PeopleImagesWhat kinds of fear, if any, are appropriate in leading others?
Fear has a place in leading and managing others. But if used for short-term achievement, as a negative motivator, or as a source of power over others, it can have a damaging long-term effect. It depends on the conditions under which fear is employed and the personal qualities of the leader employing it. At least that was the predominant view among a wide range of reactions to the synopsis of Amy Edmondson’s book, The Fearless Organization, that appeared in this month’s column.
Several agreed with Edmondson that a leader’s role should involve reducing fear among associates to a minimum. Beatriz commented that, “quite often, team members paralyze due to fear and start delegating upward… New KPIs, action plans, and strategies that don’t decipher the bad organizational habits and practices, like the managing by fear culture, won’t even scratch the surface of the performance problem.” As Jerry put it, “My experience with fear based management was that employees were reluctant to innovate because there was a risk that if anything went awry they would be crucified.” Roger added, “The whacking with the stick, or getting short-term change out of a fear of consequences, only perpetuates long-term fear, which decreases innovation, collaboration, and growth …”
On the other hand, Paul argued that, “The ever growing body of neurological research has found that at times fear … can lead to defensive behaviors that end up saving the life of the potential victim … The trigger for achieving the desired outcome: instilling the sense of fear in the subordinate. Accordingly, can an argument be made that at times and under certain circumstances fear might be the best way to achieve a desired outcome that typically won’t be achieved by appeals to rational reasoning?” Wildebeest, finding this argument persuasive, suggested that the use of fear combined with respect for a leader among those being led is defensible. He reminded us that, “Patton said ‘God help us if they (his men) ever lose their fear of me.’ Patton had high standards, commanded great respect, and the fear he created was entirely purposeful and positive.” John Hudson stated, “(It is) hard to find a business without fear of something in its bag of incentives, be it fear of failure, fear of competitors, fear of missing out … Leadership quality lies in demonstrating full understanding and competent threat management.”
Several respondents saw the relationship between fear and leadership as ever more complex. David Wittenberg associated fear with management but not leadership. In his words: “While both leadership and management seek the cooperation of others, the manager has control and the leader does not. The manager can motivate with rewards and punishments, while the leader must win hearts and minds. Therefore, fear is a part of management but not of leadership. A smart and effective manager will excel at leadership, too.”
For Sean Kennedy, more interesting questions than the one posed are “’what kind of fears?’ and ‘what is a leader’s relationship to fear?’ … If a leader is helping people face legitimate fears, in order to take action, then I’d say that’s an example of real leadership.”
So let’s ask the question: What kinds of fear, if any, are appropriate in leading others? What do you think?
Original Column
Recently, the president of the United States was quoted as saying, “Real power is through respect. Real power is, I don’t even want to use the word, fear.” A book to be published in November by Amy Edmondson, The Fearless Organization, argues that fear is not a useful tool in a leader’s toolkit when it comes to managing interpersonal relationships in a workplace.
Best known for her studies of teams and teaming (where different team members come together for one specific project after another), Edmonson’s book builds upon what she has found in that work. Specifically, her concern is the degree to which fear—fear of not being included, fear of appearing ignorant, fear of being ignored, fear of being the "skunk at the garden party,"—destroys teamwork, creativity, and innovation.
Psychological safety is the antidote to fear. One of a leader’s primary tasks is creating that safety. To paraphrase the author, a fearless workplace is one where employees feel that their opinions count. A 2017 Gallup poll found that only three in 10 employees strongly agree with the statement that their opinions count at work. Gallup further estimated that by moving the ratio to six in 10, organizations could realize a 27 percent reduction in turnover, a 40 percent reduction in safety incidents, and a 12 percent increase in productivity.
"A fearless workplace is one where employees feel that their opinions count"
The author reminds us that, “a recent tidal wave of harassment claims highlights the costs of failing to create a psychologically safe workplace for women.”
Edmondson has the numbers to back up her arguments. She has, for example, conducted many studies showing greater learning, performance, and even lower mortality (in a healthcare setting) as a result of psychological safety (PS). She maintains that PS is not a reflection of personality differences but rather a “feature of the workplace that leaders (at all levels) can and must help create.” Different research has shown that psychological safety fosters employee engagement.
Other studies have provided evidence that fear inhibits learning and cooperation. It fosters an “epidemic of silence.” It is not a motivator, especially in the long run.
Psychological safety builds a better organization
According to Edmondson, psychological safety is not about being nice or lowering performance standards. She labels an organization with high PS and high standards as being in the “Learning & High Performance Zone” while one with high PS and low standards is in the much less desirable “Comfort Zone.” PS by itself is not enough. It has to be combined with high standards as well as “sharing, sharpening, and continually emphasizing a worthy purpose.”
So how does one go about building PS? Edmondson suggests, among other things, reframing failure primarily as an opportunity to learn, emphasizing why “voice” (elimination of fear to contribute) is important, and reminding people of “why what they do matters.” Additional effective approaches include inviting others to participate by being a “don’t knower” who practices “humble listening,” purposeful probing to find out what others are seeing, sincerely expressing appreciation for contributions by others, destigmatizing failure, and, when necessary, sanctioning actions by members of the organization that increase rather than reduce fear.
Accept the notion that fear doesn’t belong in the workplace. This leaves us with the question of whether fear is a useful lever in such areas as negotiation, competition, or personal performance (as in fear of failure). If so, is it hard to compartmentalize the use of fear in these realms? Does the practice tend to spill over into the management of interpersonal relations? What is the function of fear in leadership? What do you think?
References:
Amy Edmondson, The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, N.J., 2019).
Gallup, State of the American Workplace (Gallup: Washington, D..C., 2017), accessed June 13, 2018.
Gallup, State of the American Workplace Report (Gallup: Washington, D.C., 2012).
Bob Woodward, Fear: Trump in the White House, (Simon & Schuster: New York, 2018), cover quote.