Transformational Leadership
vs. Laissez-Faire:
A Different Perspective
Reading through the commentary and the chapter this week, it was evident that the writer wanted us to know that being a transformational leader is a good thing. They inspire us to be our best, appealing to our sense of a moral high ground. The readings also show us just how bad laissez-faire can be to an organization. Lack of leadership skills, little to no motivation, and an overall hands-off approach mark the laissez-faire leader.
It turns out though, that depending on the perspective, sometimes a little laissez-faire can actually help an organization maintain the reputation it has already earned; I say this speaking from experience. My current supervisor, whom for the sake of this article I shall call Jim, is notorious for walking the floor, is seldom in his office, making sure that employees are doing their work. On paper, Jim sounds like a great supervisor. He wants to be good at his job and motivate us as his employees to be the best we can be. Prior to him taking over as our branch chief, as a shop we had excellent production numbers with few to no rejects. Now? Rejects are higher, morale is lower, and employees are losing more and more patience with him as time goes on.
My former boss, Bob (again fake name) was what you would call a hands off supervisor. Bob would be the quintessential textbook definition of laissez-faire leadership. He remained in his office most of the day, seldom walking the floor to see what employees were up to. After all, why do that when we have a shop work leader to take care of that for him? When he did come out of his office, he would crack jokes with employees, seldom mentioning much in the way of actual work or performance. Despite these seemingly tragic shortcomings, work always seemed to get done at a very high quality, morale was sky high, and everyone in our shop was getting along great.
So, why the disparity? Why is it that a laissez-faire boss can have such great success despite having such a hands-off attitude? The answer is trust. In my example, Jim may be attempting to keep the shop afloat, but in doing so he is keeping his distance emotionally from his employees. Furthermore, what he may see as attempting to “motivate” employees, they see as a lack of trust in their ability to do their jobs unsupervised, and therefore are more likely to resent him for his actions. Bob, on the other hand, knew that we as seasoned employees knew our jobs, knew what had to be done, and had the skills to do it right. He trusted us to do our jobs, whereas Jim does not, resulting in a lack of respect from the workforce as a whole. Bob motivated us indirectly by giving us the freedom to get our jobs done without “big brother” watching over our shoulder all the time. Building on this successful formula, Jim decides to closely monitor employees, giving the impression of a lack of faith in our abilities, which has lowered morale and the drive for success.
It is important to know that I personally do not think a complete hands-off approach is the best way. Had it been me, I would have attempted to form some sort of middle ground. Having faith in your followers and earning their respect are the most valuable ways for a leader to build a successful organization. Conversely, bullying your employees into submission is one of the fastest ways to lose the respect of your workforce entirely and cripple your organization. When you have a winning formula, sometimes it is just fine to “let things slide”.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.