Previously on Giuseppe’s Glimpse: In the last episode, we discussed the importance of shifting from product-centric thinking to a focus on customer needs, inspired by Theodore Levitt’s Marketing Myopia. Missed it? Catch up here! 💫
Buongiorno everyone! 👋
I’ve always been someone who values harmony—a trait that’s become a defining part of how I deal with challenges, both personally and professionally.
Over the years, I’ve honed this ability, transforming it into a skill for mediating conflicts and fostering collaboration.
This approach has shaped many of my decisions as a leader, where finding balance often feels like a tightrope walk. ⚖️
Some days, it’s about building bridges, fostering collaboration, and ensuring that every voice feels heard. Other days, it’s about making tough calls—decisions that may not please everyone but are necessary for progress.
This tendency to seek common ground has served me well in countless situations. 🌟
But there’s a flip side to this strength, one that I had to learn the hard way. Diplomacy, when overused, can sometimes hinder progress rather than promote it.
Let me share a pivotal moment that reshaped how I view leadership and the balance between mediation and action.
A leadership dilemma
During a crucial board meeting on layoffs, I faced two employees with polarizing qualities.
One was a brilliant, results-driven salesperson who often ignored company policies, while the other was a loyal HR manager struggling with outdated methods. 🕰️
Both had strengths and glaring weaknesses.
I chose to keep both, hoping their contributions would balance out. But over time, their respective flaws started to damage the organization.
The salesperson’s rule-breaking eroded team morale, and the HR manager’s inefficiency held us back. ⛔
My decision to accommodate both, instead of addressing the underlying issues, ultimately compromised workplace harmony.
It wasn’t until my boss intervened decisively, dismissing both employees, that the situation was resolved.
It was a hard lesson in leadership: sometimes diplomacy is not enough. 🤦♂️
The hidden costs of over-accommodation
In leadership, decisions that aim to please everyone often fail to satisfy anyone.
Over-accommodating employees—especially those whose actions conflict with organizational values—can undermine trust and clarity. ⚡
Take the broader corporate world as an example:
Uber’s early days saw incredible growth 🚘 fueled by aggressive, high-performing employees. However, the tolerance for toxic behavior eventually culminated in a cultural crisis, forcing the company to overhaul its leadership and policies.
On the other hand, Netflix’s “keeper test” actively removes underperformers or toxic employees to maintain a cohesive, high-performing team, even when those individuals deliver short-term results.
These examples show that being overly accommodating in the name of short-term harmony can lead to long-term dysfunction. ⏳
Striking the balance
Mediation remains a valuable tool, but effective leadership demands the courage to prioritize organizational health over individual accommodations.
Decisions must be guided by the greater good, even when they’re difficult.
Here’s what I’ve learned:
Set clear boundaries 🚧 : Diplomacy works best when it aligns with organizational values. When employees cross those boundaries, action must follow.
Recognize cultural costs ⚠️ : A toxic high-performer can be more damaging than an underperformer; their behavior often sets the tone for what’s acceptable within the team.
Lead with empathy—but act with clarity 🔍 : Caring for your team means addressing dysfunction head-on, not allowing it to persist in the name of harmony.
Leadership isn’t about avoiding conflict—it’s about knowing when to face it head-on.
Have you ever struggled with balancing empathy and decisive action? What did you learn?
Let’s discuss.
Stay curious! 🙌
-gs
Oh, wow! You made it to the end. Click here to 👉 SHARE this issue with a friend if you found it valuable.
There’s a time for being soft and one for being dirigist: the choice should be done not to waste effectiveness in behaviour.