On Ineffectual Leaders

Most leaders of teams, groups, or other business units perform well. Their responsibilities are important enough to their organizations that these assignments generally go to capable people. Sometimes, though, someone in a leadership position is so ineffectual that intervention is required, and for various reasons appropriate corrective action doesn't occur. What does occur instead usually seems to be a satisfactory approach at first. Only later do the shortcomings of these alternatives become clear.

Accompanying these less-than-optimum but nevertheless appealing approaches to dealing with ineffectual leaders are significant risks. Knowing the risks can remove some of the appeal of these approaches, and that can help us choose more effective responses. This post explores in two parts the dysfunctional ways we deal with ineffectual leaders. First I examine the meaning of ineffectual. Then I explore the risks of some of the more common dysfunctional approaches.

In what follows, I refer to the ineffectual leader as Leslie, using either masculine or feminine pronouns.

Ineffectual or ineffective?

Scholars of English usage have debated the difference between ineffective and ineffectual. The position I favor is well summarized in TheBetterEditor blog:

If something (or someone) fails because of its physical properties, or unanticipated events, or some other reason not due to human incompetence, it is ineffective. If a person fails because they aren't up to the task, or aren't willing to take the appropriate steps, or because their character prevents them from succeeding, they're ineffectual.

An example might help to clarify the distinction between ineffective and ineffectual. Leslie is the Director of Product Development at Bogus Software, which performs contract software development. Bogus has decided to convert its software development processes to Agile, which promises productivity gains, in part, by limiting detailed planning beyond what's known for certain about the work. But Leslie doesn't trust Agile processes, and insists on long-term, complete and detailed plans, because, "…I can't keep projects to schedule if I don't know anything beyond this next Thursday." His insistence on detailed plans thus prevents the Agile initiative from demonstrating its advantages. With respect to the Agile initiative, Leslie is an ineffectual leader.

Marla, Accompanying these less-than-optimum
but nevertheless appealing approaches
to dealing with ineffectual leaders
are significant risksanother Director at Bogus, is also having problems with the Agile initiative. Her problems relate to the cumbersome purchase process she must use for retaining contractors. The onboarding and offboarding processes are so complex that by the time Marla can bring someone on, the development team has found another way to get the work done. Marla would like to help, but she has been ineffective, in part, because of the purchasing process.

Risky approaches to dealing with ineffectual leaders

Organizations choose from a variety of possible interventions when they try to limit the damage done by ineffectual leaders. All have a mixture of consequences — some helpful to the organization, and some less so. Below is a survey of the options and the possible deleterious consequences.

Acceptance

When we accept the leader's limitations, we leave the leader in place, while we hope for the best. The more significant risks here relate to the leader's direct responsibilities.

But there are other risks. For example, any other activity is at risk if it depends for success on something Leslie's group must deliver. And any of Leslie's peers who become aware of her poor performance might resent the organization's acceptance of the situation.

Promotion

Even worse than acceptance is promotion, which usually gives the person promoted more influence over organizational outcomes. Still, ineffectual leaders are sometimes promoted when their new position seems less likely to afford opportunities for trouble making.

Often, promoting someone to protect the organization is an illusion. The higher the rank granted to ineffectual leaders, the greater is the risk that they might inflict harm on the organization.

Ersatz promotion

To deal with the risks of promotion some organizations try the ersatz promotion. The ersatz promotion seems to be a promotion, but the ineffectual leader's new position is usually of recent creation. Because it is new, its responsibilities can be crafted to limit possible opportunities for damage to the organization. And that might work.

But in most cases, the ineffectual leader granted such a promotion receives status and compensation in exchange for little benefit to the organization. Demoralization among Leslie's peers is difficult to avoid.

Reorganization

Reorganization (or spinoff) provides a method for avoiding terminating Leslie while simultaneously reducing the impact of Leslie's ineffectual behavior. The advantage of the reorganization is that it hides within a larger change the relatively smaller change in Leslie's responsibilities.

But reorganization entails risk because it can be disruptive to the organization. If reorganization is happening for other reasons, exploiting it to solve the "Leslie problem" might be worthwhile. But executing a reorganization primarily to solve the Leslie problem is sensible only if the risks associated with leaving Leslie in place are comparable to the risks of reorganization.

Probation

Probation entails setting a definite time period during which the ineffectual leader must meet specific performance goals. Although probation is common in the lower ranks of most organizations, it is rarely used in higher ranks.

A very significant risk is that people supervised by the leader inevitably discover that their supervisor is undergoing performance probation. Acquiring this knowledge can cause them to behave differently, in ways that make difficulty for ineffectual leaders trying to demonstrate performance improvement.

Perhaps the most difficult option of all is termination. The difficulty, if there is difficulty, is often emotional. Leslie's relationships and history with those who make the termination decision can create quite a tangle. It is that tangle that makes the other options so appealing in comparison. The risks of the other options seem so remote, while the emotional pain of firing a friend can seem so immediate. In many cases, avoiding today's pain for oneself just invites tomorrow's pain for numberless others.  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Workplace Politics:

I've Got Your Number, Pal

Recent research has uncovered a human tendency — possibly universal — to believe that we know others better than others know them, and that we know ourselves better than others know themselves. These beliefs, rarely acknowledged and often wrong, are at the root of many a toxic conflict of long standing.

Dealing with Credit Appropriation

Very little is more frustrating than having someone else claim credit for the work you do. Worse, sometimes they blame you if they get into trouble after misusing your results. Here are three tips for dealing with credit appropriation.

Multi-Expert Consensus

Some working groups consist of experts from many fields. When they must reach a decision by consensus, members have several options. Defining those options in advance can help the group reach a decision with all its relationships intact.

Many "Stupid" Questions Aren't

Occasionally someone asks a question that causes us to think, "Now that's a stupid question." Rarely is that assessment correct. Knowing what alternatives are possible can help us respond more effectively in the moment.

On Delegating Accountability: I

As the saying goes, "You can't delegate your own accountability." Despite wide knowledge of this aphorism, people try it from time to time, especially when overcome by the temptation of a high-risk decision. What can you delegate, and how can you do it?

See also Workplace Politics and Workplace Politics for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming December 11: White Water Rafting as a Metaphor for Group Development

Tuckman's model of small group development, best known as "Forming-Storming-Norming-Performing," applies better to development of some groups than to others. We can use a metaphor to explore how the model applies to Storming in task-oriented work groups. Available here and by RSS on December 11.

And on December 18: Subgrouping and Conway's Law

When task-oriented work groups address complex tasks, they might form subgroups to address subtasks. The structure of the subgroups and the order in which they form depend on the structure of the group's task and the sequencing of the subtasks. Available here and by RSS on December 18.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenyrWpTxHuyCrjZbUpner@ChacnoFNuSyWlVzCaGfooCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info