CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

Introduction

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
 CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

types of leadership styles – authoritarian (autocratic), participative leadership (democratic),

laissez-faire (free-rein), and paternalistic 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 organization’s 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 leader’s

lack of ability will have a negative effect on the team. Some followers may take

advantage of the leader’s 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 organization’s personnel.
 CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

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

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

 CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

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).

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)
 CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

“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

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.

 CRITICAL REVIEW ON POOR LEADERSHIP

References

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.