Many leaders pride themselves on being “nice.” They’re approachable, supportive, and well-intentioned. But according to a recent Harvard Business Review article, Why Leaders Need to Be Less Nice and More Good, niceness can quietly undermine performance when it prevents leaders from doing what’s truly required of them.
The article challenges a common leadership trap: confusing kindness with effectiveness. Being nice often means avoiding discomfort—softening feedback, delaying tough decisions, or sidestepping conflict to preserve harmony. Being good, on the other hand, means doing the hard work of leadership: setting clear expectations, addressing performance issues directly, holding people accountable, and making decisions that serve the long-term health of the organization, not just short-term comfort.
The irony is that leaders who avoid difficult conversations in the name of being nice often create more dysfunction over time. Issues linger, resentment builds, and trust erodes—not because leaders were cruel, but because they were unclear.
This distinction between being “nice” and being “good” aligns directly with the concept of the Last 8%, which we explored in depth in our earlier blog, Building a Last 8% Culture: How Trust, Conflict, and Behavioral Insight Create High-Performing Teams.
The Last 8% refers to those moments when emotional risk is highest—the final stretch of a conversation or decision where leaders and teams are most tempted to retreat. It’s where feedback becomes specific, accountability becomes real, and truth replaces politeness. Most teams do fine in the first 92% of interactions. Performance gaps emerge when leaders and teams avoid that final 8% because it feels uncomfortable.
The HBR article essentially reinforces this idea: leadership effectiveness is determined not by how agreeable you are, but by whether you’re willing and able to step into those Last 8% moments with clarity, courage, and care.
Avoiding difficult conversations isn’t usually a skill problem—it’s a self-awareness problem. Leaders often default to behaviors that feel safest under pressure. Some smooth things over. Others delay decisions. Some become overly accommodating. These patterns aren’t random; they’re predictable.
This is where many leadership development efforts fall short. Without understanding how leaders are wired to behave under stress, telling them to “be more direct” or “have the tough conversation” rarely sticks.
The Predictive Index provides the behavioral insight leaders need to move from niceness to goodness—without losing trust or psychological safety.
PI helps leaders understand:
How they naturally respond to conflict and pressure
Where they may avoid confrontation or clarity
How others experience their communication style
What adjustments will lead to more productive dialogue
Instead of guessing, leaders can prepare for difficult conversations with a clear understanding of their own tendencies and those of their teams. This turns emotionally charged moments into structured, intentional discussions.
Beyond individual insight, we also use The Five Behaviors® assessments to help teams benchmark how they perform in areas directly related to the Last 8%:
The Conflict dimension, in particular, reveals whether teams engage in productive debate or default to artificial harmony. This data allows leaders to see where “niceness” is getting in the way of effectiveness—and where targeted development can raise the bar.
When leaders combine behavioral insight with a shared language around trust and conflict, difficult conversations stop being avoided and start becoming a competitive advantage. Being “good” doesn’t mean being harsh. It means being clear, consistent, and courageous—especially in the moments that matter most.
If leadership happens in the Last 8%, then insight, preparation, and data are what make leaders effective when they get there.
|
|