Good leadership. Bosses who only want to be nice end up demotivating their teams. Why the most successful leaders rely on a completely different strategy.
It is a major misconception of the modern workplace: leaders who seek to shine primarily through leniency all too often end up with a team that engages in collective “work-to-rule” behavior. While demanding supervisors are proven to elicit higher performance from their staff, exceptional motivation arises at a far rarer intersection.
The Illusion of the Dream Boss
A boss who postpones deadlines without a second thought, rubber-stamps every vacation request, hands out generous praise instead of rigid targets during annual reviews, and sends everyone off for the weekend at three o’clock on Fridays with a jovial remark—who wouldn’t want to work for someone like that? Yet the reality within companies is sobering. US leadership researchers Jack Zenger and Joseph Folkman have calculated the actual impact such paragons of agreeableness have on their teams’ engagement—and the results are disastrous for proponents of a purely “soft” management style.
For their analysis, published in the *Harvard Business Review*, the management consultants combined 360-degree assessments of leaders with engagement data from their respective teams. The results expose the illusion of harmony: a mere 6.7 percent of employees working for purely friendly bosses achieve peak engagement levels. Among tough, demanding taskmasters, the figure is only marginally higher, at 8.9 percent. Exceptional motivation stems from a completely different source.
Two Dimensions of Modern Leadership
In empirical management research, these distinct approaches are described as two measurable profiles. On one side is the so-called “Enhancer”—best translated in a German context as a relationship builder. This type of leader fosters trust, demonstrates empathy, and is dedicated to the individual professional development of their employees. Standing in contrast is the “Driver.” Their focus is on tasks, high standards, tight deadlines, and measurable results.
When employees are asked to evaluate their bosses’ behavior, a clear picture emerges: those who position themselves merely as a “feel-good haven” and focus exclusively on relationships rank last in terms of employee engagement. Yet, focusing solely on performance falls short as well.
Top-level engagement of 68 percent comes only as a package deal.
The narrow lead held by relentless taskmasters over “nice” relationship-builders is merely a footnote. The study’s real breakthrough lies in the combination: supervisors who received top marks from their employees in both disciplines—demanding performance and fostering growth—lifted a staggering 68 percent of their staff to an exceptionally high level of motivation. That is ten times the rate achieved by a purely “soft” approach.
Jack Zenger succinctly summarized this finding on LinkedIn: “We need leaders who are willing to be both: a nice guy and a tough boss.”
A supervisor who sets high standards while simultaneously establishing a culture of trust sends a dual, psychologically powerful signal to the team: the work being done is important, and employees are explicitly trusted to rise above their usual limits.
The rare talent for the splits
A second analysis conducted by the same researchers in 2017—examining 360-degree assessments of more than 60,000 executives—demonstrates that such a balance is the absolute exception in the reality of the corporate workplace. The sobering result: only 13 percent of managers manage to rank in the top quartile for both results orientation and interpersonal skills.
Yet the effort pays off for one’s career: anyone who masters this balancing act and ranks in the top quartile in both disciplines lands in the 91st percentile in the overall assessment of all executives—meaning they lead more successfully than nine out of ten colleagues.
Strictness does not require a loud voice.
But what does this mean for actual leadership practice? Demanding performance has nothing to do with applying pressure for pressure’s sake. When leaders who combine these two approaches—demanding results while also fostering development—are evaluated by their teams, employees attribute qualities such as consideration, cooperation, and trustworthiness to them. The study’s authors advise viewing leadership not as an “either-or” proposition, but as an “and.” They use an analogy from the sport of rowing: the two approaches act like a pair of oars. The boat glides straight ahead only when both blades are pulled through the water with equal force; if you pull on only one side, the boat inevitably spins in circles.
For employees, this finding turns a common concern on its head. A boss who demands a lot and sets high standards is not a signal to flee, provided they simultaneously have their employees’ backs. The situation becomes dangerous, however, when friendliness is used as a smokescreen to mask structural shortcomings; for where—beyond mere pleasantries—there is no honest feedback, no opportunities for development, and no clear goals, any motivation to excel withers away, giving way to a culture of doing the bare minimum.
Sources
- Zenger/Folkman: „Nice or Tough: Which Approach Engages Employees Most?“, Harvard Business Review, 2013
- Zenger/Folkman: „How Managers Drive Results and Employee Engagement at the Same Time“, Harvard Business Review, 2017
- Jack Zenger: LinkedIn-Beitrag zu den Engagement-Werten der Studie
- Zenger Folkman: „Increasing Employee Engagement While Achieving Results“(Podcast-Seite mit Studiendaten)
- Forbes: „Do You Mostly Lead From Your Head, Or From Your Heart?“, 2020
- Computerworld: „The management style employees love most“, 2013
About the Author
Fred Eichwald is owner arbeits-abc.de. An experienced entrepreneur, he has specialized since 2004 in supporting employees, managers, and companies in optimizing their work practices. He is convinced that a respectful relationship between managers and employees is the key to a company’s success.
Source: arbeits-abc.de
