The Trusted Employer

24

Harvard Business Review

March 2022

UNTAPPED TALENT

Does Management Know Best? Data shows

they’re out of touch with employee sentiment.

A recent survey of more than 1,000 U.S. low-wage workers and an

accompanying survey of 1,150 U.S. business leaders found a glaring

discrepancy between how low-wage workers and C-suite leaders perceive

low-wage positions. Surveyed workers say they feel stagnant and

trapped in low-wage positions, while most leaders believe they provide

mentorship, training and career pathways for low-wage workers.

Wage Make-up of American Workers

For the majority of low-wage workers, career advancement opportunities

don’t seem to exist. Fuller’s study estimates that 44% of American

workers are low-wage and, from 2012-2017, about 60% of them did not

advance into the median pay range of more than $40,000 annually.

The study also found that even the best performing industries had 50%

churn for low-wage employees.

The Barrier to Bachelor’s Degrees

About 60% of “good” job listings–defined as jobs that pay above a living

wage and have limited vulnerability to automation–require at least a four-

year degree, according to a January report from Bain & Company. 

“Bachelor degrees are expensive,” Abby Smith, partner at Bain &

Company, says. “While the majority of high school graduates pursue post-

secondary education, only 38% of American adults have a college degree.

And only 28% and 21% of U.S. Black and Hispanic adults, respectively,

have a bachelor’s degree, putting the great majority of these populations

out of the running for jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree.”

anxious and awkward sharing critical

feedback from their reviews, while

employees were surprised and skeptical

and largely remained quiet. But as lead-

ers continued to share—feeling publicly

accountable for doing so—they became

more comfortable, and employees began

to respond in kind. This created a vir-

tuous cycle, whereby vulnerability was

normalized, allowing feelings of safety

to grow. By contrast, employees tended

to speak up when leaders asked for

feedback, but leaders sometimes reacted

defensively, feeling judged and having

not made a public commitment to

vulnerability. And because the requests

were open-ended, the feedback often

concerned things that were unimportant

or were outside leaders’ purview—so on

these teams, a vicious cycle ensued, with

employees saying less and less as leaders

became more and more unresponsive.

These findings “reveal an interesting

paradox,” the researchers write. “Seeking

feedback created a wide funnel that

invited comments...on a wide range of

issues, undermining the efficacy of both

leaders and employees. Sharing feedback

created a filter, helping employees to

concentrate on issues that were import-

ant and controllable for leaders.”

ABOUT THE RESEARCH “Taking Your

Team Behind the Curtain: The Effects

of Leader Feedback-Sharing and Feedback-

Seeking on Team Psychological Safety,” by

Constantinos G.V. Coutifaris and Adam M.

Grant (Organization Science, forthcoming)

The Tactician

Generates a logical plan

for the short term

The Visionary

Generates a

long-term vision

The Constant

Provides a consistent

message and path

The Adapter

Adjusts course based

on new information

The Perfectionist

Emphasizes perfection

over speed

The Accelerator

Emphasizes speed

over perfection

The Intuitionist

Makes decisions

based on instinct

The Analyst

Makes decisions

based on data

The Miner

Dives deep to exploit

an opportunity

The Prospector

Looks externally for

opportunities and threats

The Teller

Gives directions

based on expertise

The Listener

Listens and learns

from others

TRADITIONAL

LEADER ARCHETYPES

EMERGING

LEADER ARCHETYPES

The Power Holder

Holds power to provide

reassurance

The Power Sharer

Steps back and lets

others take the lead

SWEET SPOT SWEET RANGE

Example leadership profile:

T E A M S

To Creat e

Psychological

Safety, Share

Negat ive Feedback

About Yourself

Managers looking to promote risk-

taking and open exchanges on their

teams are often advised to seek feedback

on their performance from team mem-

bers; that both signals and invites open-

ness—or so the thinking goes. Across

three studies, however, researchers

found that sharing critical managerial

feedback from the leader’s performance

review spurred greater effects.

One study was a field experiment

with a financial firm and a health care

company. The researchers divided 111

team leaders into four groups. Leaders

in the first group were told to ask team

members for feedback on their perfor-

mance. Those in the second were told

to discuss development areas from their

own performance reviews. Those in the

third group did both; in the fourth, they

did neither. Teams were surveyed about

psychological safety after a week and

again a year later. None reported any sig-

nificant effects after a week. After a year,

though, teams whose leaders had shared

negative feedback about themselves

reported significant gains—but not if the

leaders had also sought feedback.

Follow-up interviews illuminated the

dynamics in play. Leaders initially felt

L E A D E R S H I P S T Y L E S

Develop Your

“Sweet Range”

As command-and-control yields to new

management styles, each leader has a

natural sweet spot on several behavioral

continuums. The most skillful managers

broaden their approaches to create more-

versatile “sweet ranges” instead.

Note: The archetypes were identified in interviews and

surveys with more than 1 , 000 global executives.

Source: “Finding the Right Balance—and Flexibility—in Your

Leadership Style,” by Jennifer Jordan, Michael Wade, and

Tomoko Yokoi (HBR.org, 2022 )

26

Harvard Business Review

March–April 2022 COMPILED BY HBR EDITORS | SOME OF THESE ARTICLES PREVIOUSLY APPEARED IN DIFFERENT FORM ON HBR.ORG.

IdeaWatch