I was doing some research for a paper this weekend and came across an interesting article titled Responding Destructively in Leadership Situations: The Role of Personal Values and Problem Construction by Jody J. Illies and Roni Reiter-Palmon.
The concept of destructive leadership is one that has become very interesting to me. The idea is that a destructive leader is one who’s repeated behavior undermines organizational goals and/or the motivation, well-being and job satisfaction of their subordinates. Basically, they are looking at short-term personal goals over the long-term best interests of the organization.
Here’s the thing: Not all of their destructive behavior is overt, or even intentional. That is, it doesn’t necessarily have to be something as cut and dry as verbal abuse of a subordinate.
What really stuck out to me in this article the idea of problem construction:
The ambiguous situations in which organizational leaders work requires a high degree of interpretation. When encountering a problem in one of these situations, a leader must first define and construct the problem before directing and/or engaging in solution generation and implementation. Problem construction is a critical initial stage of ill-defined problem solving where the problem solver interprets and structures a problem and identifying the opportunities, objectives, and restrictions associated with solving it.
The article goes on to state that internal characteristics/values impact how individuals perceive a situation, and then how they behave – it effects how they construct the “problem” and the efforts they take to solve it. Leaders with “self-enhancement values” are more like to choose destructive solutions, while leaders with self-transcendence values are more likely to put the long-term interests of the organization first.
When I read this article, I couldn’t help by think of one of my former bosses. When I started building my reputation online, she perceived it as a problem…so much of a problem that it became all-consuming and impacted every part of my involvement in the organization. She actively tried to sabotage projects I was working on, verbally assaulted me in front of co-workers, and cut budget items purely out of spite. All of this because of things I was doing outside of the organization that had no impact on my job responsibilities. Ultimately, I ended up quitting because I just couldn’t take it anymore…and when I did, more than a few of my co-workers were annoyed. They had seen what was going on and wanted her to quit and me to stay, which I’ll admit made me feel more than a little bit vindicated! (By the way, they got their wish not long after I left…the day my former boss was laid off, I immediately got several emails from my former co-workers informing me of the news).
In this case, it was pure ego getting in the way, but I don’t necessarily think that it would have to be. I can certainly imagine a situation where a manager, because of generational differences or their own values, could perceive their subordinate’s online personal brand development to be an honest-to-goodness organizational problem. Since this concept is such a new idea, it certainly falls into the ambiguous category. From the stories that I’ve heard (and certainly, I’m not presenting this as verifiable evidence at all), when a situation like this occurs, all sorts of long-term perspective seems to fly out the window. Managers seem to lose cite of not only an employee’s past work, but also their potential long-term contribution to the organization, and instead focus on the most narrow perspective: getting the person to stop regardless of how it may impact their future with the organization.
Have you encountered a situation like this? Do you have a different experience? I’d love to hear your story.
By the way, one of the final points of the article is this:
If [leaders] consistently model behaviors that show honest concern for others and for the good of the organization in general, as those with self-transcendence values are likely to do, others in the organization will follow, creating an organization that promotes non-destructive behavior and a work environment were employees feel respected and valued.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
This article really hit home with me! I always expect those above me to be smarter, faster and more adept than I am. I forget that they are only human. And they let their emotions rule them sometimes, just like the rest of us. Although I don’t have a story to share about being in this particular situation, I wanted to offer some help to anyone who is.
Laurie Pohl (VP of Enrollment at Boston University) co-wrote the article with me (full article is here http://academicoatmeal.com/profiles/blogs/getting-around-no ) but let me summarize it quickly:
People say ‘no’ because they A) don’t get it (and need more information to say ‘yes’) or B) don’t like it (a new idea can be frightening and they need emotional reassurance) or C) don’t like YOU (so try presenting as a group to take away the personal connection).
I wish we all worked for bosses with self-transcendence values (love that phrase, by the way) but since we don’t, hopefully that advice will help!
Great post. I think we’ve all had this happen one time or another. Unfortunately, it seems to be a bigger issue in higher ed/non profits. I think this may have to do with people who have worked their way up in the org, but not necessarily gained rank through technical/informational experience so much as seniority and political navigation. This could make it easier for others to become perceived threats, should they actually possess talent, know how, and leadership in a certain area. Nobody wants someone to come in and ‘steal’ their ‘place’.
Some people live their life in fear of everything and everyone. They (apparently) want a safe hole where they can hide out for a career.
I feel bad for them, and wish I could help them — like… “Here, read Linchpin.” But they’re also not interested in learning new things.
Will we all become like that in our 50′s when we have something to lose (position, respectable salaries, windows)? I wonder sometimes.
I’m looking forward to more of these kinds of posts. Good luck with your studies!
So here is the deal, after 12 years of management that did “drive by management”, picked pet projects to nick pick on, and a general disregard for capacity management, I thought we had finally gotten an opportunity to have real change when that management left.
However, it seems that I am now living with Destructive Leadership, two levels of it. Honestly I don’t think they know they are destructive. I believe they think they are doing the right thing and doing a great job. But in reading the above, it smacked me over the head that it describes them perfectly. For example, we spend a few months producing processes and procedures, but they are not followed at all, and are painstakingly circumvented. Causing more work for everyone concerned. Lines of responsibility and ability are constantly redrawn causing all to be working in areas that are not in line with the work they are capable of. Non-experts are actually looked at on topics that others are experts in.
To top it all off, they have no problem paying for consultants and outside resources, but staff live with no raises for a couple of years.
Very Destructive and demoralizing situation.
{ 1 trackback }