Nice guys, tough guys

There are two schools of thought regarding the idea of being a "nice" manager. One school says that nice guys finish last, and that their bei ng nice people end up leading to an organization that doesn't accomplish anythi ng, or in having people that don't do what they're supposed to be doing in the first place. The other school says that nice guys finish first, and that ni ce guys lead to productive organizations that thrive on respect, equality and h armony. Obviously these are two opposing schools of thought. Perhaps this can then help shed light on the issue. Being nice can be a liability if a manager is being nice just so in order to be liked. Perhaps the manager's primary goal in life is to have people liking him or her, and this becomes a liability because the manager ends up prioritizing likeability over getting things done. This kind of management style leads to aimless, wishy-washy organizations that dream big but end up get ting nowhere. Leadership eventually disintegrates because of loss of direction and efficiency. But being ruthless can also be a liability, especially if the manager becomes a single-minded boor who no longer shows respect for his or her people. This kind of management style leads to organizations where people fear the boss but talk behind his or her back. These managers think they are respec ted because of the fear that they conjure, but all the while their people are a ctually making fun of them. So the irony is that there actually isn't any real respect after all. Leadership eventually disintegrates because of loss of organ izational trust and initiative. So what's the ideal mix? Ideally, a manager is firm yet respected. The ideal ma nager neither terrorizes nor stays lax. In other words, you can be nice and lov ed and yet get things done. Skillfully implemented, you can actually get your p eople to do what they're supposed to do in spite of your being nice to them. Confusing? Kind of. But then that's why management is very much an art as it is a science! In the end, this is all about the leadership angle of management. Effective lea ders know what they want, treat their people as peers, and manage to motivate t hem not out of fear, but out of an ability to generate enthusiasm for their vis ions. This requires a lot of confidence and trust: it takes confidence to know that you can get what you want out of people withou t your having to bully them, and it takes trust to have faith that your people will in fact do what they're supposed to do. This is why Tom Peters once famously said that great leaders are part-salespeop le and part-cheerleaders. They have to first be able to sell their ideas to the ir teams. And then, once the team mobilizes, they have to be able to cheer them on. You certainly can't cheer them on if you're a grumpy person. At the same time, you can't mobilize them if you're too nice. Nice guys, tough guys. That's a balancing act for you.