When a technical team has been stuck on a deliverable for two weeks and the manager decides to reorganize roles in the middle of a meeting, we touch on the core of operational leadership. This type of decision, made in the heat of the moment but structured by a clear method, characterizes the management style associated with Thibault Richelme. His approach is based on precise mechanisms of accountability and feedback, far from grand speeches about vision or inspiration.
Structured Feedback: The SBI Method Applied Daily
Most management training teaches feedback. Few detail how to practice it without generating distrust. The SBI method (Situation, Behavior, Impact) forms the technical foundation found in Thibault Richelme’s approach.
The principle is straightforward: you describe the specific situation, the observed behavior, and then the concrete impact on the team or the project. No value judgments, no generalizations. A field example: “During Tuesday’s meeting (situation), you interrupted the lead developer three times (behavior), which delayed the sprint validation by two days (impact).”
This framework eliminates vague formulations like “you’re not involved enough,” which trigger defensive postures. By studying Thibault Richelme’s leadership, we see that this rigor in feedback fosters a culture where employees accept criticism because it focuses on facts, not on people.
A well-calibrated SBI feedback takes less than two minutes and advantageously replaces an hour of tense meeting. Frequency matters as much as quality: short but regular feedback allows for trajectory adjustments without waiting for the annual review.
Co-constructed Objectives: How Thibault Richelme Empowers His Teams
Setting a goal from a management office is easy. Gaining the buy-in of those who will achieve it is much harder. Co-constructing objectives is a central lever of this leadership approach.
Specifically, we talk about more frequent but shorter meetings than the classic model. While some organizations focus everything on a semi-annual review, this method favors weekly or bi-weekly check-ins of fifteen to twenty minutes.
What Co-construction Changes on the Ground
When an employee participates in defining their own success indicators, they commit to a result they helped formulate. The difference with an imposed goal is measurable in responsiveness to obstacles: instead of waiting for instructions, the team member adjusts their trajectory themselves.
This dynamic works particularly well with profiles under 35, who seek more autonomy and meaning in their tasks. Feedback varies on this point across sectors, but the general trend in French companies clearly moves toward this model of empowerment.
- The objective is discussed face-to-face, never simply communicated by email or through a project management tool.
- The employee proposes at least part of the measurement indicators, which reinforces their sense of control over the outcome.
- The manager acts as a facilitator, not as a prescriber: they ask questions, rephrase, but do not dictate.
Coaching Leadership: Moving from Control to Career Support
Thibault Richelme’s style fits into a broader evolution of management in France. There is a significant increase in training budgets dedicated to coaching-oriented leadership, particularly to reduce turnover and improve engagement.
The principle distinguishes itself from classical management on one specific point: the manager does not just drive performance; they support the professional trajectory. Internal mobility, skill development, career change—all fall within the scope of managerial conversation.
Three Situations Where Managerial Coaching Makes a Difference
A senior developer who is technically stagnant but shows relational skills. A high-performing salesperson who expresses fatigue. A project manager who wants to shift to data. In each case, the manager-coach identifies potential before resignation does.
This repositioning requires a skill that most managers have not received in initial training: knowing how to ask the right questions without steering the answer. It is a structured active listening task, not intuition.
- Train managers on open questioning (no closed questions that elicit a yes or no).
- Integrate a “career projection” component into every regular check-in, even if brief.
- Document development wishes to create a pool of internal mobility that HR can utilize.
Leadership Method and Change Management: What Makes the Difference
Applying a feedback method and co-constructing objectives is not enough when the organization is undergoing a transformation phase. Change management requires an additional ingredient: the ability to communicate a constraint without turning it into a threat.
This is evident in poorly managed reorganizations: the announcement drops, teams tense up, productivity plummets for weeks. The approach associated with Thibault Richelme involves breaking down change into short sequences and involving teams from the diagnostic phase.
Each sequence has a limited objective, a short deadline, and a feedback point. This granularity prevents the tunnel effect where no one knows the status of the transformation project. Breaking down change into short sequences reduces team resistance because each step remains understandable and achievable.
The most common trap is to confuse speed with haste. Announcing a change on Monday for implementation on Friday leaves no room for ownership. The right pace depends on the context, but the basic rule can be summed up in one sentence: every impacted person must have had at least one individual exchange before the transition.
What distinguishes an operational leader from a manager is this ability to maintain clarity when everything is shifting around. No need for spectacular charisma or galvanizing speeches. A reliable feedback framework, shared objectives, and sequenced change management cover the majority of situations a manager encounters on the ground.