Label intent, clarify tone and choose the right channel so feedback lands as coaching, not conflict.
Sponsored by The Balanced Millionaire: The Advisor Edition by Dr. Jackie Meyer | See Today’s Special Offer
Subscribe to CPA Trendlines podcasts anywhere: Apple, Google/YouTube, Spotify, iHeart, Deezer, Amazon Music, Audible, Player FM, Audacy, RSS.
Accounting ARC
With Liz Mason, Byron Patrick, and Donny Shimamoto
Center for Accounting Transformation
Leaders in accounting do not need to choose between being “nice” and being effective.
In this ARC episode, Donny Shimamoto, CPA.CITP, CGMA; Byron Patrick, CPA.CITP; and Liz Mason, CPA, make the case that the best bosses aim for something tougher — kindness with clarity.
The conversation starts with a story familiar to anyone who has ever hovered over the “Send” button on a difficult message.
MORE Accounting ARC: Post-Holiday Fatigue Isn’t a Failure; It’s a Signal | OCR, Research Bots & Meeting Assistants: What Actually Helps Now | Return Season is the New Stress Test | Small Firms May Have the Biggest Advantage in 2026 | Downgraded: What the DOE Said About Accounting | Savage: Using Your License as a Megaphone | Baker: Interpreting Pricing Psychology | Don’t Get Fired by Your Own Automation | What Amazon Doesn’t Tell You | Royalties, Residuals, and Reality Checks | ARC-SLC
Mason, founder and CEO of High Rock Accounting, recalls proposing a conference talk with a deliberately provocative title — a reminder that most professionals feel the tension between holding the line and keeping the peace. The point, she says, is not to sanitize reality. It is to learn how to hold people accountable without turning it into a personal attack.
The trio lays out a surprisingly usable leadership toolkit: state intent, lead with common ground, separate behavior from identity, and build a culture where your team expects coaching — not condemnation. For firms trying to retain talent, manage remote teams and reduce burnout, their advice lands as more than “soft skills.” It reads like risk management.
Patrick, a senior product manager at Karbon and co-founder/educator for TB Academy, frames the discussion with a distinction that resonates in high-performance cultures: “kind, not nice.”
Nice, he argues, can mean avoiding discomfort — even if that means withholding facts, sugarcoating outcomes or praising effort when results miss the mark. Kindness, in contrast, is empathetic and compassionate while still delivering the information someone needs to improve.
That framing matters in accounting firms where the work is technical, deadlines are real and “people problems” can become expensive problems. Avoiding hard feedback does not protect a team; it postpones an issue until it becomes a client escalation, a blown timeline, or an attrition event.
Mason adds a leadership reality check: even when you are careful, others may still hear criticism — especially in written messages. Her solution is not to abandon metrics. It is to bring more humanity to how metrics are discussed.
Treat “tone” as a leadership variable, not an afterthought.
Shimamoto, founder and managing director of IntrapriseTechKnowlogies LLC and founder and inspiration architect for the Center for Accounting Transformation, describes a “good cop/bad cop” moment that plays out in many organizations. He needs to send a blunt message to a group involved in engagement planning — and he knows it will land as scathing.
So he pre-briefs other leaders. He signals the intent, sends the direct email, and lets other managers reinforce expectations in a calmer voice.
The bigger point is not theatrics. It is intentional communication design: if you know a message is likely to be read as angry, you can explicitly label it. Shimamoto says he sometimes opens with phrases like “this is a coaching point” or “I’m going to be blunt,” then adds a crucial clarifier: he is not upset, even if the words read that way. It is a small move that reduces defensiveness — and keeps the team focused on the fix.
Mason takes the same idea and turns it into a practical workflow change. When she shares KPIs in chat — even as neutral “goal vs. actual” facts — some colleagues react as if she is accusing them of failure. Her response is to switch channels: instead of dropping performance numbers in a written message, she uses video or a live conversation so people can hear tone, context and curiosity.
It is a reminder that leadership is not only what you communicate. It is also how you deliver it, and whether your team has enough relationship context to interpret it accurately.
Build a culture of “generous assumptions” and positive intent.
Mason puts a name to what many healthy teams practice without labeling: “generous assumptions.” She models language that pairs empathy with expectations:
- “My generous assumption is you missed this deadline because X.”
- “Next time, I need earlier communication if a deadline will slip.”
- “Here’s what we do differently going forward.”
That approach does two things at once: it avoids assigning malicious intent, and it still requires a change in behavior.
Patrick calls this “assuming positive intent,” and he argues it is one of the biggest reasons leaders become jerks in the first place. When a manager assumes the worst — laziness, disrespect, sabotage — they approach a conversation already heated. But when a leader assumes the best — competing priorities, unclear instructions, overload — it becomes easier to stay calm, ask questions and coach.
This is not naive optimism. It is a discipline: start from the belief that most people are trying, then use facts to diagnose why the outcome is off.
Separate behavior from identity, even when stakes are high.
One of the most useful parts of the episode is how the hosts talk about accountability when the behavior is serious — not just a missed KPI or a sloppy handoff.
Mason gives an example of anger that is valid: a teammate disappears for a week, leaves others holding the bag, triggers a client issue, and forces late nights to recover. In that moment, she says it is appropriate to tell someone, plainly, that the behavior is unacceptable and has consequences.
What is not appropriate is turning anger into character assassination. Calling out the behavior (“This cannot happen again”) is different from labeling the person (“You’re an idiot” or “You’re the problem”). That distinction is not just kinder — it is also safer and more effective. Behavior-based feedback can be documented, coached and measured. Personal attacks escalate conflict and shut down learning.
Shimamoto agrees — with an important caveat. If the behavior becomes a pattern, leaders need to say so. Repeated issues are not solved by endless benefit-of-the-doubt conversations. They are solved by clear standards, documented coaching and, when needed, a decision that someone is not a fit for the role.
Challenge the profession’s default career ladder.
The hosts also tackle a leadership “jerk trap” that shows up in accounting: the assumption that everyone must move up into management.
Shimamoto describes situations where a firm expects someone to progress — but the person either cannot or does not want to. Instead of forcing promotion as the only definition of success, he describes “re-level setting” expectations: some people become “lifetime seniors,” and that can be fine if the role is defined, respected and compensated fairly.
Patrick pushes harder on the idea that promotions should not be a reward for time served. “Just because it’s your work anniversary doesn’t mean you get to be a supervisor,” he says. Promotion should be tied to skills, behaviors and outcomes — not calendar milestones.
Mason adds that accounting includes personalities who thrive in management and others who hate it. She shares an example of a strong individual contributor who is drained by people management — and whose direct reports would likely quit if placed under her. Self-awareness, she argues, is not a weakness. It is what protects both the team and the individual.
For firms worried about retention, this is not a side debate. It is central. Forcing unwilling managers into leadership roles is one of the fastest ways to create — you guessed it — bosses who behave like jerks.
Remote work raises the stakes for communication discipline.
As remote and hybrid work expands, Shimamoto warns that leaders lose the informal hallway conversations that soften misunderstandings and build rapport. Without those micro-moments, written messages carry more risk.
His prescription is simple: over-communicate intent, increase real conversations, and do not rely on chat and email alone for high-friction feedback. The more remote your team becomes, the more you need explicit norms around tone, escalation paths and how to “bubble” important items back to attention.
The hosts’ small tech asides reinforce that point. They mention Microsoft Teams chats, Boomerang, and follow-up flags in Microsoft Outlook — but they keep returning to the same conclusion: tools help, but nothing replaces a conversation where people can hear your voice and feel your intent.
6 Key Takeaways
- Start with common ground, then move to facts.
- Label intent (“coaching point”) and clarify tone before blunt feedback.
- Assume positive intent first — then set clear expectations.
- Separate behavior from identity, even when you are angry.
- Stop promoting people “because it’s time,” and build respected specialist paths.
- In remote work, use more voice and video for sensitive topics.