Niceness isn’t always as nice as it seems. As many organizations with a nice corporate culture are finding out, having a reputation for niceness can carry some challenges. A nice culture sometimes focuses on getting along to the detriment of delivering results.
Recently on The Science of Personality, cohosts Ryne Sherman, PhD, and Blake Loepp discussed how a nice corporate culture can be costly. “Talking about performance requires focusing on results and holding people accountable,” Ryne said. “The risk for having a nice culture is that the organization can go under.”
Let’s dive into corporate niceness—and an alternative approach.
How Nice Is Too Nice?
In a nice corporate culture, people get along with each other really well. Everyone’s pleasant, polite, and easy to work with. On the surface, an organization with a nice culture seems like a good place to work. “The overall definition of a nice culture is one where people try to create an environment where everyone feels like everyone else is nice to them,” Ryne said.
That sounds great, right? Well . . .
The drawbacks of a nice culture relate to performance, feedback, and accountability. It’s hard to create accountability for poor performance when people are unwilling to challenge each other or deliver feedback.
Cultural norms around niceness can be influenced by region of the globe and other societal factors. Expectations around hiring, feedback, performance, promotion, and firing vary greatly. Ryne pointed out that in some places, it can be difficult to remove a poor performer. Under such circumstances, focusing on accountability can seem detrimental.
Disadvantages of a Nice Culture
Ryne identified several signs that a nice organizational culture might be too nice. These are based on conversations he held with distributors and clients about their various global markets.
- Flatlining growth – When productivity, performance, engagement, or profitability stall or decline, a nice culture might be the root cause.
- Low accountability – Failing to hold someone accountable for their work can result in retaining poor performers, facilitating complacency, and damaging employee engagement.
- Avoiding difficult conversations – People may struggle to have difficult or uncomfortable conversations because they want to be seen as nice, pleasant, and easy to get along with.
- Avoiding critical feedback – Giving critical feedback could have organizational consequences based on the behavior of the person receiving feedback.
- Overemphasis on cohesion – Putting too much emphasis on the importance of unity in direction, purpose, and ideas can be damaging to a culture whenever someone disagrees.
The Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) scale Interpersonal Sensitivity is likely a key driver of these drawbacks to a nice culture. People who score high on Interpersonal Sensitivity tend to be described as rewarding to deal with, pleasant, nice, and friendly. “But by creating a reputation as nice, we often avoid doing things that might make us seem not nice, including giving someone direct feedback, criticizing someone, or holding someone accountable for hitting their targets,” Ryne explained. The desire to seem warm and welcoming can cause people to avoid interpersonal conflict.
The Difference Between Nice and Caring
The critical distinction between being nice and being caring has to do with intention. Someone who wants to be nice will come across as friendly, polite, and respectful. A nice person will say, “Great job with the presentation!” no matter what. Someone who wants to be caring will feel a responsibility to improve others and the organization. A caring person will say, “Great job with the presentation! If I could give one piece of feedback, this would be it.”
Giving no critical feedback at all isn’t constructive, and neither is giving critical feedback in an overly harsh manner. “Give feedback in a way that’s caring and also nice,” Ryne said. He pointed out that sincerity was a major component of feedback that doesn’t hurt or offend.
Feedback that is motivated by caring and delivered effectively can lead to a more successful product or outcome. Building a caring culture means helping others improve. “The alternative approach is a model that replaces nice with caring,” he added.
An athletic coach’s job is to improve an athlete’s performance by helping them progressively improve. This involves critiquing the athlete but stems from a commitment to the athlete’s development and growth. A good coach, whether athletic or executive, pushes others to help them perform better. The best coaches know how to balance being critical and helpful with being respectful and caring.
How to Implement a Caring Culture
Changing a nice corporate culture is not a quick or easy endeavor, but the ROI can be extreme. Ryne named a few things to consider before making a change from a nice culture to a caring culture: 1) legal concerns, 2) rules and policies, and 3) psychological safety. In some regions of the globe, certain kinds of feedback could lead to legal ramifications, so it’s important to research the legal nuances of critical feedback. It’s also important to assess the current organizational rules and policies about feedback and whether they are being enforced. Finally—and perhaps most importantly—building psychological safety empowers leaders and employees to provide sincere, meaningful feedback. “A psychologically safe environment is one where you can give people critical feedback and yet still feel safe in in the consequences of delivering that feedback,” Ryne said.
Hogan Scales and Niceness
Personality data are also a helpful tool in implementing a caring culture. People with high Interpersonal Sensitivity scores tend to seem agreeable and avoid conflict but risk coming across as overly sensitive. Those with low Interpersonal Sensitivity scores likely have a more straightforward, candid communication style but risk seeming abrasive or confrontational. An organization that values caring should ensure that directness can be as rewarding as niceness.
In addition to Interpersonal Sensitivity, the MVPI Altruistic scale also influences a caring culture. Someone with a high Altruistic score likely wants to help others; someone with a low Altruistic score likely wants to help others help themselves. This is the proverbial difference between giving someone a fish to feed them for a day and teaching someone to fish to feed them for a lifetime. In other words, it relates to the impulse to give someone a hand up or a handout. The organizational perspective on this scale can affect whether people avoid delivering feedback because they’re afraid to damage their reputation as helpful.
Getting Started
Organizations need to recognize that cultural change is a long-term process. Transforming from a nice corporate culture to a caring corporate culture takes time and effort.
Organizations also need to focus on building psychological safety. Ironically, Ryne said, some organizations have a nice culture because it’s not a psychologically safe environment to hold people accountable.
Cultural change begins at the leadership level. “Leaders have to set the example of receiving and providing feedback,” Ryne said. “They have to be willing to take feedback in a way that isn’t defensive and to use that feedback to grow. Then they have to be willing to deliver that same kind of caring feedback to others.”
Assessment data help leaders at every organizational level understand the type of culture they tend to create by default. It also helps them to understand where they may need to shift their behavior to build a culture of caring, critical feedback, and continuous improvement.
A version of this article appeared on hoganassessments.com, posted on October 01, 2024
EXPERD, Human Resources Consultant, Jakarta – Indonesia