Sunteți pe pagina 1din 8

Running head: A CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

A Critical Review on Poor Leadership


Uchendu Okeke
Keiser University
Dr. Adranga
EDL752 Leadership Reform and Innovation
March 15, 2015

Introduction

CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

In this paper, it shall be argued that poor leadership within organizations is an issue that is
prevalent and problematic. Poor leadership within an organization may be sensed throughout the
culture of the organization. There is a huge disconnect in communication within the organization,
thus the communication concerning leadership and the employees is inconsistent. Personnel
(within an organization) can perhaps have an issue taking cues from persons (supervisors) they
do not have due regard for, or taking commands from supervisors who give the impression that
do not have the know-how of their management position. If management is feeble, unreliable, or
scandalous in any form or fashion, it can increase the likelihood of cultural problems within an
organization.
In reference to the issue of poor leadership within organizations, Schyns and Hansbrough
(2010) affirmed the following:
Traditional leadership research considers leadership synonymous with effective
leadership. The romanticization of leadership is hinted at in the observation made by a
number of social and organizational analysts who have noted the esteem, prestige,
charisma, and heroism attached to various conceptions and forms of leadership. Our
understanding of leadership has broadened to include the dark side of leadership, abusive
supervision, bad leadership, and toxic leadership. Although research now acknowledges
that leadership is not always positive, the leader remains the primary focus of such
efforts (p. 513).
The argument shall be established through a critical assessment of scholarly sources.
Furthermore, the qualities of poor leaders shall be summarized along with a critique of the four
types of leadership styles authoritarian (autocratic), participative leadership (democratic),
laissez-faire (free-rein), and paternalistic leadership.

CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

Summary
Poor leadership (that stems from poor leaders) within an organization has damaging
influences on personnel. In addition, poor leadership has the capacity to deteriorate the outcome
of an organization (organizational effectiveness). Robertson and Callinan (2002) avowed Within
organizations, the role of individual members is varied; but for the organization to be effective,
members need to gear their activities towards defining and attaining shared goals (p. 1). Meager
leadership upsets the foundation of an organization and an organizations capability to preserve
personnel and stakeholders. Poor leadership lowers the enthusiasm, production, and morale of
the employees, thus poor leadership equals organizational failure.
In mention to the notion that poor leadership is a prevalent and problematic issue within
organizations, Sornum (2013) stated the following:
An incompetent leader may, for example, not be comfortable with technology or may
not have the foresight to see challenges on the horizon. Whatever the issue, this leaders
lack of ability will have a negative effect on the team. Some followers may take
advantage of the leaders incompetence while others may not perform optimally simply
because the leader is incapable of challenging them to do their best. The end result can be
a dysfunctional team where few goals are accomplished (p. 2).
The chief traits of a poor leader consist of deficiencies in communication,
micromanagement, imprecise expectations, terrorization (intimidation), and poor people skills. A
poor leader does not communicate effectively with his or her employees. A leader that does not
have the ability to lead has a tendency to neglect the immersion of the organizations personnel.
Ciulla (2004) confirmed In bad leadership, leaders were reported to be unsupportive, showing a
lack of communication skills; to be uninvolving, unfair, angry or harsh, autocratic; and at times

CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

to be poor managers of resources (p. 64). Micromanaging is a style of management wherein the
supervisor is thoroughly in control of the activities of personnel. Mazzola and Kellermanns
(2012) stated the conventional wisdom is that micromanaging of subordinates is generally a bad
idea and tends to foster negative politics. The practice arguably discourages subordinates, risks
misallocation of effort and attention by superiors and has other disadvantages (p. 62). Imprecise
expectations form a poor leader may discourage personnel within an organization and thwart
their productivity. Lambert (2008) affirmed One of the main reasons business relationships end
prematurely is because the expectations of one or both sides are not understood and, in turn, not
satisfied (p. 230). Poor leaders tend to terrorize employees. For example, if an employee did not
reach his or her required goal, the deficient leader can possibly intimidate the employee by
threatening to terminate them. Lipman-Blumen (2006) sustained such leaders may move to
more direct toxic action, such as physical deprivation and torture, to intimidate any potentially
resistant followers (p. 54). Last but not least, leaders with meager leadership abilities have poor
people skills. Poor leaders have a tendency to be pessimistic. They have the slightest notion on
how to motivate their employees. Consequently, their employees often feel perplexed about their
position within the organization. Wilson and Woolls (1996) avowed Good people skills
compensate for lack of resources, but no amount of resources compensate for people skills (p.
11).
Critique
Autocratic leadership (authoritarian leadership) is a style of management. Authoritarian
leadership is the control of management on all organizational decisions with minimum
contribution from personnel. Daft (2014) affirmed An autocratic leader is one who tends to
centralize authority and derive power from position, control of rewards, and coercion (p. 44).

CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

The autocratic style of leadership may be of assistance in some occurrences. For example, when
a split second decisions pertaining to the organization must be made and there is no time to
consult a large number of persons. The autocratic style of leadership may also be problematic
habitually. Leaders that mishandle an autocratic leadership style are regarded as controlling and
overbearing. These traits may cause personnel to become resentful towards their leader. Daft
(2014) avowed The groups with autocratic leaders performed highly so long as the leader was
present to supervise them. However, group members were displeased with the close, autocratic
style of leadership, and feelings of hostility frequently arose (p. 44). Participative (democratic)
leadership is a style of management in which personnel have a managerial role (by means of the
management) within the organization. Daft (2014) declared The performance of groups who
were assigned democratic leaders were characterized by positive feelings rather than hostility.
Under the democratic style, group members performed well even when the leader was absent
(p. 44). Although democratic leadership is commonly viewed as the highest effectual leadership
style, it may lead to failures in communication and unconcluded tasks as a result of indistinctive
functions. The Laissez-faire (free-rein) style of leadership is a leadership style wherein leaders
are noninterventionist, thus personnel are in charge of the decision making process. According to
Barnard, Akridge, Dooley, and Foltz (2012) laissez-faire leadership literally relinquishes all
decision making to followers. Although free rein leadership may work with some decisions, it
seldom leads to consistently good decisions and often result in poor outcome and frustration
among employees (380). Paternalistic leadership is a management style in which the leader (of
the organization) functions as a paternal leader. According to Hackman and Johnson (2013)
Paternalistic leaders act as father figures who treat subordinates like family members. They take
a personal interest in the lives of employees both on and off the job (p. 97). Although this is a

CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

widespread leadership style, it can produce abhorrence that is directed to the supervisor if the
personnel are mature adult workers.
Conclusion
Ricketts and Ricketts avowed Leadership is a process or a reasonably systematic and
continuous series of actions directed toward group goals. It is a pattern of behaviors that is
demonstrated consistently over time with specific objectives (p. 5). Poor leadership within
organizations is an issue that is prevalent and problematic. Leadership is depicted as the role of a
leader, thus persons that conduct a collection of individuals. It follows that leadership is not
limited to organizations. Leadership is concerned with first being a leader to ourselves. As a
result, we may successfully guide others.

References

CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

Barnard, F., Akridge, J., Dooley, F., & Foltz, J. (2012). Agribusiness management. New York,
NY: Routledge.

Ciulla, J. (2004). Ethics, the heart of leadership. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.

Daft, R. (2014). The leadership experience. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Hackman, M., & Johnson, E. (2013). Leadership: A communication perspective. Long Grove,
IL: Waveland Press.

Lambert, D. (2014). Supply chain management: Processes, partnerships, performance. Sarasota,


FL: Supply Chain Management Institute.

Lipman-Blumen, J. (2006). The allure of toxic leaders: Why we follow destructive bosses and
corrupt politicians. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mazzola, P., & Kellermanns, F. (2012). Handbook of research on strategy process.


Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ricketts, C., & Ricketts, J. (2010). Leadership: Personal development and career success.
Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning.

CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP


Robertson, T. & Callinan, M. (2002). Organizational effectiveness: The role of psychology.
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Schyns, B., & Hansbrough, T. (2010). When leadership goes wrong destructive leadership,
mistakes, and ethical failures. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

Sornum, K. (2013). Poor leadership leading to organizational failures. Munich, DE: GRIN
Verlag.

Wilson, L., & Woolls, B. (1996). People skills for library managers: A common sense guide for
beginners. Santa Barbara, CA: Libraries Unlimited.

S-ar putea să vă placă și