The pros and cons of workplace perfectionism

Biographies of exceptional achievers tend to explain their success through personality traits, highlighting the “killer psychological weapons” that made them great. So, Steve Jobs’s abrasiveness is reframed as visionary perfectionism, Elon Musk’s impulsivity as bold risk-taking, and Jeff Bezos’s relentlessness as uncompromising customer obsession. The same retrospective alchemy applies to women: Oprah Winfrey’s emotional intensity becomes radical empathy and authenticity; Indra Nooyi’s discipline and conscientiousness are recast as values-driven, long-term strategic leadership; and Diane Hendricks’s toughness and impatience with incompetence are celebrated as decisive execution and operational rigor. In every case, traits that might once have seemed problematic are retrofitted into virtues once success makes the story worth telling.

The reality, as always, is a lot more nuanced than our limited patience and attention span appears to tolerate these days, namely all human traits or behavioral patterns can be both good and bad depending on the context, level, or outcome examined. So, for instance, confidence is generally good but when it’s decoupled from actual competence or extremely high, it may impede learning, make people look foolish and arrogant, and lead to significant underestimation of risks, delusional grandiosity, and reality distortion. To add yet another caveat: this is more likely in certain cultures (collectivistic, self-critical, humble) than others (individualistic, optimistic, and arrogant).

All things in moderation

This is why Aristotle wisely argued (as did Confucius before him) that virtue lies in moderation: the sweet midpoint between two equally problematic extremes. Courage, for example, sits between cowardice and recklessness; generosity between stinginess and wastefulness; ambition between apathy and obsession. Modern science quietly (because few people seem to listen or be interested in grasping this) agrees with him: too little of a good thing leaves potential unrealized, but too much turns strength into liability.

One of the traits that illustrates this nicely is perfectionism, which evokes both positives and negatives in the general public—so much so, that it’s often suggested as a universal answer to the dreaded (and not very useful) “what’s your biggest weakness” job interview question. At low levels, perfectionism may reflect carelessness or disengagement. At moderate levels, it can signal high standards, diligence, and pride in one’s work. But once it crosses a certain threshold, perfectionism stops being about excellence and becomes about fear: fear of mistakes, fear of judgment, fear of falling short. At that point, it no longer improves performance. Instead, it fuels anxiety, indecision, micromanagement, burnout, and strained relationships.

The challenge for organizations is that perfectionism often looks like commitment, especially in cultures that reward overwork, self-criticism, and constant busyness. But the real leadership task is not to eliminate high standards, but to prevent standards from hardening into self-punishment or control over others. Thus, as with confidence, ambition, or drive, the goal is not “more” or “less,” but enough (or “the right amount”), and knowing when enough has tipped into too much.

A new approach

In line, a new academic review synthesizes decades of research into perfectionism, defined as a stable tendency to set excessively high standards for oneself or others, combined with overly critical self-evaluation and a chronic concern with mistakes, evaluation, and failure. This research distinguishes between striving for excellence and being driven by fear of imperfection; a distinction that helps explain why perfectionism so often undermines well-being and collaboration while delivering only fragile or short-lived performance gains.

More specifically, the review highlights both the pros and cons of being a perfectionist, evaluating its broad impact on individuals, teams, leadership, and organizations.

Three pros (when it’s the “right” kind)

1. Higher engagement and goal attainment (under narrow conditions)
   Perfectionistic strivings (high personal standards driven internally) are associated with greater work engagement, persistence, goal achievement, and satisfaction, especially in structured, predictable roles where quality and precision matter. This can translate into diligence and follow-through rather than brilliance.
   
2. Attention to detail and decision thoroughness in leaders
   Leaders high in self-oriented perfectionism tend to pay closer attention to detail and, in some contexts, make more comprehensive strategic decisions. In relatively stable environments, this has been linked to better decision quality and organizational resilience.
   
3. Short-term performance signaling and credibility
   Perfectionism can function as a reputational signal, conveying conscientiousness, reliability, and seriousness, particularly early in careers or in performance-pressured environments. This may support initial career progression, even if the advantages fade over time.

Three cons (and these are generally more robust)

1. Worse well-being with little performance payoff
   Across studies and meta-analyses, perfectionism shows weak or no association with job performance, but moderate to strong associations with burnout, stress, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, and poor recovery. In short, it reliably depletes people without reliably improving output.
2. Workaholism, rumination, and inability to switch off
   Perfectionistic concerns are consistently linked to overcommitment, presenteeism, procrastination, and difficulty psychologically detaching from work. Even breaks become cognitively exhausting because perfectionists continue to ruminate about mistakes and unfinished tasks.
3. Toxic leadership and downstream harm to others
   When perfectionism shows up as socially prescribed or other-oriented (imposing flawlessness on others), leaders are more likely to micromanage, punish mistakes, undermine psychological safety, trigger deviance, and reduce creativity and well-being in followers. This is one of the strongest and most consistent findings in the leadership section of the review.

Try “excellencism” instead

In short, perfectionism is not a performance or self-presentational strategy, but a personality trait linked to a fragile motivational style that works under limited conditions; at worst, it is a scalable mechanism for burnout, toxic leadership, and self-sabotage. The authors explicitly point to “excellencism” (very high but flexible standards without fear of failure) as a healthier and more sustainable alternative.

For leaders and organizations, the implication is clear: the goal is not to hire, promote, or reward perfectionists, but to cultivate excellence without fear. High standards are essential, but only when paired with flexibility, learning, and psychological safety. In an economy that increasingly rewards speed, adaptation, and collaboration over flawless execution, the most effective leaders are not those who never err, but those who know when precision matters and when “good enough” is not a compromise but a strategic choice. Perfectionism mistakes control for quality. Excellence optimizes for impact.