Annoying and Ineffective Leader Behaviors

Leaders, particularly the inexperienced, can exhibit some annoying behaviors -- behaviors that ultimately diminish their effectiveness as a leader.

Leadership researchers have identified a behavior style or approach called transactional leadership (described in earlier publications). A general definition of transactional leadership is as follows: "Leaders who guide or motivate their followers in the direction of established goals by clarifying role and task requirements."^{1 (p.383)} Transactional leadership comprises three dimensions: (1) Contingent Reward, (2) Management by Exception -- Active and (3) Management by Exception -- Passive.¹ Some researchers have also added a laissez-faire dimension to the transactional category.¹ 

Contingent Reward behaviors embody an exchange between workers and the leader. The leader sets the goals and workers are rewarded with pay for the effort and achievement of the designated objectives. Most employment relationships are founded upon this kind of transaction -- pay for performance. Thus transactional leadership initiates the relationship between leaders and workers.

The Management by Exception Active and Passive dimensions round out the transactional style with two methods for monitoring work to ensure work requirements are fulfilled correctly.  The active manager keeps a watchful eye on the worker's performance and his/her close involvement enables preemptive action if errors are detected or the achievement of goals might be hindered. That is, he/she "watches and searches for deviations from rules and standards, takes corrective action."^{1 (p. 383)} Alternatively, the passive management by exception approach has a lower degree of involvement with the follower. While monitoring exists, it is only after the errors have occurred that the leader takes action; "intervenes only if standards are not met."^{1 (p. 383)}

Dangers of Management by Exception

Management by Exception Active (MBEA) can be viewed as an annoying form or style of leadership because of its impact. Its use should be restricted to when a follower's skill sets are weak, he/she needs constant guidance and/or the organizational circumstance requires vigilant attention by the leader, such as in a crisis. Otherwise it is best to be more empowering or risk harming the worker motivation. Workers are more motivated when work autonomy increases¹ and thus the leader’s excessive involvement, like MBEA, is counterproductive.  

As stated in previous publications, leaders need to calibrate their approach to the workers based on their skills and the organizational situation, or risk negatively impacting outcomes. Examples of this kind of behavior and the potential negative consequences abound.

I recall a senior leader in an organization snooping on his management team. This leader surreptitiously recruited workers from high and low places in the hierarchy of the organization as a way of gathering information and keeping tabs. His objective was to keep a handle on what was happening in the organization and to check up on the leaders who were his direct reports.

It is a known fact that leaders do not always get told what is going on in their own organization and thus mechanisms like this can serve the leader well. However, the approach used can have positive or negative consequences. The problem isn't the gathering of information by the leader. However, if the objective deviates from keeping up with what is happening and shifts toward monitoring direct reports or preempting mistakes (unless the circumstances or workers warrant), then it becomes a problem. If the leader is using people in the hierarchy, these secret conversations are akin to inviting workers to tattle on their bosses.

A similar set of behaviors is when a leader actively pursues information similar to how a detective might seek information. Direct reports learn of this behavior when the leader seems to know everything that is happening: "I heard your meeting was very negative" or "The workers came to me and said...," etc. This direct report is likely to sense that he or she is being constantly watched. It can feel like the leader is hovering in a helicopter preparing to swoop in to prevent problems or correct behaviors. Helicopter leadership is a cousin of micro-management and it suggests to the workers they are not trusted. Not a good feeling.

The passive side of management by exception can be interpreted just as poorly when the workers are corrected after mistakes happen. The thought might be, "Why did you wait?" or "Why are you spending time trying to catch me in mistakes?" It is similar to helicopter leadership, but instead the helicopter remains at a distance until there is a problem -- then action is taken.

Of course, the need for active and passive management by exception is diminished if the leader hires the right people in the first place. Leaders who do not trust the people who work for them or are not trusting people to begin with probably should not be in the leader role.

Leaders can exhibit annoying behaviors. They certainly want to know what is going on in the organization, but how they go about finding information out can be either helpful or harmful to worker motivation. Management by Exception active and passive can be negative if handled improperly.

Feel free to make comments.

References

¹ Robbins, S., & Judge, T. (2013). Organizational Behavior (15th ed.). Boston: Pearson.