Uppers and Downers
The Compelling Case for Prioritising Morale in Hiring
When making hiring decisions, every organisation faces a critical question: do we put more emphasis on technical “fit”, or on social “fit”? While technical skills have long dominated hiring criteria, there’s a growing recognition of the outsized impact that “uppers” – those who elevate mood and morale – can have on organisational performance and success.
As Tom DeMarco and Timothy Lister argued in their groundbreaking book “Peopleware” over three decades ago, the major problems of software projects are not technical, but human. Their extensive research demonstrated that the primary factors determining project success were related to social dynamics, communication, and workplace sociology—not technical challenges. This insight remains profoundly relevant across industries today.
The “Upper” Contributor: A Powerful Organisational Asset
When hiring for “fit,” the often-undervalued, nay invisible, “uppers” bring transformative qualities that extend far beyond their immediate role. These individuals:
- Foster environments where innovation and risk-taking flourish
- Build bridges between departments and break down silos
- Serve as informal mentors, accelerating team development
- Diffuse tension during high-pressure situations
- Attract and retain other high-performers through positive relationships
- Reduce management overhead by self-solving interpersonal friction
- Act to minimose the disruption and suckitude caused by “downers”
DeMarco and Lister’s research in “Peopleware” provides compelling evidence that optimising the human environment—not the technical tools or processes—yields the greatest productivity gains. Their studies of software development teams found that top-performing teams weren’t distinguished by technical prowess but by how effectively they worked together.
“The major problems of our work are not so much technological as sociological in nature”
they observed after studying hundreds of development projects.
Research increasingly shows these contributions can have a quantifiable impact on productivity that often exceeds pure technical prowess. McKinsey research suggests that positive team environments can improve productivity by 20-25%, while negative ones can reduce it by similar margins.
The “Downer” Technical Fit: The Hidden Costs
The traditional hiring approach heavily weights technical “fit”—does this person have the right skills for the job? While technical competence is necessary, organisations that focus exclusively on this dimension often discover a painful reality: technically brilliant “downers” can extract a heavy toll on morale and team dynamics.
These costs include:
- Increased turnover among team members seeking more positive environments
- Reduced information sharing across the team
- Decreased willingness to take risks or propose novel solutions
- Higher management overhead to mediate conflicts
- Diminished collective problem-solving capacity
Even the most technically gifted individual rarely works in true isolation in modern organisations. The cumulative negative effect of a “downer” can easily offset their individual technical contributions.
Identifying and Attracting “Uppers”
Recognising the value of “uppers” is one thing; successfully identifying and attracting them is quite another. Smart organisations employ several strategies:
- Look beyond traditional interviews: Use team interactions, informal settings, personal recommendations and practical collaboration exercises to observe candidates’ natural social tendencies.
- Value emotional intelligence explicitly: Include structured assessment of emotional intelligence, not just as a “nice to have” but as a core competency.
- Seek evidence of collaborative achievements: Ask for specific examples where candidates helped others succeed, rather than just personal accomplishments.
- Check for reputation, not just references: How candidates are remembered by peers often reveals more than formal references.
- Create interview processes that naturally appeal to “uppers”: Warm, engaging conversations tend to energise uppers while making downers uncomfortable.
- Involve the team in hiring decisions: People with positive social qualities are more readily identified by peers than by managers.
The Paradoxical Role of Systems in Enhancing “Uppers”
W. Edwards Deming, the father of quality management, famously observed that “94% of problems in business are systems problems, not people problems.” This insight creates an interesting paradox when considering “uppers” and “downers” in organisations.
While “uppers” inherently bring positive social qualities, the systems they operate within can either amplify or diminish their impact. Deming argued that systems could either bring out the best in people or frustrate and constrain them. The paradox is that “uppers” often thrive and multiply within well-designed systems, and they’re simultaneously the people most capable of transcending and improving broken systems.
Good systems:
- Create space for “uppers” to exercise their positive influence
- Remove artificial barriers to collaboration
- Reduce unnecessary friction that drains energy
- Encourage an atmosphere conducive to innovation
- Establish clear boundaries that prevent “downers” from undermining team dynamics
As Deming would likely argue, hiring “uppers” is essential, but embedding them in supportive systems exponentially increases their impact. Similarly, DeMarco and Lister found that top-performing teams weren’t just collections of “uppers,” but “uppers” operating within environments designed to enable their success.
The most forward-thinking organisations recognise this relationship and create virtuous cycles: they hire “uppers,” who improve systems, which then attract more “uppers,” creating a compounding advantage that a focus on hiring for technical skills cannot match.
When “Uppers” Prove Most Valuable
Certain scenarios demonstrate where “uppers” deliver exceptional value:
- Teams recovering from toxic leadership or low morale
- High-growth phases requiring rapid onboarding and team formation
- Organisations undergoing significant change or transformation
- Teams tackling ambiguous problems requiring creative collaboration
- Groups facing high-pressure, high-stress environments where resilience matters
- Groups plagued by the deleterious effects of one or more “downers”
In these contexts, the regenerative power of positive social dynamics proves crucial to organisational survival and success.
The Bottom Line: The Upper Advantage
Forward-thinking organisations are increasingly recognising a fundamental truth: whilst technical skills can be taught, the qualities that make someone an “upper” are deeply ingrained and difficult to develop. A technically adept candidate can be trained on new systems, frameworks, and methodologies, but transforming a “downer” into an “upper” requires profound personal change that rarely occurs.
As DeMarco and Lister concluded in “Peopleware,”
“The major problems of our work are not so much technological as sociological in nature.”
Their pioneering work demonstrated that team dynamics matter far more than technical factors in determining productivity and success. Their research showed that the best-performing teams were distinguished not by technical superiority, but by how well they collaborated, communicated, and solved problems together.
The real magic happens when organisations cultivate environments and the way the work works that naturally attract and retain “uppers.” These positive-energy contributors create cumulative advantages: they attract other talented “uppers,” they mentor and develop colleagues, they solve problems creatively through collaboration, and they build resilient teams and workplaces that withstand challenges.
In an era of increasing technical parity between organisations, where technical skills quickly become commoditised, the competitive advantage increasingly comes from how effectively teams collaborate, innovate, and adapt. The “uppers” who catalyse these capabilities represent perhaps the most undervalued asset in modern organisations.
As you evaluate your next hiring decision, consider this: the immediate technical contribution of a candidate might solve today’s problem, but the social impact of an “upper” could transform your entire team’s trajectory. And the social impact of a “downer” could turn everting to shit.
What’s your experience? Has your organisation discovered the transformative power of prioritising “uppers” in your hiring process? Or conversely, have you seen technically brilliant “downers” undermine team effectiveness despite their individual contributions? How do you balance these considerations in your own hiring decisions?
Further Reading
DeMarco, T., & Lister, T. (2013). Peopleware: Productive projects and teams (3rd ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional.
Lencioni, P. (2016). The ideal team player: How to recognize and cultivate the three essential virtues. Jossey-Bass.
Brown, B. (2018). Dare to lead: Brave work. Tough conversations. Whole hearts. Random House.
Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Gotham Books.
Think Different 