At some point in your life as an employee, you have likely come across the person in management who makes you question everything about what leadership is supposed to look like. What are they doing in their office all day? Why don’t they talk about things we’ve done wrong? Or things we’ve done right? How in the world did they get promoted to this position?
What you might not know is that this style of leadership is actually well enough known that it has been studied and there is a name for it, impoverished management; essentially defined as exhausted of strength [in] management (Merriam-Webster). This style of management was named in Robert Blake’s managerial grid and is represented by leaders who have very minimal concern for both tasks and relationships. Peter Northouse describes this type of person as more going through the motions than actually engaging the process of leadership (Northouse, 2016), someone we might call a “boss,” but not view as a leader.
Not ironically, this type of management also seems to coincide with what are known as “self-defeating behaviors,” or a group of five traits found to be correlated with failed leadership (PSU World Campus). While the actual trait approach to leadership tends to focus more on the qualities a person possesses (Northouse, 2016), the self-defeating behavior analysis recognizes what a person is lacking; the inabilities to build relationships, lead a team, and adapt (PSU World Campus). What good could possibly come from this type of circumstance? Well, when you apply a little bit of leadership know-how, potentially a lot.
The really great thing about this type of leadership style is that it falls under the behavioral, or style, leadership approach. Meaning, it is not necessarily related to an innate character flaw of the individual. Behaviors are, rather, related to what a person does and how they act (Northouse, 2016), and so there is always a chance for things to be learned and improvement to be had. This, of course, being because it provides an opportunity to inform the person in a non-subjective manner that they could make some better decisions.
Think back to that boss, imagine telling them that their social intelligence was terrible and they had a less than agreeable nature. They might take it personally, knowing that they really couldn’t help who they are. Now go back to that same person and instead, think about offering to help them with a team building exercise or finding out what they need to fit better into a situation. Sure, there’s a chance that their personality traits will still make them unhappy with the remarks, but looking at the situation through the behavioral lens opens up other possibilities. Maybe all this boss needs is a little self-awareness?
References
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
Pennsylvania State University. (2018) Lesson 5: Style and Situational Approaches. Psych 485.
“Impoverish.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impoverish.
sma6026 says
This is a really well-written post, with most of which I completely agree. You start off by discussing impoverished management, which we have learned to be representative of leaders who are equally disengaged in both task and interpersonal aspects (Northouse, 2016). In respect to the effectiveness of this leadership style, it is non-existent. This particular scenario, if I were involved anyway, would leave me questioning the hiring and recruitment ethics and practices of the organization for which I was employed.
Contrarily, I try my best to not jump to conclusions in difficult situations such as this and have witnessed similar circumstances (wondering how in the world people landed leadership roles) in my professional experiences. While I can appreciate your optimistic point of view, maybe from past similar epiphanies, I have learned more than once that the scenario you have provided often begins and ends with unfavorable opportunism in the form of negligence (Northouse, 2016).
Instead, and in favor of your theory, I would imagine that an effective recruitment and management team would employ the development of directives with significant leadership potential prior to their assuming of and placement into leadership roles. Reason being – these are, or at least SHOULD ultimately be selectees in place to set an example for the entire organization and provide leadership and guidance through any one and/or combination of the leadership styles and approaches.
References
Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
jxb793 says
Your description of an impoverished manager to me makes me think of someone who is doing their job just for the money and ensure the bare minimum is accomplished in order to do so. Unfortunately, I feel that this happens a lot when they have lost their own motivation and a lot of their traits that are favorable for a leader as described in trait approach to leadership. Without their motivation to lead and do good they cannot motivate their own followers (Northouse, 2016). Without the proper skills or traits of a leader their followers may also be uneasy about approaching their leader with concerns (Northouse, 2016). But in order for the followers to address the behaviors that they feel need to change in their leader, someone must have already established a rapport with the leader or one must feel comfortable enough to approach the leader. In the example, the boss also seems to be more of an introvert since he/she stays in their office, which can also make them seem more intimidating to their followers.
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Seventh Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
npg5193 says
Hello,
As you stated I think we have all encountered the manager that manages nothing. Comes in late, leaves early, never answers emails, skips meetings, leaving their staff with no direction or management. Until I studied the Behavioral approach to leadership I assumed it was lack of training or leadership skill, not an actual leadership style (Northouse, 2016). I work closely with a manager that employs an Impoverished Management style. She has very little interaction with her staff, is uninvolved, withdrawn and seems resigned to the fact that it is just that way with no desire for change. Initially, I assumed she just lacked the necessary skills for successful leadership and she simply needed some guidance to become a successful leader. I was wrong. It’s like the old saying, “you can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make them drink”. I offered my guidance, I offered books, I invited her to leadership classes offered by our company…she flat out refused to change. She wants to function as is. It is very frustrating that she is allowed to continue this behavior at her staff’s expense. Bad leadership impacts the entire organization. The time I spend assisting her staff, takes time away from my duties and effects my productivity, possibly impacting another department when I complete a task later than anticipated. My company is aware of this manager’s short comings, yet continue to promote her. It almost seems as if they are blindly trying to apply Contingency Theory hoping for the right “fit” for her leadership style (PSYCH 485, Lesson 6, Contingency and Path Theories, Prescriptions of The Model).
Organizations need to be proactive when it comes to this type of management. Bad leadership has a detrimental impact on the organization, the staff and the bottom line.
References:
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishing
Pennsylvania State University. (2018). Lesson 6: Contingency and path theories: Leadership behavior. PSYCH 485. Retrieved from https://psu.instructure.com/courses/1942231/modules/items/25010831
Cynthia A Wynn says
Hello,
I think most working adults can relate to the boss (not leader) you describe in this post. Interestingly, you wondered why the boss doesn’t do anything and I am curious if (is it a stretch to think that) they are being poorly managed and/or have been imbued with limited powers from above. This hypothesis is offered, in part, due to the situational approach guidelines which states that “it is important that leader (in this case the subject of your blog’s supervisor) know where (his/her) subordinates are on the developmental continuum as well as the difficulty of the task and then to change their leadership styles to match the development level of subordinates…” (PSU, Module 5). To some extent, the poor supervisory styles to which we have been subjected are not being experienced in a vacuum but rather are the inevitable outcome of equally poor leadership on the part of their leader.
In this way, we can answer your blog’s titular question ‘No seriously, who is the boss” – with the popular children’s reply “No it!” Everyone has a boss to whom they report and, in some way, can shirk off any (real or perceived) lack of leadership talent by passing on the blame up the line. Although this may initially sound asinine, I assert this to be positive. If we believe that each of the bosses above us has the agency to effect change on their team and within themselves, then it naturally follows that we, too, have the necessary agency to do so. We cannot change everything, but we do have the power to make change within ourselves.
In conclusion, WE (I, you, each of us) are the boss.
-Cindy Wynn
Paulo Rego says
Hi. As I was reading your post I find it funny how everyone already lived an experience with a boss/leader like the one you described. I’ve had leaders like that in the religious field, several coaches in sports and even at a professional field of work. It is frustrating when there is no real motivation coming our way from the one that it is expected to come from, it makes us lazy, lose all the respect and loyalty and even the desire to quit. So I understand where the frustration is coming from.
Sometimes it can be the followers that cannot see what type of leadership that is being used, or the leader is failing in how to express his leadership style. If we look at the situation with the Situational Approach which it stresses that leadership is composed of both a directive and a supportive dimension, and that each as to be applied appropriately in a given situation (Northouse, 2016, p.93). I’m talking about the delegating approach or the S4 style, called the low supportive-low directive style (Northouse, 2016, p.95). With this approach comes very little goal direction as well as little social support. The leader barely gets involved in planning, control and clarifying the goal. In the situation approach the leader evaluates his/hers followers competence and how committed they are. This style lets subordinates take almost all responsibility and direction to get the job done. These S4 leaders give control to subordinates and give little social support.
Of course, this delegation of power over the situation only works if leaders evaluation of subordinates puts them in the D4 category, these followers have the highest experience, with a high degree of competence as well as commitment to accomplish the task. In other words, they have the skills and motivation to do the job.
I guess that sometimes, like in this situation that you mentioned in your post, the followers should do their own evaluation of the leaders before frustration and any other feeling or thought crosses their minds. It feels good when a leader’s trust over his/hers followers transcends the leaders desire to get all the credit for an accomplished goal.
”When the best leader’ s work is done the people say: we did it ourselves.” Lao Tzu
References
Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and Practice. Seventh Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Chapter 5, Situational Approach, p.93-96.