I don't care what the people outside say. Do you agree with me?... Let me ask you this: Are you in it? Let me ask you this again: Are you in it to win it?
~Starbucks CEO Laxman Narasimhan at a company forum [1]
Pointed questions like these, when posed by a leader to employees, are a type of loyalty oath. There's only one acceptable answer, and it's not "Let me think about it." When a client tells me they're thinking about taking this approach to rally their team, I'm reminded of psychologist Frederick Herzberg's classic work on motivation:
The surest and least circumlocuted way of getting someone to do something is to administer a kick in the pants--to give what might be called the KITA. There are various forms of KITA, and here are some of them...
Negative Psychological KITA. This has several advantages over negative physical KITA...If the employee does complain, he or she can always be accused of being paranoid; there is no tangible evidence of an actual attack. Now, what does negative KITA accomplish? If I kick you in the rear (physically or psychologically), who is motivated? I am motivated; you move! Negative KITA does not lead to motivation, but to movement. [2]
The problem is that sometimes a loyalty oath is nothing more than a "negative psychological kick in the ass." And just as a kick in the ass generates movement but not motivation, an oath can yield an affirmative response without generating actual loyalty. It's entirely appropriate and even admirable for an organization to seek to build a culture in which the freely-given answer to such questions is, "Hell, yes!" But all too often these questions are posed in such a way that the desired answer is not freely given, but, rather, coerced.
So if you're a leader who'd like to hear employees say, "Hell, yes!" while knowing that such fervor is heartfelt, what can you do? How might you cultivate meaningful loyalty without resorting to kicks in the ass?
Safety
The concept of "psychological safety" has gained currency in recent years, in large part due to the work of Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson. [3] But it's often misunderstood as "No one's feelings can get hurt," which creates an environment in which people are fearful of causing offense, stifling open discussion. In such a setting the most hypersensitive person who's least able to regulate their emotions dictates the culture for everyone else. What is actually meant by psychological safety is something quite different, as I've written before:
To be very clear: Psychological safety entails candid and direct communication. It requires asking and answering hard questions. It does not mean "being nice." It does not mean avoiding difficult conversations or fraught topics to ensure that no one experiences distress. To the contrary, a setting in which people are reluctant to be candid and direct for fear of triggering any distress in others is psychologically unsafe. [4]
The value of safety in building genuine loyalty is that in a safe environment people feel free to raise doubts and concerns, rather than obliged to keep quiet. This isn't to say that as a leader you should simply defer to such anxieties. But in an unsafe environment those concerns and doubts don't disappear because they're not expressed. They may well get worse, and failing to discuss them is a missed opportunity to alleviate them. [5]
It's not the case that the use of social pressure to evoke loyalty is always illegitimate--see the final section below. There's ample evidence that groups have a substantial effect on individuals' attitudes and behavior, and this has the potential not only to foster a strong sense of group identity, but also to render the group unsafe for dissenters. [6] Companies aren't cults or street gangs, and you have to utilize social pressure responsibly, not to stifle disagreement. Again, the key is ensuring that people feel free to voice a wide range of views.
Reciprocity
Loyalty is ultimately a matter of influence. An oath can be extracted under duress, but coercion doesn't yield sustainable change--true loyalty is given, not taken. And influence is reciprocal: Employees are open to your influence to the extent that you're open to theirs. The leading scholar on the subject of influence is psychologist Robert Cialdini--more on him below--and he's written about the important role played by reciprocity throughout human history:
One of the most potent of the weapons of influence around us [is] the rule of reciprocation. The rule says that we should try to repay, in kind, what another person has provided us... A widely shared and strongly held feeling of future obligation made an enormous difference in human social evolution, because it meant that one person could give something (for example, food, energy, care), to another with confidence that it was not being lost. [7]
So when seeking to inspire loyalty among employees, you must show loyalty in return. This can take many forms, from company-wide initiatives to personal gestures. At the organizational level, employees will certainly assess your loyalty to them as a function of how vigorously you strive to retain them through periods of difficulty. Layoffs are sometimes necessary, and I've coached many leaders facing this challenge in recent years. But even then you can demonstrate loyalty by taking steps to make the process less painful. [8]
At the personal level, you can show loyalty by expressing support to a direct report who's struggling. This does not mean tolerating under-performance, but, rather, providing clear and direct critical feedback [9], offering resources such as coaching [10], and, should a transition become necessary, conducting it with honesty, fairness and dignity. [11]
Commitment
The affirmative response generated by a loyalty oath is a form of compliance. [12] Compliance is useful and even necessary under certain circumstances, but it's less useful when leading highly-skilled knowledge workers. [13] The pressure to comply will hold such people in place temporarily, but over time the most talented will leave, seeking an environment that affords them more agency and choice, including the freedom to respond to a loyalty oath with questions and concerns.
The alternative to compliance is commitment, a far more robust expression of loyalty, but one that also takes more work to establish and maintain. Rather than merely obtaining compliance by administering an oath, building commitment requires an open dialogue, additional efforts to gain influence, and the cultivation of a set of norms.
In an open dialogue, as the leader you must be willing to engage in tough conversations. This doesn't mean you have to defer to anyone who raises questions and concerns, but a free-flowing exchange of views in which disagreements are welcome will enable you to surface and address those issues, rather than suppress them. This process will present you with extensive opportunities to exert influence.
In addition to reciprocity, Cialdini has identified a set of principles through which we reliably influence others, including several that are relevant in obtaining commitment. [14] We're more open to the influence of people who are both authoritative and likeable, so it's important to strike a balance. Your grasp of the facts and logical reasoning will make you a credible authority figure, but your tone and demeanor are equally significant. Far too often leaders emphasize the former at the expense of the latter, missing opportunities to build influence through warmth and personal connection. [15]
When employees are committed, their loyalty is reflected in a set of norms, which I've defined as "social regularities that individuals feel obligated to follow, and patterns of behavior based on shared beliefs about how individuals should behave." [16] Note that employees who are merely compliant haven't adopted loyalty as a norm--they're responding to pressure. And when the pressure's off, their loyalty will vanish with their compliance.
When Loyalty Oaths Work
If loyalty oaths don't always yield loyalty, why do leaders employ them? When do they actually work? When you've built a foundation of safety, reciprocity and commitment, then you've created the conditions under which employees are far more likely to respond to a loyalty oath with a heartfelt "Hell, yes!" This is the result of two additional principles of influence identified by Cialdini:
Social Proof: "One means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct. The principle [of social proof] applies especially to the way we decide what determines correct behavior. We view a behavior as more correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it." [17]
Consistency: "Once we have made a choice or taken a stand, we will encounter personal and interpersonal pressures to behave consistently with that commitment. Those pressures will cause us to respond in ways that justify our earlier decision." [18]
This is why loyalty oaths are often administered in public, and why leaders repeatedly remind employees that they have previously "made a choice or taken a stand." But bear in mind that there are no short cuts here. The leader who resorts to an oath without taking the time to create safety, demonstrate reciprocity, and earn commitment is really just delivering a kick in the ass. And "if I kick you in the rear, who is motivated? I am motivated; you move!"
Footnotes
[1] Howard Schultz Is Back-Seat Driving Starbucks. That’s a Problem for His Successor. (Heather Haddon, The Wall Street Journal, May 9, 2024). In fairness to Narashimhan, he's clearly under an immense amount of pressure as his predecessor Schultz takes to social media to publicly air concerns about the company's performance, and there's no indication that Starbucks employees resented these questions--but there's also no indication that employees rallied enthusiastically as a result. I suspect the effect was neutral at best.
[2] One More Time: How Do You Motivate Employees? (Frederick Herzberg, Harvard Business Review, originally published 1968 / republished 2003)
[3] For more on Amy Edmondson's work on psychological safety:
- Make Your Employees Feel Psychologically Safe (Martha Lagace interviewing Amy Edmondson, Harvard Business School Working Knowledge, 2018)
- How Fearless Organizations Succeed (strategy+business, 2018; excerpted from Edmondson's book below)
- The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation and Growth (2018)
- Building a psychologically safe workplace [11:26 video] (TEDxHGSE, 2014)
[4] Safety Is a Resource, Not a Destination
[6] For more on social pressure, group identity, and loyalty:
- Social Conformity and Group Pressure (Jessica Schrader discussing the work of Solomon Asch, Psychology Today, 2023)
- In-Group Loyalty and the Punishment of Corruption (Hector Solaz, Catherine De Vries, and Roosmarijn de Geus, Comparative Political Studies, 2018)
- Social Psychology of Gangs [PDF] (DaJung Woo, Howard Giles, Michael Hogg, and Liran Goldman, The Handbook of Gangs, 2015)
[7] Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, pages 17-18 (Robert Cialdini, 1993)
[8] Making Layoffs Less Painful
[9] How to Deliver Critical Feedback
[10] Getting Coaching for Your Team
[11] Merciful Exits (On Under-Performing Executives)
[12] This passage is adapted from Compliance vs. Commitment (On Behavior Change).
[13] What Peter Drucker Knew About 2020 (Rick Wartzman, Harvard Business Review, 2014)
[14] Harnessing the Science of Persuasion (Robert Cialdini, Harvard Business Review, 2001). In addition to the book cited above, this classic article provides the best overview of Cialdini's work.
[15] Connect, Then Lead (Amy Cuddy, Matthew Kohut and John Neffinger, Harvard Business Review, 2013)
[16] Rules Aren't Norms (On Company Values)
[17] Cialdini 1993, page 116
[18] Ibid, page 57
Image: Oath of the Horatii (detail) by Jacques Louis-David, 1785. Photo by Steven Zucker.
