If you believe the constant barrage of social media posts, good business leaders are those who focus on taking care of their people, being empathic, and being nice, but like so many ideologies, this opinion has been communicated by a noisy minority with an agenda, but no valid argument. This agenda seeks to conflate the employment of staff by an organisation with a responsibility by the leader to take care of the staff in a way that far exceeds any moral obligation or legal requirement.
Modern leadership has had its focus redirected from achieving the vision to the welfare of employees. Universities indoctrinate their students by focusing their teaching on social leadership principles and literature, rather than on a broader, more holistic curriculum. Leaders are told that their primary responsibility is taking care of their employees and that by doing so the business will prosper.
Leaders today feel obligated and indeed are told on social media that they are responsible for all aspects of their employees’ well-being as if their employees have no responsibility for themselves and are incapable of acting autonomously. Unfortunately, our human nature causes us to become dependent over time in a sort of “learned helplessness” way and people will tend to take advantage of the leader if they perceive that he or she is weak and willing to tolerate bad behaviour.
The migration of Gen-Z into the workforce exacerbates this problem. According to Proff. Jonathan Haidt, the over-protection of children in the 2000s, arguably the safest time in history, the addition of ‘likes’ and ‘shares’ on social media, and the introduction of trigger-warnings, controlled and compelled speech, safe-spaces, microaggressions, and no-platforming has resulted in a generation of ‘fragile’ people who started entering the workforce between 2015-18.
Leaders are told that, if they take care of their employees, their employees will take care of the business. But is this actually true? Is there any evidence that employees who are mollycoddled are more productive, happier, and loyal? Unfortunately, the answer is no. There is no empirical evidence that this is the case at all. This is what I refer to as the “Nice Leader Fallacy”.
This is not to say that leaders should not treat their employees well. On the contrary, the opposite of nice leadership is not bad leadership. It’s important to not conflate nice leadership with effective leadership. To quote Jocko willink there are only two types of leaders, effective and non-effective.
Leaders need to have a clear vision for the future of the business and be able to communicate that vision to the various internal and external factions that have a part to play in realising the vision. Anecdotally, employees respond best to leaders who consistently act professionally, ethically, and fairly to everyone.
It’s the leader’s role to enable their employees to achieve the vision by removing roadblocks and bottlenecks, providing tools and resources, and constantly shining a light on the path to the future. It is not the leader’s role to take care of every aspect of their employees’ well-being or give in to their every demand. Employees have a responsibility for their own well-being. It is, however, the responsibility of the leader to not contribute to the employees’ ill-being, to not place them at avoidable risk, or to treat them without respect or dignity.
Employment is an agreement between an organisation and an individual for the exchange of the individual’s time, experience, and effort for fair and agreed remuneration. Any expectations above and beyond this must be fair, agreed and not to the detriment of the organisation. It is true that all organisations have high performers who are motivated by extra attention and rewards such as increases in remuneration and bonuses. Providing these are fair and benefit the organisation by supporting the leader’s vision, these should be supported. What should not be supported are unwarranted demands by low performers based on group success or collective demands.
One of the most difficult challenges faced by leaders today is the recruitment and retention of staff. Leaders are falling into the trap of believing that the only way to attract and retain top talent is to offer higher remuneration, better conditions, and to provide an enjoyable environment where employees can socialise and feel appreciated. Where the organisation can afford to provide these conditions, it absolutely should. However, without also offering challenging and rewarding work, accountability for outcomes, and the authority needed to succeed, the ‘sugar rush’ will quickly wear off and staff will begin looking for more rewarding work and higher remuneration for their next dopamine hit.
Maslow implied this when he created his ‘Hierarchy of Needs’. Once an individual’s basic needs (physical, safety, and security) and psychological needs (belonging, love, and esteem) have been achieved, they will seek to achieve their highest order need for self-fulfillment. This will ultimately include the need for appropriate remuneration, however, at this level, individuals want to feel that they are contributing value to the organisation and are integral to the achievement of something important and enduring.
In non-business scenarios such as war, sport, politics, and education, the realisation of their vision and the achievement of the associated outcomes must be the leader’s primary focus. This often results in the conclusion of the ‘finite game’, activity, or mission which concludes when there is a clear winner.
This differs dramatically from business where the leader needs to continuously achieve sufficient financial success to sustain the business and/or meet shareholder financial, legal, and moral expectations and targets. In business, the organisation is analogous to an organism where the aim is to grow, develop and survive as long as possible.
In business, top leaders may develop the vision and set the direction for the organisation, but they are pressured to act and react to external forces with opposing interests such as shareholders and unions.
Ultimately, top leaders need to not allow themselves to be coerced into making decisions that adversely affect the achievement of the vision in order to be nice. There’s nothing wrong with being a ‘nice leader’ however this should be subordinate to being an effective leader who delivers the outcomes necessary to grow and sustain the business.
