At The Institute for Health and Human Potential (IHHP), we have dedicated over a quarter-century to pioneering research in the domain of leadership development. We survey upwards of 40,000 individuals monthly, using our proprietary Emotional Intelligence (EI360) assessment, the Last 8% Culture Assessment, in-depth leadership interviews, and an array of web-based surveys accessible to the general public. This endeavor has yielded profound insights into human behavior, helped us understand the challenges leaders and organizations face, and driven the design of our learning so that it is sticky, powerful and transformative.

Study 1: Research Methods 

From January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, we surveyed 34,959 individuals in organizations about making hard decisions, giving critical feedback up and down, naming inconvenient truths, and having the hardest parts of a conversation. We analysed a subset of 20,959 respondents.

 Data Analysis 

Item: Think about tough conversations you faced in the past 6 months that required you to give critical feedback, speak the truth to someone, or deliver information up to your boss etc. Were there times when you avoided or deferred having the full conversation? That is, did you say everything you wanted to say or did you avoid some parts of the conversation? Estimate the percentage of the conversation you avoided? 

For the category “1-5%”, the midpoint is 3%. For the category “11-15%”, the midpoint is 13%. For the category “16-20%”, the midpoint is 18%. For the category “6-10%”, the midpoint is 8%.  

Total Avoidance= (6,659×3)+(1,447×13)+(880×18)+(2,828×8)+(620×25) = 92,752
Total Frequency=6,659+1,447+880+2,828+620 = 12,434
Average Avoidance= Total Avoidance  

Total Frequency = 92,752/12,434  

=7.56% is the average percentage of avoidance

Discussion 

What we’ve found is that people are not especially adept at doing these kinds of hard things in organizations. For instance, we found that people leave out or avoid, on average, approximately 7.56% of what they want to say in a difficult conversation. They are comfortable enough discussing the first 92.44% of what they want to say, but when they get to the more challenging parts—the parts that have consequences for the other person or the project—they get caught up in how the other person is reacting, or is perceived to be reacting, and they avoid having the full conversation.  

 It is the same with decisions: most people are comfortable enough making the easier decisions they face, but when it comes to the more difficult ones—those they perceive will upset other people, such as who gets promoted and what projects should get backed—they back off, procrastinate and struggle to take action.  

 Hard conversations and decisions are all about risk, and this gap, between what people want to do and what they actually do, we have named, the Last 8%. These are the conversations and decisions that don’t happen or take too long to happen because doing it feels too risky. 

Last 8% Is More Than Conversations

It is important to understand that while the Last 8% shows up in and is easily illustrated in conversations, they show up beyond conversations. They show up whenever you experience risk and need to make a decision around risk. Such as:  

• giving critical feedback,  
• suggesting a new idea, 

• saying no to a request 
• holding someone accountable,  
• making a tough people decision,  
• making a tough strategy decision,  
• naming an inconvenient truth,  
• experimenting with a new way of doing things,  
• admitting a mistake 

All of these situations cause you to make a calculation about whether you have the internal skills to execute the behavioralong with an assessment of whether you feel the environment is yielding to your efforts and the risk you are contemplating. 

Other Data Points of Interest

• Respondents reported facing both Unexpected Last 8% moments than Expected Last 8% moments. 
• That is, 59% of the time, individuals faced a difficult interaction or situation, in a meeting, or conversation, (or elevator) when they were surprised by the interaction, were caught off guard, and did not have time to prepare for it. An example being when someone asks a tough question or gives pointed feedback in a situation that was not ‘on the agenda’ and the person was not prepared for it.  
• 41% of the time, individuals faced an Expected Last 8%, where they had time to plan and prepare for it. They may even have initiated this Expected Last 8% after an Unexpected Last 8% had caught them by surprise and they were unprepared for it the day or sometime before. 

Study 2:Correlation of Connection, Courage,

Engagement & Performance

From January 1, 2014, through December 31, 2014, we surveyed 2,288 individuals in organizations about perceptions of their team, how connected and psychologically safe people felt on the team, their relationship with their manager, courage displayed on the team (inputs into performance), levels of engagement and correlated it with perceptions of performance (innovation, agility, turnover).

 Data Collection 

• The primary data has been collected from 2,288 respondents to assess various individual variables and major constructs within an organizational setting. 
• The statistical analysis in this study includes Pearson’s correlation coefficient for all the individual variables, and the major constructs, which helped in identifying the strength and direction of the relationships between the variables.

These constructs were measured across different dimensions of organizational behavior and attitudes, providing insights into how employees perceive their interactions and environment at work. The study’s use of statistical analysis provided valuable insights into how individual variables and constructs interrelate within the organizational context. Most relationships were statistically significant, which strengthens the reliability of the findings. The use of Pearson’s correlation coefficient helped in quantitatively assessing these relationships, making the conclusions drawn from the data robust. 

Items:

Discussion:

The interplay between courage and connection as drivers of organizational culture is evident in the data. Cultivating these elements can make teams more innovative, agile (adaptable), with lower turnover and with higher quality of work. Organizations that understand and leverage these relationships can create environments where employees thrive and contribute to their fullest potential, thereby enhancing overall performance and satisfaction.

Implications for Organizational Strategy:

Based on these findings, organizations are recommended to:

• Expand focus to creating both ‘high connection’, where people feel psychological safe, valued and have a voice, and ‘high courage’, on teams, where people are equipped with the tools and the environment to take risks (name inconvenient truths, speak up, admit mistakes, make hard decisions, have difficult conversations) and build accountability on the team. You need both connection and courage for high performance.
• Relationship with managers is a strong driver of people feeling engaged, which is a mediator for performance.

Study 3: Perceptions of Team Characteristics 

We surveyed 72,345 from Jan. 2023 – June 2023. All survey participants, who ranged in level from individual contributors to line managers to C-level executives participated. Respondents were not required to respond to all questions.  

We asked respondents for perceptions of their team based on findings derived from the study: Correlation of Connection, Courage, Engagement and Performance, specifically, where they perceived their team to be in terms of connection and courage. 

18% reported the culture on their team to have features of high courage and low connection as exemplified by characteristics of blame, prioritization of results over relationship, high anxiety and high burnout and where people were afraid to speak up for fear of being reprimanded. People on these teams reported not feeling valued, having a voice but would get feedback.

We termed this cluster as Transactional culture. 

12% reported the culture on their team to have features of low courage and low connection as exemplified by characteristics of inconsistency of feeling valued, having a voice and receiving feedback that led to low risk taking.

We termed this cluster a Fear-Based culture.

37% reported the culture on their team to have features of low courage and high connection as exemplified by characteristics of feeling valued, having a voice but not receiving feedback. There were mediocre standards, slow decision making, and people did not speak up for fear of hurting other people’s feelings. It was an avoid culture.

We termed this cluster a Family culture.

33% of people reported the culture on their team as being high in both connection and courage as exemplified by feeling valued, having a voice and having feedback rich environment. There was a balance of results and relationship and high trust which led to high experimentation and innovation.

We termed this cluster a Last 8% culture.

Study 4: Building the High-Performance Workforce:

A Quantitative Ananlysis of the Effectiveness of Performance Management Strategies