ensure that my teams always knew I saw all of us as human beings.
I make decisions through a human-centric lens and consider how new processes, tools, and decisions will actually impact their work. What do they need to know to be successful, and when do they need to know it? What opportunities do my teams need to stretch their capacity and develop their talents? How do I provide feedback to ensure my team knows I’m committed to their success and our success? What information can my team handle at what time?
This doesn’t make me a soft or easy leader. On the contrary, I have high standards and expectations. As a human-centric leader, that means those high standards are attainable, supported, and communicated in a timely and clear manner. And when those standards aren’t being met, that is communicated transparently as well.
GRC: Fresh out of my MBA program (post-initial career), I worked for Amazon through their Pathways Operations Program. I chose to work for a large, non-robotic building because I knew I would be learning in a tougher environment and would be required to focus on leadership skills and on moving people forward to succeed. My first team was arguably the largest by headcount, and it faced cultural struggles that significantly impacted the customer experience.
Essentially, this could make or break my career. The feedback from the team on prior leaders wasn’t always positive for specific reasons: lack of leadership visibility, being treated like “labor”, and favoritism.
From day one, I made sure my teams knew who I was and how I would lead. I spent the first week or so walking the lines in my department and introducing myself to each one of my 225 team members. From that point on, I packed boxes with my team during contests or times of need. If I had work to do on my laptop, I situated myself near their stations for their access and rotated through my entire floor. I learned who made up my team, and identified their strengths and needs. I gave them their voice back, shared the why behind certain decisions, clarified goals, and highlighted their progress and its impact on their bottom line.
When someone flagged a complaint, I made sure the employee knew how we addressed it and prioritized follow-ups. I publicly and positively thanked team members for flagging issues, ensuring the whole team knew how we were adjusting. I was transparent and consistent in my leadership; my team quickly learned that I applied the same rules to each employee in a balanced, fair way.
SO: Why is it important for businesses to personalize their employee approach for a healthier, more inclusive culture?
GRC: Each employee, regardless of role or span of control, is unique. One key piece of information many forget is that everyone who isn't the owner is an employee. Personalizing your approach doesn't mean that, if there are 1000 employees, there will be 1000 different ways to train. That would be unscalable and unsustainable.
It does mean, however, that you know your team by name, tailor developmental conversations to each individual, and lean into your team's motivations and expectations. Because of my investments and connections, I've driven substantial impact and secured buy-in where my colleagues and counterparts could not. My teams learned that I truly listened. I was transparent, valued their input, and if something didn't work, I worked with them to find a different approach.
When employees are engaged and connected to the work they do and who they do it for, their experience will show in the results. Similarly, when they’re disengaged and disconnected from the work they do and who they do it for, their outcomes will speak volumes.
SO: What are some practices you don’t recommend to leaders committed to personalization—for both their teams and their customers?
GRC: Overpromising is the nail in the coffin of employee and customer engagement, especially if your company tends to use a “flavor of the month” approach to its goals and priorities. There should be a line that companies don’t cross. For instance, the investment may be more costly than the potential return, or it may not align with the company’s direction and identity.
SO: What does it look like to put humans at the center of every experience? Can you share a personal example?
The business may dictate a need to reduce costs, and how you strategize those reductions is where a human-centric approach can pay off. By putting yourself into the analysis, you have the opportunity to see the decisions and experience through the eyes of your customers, whether they are external or internal. Having led in both established and start-up environments, I’ve delivered on my fair share of cost reductions, including reducing how we spend on supplies, allocating time and materials to training, and ensuring the correct employee headcount.
As our economy has shifted, cost savings reviews have become more commonplace. In a prior role, senior leaders were approaching cost reduction company-wide. For the teams reporting to my leadership, this meant a collective analysis of which work needed to be kept in-house and which would benefit from leveraging partner resources.
This analysis allowed us to focus on work that truly benefited from being handled by more senior and tenured team members, and on work that did not. In making the next decisions, we anticipate the questions our team may have and the potential friction they would experience.
Proactive, collaborative planning reduces the negative impact on the customer experience. And in this case, customer experience includes team members, internal stakeholders, and external customers.
Read our full issue here!