170 likes | 627 Views
Laissez-Faire Leadership: Doing Nothing and Its Destructive Effects. C. W. Von Bergen & Martin S. Bressler Southeastern Oklahoma State University Durant, OK. A Key Responsibility of Leaders …. includes monitoring and responding appropriately to the performance of subordinates
E N D
Laissez-Faire Leadership: DoingNothing and Its Destructive Effects C. W. Von Bergen & Martin S. Bressler Southeastern Oklahoma State University Durant, OK
A Key Responsibility of Leaders … includes monitoring and responding appropriately to the performance of subordinates —Yukl (2006)
In An Ideal World … managers would manage performance throughout the year, offer timely and consistent feedback, and ensure that both goals and feedback were aligned with and support organizational goals. But …
Laissez-faire Leaders • Occupy leadership positions but have abdicated the responsibilities and duties assigned to them (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939) • Avoid making decisions, hesitate in taking action, and are absent when needed (Judge & Piccolo, 2004) • Avoid responsibility, do not respond to problems, are absent when needed, fail to follow up, resist expressing views, and delay responses (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam, 2003;Bass & Avolio, 1997)
The Sine Qua Nonof Laissez-Faire Leaders They do nothing
A Common Assumption … “Doing nothing will have no effect on performance.” —Hellriegel& Slocum (2007, p. 103)
What Do These Individuals Have In Common? • Pope John Paul II • Coach Joe Paterno • Major Nidal Hassan
Doing Nothing Does Something • Demotivates good performers • Decreasesthe probability of future desiredbehavior • Encourages poor workers • Opens the door for increased levels of undesired performance
Management Nonresponse to Desirable Employee Performance • Nonreinforced subordinate good performance leads to • Dissatisfaction • Performance decrement • Extinction may unintentionally occur • “Just ignore it, and it’ll go away” • Analogy: houseplants that do not get watered wither away • We can expect a decrease in desirable conduct
Why Some Supervisors Do Nothing in Response toDesirable Employee Performance • Subordinates will see them as weak if they use too much R+ • Complimenting someone who may have to be fired or demoted in the future could backfire • People don’t need R+ for “doing the job they are paid to do” • The supervisor does not read people well enough to understand what is reinforcing to each specific individual
Management Nonresponse to Undesirable Employee Performance • “Qui tacetconsentirevidetur.” • Wrongdoing is often self-rewarding to a worker and involves an activity the person already finds satisfying so the behavior often continues and often increases when nothing is done. • Creates disillusionment from the very people the business relies most upon—those who consistently produce good results.
Why Some Supervisors Do Nothing in Response toUndesirableEmployee Performance • Don’t want to rock the boat, fearing that poor performers will retaliate with even worse performance • They dislike confrontation and possibly they are unassertive • They may fear hurting employee feelings or potential workplace violence • Have internalized the dictums of “don’t be judgmental” and “don’t say anything at all if you can’t say something nice”
Great Leaders and Organizations • Provide occasions to acknowledge, recognize, and reward meaningful accomplishments, thus creating a culture where progress and appreciation prevail. • Distinguished organizations create greater success by praising and celebrating good performance, that is, by positive reinforcement.
Functional/Useful Effectsof Negative Feedback • Workers generally feel better about their supervisor, coworkers, and opportunities for advancement when their leaders hold employees accountable for poor performance • Bad apples spoil the barrel (Felps, Mitchell, &Byington, 2006) • Social learning theory posits that people learn from one another by observing consequences that others experience (Bandura, 1986)
In Conclusion … • Managers seldom recognize the impact of their own failure to act on their subordinates • Many performance issues are created not only by what supervisors do but also by what they don’t do • DOING NOTHING DOES SOMETHING
THERE IS A HIGH COST OFLAISSEZ-FAIRE LEADERSHIP