The biggest lie you’ve been told about leadership

A colleague and I were recently comparing books we'd been given by well-meaning bosses (mine as a 20-something manager) about how we were too nice. It turns out there's a lot of these books, and they weirdly all have giant smiley faces on the covers.

The feedback, of course, was to be "tougher," predicated on a false binary that you can't be nice and firm at the same time. That you can't be nice and effective at the same time. That you can't be nice and be a good leader.

Deep down, I rejected the idea, and I had the data to prove my leadership style was effective: Engaged employees, satisfied customers, growing sales, etc. But I was young, so I always thought there must be something to it. I mean, look at the sheer number of books written on the subject.

Being nice has long been touted as incompatible with good leadership. It's often conflated with people-pleasing, a lack of assertiveness, and a lack of confidence.

In recent years, some have ceded and said being kind is fine -- just never be NICE. Of course how we define such things matters, but at this point it's just semantics. In a cruel world where we are torn apart by wars and injustice, I have to ask: What is so wrong with being nice?

Imagine my excitement when I recently stumbled on the following passage in an HBR book on leadership presence:

"A growing body of research suggests that the way to influence -- and to lead -- is to begin with warmth. Warmth is the conduit of influence: It facilitates trust and the communication and absorption of ideas."

What does it mean to lead with warmth? It means to be understanding, welcoming, kind, empathetic -- even tender.

It's 2024. Let's free ourselves from the (frankly patriarchal, but that's a whole other article) idea that good leaders can't be nice. Let's begin -- and end -- with warmth.