Harvard
Business
Review
Organizational Culture
The Hazards of a “Nice”
Company Culture
by Timothy R. Clark
June 25, 2021
lryna Veklich/Getty Images
Summary. In far too many companies, there is the appearance of harmony and
alignment but in reality there's often dysfunction simmering beneath the surface.
The intention behind cultivating a nice culture is often genuine. Leaders believe
they're doing good thing... more
Have you ever attended a meeting that wasn’t the meeting? Everyone
was pleasant and agreeable in the room, but then filed off to engage in
back-channel conversations and hold kangaroo courts. This kind of
charade is one of the many symptoms of a “nice” culture, But what’s
touted as niceness is often nothing more than the veneer of civility, a
cute nod to psychological safety, a hologram that falsely signalsinclusion, collaboration, and high performance. In many of these
cultures, leaders have simply spread a thin layer of politeness over a
thick layer of fear. There is the appearance of harmony and alignment
but in reality there’s often dysfunction simmering beneath the surface
that results in a lack of honest communication, intellectual bravery,
innovation, and accountability.
Why Organizations Pursue Niceness
The intention behind cultivating a nice culture is often genuine. In my
experience, for example, it’s common for organizations with a noble
institutional mission, such as educational institutions, healthcare
organizations, government bodies, non-profits, and voluntary
associations to cultivate an environment of collegiality that emanates
from their mission. A benevolent purpose tends to foster a benevolent
culture, and a benevolent culture tends to spawn niceness. For example,
I worked with a biotechnology firm that had a deeply instilled mission
to preserve patient safety. Ironically, that sense of compassion for
patients mutated into a nice culture that drove truth-telling
underground.
There are many reasons why leaders pursue niceness. Based on my
experience working with hundreds of organizations and thousands of
leaders over the past 20 years, here are the top four.
To avoid conflict and gain approval. As a reflection of their own
desire to be liked, leaders often avoid conflict and stigmatize dissent.
They would rather be nice than offend, misbelieving that those are the
only two choices.
To replace genuine inclusion. Some organizations see niceness as a
proxy for inclusion. They believe that to be nice is to be humane. When
you see diverse employee populations self-segregate based on natural
affinity groups, it could be an indicator of an unspoken “separate but
nice” philosophy.
To show exaggerated deference to the chain of command. In fear-
based organizations, niceness keeps you safe. The logic is that if you
don’t provoke the ire of those in power, you have a measure of job
security.To motivate people instead of holding them accountable. Yes,
interpersonal warmth creates a conduit of influence, but you still need
accountability. I once worked with a highly affable CEO, who, to his
eternal consternation, created a toxic nice culture in which people
would hug each other and then not follow through on commitments.
The Dangerous Downsides of a Nice Culture
The adverse consequences of niceness are not simply inconvenient, they
can be catastrophic for an organization. The downsides include:
Crisis activation. At times, inertia becomes so strong in a nice culture
that the organization loses its ability to act preemptively. People wait
until a problem becomes too big to ignore. How is it possible, for
example, that it took the University of Southern California more than
25 years to acknowledge and act on the sexual abuse claims against Dr.
George Tyndall, a campus gynecologist, eventually culminating in a
staggering $1.1 billion settlement? I’ve personally worked with more
than 30 universities over the past 20 years and I’ve observed that they
are notorious for putting low performers and bad actors in corners
rather than directly addressing their performance. Nice cultures tend to
nurture the false dichotomy that you can either be nice or you can hold
people accountable, but not both.
Choked innovation. By its very nature, innovation disrupts the status
quo. And yet it’s the lifeblood of growth. Innovation is also a social
process that requires divergent thinking and courageous conversations,
Pervasive niceness suppresses this process, creating an intellectual
muzzle that can turn teams of exceptionally talented people into
dysfunctional groups. I frequently work with institutions that
desperately need to boost innovation but their nice cultures slow the
speed of discovery.
Bleeding talent. Talented people want to make a meaningful
contribution. A-players want a healthy culture in which they can be
rewarded for challenging the status quo. As one A-player who worked
ina large pharmaceutical company said to me, “I'd rather work in an
authoritarian toxic culture than a nice toxic culture because in the
authoritarian toxic culture, they would at least tell me that I’'m wrongwhen I challenge the status quo. I can provoke the system, force a
reaction, and maybe that will lead to something. In a nice toxic culture,
they humor you and then nothing ever happens.”
Low-velocity decision making. In a nice culture, there’s pressure to
go along to get along. A low tolerance for candor makes the necessary
discussion and analysis for decision making shallow and slow. You
either get an echo chamber in which the homogenization of thought
gives you a flawed decision, or you conduct what seem to be endless
rounds of discussion in pursuit of consensus. Eventually, this can lead
to chronic indecisiveness. For example, I worked with a healthcare
organization that became so nice they decided to adopt a consensus
decision making model. It was an unmitigated disaster. The CEO pulled
the plug on this experiment after three painful months of swimming in
ambiguity.
Learned helplessness. An invisible norm of niceness can induce
conformity, passivity, and learned helplessness that lowers the bar of
performance. For instance, I've listened to administrators, faculty, and
staff at top-tier universities complain bitterly about academe’s
stultifying brand of politeness and how it destroys morale and
extinguishes i
istrator told me that
jative. One university admit
niceness has become a strait jacket that is putting institutional reform at
serious risk. Instead of challenging the environment in hopes of
improving the situation, people are throwing their hands up, and
keeping quiet.
Combatting “Niceness”
There are several strategies you can employ to avoid the consequences
above, creating a kind culture instead of a “nice” one.
Clarify expectations, standards of performance, and meeting
types. Ambiguity feeds toxic niceness, so clarify how you expect
people to treat one another and hold each other accountable. Be explicit
that you expect intellectual honesty, candid feedback, and tough
questions. This change won't be easy so it’s imperative that you clearly
explain the organization’s current state, future state, and how the
transition between the two will work. As soon as you communicate the
new expectations, hold people accountable for violations. Finally, whenyou have meetings, have an agenda and be explicit in explaining the
type of meeting you intend to have. If you are there to discuss and
decide issues, say so. If it’s an exploratory meeting to ideate and
innovate, let everyone know up front. If it’s about communication and
coordination, don’t keep ita secret.
Publicly challenge the status quo you helped create. Don’t expect
others to muscle through the fear and usher in anew era of truth-
telling if you haven’t modeled the behavior first. You must be the first
mover, demonstrating vulnerability and fallibility, and showing people
that candor is rewarded. When others see you cast aside your ego
defense mechanisms and pride of authorship for what you built in the
past, it will give them courage.
Provide air cover for candor. When people do have the courage to
express dissenting views and speak candidly, protect them. Reduce the
risk of ridicule by thanking those who do. As you accommodate dissent,
you will gradually recast the norm until it becomes a cultural
expectation.
Confront performance problems immediately. When you don’t
address a performance problem, you condone it. And if you hesitate to
take action, you create confusion. Hold people accountable privately
and respectfully, People who don’t respect these new boundaries have a
choice to either adopt the new norm or find a new opportunity. The one
thing they won't do is retire on the job because it’s no longer an option.
Martin Luther King Jr. said in his famous Letter from Birmingham Jail
“there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary
for growth.” Don’t cover that up in your efforts to be nice. Channel and
manage the tension. That’s real kindness.
Timothy R. Clark is founder and CEO of
LeaderFactor, a global leadership consulting and
training firm. He is the author of The 4 Stages of
Psychological Safety: Defining the Path to
Inclusion and Innovation (Berrett-Koehler 2020).