TL;DR: Don't manage for likability. Manage for trust and respect by pairing warmth and competence. That mix predicts stronger performance, engagement, learning, and retention. Popularity on its own brings real risks, including soft standards, uneven relationships, and ethical blind spots. The reliable targets are relationship quality, psychological safety, and clear standards backed by fair follow‑through.
The real question behind “Should I try to be liked?”
Many new leaders start with a generous instinct. They want the team to like them so people feel motivated and stay. That instinct is human. The science suggests we should have a cleaner aim. People often look at leaders for intent and care first, then for capability and follow‑through. In practice, that's warmth and competence. Warmth opens doors. Competence keeps them open.
When both show up consistently, likability tends to follow as a by‑product.
Leadership research translates this into day‑to‑day behavior. Teams respond to leaders who offer consideration such as support, coaching, and recognition, and who also provide initiating structure such as clarity, standards, and follow‑through. Consideration has a strong relationship with satisfaction and perceived effectiveness. Structure adds the discipline that drives results. The combination outperforms either one on its own.
Warmth opens doors. Competence keeps them open.
The Levers Behind High Performance
- Trust in leaders
- Leader-member exchange quality
- Psychological safety
Trust in leaders. Trust is the engine that converts your intent and ability into discretionary effort. Employees tend to give more voice and extra effort when they feel affect‑based trust (the sense that you care and will act fairly), and when they see cognition‑based trust (the sense that you are reliable and competent). Meta‑analytic evidence shows that trust in leaders is a consistent pathway to performance and citizenship behaviors. If you want a concise foundation, start with this classic synthesis of trust and leadership and the underlying distinction between affect‑ and cognition‑based trust.
Leader–member exchange (LMX) quality. Relationship quality between a manager and each direct report is a solid predictor of what the team achieves. A meta analysis on LMX shows that stronger relationships go hand in hand with higher task performance, more helpful organizational citizenship behavior, and fewer counterproductive acts. In plain language, this is not a tiny, academic effect. It's a meaningful, visible pattern.
If relationship quality increases, performance ratings tend to rise in a noticeable way, helpful behaviors show up more often, and problems show up less often.
For readers who like the numbers, the typical associations are medium for task performance (.30) and citizenship (.34), and moderate in the negative direction for counterproductive behavior (−.24). Think of these as reliable signals rather than background noise. They don't guarantee outcomes for every person, but they are strong enough to move team averages.
Psychological safety. Teams do their best thinking when it feels safe to speak up, question, and admit mistakes. Psychological safety predicts task performance and citizenship behavior even after you account for positive leader relationships. In other words, good vibes are not enough. People need to know that raising a risk or pointing out a flaw will not get them punished. You create that climate in the small moments.
- Invite dissent before decisions
- Thank the messenger who spots an issue early
- Run short learning reviews that capture what you tried, what you learned, and what you will change
The Risks of Managing for Popularity
- Soft standards and conflict avoidance
- Favoritism optics
- Ethical blind spots
- Cultural nuance
Soft standards and conflict avoidance. Leadership assertiveness tends to follow a curve. Too little and the work drifts; too much and relationships fray. New leaders who want to be liked often slide toward under‑assertiveness. You can feel the short‑term relief in the room, but the long‑term cost shows up in missed commitments and rework. The remedy is simple to say and worth practicing:
- Be clear about expectations.
- Be specific about consequences.
- Be available for help.
That blend keeps you near the top of the curve. Sometimes the mention of being specific about consequences sends new leaders in the opposite direction of kindness. You don't have to mean to let people know that you'll hold them accountable.
Ethical blind spots. Admired leaders can unintentionally spark unethical pro‑organizational behavior. People bend rules because they want to help the boss or protect the company. You can preempt this by putting ethics prompts in the routine. Ask who benefits and who bears the risk. Ask whether you would be comfortable if the decision were public (aka the "Front Page Newspaper Test").
Cultural nuance. In global companies, the weight of each lever can vary. Research in 23 countries shows that the link between relationship quality and attitudes like satisfaction is stronger in more individualistic cultures, while the link to task performance is steadier across contexts. Calibrate expectations and coaching accordingly.
A Quick Script for New Leaders
In your kickoff, set expectations. “My job is to be fair and clear. I want to earn your trust. I won't always be popular in the moment. If you see me missing on warmth or on clarity, please tell me.” In early 1:1s, ask three questions:
- What is working?
- What is getting in your way?
- What is one thing I can do this week to help?
In team meetings, invite one risk or dissenting view before you decide. These small moves add up to warmth plus competence in action. Over time they build trust, relationship quality, and psychological safety, which are the mechanisms that lift performance and retention.
