Failure to Lead

The Full Range Leadership Model identifies a set of behaviors leaders can use to guide and motivate followers toward the goals of the organization. A major dimension of the model is called Transformational Leadership (TFL) and research has demonstrated that its associated behaviors consistently increase the achievement of outcomes.¹ It calls for a variety of leader actions such as directing attention to the needs and goals of the workers and exciting them in pursuit of company objectives; TFL suggests inclusion and togetherness—i.e. draws followers and leaders together as partners in meeting organizational deliverables.¹

The model also includes Transactional Leadership (TL). TL represents an exchange between organizational leadership and the followers; the relationship is mostly based on an economic model, “pay in exchange for work.” A feature of TL also includes the leader’s monitoring of work to preemptively prevent mistakes or waiting until after a mistake occurs to take corrective action.¹

A final component of TL is called laissez-faire (it has also been described as a separate dimension) and is the least involved form of leadership. This leader either leaves the workers completely alone or hesitates and is wishy-washy over decisions.¹

Laissez-faire behaviors can result from dilemmas faced by the leader; that is, how much to lead in a given situation with certain followers. Leadership is a deliberate process and leaders must adapt their approach to the presenting situation and workers as depicted in the interactional framework model² (see previous publication). Assuming the leader has the behavioral flexibility, he or she should match it to the situation and followers so that the expected or needed outcomes are achieved. The choice of how much leadership to display is not easy; leaders (and all humans) seek behavioral shortcuts. This is because it is easier to use a comfortable pattern and stick with it than to adjust on the fly.

Laissez-faire is one approach that should rarely be used, but there are some leaders who gravitate in this direction, and there are reasons. For example, sometimes a person just does not want to be a leader. As a result, he/she neglects the role’s responsibility of setting goals and direction for workers. When clarity does not exist, workers have no choice but to fill in the gaps; they will do their best to accomplish what they think is important, but this can be inadequate.

In other instances, the leader wants to lead but struggles with how much. As a result, this leader may shift between being absent to the polar opposite of over-involvement.  Situational Leadership Theory (SLT)³ can be used as a tool to steady a leader’s behavior by prescribing actions to be taken based on an assessment of a worker's readiness. Worker readiness is defined as degrees of knowledge, skills, abilities, willingness and confidence on a given task.³ The behavioral prescriptions range from telling the worker exactly what to do (a form of micromanagement), to full empowerment (highest level of worker readiness). In the highest form, the leader delegates the task. Delegation does not mean the leader disappears but instead allows autonomy and independence while remaining available to assist if needed.

A leader can get “stuck” in one of the SLT prescribed behaviors as though all situations call for its approach—for example, some find themselves always fully empowering regardless of the degree of knowledge, abilities and confidence displayed by the follower. This mismatch causes problems since the workers who are not able or confident should not be left doing work on their own.

Laissez-faire is not a dimension of the SLT model, but “full empowerment” can be confused as such. Leaders need to clearly understand the difference between empowerment and laissez-faire. A few examples:

• A first-time leader wants to be “cool” in his or her position and caring to the worker. When a worker consistently asks to leave early, the leader might feel compelled to accommodate – “I don’t care what one of my workers does as long as they get the job done.” Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with this idea, but the leader needs to take a broader view; consideration must address the implications to the unit and organization overall. The quest to empower the worker in this kind of decision could lead to other problems. In other words, this accommodation needs to be considered in a broader context. Being “cool” as described could be considered a form of laissez-faire because the leader is not dealing with a presenting problem.
  
  
• A leader may want a group to manage itself toward the completion of an enterprise-level initiative. That is, the leader empowers the group to run a project and make decisions based on consensus. Again, there is nothing inherently wrong with this approach. The leader may view this as an opportunity to enrich jobs and assist in the development of his/her management group. However, there are unfortunate side effects if the approach is misplaced. For example, if the culture of the organization applauds risk-taking and making mistakes that can be used for learning, then this approach can work. Alternatively, the group may be rendered inert because the culture might shun risk-taking; this is particularly true if the historical pattern is to fire or discipline workers who have made errors in judgment. Left to its own, the group will do its best to move forward, but due to underlying risk aversion, it may hesitate when making any decisions; this can slow a project down to a crawl. Unintentionally, the leader has moved toward a laissez-faire approach and the idea of empowerment has failed.

• A leader who consciously does not want to be in a leader role is the worst of the examples. This can happen when the best salesperson is promoted so he or she could teach the trade to others. Some organizations don’t recognize that selling and leading salespeople requires a different skill set. This can occur in a variety of professions. The excellent faculty member is asked to take an administrative role but faculty skills don’t translate to administrative skills. Another example is the superior nurse who is asked to become a nurse manager; once again, different skill set. Each of the newly minted leaders may resist taking on the role and thus fall back to what they used to do (I am good at selling, so I will sell), leaving their new employees to fend for themselves.

All too often the leader role is treated more like a position rather than a job. Leadership is a tough role with a set of deliberate and ongoing activities required to make it work; a leader cannot behave as though he or she is alone nor can he or she avoid leading. If a leader avoids (even unintentionally), it is a form of non-leadership or laissez-faire. 

Laissez-faire is a dangerous form of leading because it is about subjecting workers and organizations to operating without a leader—meaning the activities of that group are no longer governed by a common direction; instead it is the direction the workers make up. This is one path to dysfunction.

Feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2011). Organizational Behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

² Hughes, R.L., Ginnett, R.C., & Curphy, G.J. (2009). Leadership: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience (6th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Irwin.

³ Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1995). Situational Leadership. In J.T. Wren (Ed.), Leaders's Companion: Insights on Leadership Through the Ages (pp. 207 - 211). New York: Free Press.