Are you Choosing between ‘Kind' and 'Right'? The Strategic Advantage of People-First Leadership
|
Let’s be honest, in the C-suite, there’s a persistent, whispered question: Does truly effective leadership force a choice between ‘being kind’ and ‘doing the right thing’? For too long, the default answer has been a resigned nod towards the latter, accepting that success requires a certain ‘hardness’.
At Hive17, we think that choosing between ‘kind’ and ‘right’ is asking the wrong question. For leaders striving to build organisations that are not only high-performing but genuinely resilient and adaptable, navigating this false dichotomy is critical. Is kind leadership inherently weak? Does the ‘right thing’ always mean conflict? |
By withholding respectful, direct feedback, a leader denies the employee their fundamental right to grow and improve. The poor performance becomes chronic, creating unnecessary stress for that individual and dragging down the output of the entire team. In effect, this perceived “kindness” is a profound act of professional disrespect. It sends a clear message: I don't believe you are capable of changing or handling the truth.
The alternative, 'doing the right thing' by confronting the performance gap, is feared because it's incorrectly equated with harshness or a punitive measure. Furthermore, the approach many leaders take to being "hard" involves pointing out mistakes, micromanaging project execution, and relentlessly pushing for improvement. This manner of confrontation is equally corrosive, leading to demotivation, dwindling self-confidence, and an unhealthy reliance on the leader's input.
The effective approach, however, is fundamentally constructive and rooted in support. It begins not with critique, rather with inquiry. A truly kind leader seeks to understand the context: What was the team member’s interpretation of the objective? Which resources are missing? How do they assess their own output? This kind of conversation instantly shifts the dynamic from an evaluation of failure to a joint commitment to learning and development. It empowers the leader to ask the only question that truly matters: “How can I support you to succeed next time?" This might involve providing clear objectives, assigning a dedicated mentor, or adjusting the workload. This honest, transparent engagement - placing the truth on the table with the individual’s potential and the organisation’s success as the primary focus - is the ultimate expression of kind leadership.
This principle applies just as powerfully to major strategic decisions. When rolling out a new business strategy, the temptation might be to enforce it quickly via top-down mandates, citing external pressures like market conditions or customer demands. The genuinely ‘right’ thing to do - the kind thing - is to adopt a collaborative, co-creation approach. This means involving your senior leaders early, inquiring their understanding, aligning the strategy with their on-the-ground market view, and collaboratively identifying risks and gaps. This investment in shared understanding is not a delay; it is the essential step required to unite a leadership team that moves forward with strong alignment, high energy, and shared accountability.
Approaching our colleagues consistently with a people-first ethos - seeing them as human beings with their potential, quirks, and desires - is the foundation for cultivating a culture of mutual trust and belonging. This compassionate approach is the right approach: one that empowers everyone to perform at their highest level, resulting in faster, more informed decisions and sustained momentum across the business.
Doing the right thing, respectfully and constructively, is the true definition of kind leadership. It is not soft; it is sophisticated, strategic, and is the only foundational ingredient to sustainable business results.
How do you see the difference between 'being kind' and 'doing the right thing'?
I agree with you that we should be kind to one another. I respectfully point out that, in business, as in our personal lives, there comes a time when kindness and compassion give way to being taken advantage of. I try every day to do something kind for a neighbor, friend, or husband that is over and above the usual pleasantries of the day. Kindness is not allowing one person to disrupt the flow of an effective work environment. Once you allow a precedent to be set, you have launched an unfair atmosphere. A manager can hardly allow one person in the group (i.e., one bad apple) to set the tempo for workflow. I will take fairness over kindness if I have to make a choice. Allowing one person to manipulate the system by choosing to do whatever they want on the weekend that disrupts their responsibility and commitment to the job they took on, knowing the terms in advance, is unfair to their co-workers as well as the clients who expect results. IMO, they would be kindly dismissed.
Mary, thank you for your thoughts.
There are always many definitions and interpretations of any term we are using.
You are absolutely right: making other people feel great and accepting their self-focused behaviour is not the way to go. I would call this 'being nice'.
For me, kindness is asking the questions:
Am I advancing the other person to become a better person?
Are we creating an impact together?
Am I seeing the other person as a human being on the same eye level?
I think, then, that you and I agree that we should do all we can to foster a person's growth and try to get to the bottom of their issue. That works well if the other person is forthcoming, but that doesn't always happen. Of course, as a manager, I consider every person in my department worth investing time and effort to propel their career. It was, and is, my belief that investing additional training and resources in a person benefits everyone. I think I learned more about managing from watching poor managers and deciding how NOT to manage. I had a particularly difficult employee who told me plainly that she didn't always agree with my ultimate decisions, but she knew I was always fair. To me, that was a win.
The old adage "you can lead a horse to water...." still applies to these situations. I have no qualms about any personnel decisions I made during my management tenure because I know I did all I could to help people go as far as the system would allow while still maintaining exceptional service to our clients. It is just that MY view of "kind" may not have been the same as that of the person who may have been disciplined.