There is a reason – and it is a bad one – that the old adage “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” is shared with such regularity: that reason is because the adage is true.
A few years ago, I was speaking with a colleague and had one of those moments, a before and after moment. He asked a question that has resonated with me, one I have not been able to shake. “Why is it,” he said “that negative opinions can seem to be the more informed opinions?” Time and again in the subsequent years, I have found this question to be relevant and revealing.
The act of leading invites reaction. When reflective leaders make decisions, they consider the reactions of those being lead – both the positive and the negative reactions. Part of leadership is to put the positive in perspective while confronting the negative and sorting through it for truth. What can define a leader is her reaction to reaction. Upon which kind of reaction does a leader spend the most time? Upon which should a leader spend the most time?
There is a reason – and it is a bad one – that the old adage “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” is shared with such regularity: that reason is because the adage is true. Those who complain often and loudly get audience, get recognition, get traction. Those who make negative arguments find themselves in administrators’ offices, whether to have their behavior rewarded or rebuffed. Those who complain and posit that they know better – that they know best – are frequently viewed as change makers. Those who express the negative are too readily regarded among the intelligentsia of faculties and staffs.
Negative opinions are not the most informed, but they often seem that way.
Why is that? Whose responsibility is that?
I believe the responsibility, while it is shared, falls far more on the leader than the complainer. How the leader addresses and repairs the squeaky wheel is critical. And how the leader proceeds in the face of negativity and complaints says far more about the leader than those being lead.
If the leader gives equal weight to each complaint with limited ability to discern what is actually central and informed and what is not, weak leadership is at play. If the leader gives too little weight to each negative opinion or cannot distinguish what should be handled and what should be turfed, that, too, is a significant problem.
But the leaders who feel that every negative opinion must be addressed, countered, taken on and confronted because there is a sneaking suspicion that the rationale behind complaints is somehow better reasoned and, therefore, has more validity that other thoughts are just wrong minded. Their reactions are over reactions.
It can feel as though negativity is sharper, smarter, better developed than positivity, but that simply is not the case. How a leader deals with the predilection personally and in others to jump to this conclusion can make or break the leader in critical moments and at critical times because complaints can indicate coming crises. The leaders’ response to them can promote crises.
Watch leaders you admire handle negativity. Watch leaders around you address complaint. They will be confronted by both. Their reactions tell a story.