Is positivity – the ability to convince your team everything is OK – an essential trait for all leaders? I respectfully disagree that it is, and actually consider it to be quietly, dangerously, corrosive. Shouldn’t we instead value candid, authentic, realistic leadership?
Earlier this week I saw a much shared and “liked” quote posted on LinkedIn that read:
“Being positive in a negative situation is not naïve, it’s leadership.”
Respectfully I disagree. It is not leadership. It is, however, something I call Controlling Leadership heavily influenced by a strong dose of Toxic Positivity. In my view, this is one of the most dangerous types of leaders because they seem to bask in the fuzzy glow of an Instagram-perfect view of the world. They aren’t belittling their teams or slamming their fists on the desk. More often than not, they are downright pleasant to be around, and can inspire brief periods of adoring followers. But eventually, reality sets in for those around them, along with the realization that they have little – or no – leadership support. No one in their corner, fighting for them.
Toxic positivity is a corrosive behavior for a leader because it gradually undermines their teams’ sense of safety, stability, and trust in the leader, and their business. While the leader believes their Pollyanna-esque behavior sends signals of reassurance, in truth it denies reality…a reality their teams are facing on a daily basis with zero air cover.
To drive this home, let me share a story – a true story – of two teams. I was running leadership development & coaching for a financial services company when they announced a fairly significant merger with a much larger competitor. While the news wasn’t totally unexpected, it still came as a surprise. And, it was in those early days, after the announcement, that I saw some fascinating examples of in-the-moment crisis leadership, since my role was to directly support the CEO, and his leadership team with the merger change leadership.
One senior executive pulled her management team together to formally announce the merger, and field questions from her team, as well as set expectations for their self and team leadership going forward. She encouraged questions, acknowledged, and validated fears, and provided an environment of caring support. She also made it clear that her team was to be on board for changes, participate in sessions to determine the direction of the new company, and be collaborative partners in executing the final model – even if they didn’t always agree with the final decisions. Additionally, she was clear that she would keep her team informed and current on new developments, as she knew them and was able to share. But that there would be times when she could not share, due to legal and confidentiality reasons. Her team left that meeting with a sense of purpose and pride.
Conversely, I was present during another executive’s meeting with his senior-most leaders when he downplayed news of the merger and declared his team would be OK – not just OK, but totally unscathed and intact – if they simply flew under the radar screen. His message was to circle the wagons, ignore any questions asked by the merger integration team, and no one could touch them. He assured the team he would protect them, and their jobs were 100% secure. (Note: Never promise anyone their job is secure during a merger.) Within a few weeks, his team observed their friends and co-workers in other departments diving into merger work, making new friends from the other company, and rolling up their sleeves to create a new company, taking the best from both companies while creating the new, combined firm. While they realized they were potentially missing out on something bigger than them, and innovative, they didn’t dare stir the pot. Rather, they turned inward.
Fast forward twelve months. The leaders from the first scenario stayed with the company, even if it meant taking new, different roles. But they were seen as terrific team players, collaborative, and trusted partners. The company made sure there was a place for leaders of this caliber.
The second team didn’t fare so well. They did, indeed, remain intact for about 12 months. Entering their department was like entering a time capsule, filled with posters and paraphernalia from the old company. You felt the mood and tone shift the second you stepped into their secretive domain. Once they were discovered, their domain was quickly dissolved, and the majority of the leaders were laid off. The members of the team hadn’t participated in any of the integration conversations and didn’t understand the new company. It took less than two years for almost 100% of them to leave the company.
So, I leave it to you. Which type of leader would you rather be? Or work for, in times of unrest and change? I know my answer.
