Is high performance really just a survival skill under bad leadership?
Is High Performance Really Just a Survival Skill Under Bad Leadership?
In today’s fast-paced and competitive work environment, the concept of high performance garners much discussion. Recently, I came across a thought-provoking take from Ethan Evans on his Substack, which argues that high performance is not merely a goal but a crucial survival skill, especially in toxic work environments. This perspective raises several important questions: Is high performance merely a way to navigate poorly structured workplaces? Or is there a healthier approach to working under poor leadership?
The Argument for High Performance as Survival
Ethan Evans suggests that in toxic workplaces characterized by poor leadership, high performance becomes a necessary skill for survival. Employees often find themselves in environments where mediocrity is rewarded, and those who stand out through their exceptional work risk being sidelined or even viewed as a threat. In such cases, high performers may feel compelled to overexert themselves to counteract the toxic culture and secure their positions.
This perspective resonates with many professionals who have navigated similar environments. High performance, in this context, can serve as a shield against the capriciousness of bad leadership. When leaders fail to provide direction or support, high-performing individuals may feel the need to step in, not just to excel, but to keep their heads above water.
The Counterargument: Mediocrity Prevails
However, not everyone agrees with this assertion. Some argue that high performance under bad leadership can be counterproductive. In organizations dominated by toxic cultures, high performers may actually pose a threat to mediocre leaders. As a result, leaders may feel insecure and work to suppress high-performing individuals rather than nurture them. This creates a cycle where the most mediocre employees flourish, while the best talent is stifled.
In some cases, the very act of striving for high performance can lead to burnout and disillusionment, as employees struggle against a backdrop of ineffective leadership. Instead of focusing on their growth and contributions, they find themselves constantly battling against a system that fails to recognize or reward their efforts.
The Personal Brand Phenomenon
Interestingly, this discussion is not without its detractors. Some argue that voices like Evans’s are simply “engagement bait” designed to build personal brands rather than provoke meaningful conversations. Critics point to Evans’s past experiences, particularly his infamous LinkedIn post about personal turmoil involving a former CEO, to suggest that his views are more about personal vendetta than objective analysis.
This raises an important point: Are we validating personal narratives that may not hold universal truths? Is the narrative surrounding high performance being skewed by individual experiences rather than collective realities? It’s essential to approach these discussions with a critical mindset, separating personal grievances from broader industry trends.
Finding a Balanced Approach
So, if high performance can be a survival skill in toxic workplaces, are there better ways to navigate poor leadership? Here are a few strategies that could foster a healthier work environment:
-
Foster Open Communication: Encouraging dialogue between employees and leadership can help bridge gaps and reduce toxicity. High performers should feel empowered to voice their concerns without fear of retribution.
-
Encourage Team Collaboration: Fostering a collaborative environment can help distribute the pressure of high performance across teams rather than placing it solely on individuals. This can mitigate feelings of isolation and burnout.
-
Focus on Personal Development: Instead of solely measuring success through performance metrics, organizations should prioritize personal growth and professional development. This can help employees feel valued beyond just their output.
-
Recognize and Reward Inclusivity: Leadership should actively seek out diverse perspectives and talents, rather than promoting a culture of mediocrity. Recognizing and rewarding a range of contributions can lead to a more dynamic and engaged workforce.
Conclusion
The debate over whether high performance is simply a survival skill in toxic workplaces is nuanced and complex. While some may view it as a necessary tool for navigating poor leadership, others caution against the potential pitfalls of striving for excellence in a flawed system. As we continue to dissect these ideas, it’s imperative to focus on fostering healthy organizational cultures that enable all employees to thrive—because ultimately, the goal should be to create environments where high performance is not just a means of survival, but a pathway to collective success.
What do you think? Have you experienced this kind of situation? Are there alternative approaches that you believe can better address the challenges posed by poor leadership? Share your thoughts in the comments below!