Implicit in contemporary approaches to leadership, particularly the leadership of change, is the assumption that leaders are a constructive force that have a positive impact on organization and employee performance.  As a result, the overwhelming emphasis in leadership research and development is on the factors associated with effective, successful, or constructive leadership. The implication in these approaches is that ineffective leadership is simply the absence of the factors associated with effective leadership.  But this is an inaccurate and incomplete view of leadership.

Under such terms as “abusive supervisors”, “petty tyrants”, “bad leadership”, “toxic leaders”, “intolerable bosses”, “derailed leaders”, and “brutal bosses“, researchers have investigated the “dark side” of leadership (Conger, 1990) and have found that leaders can and do take actions and engage in behaviors that are destructive to the organization and/or the people who work in them. This research indicates that that destructive leadership includes behaviors that go beyond simply the absence of effective leadership behaviors to include such actions as arbitrariness, belittling of others, lack of consideration, and a forcing style of conflict resolution.  Among the impacts of destructive leadership are such negative outcomes as reduced employee commitment and satisfaction, revenge and retaliation, lower performance and work unit cohesiveness, and high frustration, stress, reactance, and helplessness among subordinates.

Interestingly, some researchers propose it is possible for the same leaders to be constructive in one setting or situation and destructive in another (Einarsen, Aasland, & Skogstad, 2007).  In my research on the leadership of change, it is apparent that leaders who are typically constructive can, during a change, engage in actions that are destructive to the change, the people implementing the change, and even to themselves.  Among the results of such actions are the loss of leader credibility and increased resentment, cynicism, and resistance to change by those implementing the change.  Ironically, the resistance to change leaders complain about may well be the product of their own destructive actions.

To fully understand leadership, particularly the leadership of change, requires we consider both sides of leadership and how they impact each other.  Idiosyncratic credit theory suggests that typically constructive leaders are likely to be forgiven for “destructive mistakes” that damage trust, particularly if they use closure conversations to acknowledge and apologize for the mistakes.  However, there may be a limit to how many destructive actions a constructive leader can take before it begins undermining their leadership.

Some References:

Conger, J. A. 1990. The dark side of leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 19(2): 44-55.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M. S., & Skogstad, A. 2007. Destructive leadership behaviour: A definition and conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly, 18: 207-216.

Lombardo, M. M., & McCall, M. W. J. 1984. Coping with an intolerable boss. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.

McCall, M. W. J., & Lombardo, M. M. 1983. Off the track: Why and how successful executives get derailed. Greensboro, N.C.: Center for Creative Leadership.

The primary focus of leadership research and writing seems to be dominated by a conception of leadership as associated with someone in a formal position of leadership (i.e., authority) and by a focus on the extrinsic outcomes of the characteristics or behaviors of the leader.  Accordingly, attention is given to identifying the characteristics and/or behaviors that differentiate effective leaders from ineffective leaders on the assumption that once identified, we can select or train leaders for these characteristics or behaviors, thereby improving leadership.

What I find troubling about this approach, however, is that it says nothing about the source of the behaviors leaders exhibit or how one might gain access to those behaviors.  Knowing what respect is and that effective leaders show respect does not mean that I can show respect when it is needed or that I can show it in an appropriate or acceptable way.  There is not a one-to-one correspondence between any personality characteristic, cognitive capability, affective orientation, or situational condition and any leader behavior.  What this means is that none of these factors are THE source or cause of leader behaviors and learning them will not make me a leader or necessarily more effective.

No, I think we are missing something and I think it has to do with the idea that the actions we take and the behaviors we engage in are a function of how situations and people occur to us.  In their book, The Three Laws of Performance, Zaffron and Logan point out that how people perform is not determined by the objective nature of the situation, but rather is correlated with how the situation occurs to them.  If, for example, the actions and behaviors of another occur as resistance to a change agent, the agent is likely to respond much differently than if those same actions and behaviors occur as a contribution to improving the change.

The idea that one’s actions correlate with how situations occur suggests that the access to leader behaviors, in both form and quality, is to be found in how things occur for people.  It also suggests that leaders can alter their behaviors, in both form and quality, by learning how to shift the way situations occur.  Zaffron and Logan have some ideas on how to do that that may be worth pursuing.

It is clear that every time we make a promise, regardless of how big or small it may be or to whom we make it, we give our word.  It is probably less clear, however, that we also give our word every time we accept a promise.  When we accept a promise, we give our word to the person making the promise to receive whatever has been promised by the time it has been promised.

Making and accepting promises creates occasions for honoring our word and raises an important issue: “Where do we keep track of our promises so that we might honor them?”  We cannot reliably honor the promises we have made, or reliably hold others accountable for the promises they have made to us, if we do not have a record of the promises made.

Many people keep “To Do Lists” in which they record the things they want to do, but few of us keep “Due Lists” in which we record the promises we have made or accepted.  Unfortunately, too many of us keep our promises in our memory, which is notoriously unreliable.  The result is that we forget promises, making us look incompetent, political, or inconsistent.

By keeping our promises in something like a “Due List”, we increase the likelihood of remembering what we have given our word to and the chances of honoring our word.  This, in turn,  increases our credibility, trustworthiness, and effectiveness.

For the past several months, I have been conducting research into the leadership of change.  My interest is in finding out what differentiates effective leading of change from ineffective.  Although my research is far from complete, I have found something you might find interesting – the leadership of change has a much different focus than leadership in general.

One of the hallmarks of general leadership is “leadership style”.  At the heart of leadership style is the idea that leaders have a particular way or pattern of leading and that not all patterns are appropriate or effective in all situations.  Leaders who are very production or task oriented, for example, will tend to be more effective in situations where getting things done is paramount than will leaders who are more affinity or relationship oriented.  Based on this literature, one would expect that the effective leadership of change would also involve leadership style, but it doesn’t.

In the literature on change leadership, such as John Kotter’s book Leading Change, the focus is on steps, not style.  More specifically, the focus is on identifying the “right steps” or the “right process(es)”, which if fully and appropriately followed, will result in the successful implementation of change.  Apparently, when it comes to change, it is not the leader’s personal style that matters, but the steps they use in conducting change.

What I find interesting about the steps approach to change leadership is that it ignores the very extensive literature on general leadership which indicates that how leaders treat and interact with followers matters.  The steps approach implies that no matter what a leader’s style might be, or how ineffective it is on a daily basis, it won’t matter when it comes to change as long as they fully and appropriately implement the right steps.

Come on, are they serious?  Are they really saying that steps trump style?  Does anyone really believe that a jerk of a leader can successfully engage people in a change if she simply follows the right steps?  It would seem a marriage of the two approaches would give a more complete picture of what is required for the effective leadership of change, but so far I have not found such a marriage.

When managers have authority over resources important to subordinates (e.g., hiring and firing, pay, job assignments, vacation time, etc.), they tend to assume they do not have to persuade or convince subordinates of their assessments of a situation.  For example, if a manager believes an event, such as a work delay or a change in priorities or requirements poses a threat to the successful completion of a project, she is likely to assume that all that is needed is to communicate the threat and her subordinates will take the appropriate action.  In this regard, managers are blind to the fact that their subordinates see things from a different point of view and will not automatically accept what they are told.

According to the study in Organization Science, when a threat occurs, managers with authority engage in fewer redundant and more delayed communications than managers lacking that authority.  As a result, their initial communications regarding a threat are ineffective 72% of the time, thereby requiring subsequent and more time consuming follow up communications.  The need for these additional communications can have a negative impact on the managers’ credibility and reputation, thereby increasing the chances that future communications will also not be heeded.

Authority can help managers get things done.  However, authority is not a substitute for appropriate and complete communication.  Where managers assume there is such a substitution, their effectiveness will be reduced.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, blaming resistance may be more about managers saving face and avoiding responsibility for the negative impact of their leadership than an accurate report on the responses of those actually implementing the change.  When it comes to change, leaders are generally told that the key to success is to be found in the steps they take to implement the change (see for example, John Kotter’s Leading Change).  The implication is that no matter what relationship leaders have with followers prior to the change, if they follow the right implementation process, they are likely to succeed.  But this implication may be more wishful thinking than practical advice.

A study reported in the Journal of Applied Psychology indicates that the overall relationship leaders have with their followers is more important in determining whether followers buy in to a change than are specific steps they take in implementing the change.  Where that relationship is based in trust and credibility, followers are more likely to buy in to a particular change.  In other words, if the leader is a jerk, then even if they follow the right implementation steps, the change is unlikely to succeed.

One implication of this study is that what leaders call resistance to change may be more a reflection of their relationship to those they lead than an attribute or characteristic of those same people.

Clearly this type of research is extremely valuable IF you have a portfolio of leaders with known leadership styles and a portfolio of changes to which the leaders can be assigned such that their styles complement the change situation.  In these cases, the fit between style and change is likely to result in a more effective change.  But what if you don’t have this?

Most changes are given to the leaders that are already in place, regardless of their leadership styles.  As a result, there is a very high likelihood that there will be a “misfit” between the leader’s current style and the change they are to implement. In these cases, which I believe are the norm rather than the exception, knowing that some styles are more effective with certain types of changes than others is of little or no value.  How do we help leaders, regardless of their “style”, to be more effective regardless of the type of change they have to implement?  What can be done to help any leader be more personally effective when their “style” is not a match for what they have to accomplish assuming they even know what their “style” is?

When it comes to leadership, there are multiple contexts involved.  There is the context in which the leader is located, the ones in which followers and potential followers are located, and the ones in which observers are located.  It seems to me that one of the difficulties in developing personal leadership effectiveness is that we forget there are these differences and talk about leadership as if there is (or should be) one context.  This is evident in a recent article I read in Foreign Policy (FP) in which President Obama was criticized for having said that the US would not commit ground troops to Libya.  According to FP, removing the threat of intervention could embolden Qaddfi to hold on and drag out the war.

My point is not whether Obama did the right thing or the wrong thing, but to point to the difference in the contexts being considered as they relate to personal leadership effectiveness.  Obama, like any leader, looks at a given set of conditions and circumstances from within a particular context.  This context shapes and constrains what the leader sees as possible, appropriate, and actionable.  It tells her what she can do and what she can’t do – it defines her opportunities for action.  Others, such as the authors of the FP article see things from an entirely different context and judge the appropriateness of the leader’s actions on that context.

The difficulty, or course, is that leaders operate based on the context(s) in which they are located, not the ones in which others are located.  And, it is not clear that leaders (or most of us for that matter) are aware of the context within which they are engaging the world at any particular time.  As a result, they could give the same order (“fire”) in different situations because the situations occur as similar (or different) to them.

If we want leaders (including ourselves) to be more effective, it seems to me that we would want to find ways to help leaders discover the contexts from within which they act and help them learn how to create new contexts.  Otherwise, it seems that all we are left with is cataloging behaviors which are the effect of context, not the cause.  And if this is the case, then all we can do is tell leaders, “Here are some behaviors you should engage in, but you will have to figure out the context that has you engage in them.”

From where I sit, a list of behaviors doesn’t seem to be very helpful in giving people access to personal leadership effectiveness.  What do you think?

The difficulty with this equation is that we can achieve a result, in fact many results, some of which are difficult and challenging, and still have no sense or experience of accomplishment.  Just ask yourself, “What have I already done today?” You got dressed, went to your workplace, handled some email, went to a meeting, read a memo, made a phone call… and so on. These are all achievements.  In fact, we can’t make it through the day without dozens and dozens of achievements, many minor, some major.  So, with all your many achievements today, do you have a sense and experience of accomplishment or being accomplished (also a dictionary definition of accomplishment). Why not?

I propose that one answer is because the accomplishment has not been recognized and spoken.  Think about a time when you went all out to make something happen – a time you went beyond your normal behavior, and did things you hadn’t done before, or talked to people you didn’t normally talk to, and yet failed to achieve the result you were working for.  As a result, did you develop any new capacities?  Did you learn useful things about yourself you didn’t know before or about others?  Did you create any new relationships, communicate in ways you hadn’t before, or become more productive and efficient in some way?  Did you go beyond your comfort zone and break some of your own barriers?  If you answered yes to any of these questions, then there is an accomplishment that can be spoken, even when the achievement was not what you hoped it would be.

People are starving for accomplishment.  Studies repeatedly show that people feel unrecognized and under-appreciated for what they contribute at work.  This is not surprising given we equate achievement with accomplishment and ignore all the other things that have to happen to achieve an outcome.  Clearly we want to speak the accomplishment of achieving an intended goal, outcome, or result.  But it is possible to listen for and speak accomplishment in both successes and failures.  It is in listening for and speaking accomplishment that people are recognized and appreciated and come to experience what they have accomplished and is it these accomplishments that matter to people.

If you want to improve the quality and timeliness of what you get back from people, then start making good requests and getting good promises.  By good requests and promises, I mean ones in which both parties are clear they are in a performance conversation for giving their word and are awake to what they are committing each other to.  All too frequently, people make “drive by requests” and “drive by promises” – ones that are made on the run or while doing something else and where at least one party is not completely present to what they are promising.  The result is that what gets delivered is not always accurate, complete, or timely.  Making good requests and getting good promises are integral to personal leadership effectiveness.

A good promise is one that is made in response to a good request, and here is how you make a good request:

Step 1:
Request what you want, by when you want it, and explain why it matters.

Step 2:
Get answers to each of the following questions:

1. Do you have any questions about what I want, when I want it, or why?

2. Are you available to do this? Do you see when you could do the work? Are you aware of anything that could keep you from completing it on time?

3. Do you have some ideas as to how this might be done? [This is particularly important when requesting something they haven’t done before.]

4. Do you have the necessary information and resources or do you know where to get them? [This can change over the duration of a project as things that were not known become known – one reason why you would want to schedule progress reports.]

5. Are you accepting my request?

When you get answers that leave you confident the work will be completed accurately, completely, and on time, you have a “good” promise. If you are not confident, explore the answers that give you concern until you are confident. It is better to withdraw a request you are not confident will be completed than to “hope” it will get done.

Peter Bergmann suggests that the secret to ensuring follow through is to create and use a checklist when making each request.  Using a checklist (see Bergmann’s checklist) as a matter of policy increases the likelihood of making good requests, increases consistency (which builds trust), and makes the interaction easier.