Laissez-Faire Leadership: DoingNothing and Its Destructive Effects

C. W. Von Bergen & Martin S. Bressler

Southeastern Oklahoma State UniversityDurant, OK

A Key Responsibility of Leaders …

includes monitoring and responding appropriately to the performance of

subordinates

—Yukl (2006)

In An Ideal World …managers would manage performance throughout the year, offer timely and

consistent feedback, and ensure that both goals and feedback were aligned with and

support organizational goals. But …

Laissez-faire Leaders• Occupy leadership positions but have abdicated the

responsibilities and duties assigned to them (Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939)

• Avoid making decisions, hesitate in taking action, and are absent when needed (Judge & Piccolo, 2004)

• Avoid responsibility, do not respond to problems, are absent when needed, fail to follow up, resist expressing views, and delay responses (Antonakis, Avolio, & Sivasubramaniam , 2003; Bass & Avolio, 1997)

The Sine Qua Non of Laissez-Faire Leaders

They do nothing

A Common Assumption …

“Doing nothing will have no effect on performance.”

—Hellriegel & Slocum (2007, p. 103)

What Do These Individuals Have In Common?

• Pope John Paul II • Coach Joe Paterno

• Major Nidal Hassan

Doing Nothing Does Something

–Demotivates good performers• Decreases the probability of future

desired behavior

–Encourages poor workers• Opens the door for increased levels of

undesired performance

Management Nonresponse to Desirable Employee Performance

• Nonreinforced subordinate good performance leads to– Dissatisfaction– Performance decrement

• Extinction may unintentionally occur– “Just ignore it, and it’ll go away”– Analogy: houseplants that do not get watered

wither away– We can expect a decrease in desirable conduct

Why Some Supervisors Do Nothing in Response to Desirable Employee Performance

• Subordinates will see them as weak if they use too much R+

• Complimenting someone who may have to be fired or demoted in the future could backfire

• People don’t need R+ for “doing the job they are paid to do”

• The supervisor does not read people well enough to understand what is reinforcing to each specific individual

Management Nonresponse to Undesirable Employee Performance

• “Qui tacet consentire videtur.”• Wrongdoing is often self-rewarding to a worker

and involves an activity the person already finds satisfying so the behavior often continues and often increases when nothing is done.

• Creates disillusionment from the very people the business relies most upon—those who consistently produce good results.

Why Some Supervisors Do Nothing in Response to Undesirable Employee Performance

• Don’t want to rock the boat, fearing that poor performers will retaliate with even worse performance

• They dislike confrontation and possibly they are unassertive

• They may fear hurting employee feelings or potential workplace violence

• Have internalized the dictums of “don’t be judgmental” and “don’t say anything at all if you can’t say something nice”

Great Leaders and Organizations

• Provide occasions to acknowledge, recognize, and reward meaningful accomplishments, thus creating a culture where progress and appreciation prevail.

• Distinguished organizations create greater success by praising and celebrating good performance, that is, by positive reinforcement.

Functional/Useful Effectsof Negative Feedback

• Workers generally feel better about their supervisor, coworkers, and opportunities for advancement when their leaders hold employees accountable for poor performance

• Bad apples spoil the barrel (Felps, Mitchell, & Byington, 2006)

• Social learning theory posits that people learn from one another by observing consequences that others experience (Bandura, 1986)

In Conclusion …

• Managers seldom recognize the impact of their own failure to act on their subordinates• Many performance issues are created not

only by what supervisors do but also by what they don’t do

• DOING NOTHING DOES SOMETHING

THERE IS A HIGH COSTOF LAISSEZ-FAIRE LEADERSHIP