The 1999 movie “Office Space” brought to life the hilariously hated boss, Bill Lumbergh. His awful anecdotes throughout the movie would likely make any viewer watch and think “Ugh, he’s awful” or “Thank goodness I’ve never had a boss like that.” (You can click the link below to get a taste of some of his quirks.) Truth of the matter is that many people have likely encountered at least one supposed “leader” in their life that acted similar, if not exactly like this. Lumbergh’s arrogant, passive aggressive tone in which he “requests” things would likely make any employee cringe. So what is it exactly that makes this fictional, yet iconic, boss the epitome of a bad leader?
Lumbergh seems to be missing all the traits and behaviors that would make for a good leader. One of the major leadership traits he lacks is sociability or social intelligence. According to Northouse (2013), this is an inclination to forge good relationships with employees by being sensitive to others’ needs and showing concern for employee’s well-being (p. 26). Lumbergh seems to have zero sociability with his employees. Based on the Five-Factor Model, he also seems lacking in agreeableness. Northouse (2013) notes this as being a “tendency to be accepting, conforming, trusting, and nurturing (p.27).” None of which he comes off as due to the manner in which he approaches his employees.
The psychodynamic approach would suggest that it is his personality that makes him unfit in this leadership situation. According to Northouse (2013), there are eight functions to leadership and each has a strength and weakness. Though according to the psychodynamic approach each personality type or preference has a strength, it would seem that due to the relationship Lumbergh has with his employees that his personality did not work well with theirs. For example, based on his few parts in the movie, Lumbergh seems to have an intuitor or a sensor personality. The minuses of these types are unimaginative, hazy, nonspecific, etc., and it could be these weaknesses that turn his personality into the dry, irritating, boss that is portrayed. I think overall if there is something about a leader that irritates employees, any leader is going to be disliked and unsuccessful and Bill Lumbergh is as irritating as any boss could be.
Click here to view some of Lumbergh’s mannerisms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjJCdCXFslY&feature=player_detailpage
Resources
Northouse, P.G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
I love this movie! Absolutely anyone can relate to it–as some of our other discussions in this class have indicated, universally, we’ve all encountered a “leader” that did not embody any of the qualities that we would associate with truly good leadership. With relation to Lumbergh, he could have employed a participative style in the office which would have made him more likable with the employees and bolstered his level of competence and credibility within the department. Northouse states that “participative leadership is considered best when a task is ambiguous; participation gives greater clarity to how certain paths lead to certain goals.” (2013). If Lumbergh gave clear direction and acted as if he cared (just once) about his workers, that office would have been way more enjoyable. Thanks for using a hilarious classic for your blog–I enjoyed your post!
Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: Theory and Practice (Sixth Edition ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA, United States: Sage Publications, Inc.
This was a great Blog :). I really enjoyed that you used a familiar screen character from a movie nearly all of us can relate to . Since the psychodynamic approach has the underlining topic of personality as being the major concept surrounding this approach I agree that you used this in your explanation.
Anyone who has seen the film is well aware that Bill Lumberg has absolutely no personality and no skills in dealing wit h other humans or their social and emotional needs. I would say people management is definitely not a position he should be placed as a leader. Working with inanimate object may be best for him.
He was obviously lacking the understanding that his approach to his employees could cause certain reactions from his subordinates, either negative or positive. Bill’s awareness is actually so lacking that I believe he doesn’t even care.
Great example, I really enjoyed the read.