There’s no doubt, we increasingly expect managers to step away from ‘authoritarian’ behaviour and adopt a more collaborative and democratic style. But how far do we go with this?
In recent years, we’ve seen a slide towards ‘laissez faire’ management, especially during the last 12 months. Let the team members decide what’s important, let the team decide what they need, let the team decide when they need to ask for help, let the team …
Is this an abdication of responsibility on the part of the leader? Or a sign that leaders have become scared to lead? Let’s take a look.
“The first leadership responsibility is to define reality,” said Max DePree. In other words, a leader needs to help people understand where they are and where they need to be.
Do your leaders do this? Do they define reality and then actively manage? Or are they busy running for the hills to avoid an endless cycle of challenges from people who don’t think they need to be managed?
Are either of these scenarios familiar?
- A young person, just out of education, stipulates at interview how he is best managed, and that traditional management won’t work for him.
- Three months in, his manager says she has stepped back from managing following endless accusations that she is ‘assertive’ bordering on ‘aggressive’, and that she micro-manages and ‘doesn’t trust me’.
- The problem now is how to do a probationary review with someone who appears uncooperative and unmanageable.
- Several employees create a diversity and inclusion (D&I) forum and insist the group is self-managed.
- After six months the HR Director has only received demands from the newly appointed D&I forum. They, in turn, say the HR Director is disengaged, disingenuous and obstructive.
- The HR Director is bewildered that a group of employees thought they could make decisions for the business without any consideration of cost, practicality, balance with other activities, or consultation with the HR Directors and wider board.
- So, where do you go from here? In terms of employee relations, folding a group that isn’t working could do more harm than good.
Leadership training
To compound the problem, while many organisations ask for leadership training, they’re not always clear what kind of training they require.
We often hear that companies want help with engagement, retention, or employee relations; all of which are extremely valid. But if we focus solely on leadership skills, we often hear:
- Managers are receiving conflicting messaging from HR and Business Leaders. They are not clear whether they are expected to be empathetic listeners and counsellors, able to deal with mental health challenges, stress, physical illness, menopause etc. Or whether we want them to focus on productivity and engagement?
- There is no understanding of what ‘self-managed’ means and how that can work in practise. Equally, there is no understanding of what ‘flexibility’ means and how to manage those who believe flexibility is doing what you want to do, when you want to do it.
- There’s no clarity around the difference between leadership and management.
- Managers feel their ‘backs are against the wall’ when it comes to dealing with employee demands, and they lack the knowledge and confidence to take the lead.
- Managers know nothing of the different leadership theories, styles and options open to them.
Leadership theories
We don’t want to explore leadership theory in detail here, but we do want to refer you to the Leadership Continuum by Tannenbaum and Schmidt. There’s no doubt, we increasingly expect managers to step away from ‘authoritarian’ behaviour and adopt a more collaborative and democratic style. But how far do we go with this?
Earlier, we mentioned a slide towards ‘laissez faire’, which sits at the opposite end of the spectrum to authoritarian. And, given the above examples relating to the new starter, and new D&I forum, it appears laissez faire leadership is what many employees say they want. Let the team members decide what’s important, let the team decide what they need, let the team decide when they need to ask for help, let the team …
Some traditionalists might call this a total abdication of responsibility on the part of the leader. Some might call it enlightened. So, which is it?
New leadership terminology
To further complicate the debate, while ‘laissez faire leadership’ has been around for a while, a new style of leadership has had emerged: ‘Distributive leadership’. Let’s look at the difference.
Laissez faire leadership
- The leader is the person with ultimate decision making/budgetary approval
- The team, rather than the leader or manager, decides on direction and goals
- Individuals get on with their own tasks
- No one person is responsible for making things happen
Distributed leadership
- The leader consults the team on all major issues and decisions
- The leader delegates tasks
- Team members are given full control and responsibility for delivering what is needed
- The leader encourages regular feedback on all aspects of work
In our view, the difference between the two styles comes down to the how the leader delegates the actual tasks or responsibilities. Something we informally refer to as ‘delegate and dump’ or ‘delegate and manage’?
The reality
Applying a leadership style that is too relaxed, can create challenges, some of which were played out in the examples we gave at the start of this HR Blast. In addition,
- Those with the delegated responsibility may now expect their views/ideas/decisions to take precedence and in our experience can get upset (and vocal) if they don’t. This stems from perceptions of self-importance. We did once see an HR Director accused of discrimination, for seemingly not taking the recommendations of the D&I forum seriously enough.
- The leader can feel undermined in a culture that removes some of their expected authority or decision-making responsibilities, which can impact the engagement and wellbeing of the management team.
- Employees may look to other departments and compare their experience with that of colleagues, who may be experiencing more traditional leadership styles. A perception of different treatment can adversely impact employee relations.
- Decision making slows down – which can impact productivity and/or their quality of output – too many fingers in the pot!
- With slow decision making, anxiety or uncertainty can emerge, which can in turn impact the wellbeing and engagement of the team.
- The lack of clarity around accountability can become a problem, especially if you need to step in to resolve/address an issue. Giving responsibility is easy, taking it away can become an employee relations nightmare.
Conflict, disharmony, reduced productivity, and declining engagement are all potential outcomes if the leader struggles to make a more relaxed style of leadership work.
Top tips: Distributed or Laissez Faire leadership style
However, if you do want to adopt a Distributed or Laissez Faire leadership style, then here are our top tips:
- Your leaders/managers need to be competent and confident in their role and in managing people.
- There must be a pre-existing culture of accountability, with grown-ups behaving like adults in a mature workplace. There’s no room for ‘us and them’ thinking; for finger pointing or blame; or unprofessional outbursts.
- Managers need to develop the skills to effectively communicate the responsibilities associated with being a ‘decision maker’, and feel able to hold decision-makers to account.
- Staff will benefit if they understand the difference between management and micromanagement. The former is required (and is a responsibility) of managers, the latter is not required. All employees should expect to be managed. Leaving staff to their own devices is not an option and managers need to be reassured of this.
- Train your teams so they can work effectively together. Help them understand how to manage conflict or disagreement. Consider appointing a team ‘coach’, someone to come in and advise, as required, on decision making, conflict, relationships, goal setting etc.
- Agree and communicate the parameters in which all self-managed teams in your organisation will operate eg weekly reporting, who to report to, setting of goals/targets, escalation of issues, approval of decisions etc. Even self-managed teams need a framework.
And finally
Who is leading whom? If you have a leadership role in a business you cannot just hand that over to one or more of your team members/employees to avoid the flak, to keep your workload down or to appease those who believe that leaders/managers should be seen but not heard!
Interested to learn more about what we’ve talked about? To develop a more comprehensive understanding of what it takes to become a leader, consider enrolling in Jaluch’s Leadership Programme.