“Who’s around?”

For better or for worse, that’s the first question to arise whenever there’s a key volunteer vacancy at an association. And that’s not an irrational response, so long as the question isn’t synonymous with a different question: “Who do we like?”

Naturally, people want to work with others who are agreeable and easy to have a conversation with. But as author Ron Ashkenas and nonprofit consultant Gali Cooks point out in their recent Harvard Business Review article, “Is Your Leadership Style Too Nice?” problems arise when the environment focuses more on getting along than on getting the job done.

This particular kind of leadership style, they write, “corrodes organizational performance and value. Employees don’t perform at their best or develop to their full potential, company resources are wasted on lower-value work, and even strong performers become frustrated and demotivated.” “Leadership by getting along,” they suggest, means the bar is set too low for leaders: They point to one survey of nonprofit CEOs that found that nearly half didn’t clearly understand their board’s expectations of them, and a fifth never had a formal performance evaluation.

There are plenty of other surveys that show similar laxity when it comes to board succession planning, training, and self-monitoring. Who’s-around syndrome can emerge very quickly whenever there’s an empty chair.

None of this should be seen as license to be a hard-charging bully of a leader, of course. “Niceness,” in this case, isn’t the opposite of “cruelty”; it’s the opposite of “disengagement” and “fear.” Direct and meaningful feedback isn’t always “nice,” but it’s essential. Holding people to account and setting standards isn’t “nice,” but it can—and should—be done with a certain niceness.

The authors’ recommended responses generally involve more confident communication: Creating a culture of accountability, saying “no” more often, delivering candid feedback, and getting away from we’ve-always-done-it-that-way-ism. For associations, that matters, because skating along, allowing programs that don’t benefit members to continue, and for volunteers to believe that they’re making major contributions when the staff knows they’re really not. 

It can be hard for associations to let go of pet projects, but some associations are veritable zoos. The authors ask that leaders set clear questions around particular projects: Is there a viable path forward? Would success address an unmet need? If the answer is no, it’s time for everybody to be ruthless—not toward each other, but toward the flailing project, and for the benefit of members. 

One way to get around that is to make sure your volunteer bench is stocked with people who understand the assignment and are ready to have those kinds of candid conversations. Another, the HBR authors, recommend, is to start small, at least at first. “Pick one decision you’ve been dodging because it might bruise an ego or provoke pushback,” they write. “Make the good choice instead of the nice one: Have the direct conversation. End the under-performing project. Redefine the role.”

Ultimately, the challenge isn’t a matter of personality, about being nice or not-nice. It’s a matter of focus, about facing the challenges your association faces head-on.