Companies declare that they value employees who challenge the status quo. However, new research shows that managers, acting under the instinctive defence of their position, systematically prefer to promote noders. This trap of conformism, while psychologically understandable, poses a serious threat to the development of any IT organisation.
Two independent studies, conducted with Bradley Kirkman, a professor at North Carolina State University, shed light on a paradox in supervisor-employee relationships. On the one hand, employees who are not afraid to voice concerns, point out potential problems in strategy or question decisions – described by the researchers as using a ‘critical voice’ (challenging voice) – have a key positive impact on company performance. They are more creative, innovative and more likely to take responsibility.
On the other side are employees using a ‘supportive voice’, who actively support the existing order and praise management decisions. They are the ones, as the research shows, who are favoured by managers.
Two continents, one conclusion
To understand this mechanism, the researchers conducted two separate studies. The first involved 143 managers and 266 of their subordinates from different industries in China. For six weeks, the participants completed questionnaires to analyse each other’s attitudes and behaviour. The second study was an experiment in which 528 Americans took on the roles of leaders and were asked to evaluate and decide the career path of fictional employees characterised by either a critical or supportive attitude.
The results in both cases were clear. Employees who constructively challenged decisions were judged to be less worthy of promotion. Managers consistently preferred those who offered their support.
Risk psychology and IT culture
The main reason for this phenomenon lies in the psychology of power. Kirkman’s research has shown that managers perceive the ‘critical voice’ as a personal threat to their position and authority. Challenging their decisions is subconsciously interpreted as an attack on their competence. The ‘supportive voice’, on the other hand, is perceived as evidence of loyalty and a signal that the employee shares his or her manager’s goals, which builds a sense of security in the manager.
In the IT industry, where ‘fail fast’ culture, agile methodologies (Agile) and continuous iteration are fundamental, this approach is extremely disruptive. Development teams, where reporting problems (impediments) is penalised and challenging misguided architectural assumptions is frowned upon, lose the ability to self-correct. This leads directly to groupthink, a phenomenon in which seeking consensus and avoiding conflict kills innovation and leads to disastrous product decisions.
The exception that proves the rule: how to be a valuable critic?
Importantly, the research identified a key factor that neutralises the negative perception of criticism. Managers did not feel threatened if the employee, in addition to expressing constructive concerns, also showed high levels of engagement and helpful behaviour.
In other words, if a developer who points out an error in the logic of an application is at the same time proactive, helps his teammates and supports the manager during busy periods, his critical comments are perceived as a valuable contribution and not as an undermining of authority. Such an employee demonstrates that his or her goal is the success of the project, not a personal gambit. His or her intentions are perceived as pro-social, which builds trust.
There is an important lesson for managers in technology companies. The key is to consciously overcome the instinctive defensive reaction to criticism. Rather than seeing it as a threat, learn to assess it through the lens of the employee’s overall commitment and intent.
An organisational culture that promotes psychological safety – that is, an environment in which problems and mistakes can be talked about without fear – does not arise on its own. It is an active process that requires leaders to be mature and understand that true value to the company comes not from unreflective applause, but from substantive, engaged discussion. Ultimately, organisations that learn to protect and reward their constructive critics will gain a strategic advantage in the marketplace. Those that choose the comfort of conformity will risk stagnation and failure.
