Why Expertise Matters More Than Positivity When Choosing Mentors Despite Our Natural Tendency to Prefer Cheerleaders

The business world has long celebrated the importance of mentorship as a pathway to professional growth and success. However, recent research suggests that our approach to selecting mentors may be fundamentally flawed with significant implications for individuals and organizations alike.

In her Wall Street Journal article "People Like Their Mentors to Be Cheerleaders. That May Be a Mistake," Cheryl Winokur Munk presents compelling research revealing that while people claim to prioritize expertise when selecting advisers, they consistently choose those who demonstrate positivity and cheerleading behaviors instead. This preference, researchers found, frequently leads to suboptimal outcomes.

The Disconnect Between Intention and Action

The article summarizes six connected studies published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, which examined how people select advisers and the consequences of these decisions. What makes this research particularly fascinating is its real-world application—researchers analyzed contestant behavior on the reality TV show "The Voice" and found patterns that mirror broader human tendencies.

Contestants on "The Voice" consistently stated they would choose mentors based on expertise. However, when actually selecting, they predominantly chose coaches who demonstrated positive attitudes toward them. The researchers then confirmed these patterns extend beyond the television show into various decision-making contexts.

This disconnect between stated intentions and actual behavior represents a profound cognitive bias with far-reaching implications. We tell ourselves and others that we value expertise above all, yet our actions reveal a different priority.

The Performance Penalty

What makes this finding particularly troubling is the performance outcome. The research revealed that individuals who selected mentors primarily based on positivity generally underperformed compared to those who prioritized expertise. As Catherine Shea, assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon's Tepper School of Business and co-author of the study, aptly puts it: choosing an experienced mentor who may be rough around the edges can be "like taking cough medicine. It tastes awful, but it works."

This metaphor perfectly captures the tension between what feels good in the moment (positive reinforcement) and what actually drives growth and improvement (constructive criticism from a place of expertise). The research suggests we frequently choose momentary comfort over long-term development.

Broader Implications for Organizational Success

Beyond individual mentor-mentee relationships, this research has profound implications for organizational hiring and development practices. Professor Shea notes that hiring decisions are frequently made based on candidates' likability rather than their qualifications or expertise. This pattern can significantly impact a company's productivity and success.

As organizations strive to build high-performing teams, they must recognize and counteract this natural bias. Creating clear job criteria and adhering to them throughout the selection process becomes essential to ensure decisions aren't unduly influenced by personality factors over expertise.

The research doesn't suggest positivity has no place in professional relationships. Indeed, the studies found that simple statements like "I'm excited to work with you" strongly influenced adviser selection. Rather than eliminating positivity, the challenge is balancing affirmation with substantive, expertise-based guidance.

Supporting Research: The Value of Constructive Criticism

This research aligns with findings from other studies on the value of constructive feedback. A meta-analysis published in the Journal of Applied Psychology examined feedback interventions across multiple studies and found that specific, constructive criticism that focuses on the task rather than the person leads to significant performance improvements.

According to this analysis, individuals receiving purely positive feedback showed less improvement than those receiving balanced feedback that included constructive criticism. The researchers noted that without specific information about areas for improvement, individuals struggle to identify and address weaknesses.

Similarly, Stanford psychologist Carol Dweck's research on growth mindset demonstrates that individuals who welcome challenges and view criticism as opportunities for growth consistently outperform those who seek only positive reinforcement. Her work suggests that organizations fostering a growth mindset culture—one that values constructive feedback and continuous improvement—show higher levels of innovation and adaptability.

The Role of Psychological Safety

While the value of constructive criticism seems clear, creating environments where people can both give and receive such feedback requires psychological safety. Research by Amy Edmondson of Harvard Business School demonstrates that teams with high psychological safety—where members feel comfortable taking risks and being vulnerable—are more productive and innovative.

Edmondson's work suggests that psychological safety allows team members to engage in candid feedback exchanges without the fear of personal rejection or career repercussions. This creates a foundation where expertise-based mentoring can flourish without becoming unnecessarily harsh or demotivating.

Thus, organizations seeking to maximize the benefits of expertise-based mentorship should simultaneously work to build psychologically safe environments. This balance allows for the honest exchange of ideas and feedback while maintaining positive professional relationships.

The Challenge for Leaders

For leaders and managers, this research presents a significant challenge: how to deliver necessary constructive criticism without alienating team members who naturally gravitate toward positive reinforcement. Adam Grant, professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, notes that teams often lack sufficient constructive critics, missing opportunities for learning and growth.

Effective leaders must recognize this dynamic and consciously work against it. This might involve:

• Establishing clear criteria for performance evaluation focused on expertise and results
• Creating structured feedback processes that ensure constructive criticism is delivered regularly
• Modeling the ability to receive and implement critical feedback
• Balancing necessary criticism with recognition of strengths and accomplishments

Through these approaches, leaders can help shift organizational culture away from purely positive reinforcement and toward more balanced, growth-oriented feedback exchanges.

Practical Applications for Individuals

For individuals seeking mentorship, this research offers valuable guidance. Rather than selecting mentors primarily based on how they make you feel, consider the following approaches:

• Evaluate potential mentors based on their demonstrated expertise and success in your field
• Assess their ability to provide specific, actionable feedback rather than general encouragement
• Prepare yourself to receive constructive criticism by adopting a growth mindset
• Seek mentors who balance honesty with respect, rather than those who only offer praise

By consciously prioritizing expertise over positivity, individuals can maximize the benefits of mentorship relationships and accelerate their professional development.

The Cultural Dimension

It's worth noting that preferences for positive versus critical feedback often have cultural dimensions. Research published in the International Journal of Intercultural Relations indicates that feedback preferences and interpretations vary significantly across cultures.

For example, studies have found that individuals from East Asian cultures often respond more positively to indirect criticism and group-oriented feedback, while those from Western individualistic cultures may prefer more direct, individual-focused feedback. Organizations with diverse workforces must consider these cultural variations when developing mentorship programs and feedback processes.

Finding Balance

Ultimately, the most effective mentorship relationships—and organizational cultures—likely incorporate both expertise-based criticism and positive reinforcement. As the research shows, pure positivity without substantive expertise leads to suboptimal outcomes. However, expertise delivered without any positive relationship foundation can create resistance and resentment.

The key insight from this research isn't that positivity should be eliminated, but rather that it shouldn't be the primary selection criterion for mentors and advisers. Organizations and individuals benefit most when expertise takes precedence, delivered within the context of respectful, psychologically safe relationships.

Conclusion

The tendency to choose mentors based on positivity rather than expertise represents a significant but correctable bias in human decision-making. By recognizing this pattern, individuals can make more intentional choices about who they seek guidance from, while organizations can develop structures that prioritize expertise in selection and evaluation processes.

As we navigate increasingly complex professional landscapes, the quality of mentorship and feedback becomes ever more critical to success. The research presented by Winokur Munk offers valuable insights into how we can improve these relationships—starting with an honest assessment of what we truly value in our advisers and mentors.

By prioritizing expertise over positivity, we may face more challenging conversations and moments of discomfort. However, the evidence suggests that this approach leads to superior performance and growth—both for individuals and for the organizations they comprise. Perhaps the true value of this research is in helping us recognize the difference between what feels good in the moment and what truly serves our long-term development.