THE MILD, THE LOUD AND THE UGLY

It’s an old, old story. 

When it comes to interviewing candidates for jobs or promotion, it’s often the people with the loud voice and the confident demeanour who are judged to be ‘leadership material’. 

Yet extensive research by Google has revealed something striking: it’s actually the ‘quiet’ leaders — the individuals who support their teams, who listen to them, who  show empathy — that deliver the most value to their companies. 

The trouble is, they’re often not seen that way. 

Best results

Adam Grant, in his book Give and Take, points out that ‘givers’ — people who are generous to colleagues and who collaborate readily — tend to communicate modestly and softly. The trouble with this, he writes, is that interviewers all too often misread such behaviours as demonstrating a lack of leadership and authority. They don’t realise that such modest communication fosters trust, encourages teamwork, and drives collaboration. 

So, what truly defines a good leader?

Project Oxygen

Google’s Project Oxygen analysed the behavioural traits most essential for effective leadership and identified eight key characteristics:

1.     Be a good coach.

2.     Empower the team without micromanaging.

3.     Show genuine concern for team members’ success and well-being.

4.     Be productive and results-oriented.

5.     Listen and share information openly.

6.     Support career development.

7.     Maintain a clear vision and strategy.

8.     Possess the necessary technical skills.

These findings align closely with those to be found in Daniel Coyle’s The Culture Code, a book that outlines three pillars for building high-performing teams:

1.     Create a safe environment.

2.     Encourage vulnerability.

3.     Establish shared goals.

But there’s another critical insight to come.

Sutton’s Rule
Robert Sutton is a Stanford University professor of management science. In his book, The No Asshole Rule, he writes that when hiring or promoting personnel, organizations should enforce a ‘No Asshole’ policy. (Sutton insists upon use of this word because others, such asbully or jerk, ‘do not convey the same degree of awfulness’.) 

For him, individuals who belittle or demean others may well deliver short-term results, but they also spread fear and resentment among colleagues, which ultimately undermines long-term organizational performance. So not only are these the leaders no one wants – they’re also a significant barrier to sustainable growth.

It’s a point reinforced by The Fearless Organization. Its author, Harvard Business School’s Amy Edmondson, believes firmly in the importance of creating a safe environment, one psychologically ‘safe’ enough for colleagues to speak up, take risks, and learn from failure — because this, in turn, maximises learning, creativity, and productivity.

Getting it wrong

Despite such opinions from respected sources, many organizations continue to equate strong, decisive, and even domineering behaviour with effective leadership. They promote high-performing individual contributors without a full evaluation of their management skills or empathy. And this is why Robert Tucker and others advocate for a new approach in their white paper, Designing a Dual Career-Track System. They argue that promotion should not automatically mean a move into management. They make the following key points:

·      Recognize the value of specialists
Even if top specialists do not move into management, their contributions are critical, and they should receive appropriate recognition and rewards.

·      Diversify career paths
Establish separate paths for specialists and managers, so enabling employees to choose the one best suited to their skills and interests.

·      Transform the culture

Expanding the available career paths can reshape organizational culture, which in turn will help to boost motivation and productivity.

The writers would like to see separate career paths for specialists and managers. They believe splitting the qualities of risk-taking and good management will counteract workplace practices that undervalue empathy, and which in turn lead to bad morale and poor performance.

All of which leads to the ultimate question: What do we really mean by ‘leadership’?

Getting it right

Confusing superficial confidence or assertiveness with good leadership, and failing to recognize empathy and supportive behaviours, risks creating a serious ‘leadership deficit’. It’s a mistake that can profoundly affect an organization and its culture. 

Yet research such as that of Project Oxygen has shown that leaders who build trust, ensure psychological safety, and support the growth of their team members are the leaders who deliver the most sustainable results.

So if we want leaders who can genuinely move teams, we must look beyond loud voices and overbearing confidence. We must focus on the individuals who can genuinely inspire and guide others.