Is it possible to be too nice? I am lucky enough to work with some really nice people but sometimes wonder if it is a trait that some people take too far. Take Peter – he’s a very successful senior manager on the brink of joining the executive ranks of his organisation. He delivers the results, has great relationships at work but his Achilles heel … well… he’s just too nice.

To Peter this is not a problem at all. He has very strong values about courtesy at work and will move heaven and earth to make sure everyone around him is happy and feathers remain unruffled. In short, he likes to be liked and probably, as a consequence, works too many hours and takes on too much. He’s a nice guy to be around.

However, from his bosses perspective, Peter’s niceness is the only question mark hovering over his further promotion. Does his niceness mean a lack of ‘grit’ and a reluctance to face into the difficult conversation or make the unpopular decision? Does he spend too much time trying to keep everyone happy? Peter in turn is adamant that his niceness doesn’t mean he can’t handle tricky situations… he just doesn’t want to do it like Genghis Khan.

So is niceness for you a handicap or a sign of an evolved leader?

I came across an amazing statistic yesterday – it was hidden in a paper by the Corporate Leadership Council on what drives individual performance… a subject dear to the heart of most learning and development professionals. The 2006 CLC’s survey of 28,000 people, had distilled out what organisational ‘levers’  impact individual performance and found that the vast majority of performance management practices make minimal positive difference. Shocking indeed!

However, stunningly, what did make a big difference was talking performance strengths – that’s the conversation that helps employees to know what their strengths are in the first place and and secondly help them figure out how to use them. Conversations that emphasized performance strengths drove a 36.4% improvement in performance, a particularly amazing figure when the same data showed that conversations that emphasized weaknesses  lead to a 26.8% decline in employee performance.

Now I think this is big news for all of us involved in learning and growth in organisations and real affirmation for the positive psychology movement. Many managers and leaders I meet seem to have an assumption that development = fixing our weaknesses, and therefore performance management conversations must be about identifying our gaps and plugging them. This data would suggest that this approach is not only unhelpful but potentially detrimental. So are we teaching managers how to have strengths-based conversations or are we perpetuating the ‘fix the fault’ approach to development?

Corporate Leadership Council (2006) From Performance Management to Performance Improvement: leveraging key drivers of individual performance. For a copy of the paper click here.

I’ve just been reading Carol Dweck book ‘Mindset‘. According to Carol’s research humanity come in two basic flavours – those with a ‘fixed mindset’ and those with a ‘growth mindset’. The fixed mindset is characterised by a limiting belief that that personal abilities are finite or fixed. This shows up as an all consuming goal to prove oneself – every situation calls for a confirmation of intelligence, personality or character. Every situation is evaluated: “Will I succeed or fail? Will I look smart or dumb? Will I be accepted or rejected?” In contrast the growth mindset is based on belief that your basic qualities can be cultivated with a bit of effort – everyone can change and grow given application and the right experience.
I’ve often wondered about this – without knowing this research – observing how people respond to being thrown into new situations in the training room. There are those seem to need to be perfect before they even try to develop their skills and reticent to just ‘give it a go’ in for fear of making mistakes and getting it wrong. Others seem much more able to just pitch in and take the learning, unafraid to hear feedback or reflect on their gaffs. Job one for the facilitator is therefore making it ok to ‘fail’ and not set expectations of perfection.
Don’t you love it when you find an idea that fits observable facts?

Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: how you can fulfil your potential London: Constable & Robinson Ltd.

How do leaders know if what they are giving their people is right?

This was the question that was exercising a leader I met last week. He was very aware of the strengths and weaknesses of his team and the challenges they had on . He was also very clear about his own management style and was well aware that he loved ‘doing the doing’  and was in danger of getting overly involved and potentially becoming an interference and a nuisance to his team

He’d also experimented with more delegation and talked fondly of a happy couple of weeks when he’d been able to go home at 5pm after off loading his project backlog. This had backfired slightly when he discovered his team straining to complete tasks and he’d  concluded that his ‘delegation’ had actually become abdication.

This delicate balance is of course the stuff of ‘situational leadership’ – the fine art of judging the right degree of empowerment and autonomy. And art is is … if there was rule book on how to do this perfectly it would be a best seller. My leader was more than half way there as he understood that getting it wrong was normal and was willing to have conversations with his team about what he needed to provide them. How refreshing!