# Managing Groups and Teams/Poor Leadership

## Introduction

When studying the topic of leadership as a whole, academic thinkers have
generally ignored the concept of poor leadership. This was, in fact, a
major obstacle to our research. The death of poor leadership research is
in stark contrast to the numerous volumes of books that have been
written on how to be an outstanding leader. This presents a bit of a
paradox---how can we hope to teach good leadership without explaining
the pitfalls of bad leadership? To exclude bad leadership from the
\"conversation and curriculum is misguided, tantamount to a medical
school that would claim to teach health while ignoring disease\"
(Kellerman, 11). Modern leadership literature is biased towards a
positive representation of leadership: \"\[the literature\] assumes that
people can learn to be leaders and that to be a leader is to be a person
of competence and character\" (Kellerman, 4). Further, this bias is a
recent one. Before the twentieth century, leadership was viewed more as
a question of how to control bad leaders than how to create good
leaders. For example, Machiavelli did not consider morality in his
treatise on leadership. In fact, he stated that "A prince never lacks
legitimate reasons to break his promise" (Machiavelli). He assumed that
brutality was simply a part of leadership and the world. The U.S.
Constitution and the protections built into it were primarily designed
to stop bad leadership and protect people from it (Kellerman, 6).
Nowadays, however, we tend to look for the good in our leaders rather
than dealing with the reality of bad leadership. Leadership studies,
therefore, reflect the positive associations that modern American
business and cultural thinkers have attached to the term rather than the
more neutral view that might also be applied. Almost all contemporary
work focuses on this as well. The implicit assumption in most leadership
literature is that we can learn to be leaders if we try hard enough.

Well, what happens if your leader has not learned to be a good leader?
Our goal in this chapter is to expose readers to the varieties and signs
of bad leadership, and in so doing better prepare them for the
inevitable time when they have to deal with poor leadership in their own
lives. Since there are many, many shades of gray to leadership (both
good and bad), we cannot hope to address all possible situations in this
paper. What we can do, though, is provide the reader with a sense of
what to be aware of and on the lookout for, and how to take preventative
measure to curb the spread of bad leadership. Ultimately it is up to
each individual how to approach a bad leader or deal with an instance of
poor leadership.

## What Is a Leader?

For the purposes of our discussion, leaders are people who are making
decisions on behalf of a team or group. Followers are everyone else in
the affected group that gives at least limited deference to the decision
maker. This broad definition can encompass small and well defined groups
such as sports teams as well as large groups like major corporations.
Regardless of the size of the organization there is almost always a
leader somewhere in it. In this context, leadership requires
followership. Leaders simply do not happen if others fail to follow
them. Further, good leadership can be undone by bad followership and
good followership is useless without good leadership. Bad leadership and
bad followership often go together although the former is often a
catalyst for the latter. To understand the bad leader/follower
relationship, first we must define what a bad leader is. According to
Kellerman, there are seven different types of poor leadership.

## Types of Poor Leadership

Incompetent
:   *"The Leader and at least some followers lack the will or skill (or
    both) to sustain effective action"* (51).
:   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 affect 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.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Rigid
:   *"The leader and at least some followers are stiff and unyielding"*
    (75).
:   Rigid leaders, unlike incompetent leaders, are capable of doing all
    that is necessary for the team to succeed. In the case of a rigid
    leader, the problem lies in the fact that the leader is unwilling to
    do the things required in order for the team to succeed. "\[T\]he
    key to the leader's evolving role always lies in understanding what
    the team needs and does not need from the leader in order to
    perform" (Katzenbach, 133), so leaders that are not willing to adapt
    and evolve pose a significant threat to their team's success. An
    unwillingness to change can be an attractive attribute to some
    followers and can lead the entire team towards solutions that are
    unimaginative and even counter productive.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Intemperate
:   *"The leader lacks self-control and is aided and abetted by
    followers who are unwilling or unable to effectively intervene"*
    (95).
:   Even the most talented leader can lead a team to foreseeable
    disaster due to a lack of control. An intemperate leader is like a
    gifted child who is incapable to controlling his or her basic
    desires, and thus cannot achieve the higher goals of the team. The
    leader's position of power may be used as a tool to satisfy the
    leader's personal desires. The end result can be devastating to the
    group through the loss of time and effort on things unrelated to the
    end goal.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Callous
:   *"The leader and at least some followers are uncaring or unkind"*
    (119).
:   Compassion and empathy towards fellow team members is what leads to
    trust. Trust is essential if a team is to "be comfortable being
    open, even exposed, to one another around their failures,
    weaknesses, even fears" (Lencioni, 14). Teams must be able to make
    progress; a good leader must "put team performance first"
    (Katzenbach, 131). A callous leader will destroy any good will that
    exists amongst team members leading to a fundamental breakdown of
    trust. The result is often that nobody will be willing to take risks
    or put forward new ideas for fear that the leader (or the entire
    team) will react with contempt or scorn.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Corrupt
:   *"The leader and at least some followers lie, cheat or steal"*
    (147).
:   Leaders lead by example. The result of corruption is going to be
    more corruption. Different team members will react to this in
    different ways. Some may feel alienated, others may take advantage
    of the situation. The worst case scenario is that other team members
    will want to resort to similar behavior as the leader.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Insular
:   *"The leader and at least some followers minimize or disregard the
    health and welfare of people outside of the team"* (169).
:   This can result in the team becoming the needless enemy of people
    who could otherwise make valuable contributions to the work of the
    team. While the team may have a great working relationship
    internally, members are always going to feel as though they are
    "under siege."

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```

Evil
:   *"The leader and at least some followers commit atrocities"* (191).
:   Regrettably some of the most evil people---such as Hitler---have had
    some of the best leadership skills. Evil leaders present a whole
    different problem and motivational scheme, and we do not address
    evil leaders in this paper. If you are working under an evil leader,
    we suggest you focus on your own welfare and get out immediately, if
    possible.

## Why Is There Bad Leadership?

Bad leadership can be divided into two main categories; leadership
skills and character traits. A leader\'s character traits will often
determine his or her skill set. Leadership skills might include things
like communication skills, organization, or responsiveness to others.
Character traits would include things like intransigence, intelligence,
or anything that is integral to the person and cannot be changed through
education and reasonable effort. A leader can enroll in a workshop to
improve a skill; on the other hand, extensive counseling might be
required to change a character trait. This division of skills and traits
has many shades of grey, but is useful for analyzing what is going wrong
in a team.

Good followers are distinguished by traits such as being self-directed,
independent, and reliable. In this sense good followers make up integral
parts of the teams they are involved in. Bad followers, by contrast,
\"are weak and dependent, and they refuse in any significant way to
commit or contribute to the group\" (Kellerman, 33). How followers act
can be analyzed through Maslow\'s Hierarchy of Needs. In essence, every
follower is constantly weighing the benefit of following against the
benefit of not following. For every person there is a point when the
benefit they derive is outweighed by the harm that is caused to them
from their current course. At this point followers are likely to try to
change their situation.

This reality is encompassed in the behavior of followers. Followers will
go along with bad leaders who fulfill their needs. If safety is the
primary concern and a greedy tyrant can provide it, then followers are
likely to consider that situation an acceptable one. But why would
people in less extreme situations fail to act? They might not want to
rock the boat. \"Getting along by going along\" (Kellerman, 23) is the
primary goal in these cases. Someone with a steady job---under a
terrible leader---who needs the job would have an incentive not to risk
his career. Going along with bad leadership sometimes simplifies our
lives and makes things easier. This may be the case even when we know
something is wrong in the abstract (Kellerman, 24). We might look at the
political decisions of many people across the world as an example of
this type of thinking, such as those who have chosen in the past to
follow leaders such as Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, or Saddam
Hussein. Following bad leaders may help to \"quell our uncertainty\" as
Kellerman puts it (24). Leadership can help to eliminate the dissonance
that we might otherwise encounter, even if leadership is flawed. Bad
leaders may provide benefits to the group as well, such as order, work,
or identity (Kellerman, 24). These are in addition to the benefits that
the individual receives and in some cases might override them. We as
groups are dependent on leaders to organize us. It may therefore be
inconvenient to throw them out, and risky to everyone involved
(Kellerman, 25). The interdependence we see in teams also occurs more
generally between leaders and followers. It is bad followers that allow,
and even encourage, bad leaders. If we are to stem the tide of poor
leadership, we must exert effort at the follower level as well.

## Cost-Benefit and Skill-Trait Analysis

At the core, we as followers make decisions based on a simple analysis
of the costs and benefits. Everyone will follow to a certain point
beyond which they are unlikely to continue to do so. This point is
different for everyone. As followers, therefore, we need to keep in mind
how well the team is doing and how it affects us. Almost everyone is
engaged in a continual cost-benefit analysis of their actions. We
suggest bringing this analytical perspective to the forefront when
analyzing groups and teams. When analyzing the leader, it is appropriate
to ask whether the problem stems from character traits or leadership
skills. Followers should question what their commitment to the team is,
what rewards it brings, what potential costs exist, and what the
likelihood of success is. Finally, a follower needs to have a good sense
of his or her relative power within the organization. Followers are
capable of making informed decisions about their own future and their
current situation, but only if they are armed with all the relative
information about the situation.

Followers must start by figuring out if the offending action on the part
of the leader is caused by a character trait or poor leadership skills.
Often the direct cause of the problem may be a poor leadership skill
while the underlying cause of this poor skill is a character trait. The
answer to this question is likely to determine how the problem can be
addressed. A character trait is almost certainly beyond the ability of a
follower in a group to address. In this case, followers need to simply
continue to a basic cost-benefit analysis of the situation to decide
what to do. Some problems may be possible to manage or avoid, but others
may be so egregious that the follower is compelled to leave the team or
organization.

A problem stemming from poor leadership skills may have a more
manageable solution, but followers must be realistically aware of what
is required to change the skill. As in the case of problems stemming
from character traits, there are no clear answers. Followers must simply
evaluate the situation to the best of their abilities and continue from
there. For example, a follower may be faced with a manager who
constantly questions them about their use of time. While this is a
direct problem with a specific way of managing people, it is probably
caused either by a lack of management training or the manager's
insecurity about his or her position and the work of the other members
of the organization. The follower in this case should attempt to
ascertain where the problem is originating from.

After figuring out exactly what the problem is, followers can continue
with a cost-benefit analysis. Followers in an organization need to ask
themselves what benefits they are getting and what they might lose if
they choose to change their behavior. When contemplating change,
followers should also be willing to look at the new situation and
recognize that there is a point where they will no longer participate.
These situations vary among people and contexts, but each follower
should make a conscious effort to define his or her own limits. For
example, a player on a recreational soccer team will probably stop
playing if she breaks her leg, but not if she skins her knee. In the
case of a broken leg, it is more important to get to a doctor than to
finish out the soccer game. The employee in the previous example might
decide that the real issue is that the manager has no leadership skills
and is insecure about this. In this case the employee would be forced to
evaluate the manager's possible reaction to suggestions that they get
more training or change responsibilities. These situations both
illustrate the type of analysis that must take place.

Followers may decide that the current situation may be unsatisfactory
but they are unwilling to walk away. In this case, the goal changes from
effecting change on the part of the leader to simply finding a balance
where the situation is acceptable in some sense. This boils down to
simply asking if the situation is tolerable---at least for the time
being---and managing oneself and others to minimize damage or
discomfort. Followers should also be looking to do things that will
increase their relative benefits or decrease the costs for other
actions. This will increase power relative to other people in the
organization.

This is only a framework for analyzing choices. Each situation will be
different, but this type of cost-benefit analysis will give team members
a good sense of how things really are. Followers, especially good
followers, should be continually evaluating other people's actions and
their own place within a situation, group or organization.

## What Should You Do if You Encounter Bad Leadership?

Working in a situation dominated by poor leadership can be frustrating
and intimidating. If team members are not confident in their leader,
what should they do? This is one of the most difficult questions to
answer, since there are no easy or clear answers. The best we can hope
to do is provide a framework for thinking through these complex issues
and devising an approach that is likely to be effective. Hopefully you
have already begun to understand what sort of thinking must take place
in these complex and delicate situations.

Perhaps the most proactive stance to take is to hold our leaders
responsible for their actions and/or misconduct. Followers should "seek
to effect institutional changes that will make leaders more responsible
and accountable" (Kellerman, 242). This could include implementing a
system of checks and balance (restrictions on the leader's power), and
should probably also include---if the team is a corporate
one---strengthening the board of directors. In order to ensure that the
board exercises sufficient oversight, boards should "consider reforms
such as: establishing a governance committee; ...dividing the
responsibilities of the chair of the board from those of the chief
executive officer; and opening regular channels of communication to
those on the outside" (Kellerman, 242). Followers can also act as
watchdogs themselves, reporting fraud or negligence when they see it. It
should be noted here that employees should watch out for themselves in
the case of fraud---if an employee is involved in fraud, even at a
minute level (such as knowing about it and not reporting it), he or she
is likely to be brought down with the major players; this is an added
incentive to monitor leaders and report illegal activity immediately
(Maher, lecture).

In addition to taking action, followers can help prevent bad leadership
simply by being aware and prepared. Followers should be skeptical of
what their leaders say and do. Leaders are real people, and subject to
the same human downfalls and errors in judgment we all are. Followers
must empower themselves, so that if the time comes they will be able to
take a stand and halt or deter bad leadership. According to Kellerman,
"people who think of themselves as followers don't usually think of
themselves as powerful. But they are or...can be" (239).

A good way to achieve empowerment is to band together; as we all know,
there is strength in numbers. Followers should seek information from
people other than the leader in order to gather "correct and complete
information" (Kellerman, 241). If a follower (or group of followers)
does decide to take action, collective action is best. Collective action
could come in the form of a meeting to discuss strategies or "getting a
small group of people together to talk to the boss" (Kellerman, 241).
This is far preferable to speaking with the boss alone (at least
regarding the poor quality of his or her leadership), and will help to
prevent bullying or coercive groupthink. In some organizations, going
over the boss's head is seen as politicking and inappropriate---we leave
it to followers to decide what is appropriate and manageable in their
own group or corporation. If nothing else, having a group of people who
are in agreement aids in getting complaints heard and in substantiating
claims of bad leadership. It also reduces a single employee's chances of
getting hung out to dry, so to speak.

As you may have experienced (or may be experiencing now), it can be
extremely difficult to resolve these states of affairs (and improve or
oust bad leaders) once the team or situation is already underway. If
your organization does not have guidelines or conflict management
channels in place, it can be near impossible to even approach your
leader regarding his or her behavior---let alone change it. With this in
mind, we recommend that every organization employ some sort of
ombudsman, employee rights activist, or conflict manager for just such
occasions. This position---or positions---would be responsible for
handling disputes, especially those involving management. They could
provide guidelines for approaching a problematic leader, and could even
mediate the discussion. This position would ensure that employees would
not be punished for bringing these situations or problems to light.
There should also be clear lines of communication, so that followers and
leaders know who to talk to regarding any concerns they do have. If we
are to eradicate bad leadership, followers must be able to feel safe
addressing their concerns. If your organization does not yet have an
ombudsman or a similar position, we suggest you strive to implement
one---before you need one.

While there cannot be an exact prescription of what to do in any given
scenario, we hope that this chapter provides new and comprehensive ways
of analyzing and approaching the problem of ineffective or bad
leadership. We cannot tell you exactly what to do, because every leader,
every follower and every situation is different. The main thing to
remember is that "once they're entrenched, bad leaders seldom change or
quit of their own volition. This means it's up to us to insist either on
change---or on an early exit" (Kellerman, 243). While it is of course
best to prevent bad leadership from occurring in the first place (if
possible), there are a number of ways to slow or stop it. If your
efforts to improve poor leadership meet with blank stares---or worse
yet, retaliation---it may be time to perform another cost-benefit
analysis and decide if this organization is really right for you.

## Conclusions

Every person who joins a team makes a decision to be a part of that team
and has at least some form of commitment to the team's goals. Teams
frequently have complex dynamics that team members need to be aware of
from the beginning. It is useful for people to ask clarifying questions
of themselves, of other team members, and of the leader---at the
inception of the team and as the team progresses. Some or all of these
may seem like common sense, but they need to be asked nonetheless.

-   Is there a clear and elevating goal? Can the team leader express it?
-   To what degree are other team members and I committed to the goals
    of the team? How has the leader influenced this?
-   Do I get along with other team members? Are poor relationships a
    result of poor leadership?
-   Have team rules been created, and are they being followed? Is the
    team leader supporting this?
-   What methods of conflict resolution are in place? Does the leader
    act as a mediator between team members, does the leader defer to
    another mediator when there is conflict between a member of the team
    and the leader?

The answers to these questions should provide clues as to where any
dysfunction is occurring. Followers can then choose to act as they see
fit for the situation at hand. We advise all team members to analyze
their teams and their leaders frequently and, if possible, to institute
measures early to control and prevent bad leadership. If frameworks and
communication channels are in place early on, it will be much easier to
address concerns if and when they do occur. We regret that we are not
able to offer conclusive advice for specific situations or types of poor
leadership, but there is so much room for interpretation that we would
not feel comfortable doing so. We hope to have given the reader an idea
of what to expect from a poor leader, and ways to approach the situation
and the leader to determine the most appropriate course of action.

## References

-   Katzenbach, Jon R. and Douglas K. Smith. The Wisdom of Teams.
    McKinsey and Company, Inc., 1993.
-   Kellerman, Barbara. Bad Leadership. Harvard Business School
    Publishing, 2004
-   Lencioni, Patrick. Overcoming the Five Dysfunctions of a Team.
    Jossey-Bass, 2005.
-   Machiavelli, Niccolo. The Prince. University of Chicago Press, 1998.
-   Maher, Michael. Lecture, MGT 271, UC Davis Graduate School of
    Management, Spring 2006.

