Kindness builds trust. But confusing kindness with avoiding discomfort can erode performance, drain morale, and stall your organization. If you’re rewarding underperformance, sidestepping feedback, or clinging to weak projects to spare feelings, you’re being nice at the expense of being good. Here’s how to reset.
Hold people accountable—especially high earners. Paying more should come with higher expectations. Be clear about performance standards, track progress regularly, and follow through. This may mean letting go of well-meaning but underperforming employees, but the long-term health of your team depends on it.
Give candid feedback, even when it’s uncomfortable. Support growth with clear, constructive guidance. Don’t sugarcoat. When delivered with respect, critical feedback is a development tool—not a punishment. Train managers to give it often, empathetically, and in ways people can act on.
Stop treating retention as the ultimate goal. Retention matters, but not at any cost. When roles outgrow people or values no longer align, it’s better to part ways with care than to keep someone in the wrong seat. Prioritize fit, not familiarity.
Tighten your strategy by saying no. Too many priorities mean nothing gets done well. Use clear criteria to cut underperforming efforts and focus your resources where they’ll have the greatest impact.
This tip is adapted from “Is Your Leadership Style Too Nice?,” by Ron Ashkenas and Gali Cooks.
I recently read a Harvard Business Review article and thought it was worthy to share the concepts and message.
Kindness builds trust, but “niceness” that avoids discomfort creates drag.
When leaders protect feelings at the expense of standards, the cost shows up as lower performance, frustration from high performers, and strategic stagnation.
What the reset looks like (your key takeaways)
- Accountability is part of kindness.
Higher pay and seniority should come with higher expectations, clear standards, consistent tracking, and follow-through—even if that means letting someone go. - Candid feedback is a leadership responsibility.
Respectful honesty is not harshness. It’s how people grow. Managers should deliver feedback clearly, regularly, and in actionable terms, without sugarcoating. - Retention isn’t the ultimate metric.
Keeping people “because they’re nice” can quietly harm the team. When fit or alignment is gone, it’s better to separate with care than keep someone stuck. - Strategy requires saying no.
Too many priorities = diluted execution. Strong leaders cut weak projects and concentrate resources where results matter most.
The “nice trap” this warns against
Rewarding underperformance, avoiding tough conversations, and keeping weak initiatives alive feels compassionate short-term—but it often becomes unfair to the people carrying the weight.
Great question. Here are practical interaction examples where leaders often “default to nice,” and what to change them into instead—without losing kindness.
1) Avoiding direct feedback
Before (nice, unclear):
“Everything’s going fine—just keep doing what you’re doing.”
After (kind + clear):
“You’re doing well in X. The gap is Y. Here’s what ‘good’ looks like, and I want to see it by Friday.”
2) Softening the message until it disappears
Before:
“Maybe we could consider tightening this up a little?”
After:
“This isn’t meeting the standard yet. Tighten A and B, and resubmit by 2pm.”
3) Letting missed deadlines slide
Before:
“No worries, I know you’re busy.”
After:
“I get you’re overloaded. This deadline still matters. What’s your plan to deliver, and what do you need to drop to make it happen?”
4) Protecting someone from discomfort
Before:
“I’ll just fix it myself so they don’t feel bad.”
After:
“I want you to take the first pass. I’ll review it with you so you can build the skill.”
5) Overexplaining to avoid conflict
Before:
A 10-minute justification for every decision.
After:
“I hear your concerns. I’ve decided we’re doing X. Let’s focus on executing it well.”
6) Saying yes to everything to be supportive
Before:
“Sure, we can add that too.”
After:
“We can do that, but it means we delay X. Which one matters more?”
7) Tolerating chronic low performance
Before:
“They’re trying really hard, so let’s give it more time.”
After:
“I respect the effort. The results still aren’t there. Here are the expectations, the timeline, and what happens if it doesn’t improve.”
8) Letting high performers carry low performers
Before:
“Can you just cover this again? You’re so good at it.”
After:
“I appreciate you stepping in. We need a sustainable fix—let’s reassign ownership and set accountability.”
9) Not addressing behavior because “they mean well.”
Before:
“That’s just their personality.”
After:
“I know your intent is positive. The impact is that others shut down. You need to change how you’re showing up in meetings.”
10) “Hinting” instead of asking directly
Before:
“It’d be great if people could be more responsive…”
After:
“I need you to respond within 24 hours going forward. If you can’t, tell me when you will.”
11) Letting meetings run politely off-track
Before:
“Okay, let’s hear everyone out…”
After:
“This is drifting. The decision we need today is X. We have 10 minutes—what are the options?”
12) Avoiding hard decisions on weak projects
Before:
“Let’s keep it alive a little longer.”
After:
“This isn’t delivering. We’re stopping it and reallocating the budget to X.”
13) Praising effort when results are needed
Before:
“Thanks for all your hard work.”
After:
“I appreciate the effort. Now we need measurable outcomes: A by date, B by date.”
14) Giving “comforting” instead of “coaching.”
Before:
“It’s okay—don’t worry about it.”
After:
“It happened. Here’s what we’ll do differently next time, and here’s what I want you to try.”
Quick rule of thumb
If your message is kind but unclear, it can later seem unclear.
Aim for: Respectful + Specific + Follow-through.
