The Kudos Conundrum – A Leadership Learning

Defining the PROBLEM

I recently came across an article that confirmed what I’ve learned from my past experiences. Throughout my career reporting to leaders at various levels, criticism seemed to come far more often than praise. It happened so often that I vowed, as a leader, to change the narrative: people who worked for me and performed well would receive praise for a job well done.

An article from Happy Brain Science portrayed the ideal praise-to-criticism ratio of 5 to 1. The author referenced a study showing that high-performing teams reported a 5-to-1 positive-to-negative comment ratio as a rule of thumb. In contrast, medium-performing teams reported 1.9-to-1, or almost double positive-to-negative comments. Lower-performing teams came in at a 0.36-to-1 ratio, or more than 3 negative comments for every 1 positive comment.

The data reveals a shocking truth and helps us define the problem at hand. The problem is clearly leadership. It’s you, it’s me, it’s anyone given the responsibility or assigned the task of leading people. Some have figured out the problem and developed into strong leaders. Others continue to struggle, but why? This represents our conundrum. Conundrum, defined, is a “confusing or difficult problem that has no easy answer.” As we dive into the why, this truth will become increasingly evident.

You might ask what impact the praise-to-criticism ratio has on my, or any team?  That’s a great question.  If we examine the differences between a high-performing team and one that is not, we find interesting differences. A high-performing team has deeper trust in the leader.  A higher sense of purpose and strong accountability.   Good communication leads to clear expectations and consistent results.  All of these are great for the team, but one of the most important impacts is the leader’s lower stress level and the “Team or Us” environment, which leads to longevity and loyalty.

The fire pump incident

Many years ago, I worked for a manufacturing company. I had started on the ground floor and was working my way up through the ranks. At the time, I was a relief supervisor on a crew of about fifteen people. We worked rotating shifts, and this night we were working the graveyard shift. Around 3 in the morning, I noticed water flooding into the warehouse and went to investigate. What I found was that a massive 8″ fire suppression system pipe had ruptured. The system was designed to kick on an outside pump that pulled water from a reservoir when the system lost pressure. The pump was going to run until the reservoir was empty, flooding our warehouse and millions of dollars’ worth of product and raw materials. I informed my Foreman. He had no idea what to do, Maintenance had no idea what to do, and the warehouse kept flooding.

I did the only logical thing I knew. I powered off the pump at the breaker box, killing the power to the pump and stopping the water flow. This action enraged the Foreman, who threatened to “write me up” for acting without his permission. He had been trained to NEVER turn off the power to the pump under any circumstances, as it would mean no protection for the warehouse in case of a fire. This Foreman was known for his micromanagement and lack of trust for most people on his crew. That night was one of the first times I experienced it personally.

The following morning, the facility manager came in to inspect the damage and personally thank me for saving millions of dollars’ worth of finished goods and raw materials. His approach was 180 degrees different than my direct supervisor. Why the difference? The answer may be seemingly obvious, but if so, why do we still have this leadership conundrum?  What do you think might have been the root cause for the Foreman’s behavior?

Uncovering the real “Why” behind the “Problem”

You might be thinking the leader’s command-and-control style caused the negative response. If we stop at the surface level, we miss an opportunity to truly understand what is driving the behavior. As in continuous improvement, if we are serious about improving our leadership skillset, we need to drive to the root cause.

When we dive a little deeper, we find several potential causes, the first being fear. Fear can cause us to act irrationally; it can cause us not to trust people, and it can lead us to make poor decisions about empowerment and personal growth. The fear can be fear of failure, fear of being perceived as soft, or simply personal insecurity.

Second, a leader may be prewired for a negative or critical view because of psychological biases developed over time. Many leaders never receive formal leadership training and are left to figure it out on their own. Often we revert back to what we have seen or learned to develop our leadership approach.

Finally, our negative slant can result from the culture within the organization or group. Many organizations are high-pressure and fast-paced. Leaders develop an understanding of their role as problem solvers with the sole task of keeping the ship moving forward and goals met. This mindset can lead to a perceived lack of time to coach and encourage. We can also develop a view that going above and beyond is just doing your job. So why would I recognize someone for just doing their job? This culture can trigger the survival wiring that naturally resides in each of us, causing a focus on errors or problems that must be eliminated while overlooking positive outcomes.

Leaders live and operate within a challenging, ever-changing environment. How do we flip the script and create high-performing teams while becoming the best leader we can be?

Flipping the Script: Prioritizing Positive Feedback

I firmly believe there is a time and place for negative responses. When my children were little, my wife and some friends were visiting the mountains in New Mexico. We were high up at an overlook standing behind a wooden barrier that kept everyone a safe distance from a deep drop to the canyon below. As we were talking, I saw my three-year-old daughter and our friend’s three-year-old son go under the wooden barrier and move toward the edge. I jumped over the rail and quickly grabbed their hands, leading them back to safety. I can truthfully share that as I knelt to talk with both of them, my message was not positive and uplifting. They were heading for danger and possible death; “You did a great job running under that beam” was not the right message then, or for future times when understanding DANGER would be important.

Prioritizing Positive Feedback with Balance: (Three Ways to do it)

1. Embed recognition into your daily routine. Make wins and shout-outs part of your standing agenda. One thing our team at Gemba Academy has done that I really like is create a “Cheers” Google Space visible to everyone, where people can recognize others for their extraordinary efforts.
2. Aim for a 5:1 Feedback Ratio and standardize your feedback process. (5 Praise to 1 Criticism)
   • Track your ongoing feedback. I know it’s more administrative tasks; however, you and your team will benefit.
   • Avoid the feedback sandwich. Separate praise from critique. Either you will dilute the positive aspect or create an anticipation in your team that the negative is coming when they receive positive feedback.
   • Create a positional standard. Praise in public, criticize in private.
3. Make your Praise Specific and Actionable. When you praise, connect the team member’s actions to impact while highlighting unique strengths you see in the individual. (Example: “The changes you made to the metrics slide in our quarterly report made our results incredibly clear. Your resourcefulness and collaborative attitude makes our team better! I really appreciate your efforts!”)

Focus is the Fix

Going back to the fire pump incident, I asked: why was there a difference between how my direct supervisor responded and how the Facility Manager responded? The answer is the focus; the Foreman’s focus was possibly on his perception that I usurped his authority and how it might look. The Facility Manager’s primary concern appeared to be the outcome: the substantial savings of millions of dollars in product and raw materials. Again, we cannot miss that several underlying factors likely contributed to that focus, but if we change our focus, we can change our perspective.

A quote attributed to Peter Drucker goes like this: “The best way to predict the future is to invent it!” If you and I want to become all we can be as leaders and lead high-performing teams, we have to do something different than we are today. We need to be purposeful in our focus and prioritize positive feedback with balance.

Call to Action

How might you address the kudos conundrum in your leadership and your organization today? No matter where you believe your praise-to-criticism ratio to be today, you can improve your leadership impact. Start from where you are and move forward with focus!

For the next week, intentionally track the positive and corrective feedback you give.

“Think about it!”

---